Jump to content

Overpopulation (This thread may not be suitable for minors)


Overpopulation is a serious problem. To tackle it, should we...  

59 members have voted

  1. 1. Overpopulation is a serious problem. To tackle it, should we...

    • Deliberately exterminate 3.5 billion people in the most humane way science can devise.
      12
    • Allow "nature to take it
      20
    • Do everything we can to avert this catastrophy and allow numbers to fall naturally in line with declining birth rates due to the higher standard of living enjoyed in the West.
      24
    • Pray
      8


Recommended Posts

I didn't vote. Education, incentives and politics apparently aren't options.
It seems that the wording of the poll may influence the vote in your favour (AT), no?

I would consider education, incentives and (not so much) politics to come under the heading of development, though I realise the wording of option three is pretty crap.

 

I'm still working on a proper definition of option three (hopefully finished tonight), so hold off voting until I post, unless of course you already favour 1 or 2.

 

Nobody up for the religious option yet? :wink:

 

Edit: 3 opting for the religious solution. Wow, the power of delusion never ceases to amaze me. :shock: :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well ,it's a risk you take including an option like that AT, but if you want to get deeply mired in detail, religion would be a very powerful option. Including "Pray" as an option deliberately belittles it as an option, in keeping with your atheist viewpoint. How many African nations are suffering terrible consequences of the wrong religious doctrine, particularly from the AIDS epidemic. If they had the right religious doctrine, one that included birth control and protective contraception, vaccination and education, then the aids problem, population growth and general well-being could be more readily assured. Athiesm means nothing to a religious nation, as a basic primal belief in "nothing" is no incentive to do anything but eat, kill and have sex.

 

Edit- exactly Medzi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, then, part 3.

 

3. Do everything we can to avert this catastrophe and allow numbers to fall naturally in line with declining birth rates due to the higher standard of living enjoyed in the West.

Y'know, this option is really badly worded, so I'll try again...

3. Go with what works. (That's better.:wink:)

After reviewing options 1 & 2, I've ruled out deliberate mass murder, and passive mass murder. So what does that leave us with? Pretty much what we're doing already, only more of it. As MuckleJoannie pointed out, it was Thomas Malthus who first pointed out that there was a limit to population growth beyond which population would outstrip the available food supply and the result would be a population crash caused by mass starvation. So why hasn't this happened? Well, the one thing Malthus got wrong was the effect the application of technology would have on food production, though as Ghostrider points out in the post which provoked this thread, we haven't escaped the Malthusian nightmare, only postponed it. But this postponement has given us enough time to glimpse a possible solution to the dilemma.

 

The world population is rising, but this rise is not uniformly spread out. Instead it is concentrated in the third world, wherever poverty is greatest, people are poorest. Where human life is most insecure due to the threat of war, famine and pestilence. So, what is this possible solution we have glimpsed? It is a phenomenon known as Demographic Transition. This refers to the effect that economic development, education, security and better healthcare (including access to contraception and abortion) has on countries overall population rise as they pass through the five stages of the transition. These are as follows:

 

Stage 1. This is the base "state of nature" which has prevailed throughout most of human history. It is characterised by a high birth rate and a correspondingly high death rate which balance out resulting in a stable, predominantly young population. Apart from a few remote, indigenous tribes deep in the rainforests or isolated on tropical islands, there are practically no large human societies left in this state.

 

Stage 2. The transition to stage two is brought about by improvements in agriculture and transportation which generate food surpluses which can be moved more easily to alleviate famine caused by localised crop failures coupled with improvements in sanitation and basic hygiene which lead to a reduction in infant mortality. These factors combined lead to an explosion in population, not from an increasing birth rate, but rather, from a decline in the death rate. It is countries passing through stage two which are responsible for the explosion in the world's population seen since 1950.

 

Stage 3. This stage is characterised by a fall in the birth rate to match the fall in the death rate found in stage two. There are several reasons why this happens. The decrease in infant mortality results in an increase in the number of surviving children, coupled with the compulsory education of children, which removes them from the potential workforce while maintaining the economic cost of feeding and clothing them produces an economic incentive to have less children. The increased availability of family planning advice, contraception and abortion allow women more control over the number of children they have. And the increase in women's education opens up increased opportunity for women to find a productive role in society outwith raising a family.

 

Stage 4. This stage is reached when the birth and death rates again reach equilibrium, albeit with a much increased overall population. This is the stage which most industrialised countries had achieved by the end of the 20th century.

 

Stage 5. The existence of stage five is controversial. it is assumed to have been achieved when developed countries economies change from an industrial base to a service and knowledge based economy. Relatively few countries have so far made this transition (the UK being one of them), and it is unclear whether this is a genuine universal stage in development or simply a quirk in the economic development of the countries in question.

 

The various stages of development are illustrated in the graph below:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Stage5.svg/329px-Stage5.svg.png

 

So, having reviewed the evidence above, the solution seems to me to be fairly obvious. We need to get those countries which are currently in stages 2 or 3 of the transition through them as quickly as possible and the quicker we achieve this, the less damage will be done, both to the Earth and the populations of these countries. Anything less and we end up with option 2, the default.

 

That's my position, what do you think? And how do we achieve this?

 

(Oh, and if anyone wants to try to refine the wording of option 3 in the poll, based on what I've written here. Please do. )

Link to post
Share on other sites
The background [....] the dollar.

 

The "primitive people living happily in harmony with nature" idea take a bit of a hit when you read of the effects we had arriving in the Americas 20,000 years ago and just how many species were killed out as the wave of people spread south. Mostly we are just not very good at being remotely sensible about anything.

 

Yes, man unrestricted is a pretty vile beast when given an opportunity. I had it at 14-15,000 years ago tops, I believe that until recently it was thought that man only crossed the land bridge around 13,500 yrs ago. Unimportant details though. As you correctly point out, history has a habit of repeating itself as the first men to spread through the Americas did the same to the mammoths and other mega-fauna as the colonists did to the buffalo. Man needs fettered, whether by climate, environment, politics, law or religion. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well ,it's a risk you take including an option like that AT, but if you want to get deeply mired in detail, religion would be a very powerful option. Including "Pray" as an option deliberately belittles it as an option, in keeping with your atheist viewpoint. How many African nations are suffering terrible consequences of the wrong religious doctrine, particularly from the AIDS epidemic. If they had the right religious doctrine, one that included birth control and protective contraception, vaccination and education, then the aids problem, population growth and general well-being could be more readily assured.

Oh, if only such a religion existed, but it doesn't. Instead, the worlds religions contribute to the problem with their dogmatic opposition to contraception and abortion and the suppression of women's rights.

Athiesm means nothing to a religious nation, as a basic primal belief in "nothing" is no incentive to do anything but eat, kill and have sex.

You know, I'm getting pretty damn sick of this assumption that an atheistic worldview means a complete lack of morals. And the assumption that religion is essential for a moral life. It's bullsh*t, complete bullsh*t. I would have expected better from you, Njugle :x

 

Just take a look at the recent report on child abuse in Ireland by members of the Catholic church and the cover-up instigated by the church authorities to protect the institution. Putting the welfare of the church over and above the welfare of the children it was charged to protect. That's what religious "morality" gets you. :evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites

James Lovelock and his Gaia Theory, is the model for religion and science in the new world order that he envisions for us, yet his global warming ideas are as flawed as his living mudball ones.

 

He has become little more than a Rockefeller point man with even his predictions of human population survival matching the the message of the Georgia Guide stones with perfect precision.

James Lovelock has come to an unsettling conclusion: The human race is doomed. "I wish I could be more hopeful"

the coming of the Four Horsemen -- war, famine, pestilence and death -- seems to perk him up. "It will be a dark time," Lovelock admits. "But for those who survive, I suspect it will be rather exciting."

By 2100, Lovelock believes, the Earth's population will be culled from today's 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million

 

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/825/darkf.gif[/img]"]The message of the Georgia Guide stones

 

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.

3. Unite humanity with a living new language.

4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.

5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.

6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

8. Balance personal rights with social duties.

9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.

10. Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

 

What is required, he suggests, is smart, clear-thinking people to sort out the mess.

What if at some time in the next few years we realised as we did in 1939 that democracy had temporarily to be suspended and we had to accept a disciplined regime that saw the UK as a legitimate but limited safe haven for civilisation?’ He continues: ‘Orderly survival requires an unusual degree of human understanding and leadership and may require, as in war, the suspension of democratic government for the duration of the survival emergency.’

:?

 

What is really worrying, though, is the uncritical adulation that he receives for his books in many quarters, despite - or, more likely, because of, his shrivelled view of humanity and his take it or leave it approach to democracy. Far too many people in high places and the media share Lovelock’s view that only smart people like them should be running things, while the rest of us should do as we are told, trying our best not to leave too big a footprint on the face of Gaia.

 

Of course, by the time their creed makes their play, the public will be so swamped by lies that their New World Order will not need to be forced into place, as the sheeple will demand it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, I'm getting pretty damn sick of this assumption that an atheistic worldview means a complete lack of morals.

 

Real gods have little interest in the worldview of either atheist or priest...

 

"Little by little we took in what happened. A bolt of lightning had struck the tower, partly melting the bell and electrocuting the priest; afterwards, continuing, it had shattered a great part of the ceiling, had passed behind the mistress, whom it deprived of sensibility, and after destroying a picture of the Savior hanging upon the wall, had disappeared through the floor."

http://evolvefish.com/freewrite/franklgt.htm

 

They have their own path to follow. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

AT, you totally miss my point, remove your prejudice about religions that do wrong and consider the incredible crowd control that religion currently exerts upon the world. Just because you think you can prove that there is no god and no salvation does not mean that all the muslim, hindu and catholic nations are going to suddenly cast aside religion forever. I clearly referred to religious nations, nations whose political, regal and social order is firmly based on religious doctrine. The only secular way to exert the same kind of influence on a developing nation is through force and dictatorship and you know as well as I do that there is no evidence that power of that kind does not corrupt.

 

Take religious leaders and convince them of the correct path to follow and the masses will surely follow. Just look at Iran (far from backward or developing) and the election that is only democratic if the Ayatollah deems it to be. Religion can rule through belief. The secular west is currently struggling to create enough fear in our lives to steer us toward a practical solution to save our future. Iran could succeed in one sentence from one bloke with a beard. Religion is an ultimate crowd control, whether you believe in deities or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to population control, the great lie of freedom and democracy is the religion that wins hands down with boot in face.

 

As of April 2009, in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories:

 

1. post-invasion non-violent excess deaths total 0.3 million, 1.0 million and 3.2 million, respectively;

 

2. post-invasion violent deaths total about 10,000, 1.3 million and 2-4 million, respectively;

 

3. total post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths total 0.3 million, 2.3 million and 3-7 million, respectively;

 

4. post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total 0.2 million, 0.6 million and 2.3 million, respectively; and

 

5. refugees total 7 million, 5-6 million and 3-4 million, respectively.

 

This constitutes a Palestinian Holocaust, an Iraqi Holocaust and an Afghan Holocaust; a Palestinian Genocide, Iraqi Genocide and Afghan Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention; and egregious war crimes due in part to Occupier war criminal non-supply of life-sustaining food and medical requisites demanded

Link to post
Share on other sites
AT, you totally miss my point, remove your prejudice about religions that do wrong and consider the incredible crowd control that religion currently exerts upon the world. Just because you think you can prove that there is no god and no salvation does not mean that all the muslim, hindu and catholic nations are going to suddenly cast aside religion forever. I clearly referred to religious nations, nations whose political, regal and social order is firmly based on religious doctrine. The only secular way to exert the same kind of influence on a developing nation is through force and dictatorship and you know as well as I do that there is no evidence that power of that kind does not corrupt.

 

Take religious leaders and convince them of the correct path to follow and the masses will surely follow. Just look at Iran (far from backward or developing) and the election that is only democratic if the Ayatollah deems it to be. Religion can rule through belief. The secular west is currently struggling to create enough fear in our lives to steer us toward a practical solution to save our future. Iran could succeed in one sentence from one bloke with a beard. Religion is an ultimate crowd control, whether you believe in deities or not.

Ok, so I'm the UN Sec Gen and I go to the pope and I say "Look, Ratzi-baby, this anti contraception/family planning/abortion thing you've got going on is causing serious problems, right? And that comment about the condoms and AIDS, majorly wrong, ok? So, do y'think you could reverse those policies?" Just exactly how far do you think I'd get? Just exactly how much notice would he take? None, that's how much. Religion is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.

 

And don't get me started on the Ayatollahs.

 

The trouble with religion is they've got this book, and it contains the Truth. It can't be argued with. It can't be compromised. It can't be re-interpreted.

 

"Take religious leaders and convince them of the correct path to follow"

 

How do you do that? I mean seriously, how? :roll: :evil: :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arabia Terra wrote

The trouble with religion is they've got this book, and it contains the Truth. It can't be argued with. It can't be compromised. It can't be re-interpreted.

 

I think there is plenty of evidence to prove this is not entirely the case , religion slowly gets revamped with the changing times , Gay bishops , women priests etc ...

Being agnostic myself I am not very keen on organised religion , but for a lot of people it fulfils a need and helps them deal with there short time on this planet and I respect that .

Back to overpopulation , yes a big problem waiting to happen , a train crash in slow motion.

The choices you drew up for the poll were a bit silly , as we already blunder on trying to feed and medicate those in the most need and already a whole lot of pray is going on but a lot of that is probably of the selfish nature towards helping the prayee ( not a word but you know what I mean ).

I reckon in the fullness of time nature will reduce or remove us , I dont think its a thing we can fight or change , I am just a fatalist on this one as I am with life in general .

As for efficiently / deliberately removing 3.5 billion .....?

Well a war with Nukes would probably do the job.

 

Lets hope not as der is a lot o dem aboot .

 

And lets start a campaign to scrap the trident nuke plan as well as dis gagantuan monstosity o a wind farm dat aa dis neaps is on about .

 

Whit aboot a methane farm , compulsory dat aabody spends 1 day a week at a collection factory eating beans , eggs and cabbage with collection tube attached .

Oh drat forgot dat dats a greenhoos gas as weel...... well farts to that .

Weel at least its a fine mornin eenoo ....... Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

How are the votes going by the way?

 

Until there's an option similar to the one I've previoulsy mentioned I wont be voting so can't see :(

 

Not that it will mean much. Currently its a bit like having a "What color do you think the sky is?" poll and not having "Blue" as an option...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...