Again: humans do not transcend biology.
So what if the population of Earth exceeds the carrying capacity? If that is the case, it will soon come back down again. What's the big problem here?
Printable View
Again: humans do not transcend biology.
So what if the population of Earth exceeds the carrying capacity? If that is the case, it will soon come back down again. What's the big problem here?
I think I understand the logic. Mass death is a great thing because it goes against the tendency to overpopulate, and overpopulation is terrible because it results in mass death, which is an awful thing. Mass death kicks ass because mass death really sucks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Good Lord, you've got it!
Some other people seemed to think I was.Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
Survival of the fittest or everyone for himself is not a fallacy. It's shown. Why do you think certain species survived? They grouped together.
I can't think of many species that are around now which fly solo. If there are any they are extremely good at what they do. Poison etc.
Of course it's not my place to say what is right and wrong. I don't think there is a right or wrong. It's just certain cultures say there is to keep order. For example (I use this a lot sorry if you've hear it before but it's a good example) In some countries it is perfectly fine to marry a 12 year old girl ( ~ puberty age) but in Western society people are like WTF mate?
I don't think it's a good idea to listen only to yourself. That gets you in to really fucked up situations. (or what we would think of as fucked up ;) )
I honestly believe I'd be in jail or dead right now if I only listened to myself. I have some crazy ideas that I would have gone through with if I didn't have other people to say their thoughts on these things and therefore I could take that into account. For instance these ideas don't even make much sense; which I wouldn't have realised if it weren't for other people putting their view on it. But then it's always up to the person who is thinking about something to decide whether that other persons input makes sense to them.
So I would never just say to someone "stop doing that". I think this is a major problem with parenting and education. e.g "WTF do you think you're doing!?" *SMACK*
"Don't do that!"
"Why?"
"Because I said so and I'm your mother!"
Instead I would put forward my view on why what that person is doing is wrong. Encourage them to take that into consideration and then decide for themselves with all the knowledge they have.
Much like I just did in this post really.
Well, for starters, if we do that, the whole Earth will be a pile of fucking shit. We would barely be able to breathe by that point. All the animal kingdom except for humans would be extinct (no where to live, we eat them etc.) and there would be barely any plant life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Even if we survive that's a shitty thing to look at.
Basically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
So why would it be natural to want others of the own species to die,Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
just that oneself would survive? If you look at animals, dolphins for
example, they never leave a wounded behind.
I agree on that there is no right nor wrong, that it depends on the perspective.Quote:
Of course it's not my place to say what is right and wrong. I don't think there is a right or wrong. It's just certain cultures say there is to keep order. For example (I use this a lot sorry if you've hear it before but it's a good example) In some countries it is perfectly fine to marry a 12 year old girl ( ~ puberty age) but in Western society people are like WTF mate?
But then I have a question: Why do you find purpose in changing other people?
I think, that those who you will be left with in the end will be "non-individuals",
those, who let you change them, because they couldn't do it themselves.
I have seen that plenty of times, the only real change has to come from
that person itself, or will be worthless. I don't really see a point, except
that it will keep you from growing yourself.
But if by 'change' you mean you want to get others to think, then I
could get on board.
See, I don't mean ignore everyone else. Of course take all into consideration.Quote:
I don't think it's a good idea to listen only to yourself. That gets you in to really fucked up situations. (or what we would think of as fucked up ;) )
I honestly believe I'd be in jail or dead right now if I only listened to myself. I have some crazy ideas that I would have gone through with if I didn't have other people to say their thoughts on these things and therefore I could take that into account. For instance these ideas don't even make much sense; which I wouldn't have realised if it weren't for other people putting their view on it. But then it's always up to the person who is thinking about something to decide whether that other persons input makes sense to them.
But in the end of the day, your experience is all that counts, it is your life
and you are in charge of your own reality. Do you own mistakes, have and
live your ups and downs, and passionately do so. And of course, I mean go
into yourself, listen to yourself, not lie to yourself or use this as legitimating
stupid behaviour.
Question yourself also, of course.
There is a fine line between telling others what to do and encouragingQuote:
Instead I would put forward my view on why what that person is doing is wrong. Encourage them to take that into consideration and then decide for themselves with all the knowledge they have.
questioning. The difference usually means admiration vs alienation.
I sometimes feel a strong urge to 'tell others what they're doing wrong',
because I know they don't have all the information on a certain topic, so
I know where you are coming from. But, this might lead down a bad road,
not only will you alienate people, you will also alienate yourself.
Be the change you want to see in people.
I honestly think, this is more efficient and also better for yourself.
And to post something on topic:
I find swine flu boring. There is no reason so far that it gets blown
out of proportion like this. Good way to deflect, though :)
What on Earth are you talking about? By the time we do what exactly?? AlsoQuote:
Well, for starters, if we do that, the whole Earth will be a pile of fucking shit. We would barely be able to breathe by that point. All the animal kingdom except for humans would be extinct (no where to live, we eat them etc.) and there would be barely any plant life.
Even if we survive that's a shitty thing to look at.
-Why do you think oxygen is going to spontaneously disappear
-How do you think it's biologically possible for humans to survive when the only food is other humans
-Why is everything going to die?
You seem to have an extremely bloated sense of the importance of the human species. Yet again: humans are organisms. Humans do not transcend biology. This planet has easily survived extreme natural events which are more devastating by anything we have ever done by an order of magnitude.
I really don't know what you think is going on here...
I think the idea is that humans are extremely destructive, and we harm whatever ecosystem we inhabit, so lowering our damage to the planet by having less humans will cause human society to last longer.
To put it another way, I think the idea is people are afraid of an overpopulated world that destroys the planet to such a point that we can't recuperate, so, as long as whatever disaster that occurs doesn't put us in danger of extinction, the lowering of a population is a good thing.
Personally I don't know what numbers would be perfect for human life, but I don't think that the numbers we have now are really so destructive to our way of life that we need a massive death count.
It is likely that there is a wide population range where human life can best exist and have a high quality of life, but because of disorganization the world is probably better off with a number that is easier to direct.
"This planet has easily survived extreme natural events which are more devastating by anything we have ever done by an order of magnitude."
My fears of human tampering are not about humans destroying the planet to the point of there not being any life, but specifically to human life. I arbitrarily place human life above other animals in order of importance. (or at least human society, it may be the case that we as a species will either evolve naturally or, assuming some kind of sci fi knowledge comes into our possession, we will have to direct our own evolution into a species other than homosapien in order to survive)
I do advocate keeping population stable, but not by means of mass death. I would like to see a world where there is more of a supply than a demand. I want things to be abundant for our usage. If we can keep the population below the point where quality of life suffers, I am all for it. But surely there are other ways than huge death tolls to do this.
Xei, do you not think that over population causes a decrease in quality of life, or do you only care that the life exists? Certainly there are parts of the world where people suffer because of over population, would you not think it a good idea for the population in these places to be lowered? Or is your only objection decreasing population via death counts?
Sometimes things should be done simple..
1/3 of the worlds population use more of 2/3 of the earths ressources. In most, if not all global catastrophes, who will be the ones to survive? Yes thats right, probably those with good healthcare, not starving, not homeless, not poor etc.
You probably cheered when the 2004 tsunami happanded right? You know, hundreds of thousands died, but what did this change? Will the rate of humanity use of irreplacable ressources go down? No it will not. We will continue on the path.
It is very nearsighted to think some random mass death will solve everything, mass death will only slow the process by fractions. It is our fundemental way of living, not the numbers of the human population which are destroying.
One single American will use forty to fifty times more ressources than one african who lives in one of the poorer countries, on average. How will mass death change this proportion?!
Other than that I think UM and Xei summed it up pretty well, I also find it hillarious that tommo agreed with this : "I think I understand the logic. Mass death is a great thing because it goes against the tendency to overpopulate, and overpopulation is terrible because it results in mass death, which is an awful thing. Mass death kicks ass because mass death really sucks."
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
wow
just...wow
I'm never gonna forget that one
Ahhhh, because we group together. Think about it for christs sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
Would you care more if your family member died or some random you've never met?
I guarantee you dolphins leave dolphins behind that aren't part of their pack. Although it's not a great example since Dolphins are known for great empathy, for lack of a better term. Like when they save humans drowning/stranded at sea etc. But humans are different.
That is what I mean and that is what I said. Give them my input but then encourage them to think for themselves and search deep, taking everything into account.Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
That's why I said encourage them to take what I say only into consideration, not as instruction or gospel. Just think of the different sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
Yes this is good advise. Love thy enemy. Because they can teach you what you hate about yourself and can therefore change.Quote:
Originally Posted by dajo
What do you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
You said if we overpopulate bla bla bla I said "If we do that...."
What else could I be talking about?
- Did I say spontaneously? No I didn't. Clearly we are going to eradicate all the trees eventually if we continue on this path. Trees make oxygen you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
- I'm not sure if you're asking me if I know about cannibalism or not.... The only thing I mentioned about eating was that there would be no more animals coz we would have eaten them all.
- Because we have no food, clean air or water.
I FUCKING know that!!!! Stop saying it likes it's a revolution!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I never said humans are important. But as sandform said above
You don't even know the extent to which we are fucking up the Earth. And if you want the human species to survive you have to learn that and do something about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
I agree with everything here. But I feel I should add on that our very way of life IS destructive to our way of life. We can't sustain like this. If countries stopped trying to be the richest countries with the best economy etc. etc. And just looked at quality of life, this population level would be OK. For example Sweden, Denmark have very calm ways of life. They aren't like the U.S which are just corporate slaves. Shoving fucking hamburgers into their mouths by the kilo. This is why I think the economic meltdown is good. I hope we never get back to how it used to be and have to learn to live like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
I agree and also the fact that humans nowadays aren't very willing to change. Mostly in the Western culture. Which is why I'm saying mass deaths is good because I really don't see us making any real effort to change when there's so many people just looking out for their money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandform
I disagree. Think about if this Swine Flu WAS bad. The scientists said it was going to take about 6 months to make a vaccine. Heaps of the developed world would get wiped out as well. And as I mentioned, less people visit the poorer nations which means less chance of it spreading there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia
That was 2004? Hmmmm. Seems like it was not that long ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia
I didn't cheer. I thought it was funny some of the photos, but that's irrelevant. I just don't pretend to care about people I've never met.
No this didn't decrease the use of resources. Because billions of dollars went to rebuilding those places. But if this flu was widespread and killed a lot of people. We'd have to seriously think about our way of life so as to not end up in this mess again. As sandform said, this would be more organised and easier to do with less population.
Why is that hilarious? It makes perfect sense. You just have to think about it. I'm 90% certain he was being sarcastic. But it does make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia
Think about it with this wording.
Mass death is a good thing because it stops overpopulation. Overpopulation is bad because it results in mass death. Mass death from overpopulation would be MUCH worse (more people die) than mass death from a flu or such thing.
Every regular Flu every year is a pandemic, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by arizonalipo
Regular Flu has killed a LOT more people than Swine Flu has. It has killed a LOT more people than Swine Flu will.
Tuberculosis and AIDS and Malaria etc. All kill way more people than any Flu ever has. So do car crashes, alcohol, tobacco, aspirin and paracetamol.
You seem to have an extremely distorted view of how the world works.Quote:
- Did I say spontaneously? No I didn't. Clearly we are going to eradicate all the trees eventually if we continue on this path. Trees make oxygen you know?
You realise that the number of trees has actually increased over the last few decades? Because, you know, if the timber merchants were to cut them all down without planting any more, they wouldn't have anything left to sell? They're not bloody idiots.
And I hope you also realise that there used to be no oxygen at all in the atmosphere until bacteria in the oceans began photosynthesising. Even if we cut down all the trees for some bizarre reason, photosynthesis will still continue in huge quantities, in bacteria, algae, and of course all of the other plants such as grass.
Are you completely mad? Have you no concept of farming for God's sake?Quote:
- I'm not sure if you're asking me if I know about cannibalism or not.... The only thing I mentioned about eating was that there would be no more animals coz we would have eaten them all.
It's not as if there are a finite number of animals out there in the wild which the human race is slowly eating. Animals give birth to other animals. Farmers take control this process so that they have more animals to sell. This has gone on for more than 10,000 years to no ill effect.
Oh yes of course. Even though civilisation has so far had no discernible effect on the air outside of the confines of cities, nor has it caused a cessation of rainfall or the disappearance of the oceans.Quote:
- Because we have no food, clean air or water.
You completely misunderstand the issue. Scientists are not concerned about how many people have died from swine flu. They are concerned about the emergence of a new, novel virus, which could potential mutate and kill millions of people. The flu of 1918 started in exactly the same way and that killed more than World War I.Quote:
Every regular Flu every year is a pandemic, yes.
Regular Flu has killed a LOT more people than Swine Flu has. It has killed a LOT more people than Swine Flu will.
Tuberculosis and AIDS and Malaria etc. All kill way more people than any Flu ever has. So do car crashes, alcohol, tobacco, aspirin and paracetamol.
False. In a lot of places, they don't care. I know Australia's statistics and they're not pretty. We have cut down 97% of the trees we used to have. 3% is left and they have to only cut down 1% and sustain that 1% as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Yes I do realise. Trees still account for a lot of the oxygen we breathe. Especially since there's more trees near the majority of civilisation then bloody algae!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Ok and what happens when that land is completely fucked. I'm talking about if our population keeps growing! We will have to inhabit this land that is used for farming. There will be less and less land available for farming. And if the trees are gone the soil is fucked, they do more than produce oxygen. Also the birds will have no home. Some birds anyway. Which means whatever animals eat birds and birds eggs will die out. Etc. You seem to have a very distorted view of how animals and environment work!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
LOL.... just, lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Wherever there is pollution and less trees there is less rainfall.
Also, you're not gonna try and deny global warming now are you?
After reading Tommo's posts in which he shows blatant disregard for the value of human life, I label him my enemy.
Humans don't destroy ecosystems - we change it.
Other species do the same thing you know.
Yes, we make other species go extinct. That's just the way it is, and not everybody agrees with this by the way.
Yes, of course I'll be sadder if my brother or something died of the flu than a complete stranger.
But still, unlike you; I have a sense of empathy and feel bad about it nevertheless.
Did you read my arguments?
If the population doesn't get a good culling, MORE people will die than they would from a disease or some such thing.
It's simple, it will happen if we don't slow our population growth. And I don't see that happening very soon.
I'm not less humane, just more logical.
I did read them.
But you will never hear me say that people dieing is a good thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defores..._deforestationQuote:
False. In a lot of places, they don't care. I know Australia's statistics and they're not pretty. We have cut down 97% of the trees we used to have. 3% is left and they have to only cut down 1% and sustain that 1% as well.
The first line of the second paragraph is the most relevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DiffusionQuote:
Yes I do realise. Trees still account for a lot of the oxygen we breathe. Especially since there's more trees near the majority of civilisation then bloody algae!
The population won't grow if there's no food left to eat.Quote:
Ok and what happens when that land is completely fucked. I'm talking about if our population keeps growing! We will have to inhabit this land that is used for farming. There will be less and less land available for farming. And if the trees are gone the soil is fucked, they do more than produce oxygen. Also the birds will have no home. Some birds anyway. Which means whatever animals eat birds and birds eggs will die out. Etc. You seem to have a very distorted view of how animals and environment work!
Not to any significant degree. Why would that happen?Quote:
LOL.... just, lol
Wherever there is pollution and less trees there is less rainfall.
Like any decent scientist I am skeptical of any highly politicised material. If humans are even having an impact, I don't think it's down to CO2 emissions via fossil fuels.Quote:
Also, you're not gonna try and deny global warming now are you?
And it also states that illegal deforestation accounts for a lot so that wouldn't be given to the department (of deforestation or whatever) obviously.Quote:
satellite images reveal that the deforestation in the Amazon basin is twice as fast as scientists previously estimated.
Not entirely sure. I honestly can't remember the science behind that.Quote:
Not to any significant degree. Why would that happen?
But I've read about it and it seems to make sense from what I can understand. All I can remember is it's something to do with oxygen and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Obviously there's more greenhouse gases around highly populated areas and energy plants etc. So it rains there less.
This might sound dumb that something can make it not rain, but they've found out how to make it rain, they sprinkle silver compounds on clouds and it makes it rain more. So don't pass it off even though it sounds stupid.
Well, it's not just c02, there's methane as well and a couple other minor ones. Methane is also way worse. And we farm massive quantities of animals like sheep which put out tonnes of methane a day.Quote:
Like any decent scientist I am skeptical of any highly politicised material. If humans are even having an impact, I don't think it's down to CO2 emissions via fossil fuels.
So you COULD say it's the sheep, but we put them there.
Also the population will grow until there's barely any food left.
Look at Africa.
The statistic was for the worldwide forest cover, which has increased...Quote:
And it also states that illegal deforestation accounts for a lot so that wouldn't be given to the department (of deforestation or whatever) obviously.
Yes but we're not spraying silver compounds into the air.Quote:
This might sound dumb that something can make it not rain, but they've found out how to make it rain, they sprinkle silver compounds on clouds and it makes it rain more. So don't pass it off even though it sounds stupid.
I agree about CH3 being more important than CO2, but I am still very skeptical and have very little regard for most of the models, and the graphs that I've done for Britain have showed a peak in the long term trend about 50 years ago. There isn't even evidence evidence for any kind of consistent trend, temperatures have risen the past 30 years by a fraction of a degree but they fell for a fraction of a degree 30 years before that, and now another 10 years of cooling are being predicted 'as the planet copensates for the extra heat'... it's just not proper science.Quote:
Well, it's not just c02, there's methane as well and a couple other minor ones. Methane is also way worse. And we farm massive quantities of animals like sheep which put out tonnes of methane a day.
So you COULD say it's the sheep, but we put them there.
Also the population will grow until there's barely any food left.
Look at Africa.
Most of Africa is a political hellhole though, you're comparing apples with oranges. The European fertility rate is something like 1.5 so there's no empirical support for what you're saying really.
True, population is slowing down. But it's still not falling. Which it kinda needs to.
Even if you deny all these problems which I am saying could happen. Do you think it's possible to - as the charity groups say - halve world poverty by 2020? Hell no!
If for no other reason we need to cut population (however that happens) and focus on making people's lives more.... livable.
True, in that case people would begin to fall off the planet... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Hmm, I don't think the carrying capacity is quite 1 person per square foot, if that's what you mean... :P
It would be relatively simple actually. Cancel African debt, then reestablish the colonies and remove all of these corrupt dictators and governments that currently rule the place and hoarde any money which comes from the country's productivity or foreign aid. Then implement basic birth control measures such as free contraceptives and start feeding some of the GDP back into the population.Quote:
True, population is slowing down. But it's still not falling. Which it kinda needs to.
Even if you deny all these problems which I am saying could happen. Do you think it's possible to - as the charity groups say - halve world poverty by 2020? Hell no!
If for no other reason we need to cut population (however that happens) and focus on making people's lives more.... livable.
The problems are mainly bureaucratic, not physical.
That is definitely an option? When do we start?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I for one would miss Xei.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff777
Second to me, Xei is my favourite Dreamviews member. He fights the good fight. On the ground with the men. No homo.
A WIZARD ARRIVES PRECISELY WHEN HE MEANS TO!
May I just make the note: overpopulation would kill the same number of people as a pandemic capable of preventing overpopulation for a noticeable amount of time. The population needs to steady somehow and that will involve the same amount of death, just over different amounts of time.
Amen to that Lord Bennington.
None of them seem to get that, they just say "OMG YOUR A MONSTER! You want lots of PEOPLE to die!!!!"