Do you deny that this holiday would instantly lower the population?
After all isn't population your big concern?
It would make sense if we were locust or even sheep. But we happen to be a species that creates and develops "resources". Not coincidentally, life is just fine in densely populated Holland, and not so comfortable in near-empty Ethiopia. It is about good government, culture and infrastructures, not about how many people are there. The more, the better, as long as they behave.
Are you willing to admit that if you were dead that would make 1 less person contributing to the "overpopulation problem"?My concern is your willingness to murder those whom you disagree with. I think that's very ****ed up.
One of my friends recently got into a heated debate with me as to weather or not millions of people are going to have to die as a result of rapid population growth. His logic was that as resources become depleted, and demand grows, people will be forced to fight over the remaining resources and in the process will have to kill each other. I however disagreed. I stated that I understood the premise behind which this scenario would take place. However I argued the inevitability of this situation ever presenting itself. I stated that through technological and intellectual achievements we will have the potential to maintain a larger more robust population indefinitely. My logic was the following.... Today we live in a world of 7 billion people. 300 years ago we could never have hoped to maintain such a large population effectively. However due to technological and other developments we are able to. Why must this trend which has been going on since the dawn of men stop now?..... My friend went on to argue that the killing of millions of people might not be such a bad thing because it would help others survive more efficiently and allow them to have more resources. HE ARGUED THAT THE DEATH OF MILLIONS WOULD BE BETTER FOR MANKIND. To this I replied, who decides who dies and who doesn't. I also replied saying that he was out of his mind. I just want to receive reassurance that I was not the one with faulty logic because I was in a setting in which 5 people were supporting his thinking and only two other people were supporting mine. (The people who supported the person with this reasoning supported him primarily because they believe he is some freaken diety and because they don't like me)
Much of the well off parts of the world are on a razor's edge when it comes to collapse. That governments help each other in such times, or not depending on a rather complex matrix of affinity and proximity, helps hide the fact a super storm could end Holland's prosperity..
The great forests of New England are gone, there replacement a pale shade of scrub regrowth and lumber plantations.
When you study the collapse of civilizations several things repeat. Disease, crop failure, financial collapse, political instability.
Europe and America's 'year with no summer' due to an island in the Pacific exploding, all killed millions of citizens in nations with good infrastructure, governments, culture, financial systems.
.Reckless financial policies are as deadly as droughts.
I think your mantra is a bit trite and a lot of wishful thinking. History is a record of mankind behaving badly.
One of my friends recently got into a heated debate with me as to weather or not millions of people are going to have to die as a result of rapid population growth. His logic was that as resources become depleted, and demand grows, people will be forced to fight over the remaining resources and in the process will have to kill each other. I however disagreed. I stated that I understood the premise behind which this scenario would take place. However I argued the inevitability of this situation ever presenting itself. I stated that through technological and intellectual achievements we will have the potential to maintain a larger more robust population indefinitely. My logic was the following.... Today we live in a world of 7 billion people. 300 years ago we could never have hoped to maintain such a large population effectively. However due to technological and other developments we are able to. Why must this trend which has been going on since the dawn of men stop now?..... My friend went on to argue that the killing of millions of people might not be such a bad thing because it would help others survive more efficiently and allow them to have more resources. HE ARGUED THAT THE DEATH OF MILLIONS WOULD BE BETTER FOR MANKIND. To this I replied, who decides who dies and who doesn't. I also replied saying that he was out of his mind. I just want to receive reassurance that I was not the one with faulty logic because I was in a setting in which 5 people were supporting his thinking and only two other people were supporting mine. (The people who supported the person with this reasoning supported him primarily because they believe he is some freaken diety and because they don't like me)
Exactly!
If they all committed mass suicide then that would alleviate their overpopulation concerns in one fell swoop.
Maybe we could make a holiday out of it where one day each year it is perfectly legal to murder everyone who has professed that the planet is "overpopulated".
Problem solved.
Call it the Anti-Hypocrite day.
How else would you solve overpopulation except by population reduction?Why would anyone seriously advocate killing to deal with overpopulation?
Bizarre comments… yikes.
How else would you solve overpopulation except by population reduction?
we're having a population explosion -- kind of like rats and cockroaches do.
Ladies and gentlemen, libertarianism.
This is the central fallacy of the left. Resources aren't a zero-sum game. No need for such a scarcity mindset. People CREATE wealth. The more people, the more the pie grows for everyone.
I'm talking about natural resources and their physical limitation. You're thinking about money which is not real.
And I'm not a member of the left so don't bother trying to type-cast me as though it somehow makes your argument more congruent.
Neo-malthusians need to go away. Forever.
One of my friends recently got into a heated debate with me as to weather or not millions of people are going to have to die as a result of rapid population growth. His logic was that as resources become depleted, and demand grows, people will be forced to fight over the remaining resources and in the process will have to kill each other. I however disagreed. I stated that I understood the premise behind which this scenario would take place. However I argued the inevitability of this situation ever presenting itself. I stated that through technological and intellectual achievements we will have the potential to maintain a larger more robust population indefinitely. My logic was the following.... Today we live in a world of 7 billion people. 300 years ago we could never have hoped to maintain such a large population effectively. However due to technological and other developments we are able to. Why must this trend which has been going on since the dawn of men stop now?..... My friend went on to argue that the killing of millions of people might not be such a bad thing because it would help others survive more efficiently and allow them to have more resources. HE ARGUED THAT THE DEATH OF MILLIONS WOULD BE BETTER FOR MANKIND. To this I replied, who decides who dies and who doesn't. I also replied saying that he was out of his mind. I just want to receive reassurance that I was not the one with faulty logic because I was in a setting in which 5 people were supporting his thinking and only two other people were supporting mine. (The people who supported the person with this reasoning supported him primarily because they believe he is some freaken diety and because they don't like me)
Cockroaches do not have science, engineering and international trade.
And I hate to break the news, but the population is not exploding - it is imploding over half of the world. The stuff you have read must be at least 30 years old.
Places as different as Russia and Japan are facing veritable population collapse. Fertility over the replacement level is retained only in Africa and parts of Asia, but the writing on the wall is there as well: Iran has 1.67 births per woman, despite religious and cultural pressures.
I do think and hope that this trend will be reversed at some point in future, but right now we have to worry more about things like not enough young people to support all the pensioner than about too many mouths to feed.
The stuff you have read must be at least 30 years old.
Okay, so then you do expect a population collapse, and in fact see one happening right now?
Then why are you arguing that we can prevent it? What are we doing to prevent it?
Not 30 years old.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?