- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 14,697
- Reaction score
- 5,704
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The entire world's fertility rate is going down, from Americans, to Latinos, to Muslims, to Chinese; everyone.
Overpopulation is not a serious problem.
Check this link out and you may change your mind.
World Population Clock: 7 Billion People - Worldometers
And? Our fertility rate is still decreasing. The rate at which that clock records births will decline.
And? Our fertility rate is still decreasing. The rate at which that clock records births will decline.
So I am curious, do you belive in the AGW theory?
What the hell does that have to do with this?
Yep, and its only going to get worse. When the world gets top heavy with "elderly", everything will be worse off.
So we should make more high consumption people for the jobs that no longer exist because we keep sending them either to other countries or giving them to machines?
Sacrificing the livability of the planet for the imaginary and temporary relief of the elderly bulge. Genius.
and in an interview with Raw Story said that giving people the right to have as many children as they want is “a bad idea.”
IMO we have too many people on the planet already and the quality of life is decreasing as population increases.
I think you are wrong on both counts.
The more, the merrier.
Gabon is overpopulated at 13 people per sq.mi., Holland is still underpopulated - in terms of resources available and human potentials idling - at 1,020 per sq.mi. This is not about how many people are there. This is about the level of development of human society. In a society that is functioning reasonably well, most members are engaged in productive activity that creates new "resources" and enhances everyone's well-being (improved environment included). The more people, the more "good stuff" will be made, other things given equall.
You always can imagine some natural "hard ceiling" for growth determined by exhaustible natural resources (how about: the Sun will exhaust itself eventually), but nobody even has adequate methodical tools to try and predict the break point...
"The guy who wrote The Population Bomb (Paul Ehrlich) was wrong about approximately everything back then, in 1968, and now he is getting ridiculously wrong, in the face of demographic implosion threatening many countries. The only excuse he has is that in his professional capacity he studies insects. And insects, indeed, tend to suffer from swings of overpopulation and decimation. Insects, however, do not have civilization and human creativity - a fact that somehow escapes the good professor.
The curret fascistic turn of his "advocacy" should give pause to some naive supporters of iron-fist environmentalism. There was always an ugly undercurrent to these benign-sounding ideas. When Democratic Governor of Colorado and prominent environmentalist Richard Lamm had opined in 1984 that old, ill people have the ecological duty to die and get out of the way, that created quite a stir, although he did not suggest that government should prod them along, in any way or form. But when the same kind of thinking leads to demands of global control and disruption of activities that improve our quality of life - often starting from a very low level - oh, that's the new normal.
Paul Ehrlich was not obviously wrong on his own terms in 1968. He followed a speculative model that sounded reasonable, if you choose to ignore some parameters. The catastrophic climate change models sound reasonable in the same way. The problems begin when you assume it gives you the right to tell other people how much energy to use, or how many children to have.
Did you even read the OP?
"A Stanford professor and author of The Population Bomb recently published a paper in a scientific journal re-emphasizing climate change and population growth pose existential threats to humanity and in an interview with Raw Story said that giving people the right to have as many children as they want is “a bad idea.”
I disagree but compliment you on a very well thought out rebuttal.
In my view, the statement in the OP that the poor are poor because of the rich (or something to that effect) disqualifies his conclusions. I think Paul should stick to bugs.
And? Our fertility rate is still decreasing. The rate at which that clock records births will decline.
Yes I did, but I don't see what my ownviews on AGW have to do with an ouverpopulation crisis.
But yes, I acknowledge the scientific evidience that indicates that Human activity is having a negative effect on our enviorment.
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?