Population Control the Only Answer?

[discspeed]

I went to a presentation by a renown turtle biologist a couple of weeks ago. Most of it was nerdy turtle stuff that I'm interested in, but at the end the biologist let loose a pretty radical flare. He claimed, without getting into it very deeply, that reducing the Earth's human population through some sort of strategic planning is the only way that we can save the environment, and ultimately ourselves. He said that this conclusion is obvious to anyone studying the diminishing ecosystems of our planet, yet most are afraid to talk about it. He seemed to also allude to the fact that if society doesn't work on a solution to this problem than it will eventually work itself out in a horrible and violent way that may leave no humans left on Earth. I can't really think of any way to disagree with him, though it IS a very frightening thought no matter how you look at it.

[BLURR]

I could see how his theory is plausible. Looking at how quickly urban sprawl is chewing up land, it is almost a for gone conclusion that we would eventually run out of land to consume as well as natural resources. There are some subtle truths to a lot of these theories that are being brought to light lately.

[Dig It]

Simply put the more equal our world makes the female half the better chances of staving off population explosion we have. From what I have read population growth/explosion is happening where women are treated as breeding stock rather than equals, i.e. less developed nations. So instead of thinking about what kind of mass murder we will have to accomplish we should be thinking of how to liberate the females from their oppressors.

BTW what I read was Threshold by Thom Hartmann.
See also:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globa ... n_pop.html

[jsun3thousand]

biologists are horrible sociologists .

[Frank Delicious]

That idea has been around for a while. I kinda want to see what the horribly violent solution is.

p.s. China leads the world in being over populated and population control.

[jubuttib]

Population control is the only answer, but this can be handled in many ways. The preferable way is to raise the standard of living all over the world to levels where people naturally start to limit population, by way of it not being necessary to produce so many offspring.

Hans Rosling on global population growth: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_ ... rowth.html

The question with this approach (IMHO) is that can the environment support the rise in standard of living to a sufficient level BEFORE the population starts to level off/decline. It's going to need a lot of science to fix all this in a safe way, whatever it takes.

[jubuttib]

That idea has been around for a while. I kinda want to see what the horribly violent solution is.

p.s. China leads the world in being over populated and population control.

Which only proves that their way of population control doesn't work. If the "one-child policy" really worked, the population would be declining.

[Frank Delicious]

yes thank you for explaining my point.

[jubuttib]

You're very welcome. I also want to see what the solution will be, I'm just hoping it won't be violent. (It will be.)

[discspeed]

I kinda want to see what the horribly violent solution is.

Either nuclear war, some kind of extermination by the people in control at the time, or the "natural" consequences of global warming/environmental degradation/overpopulation(starving, rampant disease). I think he was speaking of the latter consequences rather than some kind of enviroterrorism (at least I hope). All populations have natural ways of reducing themselves when resources become to scarce (most eat each other, or die out cataclysmically).

[Frank Delicious]

Hey isn't this what that crappy movie The Happening was about?

[Dig It]

Also, how about we stop oppressing gays as well. They are pretty much models of negative population growth.

[Frank Delicious]

Well usually the people oppressing gays are all about reproducing as much as possible so, ya know, it kinda makes sense for them.

[JR]

Only is often a too harsh and untrue word. Of course there are other options. Referring to the other thread going on now here's a catch phrase many throughout history probably haven't realized: Religion, limiting population growth. How may you ask -multiple ways. Depends on the situation and the religion of course but i'm not talking only of wars. Those fought under the pretense of religion or with the non resistance of religious leaders or religious people. Too bad for the world wars haven't yet worked in population control and it would be too bad if they would. Even in the French foreign legion where the soldiers don't exactly get out too often there was a baby boom surpassing casualties suffered in the first Gulf war plus normal long time average and even the highest peace time variations in births.

Cynical view is the album name of i think Gentle Giant called Backdoor Possibilities.

An example of population control and religion not mixing up well was India in the 1960s. Hindus thought it was their religious duty to procreate even more as a protest against the UN run program of spreading condoms. And giving money to those that allowed themselves to be sterilized. Of course those that had made all the kids they planned to got sterilized. The way the program was handled raised fury in the Indians and when the condoms appeared later the bad experiences in the minds of Indians of westerners telling them what to do (not really when it was the UN meaning the whole world) were connected and created a counter movement. Of breeding like rabbits on meth. Because let's face it they were already breeding fast and they made an ahem excuse me effing record. Now they are the most populous nation. No wonder. Religion or not science or not people are rarely rational and nobody is all the time. That needs to be overcome or we'll make lives too difficult for each of us. Well more difficult than it could be anyway.

New ways of making food and preserving and rejuvenating farming land are in the works. Water is of prime importance to protect. With the rate of wisdom and skill the world is being run the current systems of office and policy making aren't probably enough to stave of a catastrophic overpopulation without the needed resources for everyone. There are enough resources now but some are being consumed at a faster rate than the earth can provide. A change is inevitable the only question is what kind of target needs to be set and how will it be achieved vs allowing things to follow petty "needs" of people setting policies now. Those petty needs of give me what i want no matter what don't really offer a viable future at the current trend of ever increasing rate of population growth.

Too bad that management sciences and many other scientific fields offer way better information of what to do than is actually being done. That is a pity and everybody pays for that. A nurse now then a student asked a professor of the likelihood of hard hitting plaques like black death reoccurring. The response was it is not probabilities but when they will happen. Will it limit population in the long term? Not if we do things the way we have.

I just saw a program on telly that said that the aboriginals of Australia wiped out many large species and turned a lush continent to desert and low nutrient producing grass land that catches fire easily in a fairly short time. They hunted with burning the surroundings driving animals toward hunters. We still rape the very surroundings we are dependent on like viruses. That mentality is called among other things flooding after us.

The attitude of i'm gonna squeeze everything out and what do i care about the consequences after i've gone has often bitten everyone back. The 1980s end to early 1990s depression and the current economic situation both came from predatory attitude where anything goes. And was done too by a small minority. Surprise surprise actions have consequences. Bad ones for everyone. Something too many have problems grasping and even more don't act according to it. Few species shit in their nests. We shit in the nests of every species including our own. It's a weird lack of logic and consistency that allows our life line the planet being shat on by other humans when you wouldn't reinvite a person to your home that shits on your couch on purpose and you know it's gonna happen later if you allow that person in again. Go figure.

How about homosexual people adopting or gay men impregnating lesbian women? Even homosexuality doesn't seem to limit population growth all the time any more? As if it had before. There have always been homosexual people that live with a person of the opposite sex and have made kids. Some of them live in the closet and some have realized their orientation after making kids. Some gift their friends with kids.

[discspeed]

To kind of cross threads with the religion thread...Here's a scary scenario: The huge Christian population in this country pretty much votes Republican. Global warming is happening...What if the Republicans claim that there is no global warming, but instead truly believe it is the apocalypse as described in Revelations, so feel no responsibility to try and fix it? The Republicans who aren't really Christians are rich businesspeople who don't want to regulate their industries anyway and care little about the environment/future generations, so they would love a convenient excuse not to care.