Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tom Reeves on March 8, 2013 at 9:59am

YOU "speak of overpopulation with regards to the ecosystem and wildlife" - the article and I did not. Therefore, it is YOU who has created the strawman and attempts to turn this discussion in a different direction. The article argues against "overpopulation" adversely impacting humans - which has proven false. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by amer chohan on March 8, 2013 at 3:31am

How correcting you are. I was a fan of Malthus too. And here came the realization that guay was just an old fellow not worthy of even mentioning.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JP Carey on March 7, 2013 at 3:02pm

ALTRUISM & EDUCATION would also free up the spines and minds we have now - and make it a better place. A REASON to be charitable.

I just say a more responsible outlook is needed - not unfettered

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Chang on March 7, 2013 at 5:19pm

Your Capitalist model of population = productivity assumes that the surface area and resources on a livable Earth are infinite, and that is not the case. Past success do not predict future results, especially since population growth is exponential. The change in demand over supply is already reflected in rocketing fuel and food prices. I think people have already, subconsciously even, noted the economy of raising a child, and that is the reason why most first world populations are aging.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Reeves on March 7, 2013 at 6:04pm

We create new surface area all the time – we build up. Most resources (such as oil, natural gas, etc.) are more accessible and abundant than ever before. This is not to say we can grow to infinity, just into the foreseeable future. I agree past success does not necessarily predict future results, but a 200 year old failed hypothesis regarding ridiculous doomsday predictions is certainly nothing to hang your hat on. Population growth is slowing down, not increasing exponentially. Rising prices has much more to do with inflation and government interference than actual scarcity.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on March 7, 2013 at 7:00pm

The "foreseeable future" might have been a valid point 1000 years ago, but today, we are way past the foreseeable future in terms of quality of life. We destroy open wild spaces way faster than we are growing "vertically", there are no safe potable waters left on the planet, they all need treatment before being drank, ocean life is on the brink, ocean acidification (sink for all the extra CO2 we're obsessed with creating) is nearing completion, a majority of large mammals as well as many lower levelled fauna/flora are reaching critical mass.

And we're not talking doomsday here, we're talking H.sapiens quality of self-sustainable life, versus completely industrialised life, with manufactured water/air/food and no space.

You somehow are building your world view with complete disregard with one of the major fields of science, biology. Population growth slowing, or stability, will not even come close to fixing the disruption of life on earth, we need drastic reductions of H.sapiens and CO2 usage.
Objective no.1, fight religious purpose

objective no.2, fight economics religion purpose

objective no.3, educate people about biology

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on March 7, 2013 at 10:36pm

TNT I agree on all three objectives. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Reeves on March 8, 2013 at 10:51am

We don’t “destroy” open wild spaces, we adapt them to human objectives. We have been treating water for some time now in order to make it safer to drink – it’s marvelous how such innovations improve the quality and production of human life. This is a prime example of manipulating an otherwise unsuitable resource in order to support a larger human population.

Sorry, TNT, but you are the one with a religious fervor here. You say, “Biology does not lie.” Bullshit.

“Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.” — Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University in Time Magazine’s June 24th, 1975 article Another Ice Age?

And…

Oxford University biologist Norman Myers suggested in his book The Sinking Ark that 40,000 species per year were going extinct and that 1 million species would be gone by the year 2000. Myers suggested that the world could "lose one-quarter of all species by the year 2000."

Catastrophic predictions such as Malthus, Ehrlich, Kukla, Myers, et al. have failed miserably in the past, so color me skeptical of all your dire predictions today. However, even if I accept for argument’s sake your entire premise that anthropomorphic global warming will cause a great many species to go extinct – so what? It’s estimated that somewhere around 99% of all species that once existed on the planet are now extinct. Many liberals I’ve discussed this with have argued, those species went extinct “naturally”. Asteroids are "natural", but coal plants in China are “unnatural” because they are human innovations. But this ignores that fact that humans are natural too – doing what humans do, adapting the environment to our aims.

Biologists’ predictions have been gravely mistaken in the past and will likely be significantly mistaken regarding future predictions as well. But regardless, you treat the science of biology as if it’s a moral imperative. Biology – along with any other branch of science - tells us, at best, what is and, given accurate analysis, what may manifest in the future – NOT what should be done about it. Liberals who favor knocking homo sapiens back to the stone age in order to save other species have vastly different priorities than I do. This isn’t religion for me, it’s an unabashed preference for human welfare over all other species. Inasmuch as we can coexist with them, or need them to survive, I favor their existence. But in a world of survival of the fittest, humans – for now – win, and I’m very glad.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dogly on March 8, 2013 at 12:25pm

 "global warming will cause a great many species to go extinct – so what?"  Oh, no! That's just awful.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dr. Allan H. Clark on March 7, 2013 at 9:05pm

Two remarks about population growth.

1. Malthus's premises failed to take into account even the possibility of vast improvements in food production.

2. Despite those improvements hunger has remained a problem for a large portion of the earth's population.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on March 7, 2013 at 9:54pm

It's why bringing up any Malthusian or anti-Malthusian argument in the the 21st century is completely useless. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Reeves on March 8, 2013 at 10:54am

2. Despite those improvements hunger has remained a problem for a large portion of the earth's population.

Only in regions where politics, war, and other factors restrict growth. It’s not that we can’t produce enough food to eliminate hunger, it’s that other circumstances prevent the distribution of this food.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 48
• 49
• 50
• 51
• 52
• 53
• Next ›
• Page