Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Do you want to know the real problem? Well it's kind of scary.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 06:22 PM
Original message
Do you want to know the real problem? Well it's kind of scary.
There are far too many people on planet Earth. Water, food, air, living space – they’re all limited. And there is only so much room into which we can dump waste before we poison every living organism on the planet. (Yeah, that includes us.)

This might be considered an environmental posting. However, it’s also a political and a life or death posting that is trying to tell you that those who rule this planet are virtually brain dead. (And no, I’m not talking about Bush, Cheney, China, Russia, OPEC, Al Qaeda, “The International Jewish Conspiracy,” The Tri-Lateral Commission, The Knights of the Templar, The IMF, ET, Opus Dei, or even Indiana Jones and his father.) I’m talking about us.

Try to get your head out of your pet theory long enough to grasp the fact that no individual, group of individuals, or even the Klingon Empire, are actually running things here (as much as some think they might be).

The haunting, virtually intractable problem, is that of overpopulation. There are just so many resources to go around and we are using them up far, far, faster than they can be replenished. Like it or not, it’s a fact. And if you want proof, I won’t give you a list of books to read. I will just ask you to look at the planet, take note, realize that the lifeboat is overflowing, and try to be a sane, rational human being.

So take your pick. Limits on population, the “Soylent Green” scenario, an even more extreme variation of "The Final Solution," or total extinction. Sure, life on planet Earth may last your lifetime. But what about the lives of your children. And your children’s children?

Anyhow, I’m just asking the questions. The answers are up to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rzemanfl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. We knew this as kids, but ignored it. See, e.g., the end of the
1950's school flick, "Our Mr. Sun."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OrangeCountyDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. Have You Ever Wondered???
If it's all part of some GREAT BIG CONSPIRACY???

I swear, the conservatives are determined to control the world, and in the end, bring about the rapture, and end of human life on earth.

If they had their way, abortion would be illegal, and the population would begin to grow even more. Eventually we'll self destruct, or the earth will do it for us.

Population growth is certainly something the repubs could care less about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inkyfuzzbottom Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. Don't look at me...
I'm childless by choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ron Green Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'm trying to teach my children to evolve into spirit form outside their bodies.
Yeah, that's the ticket! C'mon, kids, breathe! (but not quite so fast)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blues90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
5.  I know you are right
I think water will be the first thing to become scarce before the polluting oil or coal . We use water for just about everything however people see it as just drinking and bathing or watering lawns and the house hold use in general .

I wonder how they expect to grow all these alternet fuel crops .

Yes population is a huge problem but it seems to be promoted in so many ways . I am without children .

There is no regulation on how much water one person uses other than the cost per house hold as the cap .

I don't have any answers to any of these problems I only see more problems with each solution that crops up daily . If people could see the land fills all over just this country they would be amazed at tall the garbage dumped daily .

I am a child from the 50's , we knew nothing back then and were taught only to conserve because of costs from parents who lived through the depression and rough times .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal Minella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. Garrett Hardin's "Population, Evolution and Birth Control" covered all this handily back in the
Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 07:05 PM by Idealist Hippie
sixties or seventies -- population-stressed rats developed gangs of young males that ignored the usual mating behaviors and raped other rats, mothers failed to take proper care of their young, etc. Stood my hair on end then and still does, to see it happening with people now.

The rats didn't have cars, so Hardin didn't think to call it "road rage."

Edit: Actually, the rat study was concerned with the physical crowding of populations -- the rats in the study had plenty of food, water and air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
7. It's been almost 40 years since Paul Erlich's book The Population Bomb was published
Is it time for another neo-Mathusian revival?

Personally I'd love to see the population of my city rolled back to what it was in 1962 or so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeHereNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 07:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. All you need to know it this- Cheney's commissioned report.
Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 07:16 PM by BeHereNow
It has long since vanished from the Internet, but in a nut shell
here's where we are at:

In the late 1990's, Cheney had a report commissioned.
Basically, what he wanted to know was a scientific projection
of the state of the world in 2020, at least I THINK that
was the year, based on the relationship between population
growth and remaining available resources.
As in, given the resources left, how many people
could inhabit the planet at that point in time.

The bad news for us is that the report came back stating
that in order for humans to survive by then, the world
population would need to be reduced by two thirds.

Think all of this is by accident?
Wonder why they don't flinch at the massive
deaths around the planet? Darfur? New Orleans?

That would be because the global elite
are exercising their plan to survive.

Witness the Bush Paraguay land grab
over the the water aquifer in that country.

The powers that be know what is coming-
they are positioning themselves to survive it.

Woe to the rest of us.

BHN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Let's just cut through all the reports, projections and bullshit.
Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 09:13 PM by Cyrano
The unfortunate reality is that most people can't, or won't deal with it. It's just too "impossible," "unpalatable," or "mentally painful" to be "real."

If it were a tsunami, a hurricane, a volcanic eruption, an earthquake, or even a super-sized herd of locusts, people would see it as reality and deal with it.

But overpopulation? -- Abortionist propaganda! Liberal hysteria! Fantasy run amok! Children-hating fanatics! Gay perverts! A Muslim plot to limit Christians! A Christian plot to limit Muslims! A Shinto plot to limit unslanted eyes! A Hindu plot to euthanize Buddhists! A Klan plan to get rid of all blacks! An African plan to take over the world! A Borg plan to eradicate humanity and occupy the planet!

Whatever the rationale, it's pure, unadulterated bullshit. We are in the process of quickly and irreversibly using up planet Earth. And unless we can quickly build a vast fleet of spaceships to take us elsewhere, I would suggest we pay attention to the destruction being done to the only planet we currently have. -- Then again, we could always embrace the alternative. -- The extinction of our species.

(On edit: Regarding the survival of Cheney and his fellow elites, would any sane being really want to exist in the world they foresee as theirs? How long would it be before they began feasting on each other's belongings and very beings? I sure as hell wouldn't want any part of the future they may be planning for themselves. To borrow part of a famous line, "... they know not what they do.")
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. In light of how we have conducted ourselves for the last several thousand years,
I'm voting for embracing our own extinction. The earth, and all the life that will develop after our departure, will be far better off for it.

It's too bad about all the other species we'll take with us though.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. That's the reality of it, humans CAN'T deal with this..
nature will...:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
entanglement Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #19
52. Who's the 'we'?
Many indigenous human communities worldwide (from the !Kung in the Kalahari to the Tukano of Brazil) have been faithful stewards of the land and the earth's genetic resources. Sadly enough, these are some of the most vulnerable populations on earth today and might well be the first casualties if your extinction fantasy comes true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. The "we" would be all of Humanity's dominant cultures, the "winners".
All of which are based on the four (or five, depending on definition) dominant religions. We are like any common parasite and will breed until we exceed our resources and kill our host.

Believe me, extinction is not a "fantasy" of mine, and I fully understand that it doesn't have to be so, but until and unless Humanity undergoes some sort of transformation of consciousness (talk about a fantasy) we have doomed ourselves.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PetrusMonsFormicarum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
10. Zero Population Growth
has been my mantra since I was an activist teen. Took me another fifteen years to find a girl who agreed with me!

Better medicine means people live longer and more newborns survive. China may have specified laws regarding the number of children a couple can produce, but the West sees it as a God-given right and responsibility to procreate, as if some race (to a finish line?) is going on.

The Earth knows when to scratch an itch, and it knows when to shrug off a parasitic, solipsistic, infestation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Babsbrain Donating Member (536 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. ZPG always makes me shudder
The idea of Zero Population Growth stipulated that two people could mate and replace themselves with two children.

What they didn't take into consideration was that now four people inhabited Earth. The original two people would have to kill themselves after their second child was born to have ZPG.

shudder
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
33. No, they don't have to kill themselves.
They'll die off eventually.

If each two people only produce two more people, then the population will stabilize unless life expectancy continues to climb (which has its limits I'm pretty sure).

In extreme cases, two people could each just have one child until a better overall level is reached.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Babsbrain Donating Member (536 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #33
58. I am talking multi-generational
If a woman has two children, and those two children have two children, etc. and all are living at the same time...you don't have Zero Population Growth. If the original parent lived to be a great grandparent (not uncommon), then we now have 14 people descending from the original parent. Doesn't sound like ZPG to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. And unless the average life-span continues to increase, that will stabilize
You don't understand what people mean when they say ZPG.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Babsbrain Donating Member (536 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. maybe not
I thought it meant that if you replaced yourself and your mate with two children, there would be ZPG. That's the way I was taught. But if there is another definition, please discuss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
34. Uh, ever heard of finite life spans?
The number eventually stabilizes. The parents don't have to kill themselves, only sterilize themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #12
43. You misunderstand the concept. We have a birth rate and a mortality rate.
The idea is to get the two into harmony. Your example of the original two having to kill themselves is ridicules, because they will die of old age, a car accident, a tree falling on their house, etc.

The alternative is increasing population and shrinking resources. When the population gets large enough, there will be mass die offs from hunger, thirst, disease, war, etc. The idea is to not wait until that point, but to consciously attempt to put the birth rate and the mortality rate into harmony, thus avoiding system collapse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #10
31. "The Earth knows when to scratch an itch..."
"...and it knows when to shrug off a parasitic, solipsistic, infestation"

Damn right it does. That's why I say this race is destroying itself beneath the weight of its own inability to evolve, or pick up the clue phone, or whatever.

It'll purge itself of parasites - one way or ta other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. I think a simplified and unscientific definition of cancer might be
Uncontrolled growth of biological entities that eventually kills the environment they live in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #11
46. Agreed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Babsbrain Donating Member (536 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
13. I always wondered why Sister Teresa was regarded a saint
She encouraged the poorest and neediest to propagate.

Just as the Pope denies birth control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
35. I've read quite the opposite...
Link, please?

I've read quite the opposite, the Mother Theresa was active in attempting to help third world cultures understand the concept of family planning. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Babsbrain Donating Member (536 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #35
59. Mother Teresa was vehemently opposed to birth control
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
14. Yep. Some of us have known that for years...
Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 11:48 PM by Triana
...but no one will DO anything about it - except breed MORE. I've said it before and it deserves a repeat:

This race WILL destroy itself by the sheer weight of its inability to EVOLVE.

We are PARASITES upon this planet and this planet is dying. We're killing it and we have NO WHERE else to live.

This IS the greatest moral issue of all time.

NOT terrorism.

NOT Iraq.

It's BEYOND political or religious.

It's a HUGE fact staring us right in the face. Meanwhile our governments oppress women, denies them choice, outlaws birth control and contraception, forces birth and encourages (by not discouraging and not allowing or presenting any other alternatives if nothing else) large families and overbreeding.

We are sitting here, like maniacal idiots, deliriously sawing off the very branch upon which our existence is perched.

DOH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. tax exemptions.
'nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Triana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. damn straight...
...they ought to be removed for people who have kids. I'm not sure, with things being as dire as they are, people who want kids shouldn't be taxed FOR having them. Not to punish them per se, but to encourage smaller families. Or NO kids. Childlessness is NOT "immoral". It's getting to the point that having more of them is immoral, considering what we're facing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Do you know that about three years ago the former Pope was in front of the Italian Parliament . . .
begging them to make women have babies!

Nor did he recite the beauty of children, families, the assistance that should be provided . . .

what he stressed was that in order for corporate/economic growth, family planning had to be ended.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. I'd love the link on that.
....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Babsbrain Donating Member (536 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. The Pope addresses the Italian Parliament:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/29/world/main527362.shtml

Yep, he says the low birth rate can hurt Italians economically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Perhaps celibacy produces thought that is directly proportional to ignorance.
On the other hand, I guess Popes are, by their job definitions, forced to stick with the "God will take care of it" theory.

Well, I guess my response to that is, given the current rate of pollution, it won't be long before just about anyone will be able to walk on (sewerage infested) water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
39. I read this...
I read this: "In his address to parliament, the pope urged Italians to strengthen their Christian values, have more children and work for the common good. John Paul also called for clemency for Italian prisoners."

And you interpret this as the Pope "begging" them to "make" women have children? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
21. Why do you hate America?
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Defective genes. Aside from which, someone has to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
24. Let's start solving the problem
with Bush, Cheney, Rice, Gonzales...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
25. Where are the recommendations for this? Come on, people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
26. Everything that is happening right now is all directly related to this..
if global warming goes as many scientists are predicting, within 50 years 60 million people will be displaced from the coastlines. Think about the consequences of that. In this country, we're talking about big cities like New York, Baltimore, Boston and D.C. We're talking about the entire state of Delaware, and about 75-80% of Florida. It's very scary to contemplate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demgurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
28. I have thought about this for a long time.
I did not know how to bring it up here because it does seem sort of fringe but I believe you are right. People will not want to do limits and the church and fundies are against birth control but I think there will come a time when every single person is under population control. I also believe this will only come after some disastrous consequences from how much we have already overpopulated the earth. A lot of people will need to be dragged kicking and screaming into this but I truly believe it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 09:09 AM
Response to Original message
29. Americans are using the lion's share of the world's resources,
much more than the average citizens of Third World countries.

And citizens of other industrialized countries are also using a big chunk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
30. I've been beating this drum for a while now.
Not many want to listen, because it's a depressing, potentially insoluble dilemma.

My latest thinking on it is in the article Population Decline - Red Herrings and Hope.

The article briefly touches on these topics: demographic theory, carrying capacity, overshoot, the planet's one-time gift of oil, the illusion of permanent industrial/economic growth, the genetic underpinnings of human behaviour, resilience theory, the probable size of a sustainable human population, the possibility of a rapid involuntary reduction in human numbers over the next century, and the seeds of hope that are present in our society right now.

Fortunately it's not as intimidating as it sounds. Here's a taste:

In recent years demographic experts have been revising their peak human population estimates downward. At one time, peak population was feared to be in the tens of billions. Then it was revised down to 12 billion. But fertility rates continued to drop, to the point where our population is now projected to peak around 9 billion sometime in the middle of this century. This decline is being driven by some well-recognized factors:

Providing medical care to pregnant women and children reduces the infant mortality rate. When the infant mortality rate is very low, parents are assured that their children will live to adulthood. They therefore voluntarily decide to have fewer children -- usually 2 or fewer. In other words they don't try to have as many children as possible to ensure that at least some make it to adulthood. Providing medical care to children actually reduces population growth.

Enhancing women's rights and increasing their education contributes to the slowing of population growth. Women seem to generally choose to have fewer children if they have the power to do so. The more power women have in a society, the fewer children they choose to have. A 1995 study by the Guttmacher Institute found that Latin American women with no education have large families of 6-7 children, whereas better educated women have family sizes of 2-3 children, analogous to those of women in the developed world.

Free or cheap, reliable birth control has revolutionized demographics. In developed countries birth control has led to fertility rates that are below replacement rates, and even in developing countries birth control has caused fertility rates to plummet.

Food security, development assistance and education also lead to lower fertility rates. Famine is a great engine of population growth, while food security acts as a governor on that engine. Famine and hunger causes disproportionate death rates among children, which encourages parents to have more children as an insurance strategy. Giving parents and children food security leads them to have fewer children in much the same way as increasing medical care.

The world has entered a demographic phase of plummeting fertility rates -- in many countries to below the magic "replacement" fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman, which implies zero population growth or even "sub-replacement" fertility rates that imply a slow decline in overall human population. Much of Europe is worrying about and developing plans to deal with slowly declining populations. So in the opinion of mainstream demographers we now have an excellent opportunity to have a "soft landing" in population rather than the population explosion and crash that so many have been fearing for decades.

Or do we? Might the rejoicing over falling fertility be, if not a red herring, at least a trifle premature? This article makes a case for extreme skepticism on this issue. Yes, population growth is slowing, and all the factors cited above are contributing to that. However, there are a number of inconvenient truths that are not addressed in this rosy analysis. They change the picture dramatically when they are included.


The overall tone of the article isn't as hopeful as it could (or should) be. However, it does clearly delineate the intractability of the problem. It also describes a surprising source of hope even in the face of such a large problem. I hope it helps.

Paul Chefurka
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbgrunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
32. overpopulation and the fight for survival is the root of all our problems.
Denying this reality is the root of religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
41. Yet I am both religious and I don't deny it...
Yet I am both religious, and I don't deny overpopulation.

Maybe you could expound on your statement a bit...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbgrunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. I believe that the religious urge is a desire to
transcend the limits of the realities of the material world. The basic hope that there is a transcendent purpose to our existence and that material limits are thus irrelevant is the basis of organized religions (and probably all religions--even those that aren't organized). The religious impulse is to deny the limitations of the physical or material world, for the most part. The religious "sanctity" of (human)life along with the competition for survival and resources results in a basic contradiction. The religious tendency is to turn to a deity to resolve the conflict (or to blame it)....or at least that is how I see it. Religions use the desire for power and survival (increasing population) to reinforce their position and therefore support increasing procreation. So, I do believe that one can be religious, even spiritual, and recognize the problem of overpopulation, but there is an inherent tension between such beliefs and acceptance of material limits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. What's the tension in my life...?
Try C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christianity' for some insight into the three major religion. You really should read more.

What's the tension in my life between overcrowding vs. not killing people> (Just outta curiosity)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbgrunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. sorry, I couldn't begin to postulate regarding your tensions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #50
54. You wrote...
You wrote, "but there is an inherent tension between such beliefs and acceptance of material limits."

I'm a believer and I accept material limits. Therefore, you should be aware of what these tensions are, regardless of whether it's in my case or anyone else's who fits the above description.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
36. There may be no one ruling group. But some are more powerful than
others in terms of shaping human affairs -- and there-in lies at least a large part of the problem.

It isn't just you and I, average working class people who are "running the world" or making collective decisions that shape policy. Right? There are very long standing groups of people who have agendas of their own. The Catholic church, for example, may not be a vast conspiracy but it is a fact that they oppose birth control, do they not? This strongly held religious belief effects the pov of millions of people on many continents -- but this is only one example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pat_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
37. Step 1 to becoming a positive force for change is impeachment.
We have surrendered the power of We the People to fascist rule. Impeachment is the ONLY means to reclaim our power. As long as we are cut off from our power we are incapable of working to solve this, or any problem we face as Americans and as human beings.

By refusing to fight for the Constitution and the principle of consent, Members of Congress have are surrendering our capacity to recover from disaster with humanity, solve our common problems in ways that reflect our common values, and serve as a force for good in the world. When the good will of the American people is cut out of the loop, no peoples, not our fellow Americans, not other nations, can look to us for help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noonwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
38. Science has helped us avoid the Malthusian trap for a while
If one takes Malthus' theories to heart, that is. Just don't take it as seriously as Kevin Spacey's character on "Wiseguy".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
40. The next hundred years will be more enjoyable to read about later
than to live through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
42. To bottom line thinkers, the supply of human beings is much greater than the demand
I have a theory that this is why people don't get too upset about mass casualties in a disaster or war.

I bet they think that it will cut down on the lines at the bank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
44. I'm sorry but that is just pop bullshit
I find your post short on facts and heavy on condescension. Here are some facts that disprove your theory:

- food is cheaper and more plentiful than it has ever been in the history of mankind
- life expectancies are longer, infant mortality lower and general health better than ever
- obesity is on the rise around the globe
- the technology to replace fossil fuel exists and is improving
- scientific advances have cured or addressed the most threatening issues of the last 200 years and continue to address major issues, eg. climate change
- most of the major international corporations have aknowledged that climate change is real and are taking steps to address their impact

You are asking questions which presume facts which are not in evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Now, now. You're taking away his justifications for the OP's obvious anti-choice stance.
Edited on Thu Jul-19-07 02:01 PM by BlueIris
Stop that, you.

Next, you'll be trying to explain to this board why eugenics is wrong, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #44
51. And you know what? All of those advantages depend on ONE thing
Cheap, plentiful energy from petroleum. Only now it ain't so cheap anymore. And judging by the OPEC production rates, it's not so plentiful anymore.

And despite your correct statement that alternative energy sources are improving, odds are that we won't EVER see the amounts of energy produced in the future that we're producing today. Nothing beats petroleum for cost of extraction and storage of energy. We've taken millions of years of stored-up solar energy - and blown it all in less than 100 years.

We've got a REAL problem here. Population is increasing almost exponentially, but our energy reserves are depleting rapidly.

We have two choices. Either go flat out in a rush to develop new sources of energy or take serious steps to reduce our population.

Read Glider Guider's post and a few of his articles on his website. He has the numbers on all this.

And even the rosiest scenarios are not that palatable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
45. Lots of people + prosperity = disaster (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zippy890 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
55. we should join withother countries
and go to Mars. Terraform the planet, make it habitable.

Problem is who would go and how society would be structured.

I have enough faith in the basic goodness of people that going to Mars
as a mutiracial/multinational community could actually be the salvation of the human race.

Earth itself will not fair well, but I think ultimately will survive.

We should plan for all contingencies in any event.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #55
65. If we don't solve our current problems
We won't last near long enough to figure out how to move a significant percentage of our population to Mars, let alone terraform it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JacquesMolay Donating Member (413 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
56. Believe me, I know. I'm a math teacher and got interested in Carrying capacity....
.... in Carrying capacity, and read 6 books on it. I actually wrote some reviews of them as part of my 'straightening out the material' in my head. You can read them here:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=9833309&blogID=203351934

All of these books are pretty good - but Our Ecological Footpring and Limits of Growth: The 30-year Update are the best.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Babsbrain Donating Member (536 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. The Carrying Capacity of the land is the key n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Initech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
57. You wont get any argument from me.
It's pretty much a fact that there are too many people on this planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnyieldingHierophant Donating Member (249 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
63. This, as it always has been, will be taken care of in time
the Earth will right itself in time
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cyrano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. I'll agree with that. But the survival of our species is the crux of my original post.
Edited on Fri Jul-20-07 02:46 PM by Cyrano
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC