popestpiusx Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 And the conclusion of your argument is.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aloha918 Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 9 2004, 03:18 PM'] Addressing the resourse issue is quite a bit different than population control. [/quote] so we got a little off topic what is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 [quote name='aloha918' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:20 PM'] so we got a little off topic what is your point? [/quote] I think so. Although I was kind of wondering if you equate the two. It seems that the big population control advocates do in fact make the two into a single issue. But yes I do think we got somewhat off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aloha918 Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 (edited) well i think that protector was kinda getting to it....with less and less energy for people we will not be able to sustain such a high population.... in no way am i saying that abortion is ok because of population problem or contraception....but i think we as americans need to change our views things, cut back on our energy use, waste of food, water, etc......leave some of these things for future generations and other countries.......we need to educate women in abstaining from sex, getting a job to support there family because most of them get so many kids so that they can run a farm for money, and teach them sustainable practices Edited December 10, 2004 by aloha918 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the protector Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 [quote]we need to educate women in abstaining from sex[/quote] You can't put the entire burden on women. You also need to tell the men that their wives aren't just for their amusement. Economic equality equality for women, as well as improved sexual education, haven done wonders to curb population growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aloha918 Posted December 14, 2004 Author Share Posted December 14, 2004 [quote name='the protector' date='Dec 11 2004, 01:07 AM'] You can't put the entire burden on women. You also need to tell the men that their wives aren't just for their amusement. Economic equality equality for women, as well as improved sexual education, haven done wonders to curb population growth. [/quote] i agree with changing the men but i feel it is more on women Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the protector Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 I'm going to add some of my previous posts from another thread to keep this going... ----- The current world population lies somewhere around 6 billion. The earth's carrying capacity is measured by some at around 2 billion. Planet earth is in overshoot. We've been able to sustain this bloated population due to cheap energy from oil. A lack of cheap energy is another crisis waiting in the wings. It may much sooner than you think. However, the impending economic collapse has the potential to extend this peak through demand destruction. Maybe that we shock us into living simpler lives and consuming less resources. If the average child per woman were 1.5, we could reach the goal of 2 billion within 100 years. Unfortunately, we haven shown little to no desire to mediate our growth. In that case, nature will correct the problem, which won't exactly be peaches and cream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the protector Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 The world's population will decrease to a more sustainable level whether we tackle the crisis or not. It can be a slow process, like centuries. However, it can also be a short process, like several decades. The current political and enviromental conditions definately make that shorter, more unpleasant die-off a possibility. Check out this thread from the peakoil.con forums. I think it best explains the relationship b/t the population and energy crises. [url="http://peakoil.com/fortopic1687.html"]Leibig's Law[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the protector Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 (edited) [quote]50 years ago the earth could support 60 billion people using existing farmland. [/quote] Where did you find that stat? It sounds ridiculously high to me. In their book "Limits to Growth", the [url="http://www.clubofrome.org/"]Club of Rome[/url] said that if the food supply was evenly distributed, and production was de-centralized, the planet could support around 8 billion at most. Either way, it is not all about food. What about infrastructure, jobs, clothing, medicine etc.? Lou Dobbs reported last night that in a few decades, the US will need twice of what is has now in houses, hospitals etc. What the enviromental impact of 60 billion people? Look at the impact of 6 billion people. According to [url="http://www.foet.org/JeremyRifkin.htm"]Jeremy Rifkin[/url]. Us Americans account for about 22 billion Chinese in terms of consumption and enviromental impact. [quote]The world will not become overpopulated.[/quote] The world IS overpopulated. We have been able to fight some of the effects of overpopulation because of cheap, abundant energy from oil. Energy staves off entropy. Thermodynamics. Do you really want to challenge the laws of thermodynamics? Leibig's Law: whatever necessity is least abundant, relative to per-capita requirements, sets the environment's limit for the population of any given species. [quote]We are approaching a point where cheap oil will be in decline. What do you think will happen when the source of energy which fueled the growth in population? In fact, with great decreases in fertility rates (number of children per woman) in much of the world, the population will likely begin decreasing within this century! (Even the pro-population-control U.N.'s latest population report concedes this.) There is evidence that the decrease will come sooner and be steeper than the U.N. predicts. It has already begun in Europe.[/quote] What about those other 6 billon and counting? Is population in the third world declining? Due to immigration, even population in the US in not set to decline. Edited December 18, 2004 by the protector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 Do you know anything about Thomas Malthus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the protector Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 Yes. What do you want to add? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 He has something alone the lines of the human poplulation will work itself out, we don't need to do it ourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the protector Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 (edited) Yes, through war, famine and disease. Would you rather have that or limited family size through NFP? To me, the latter sounds better. Edited December 18, 2004 by the protector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 I think NFP is fine, if done for the right reasons. Where are you from by the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the protector Posted December 18, 2004 Share Posted December 18, 2004 I am from soutwest surburban Chicago, IL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now