'Population control

[vfr]

'Population control, a sad but undeniable truth that we all must accept someday.'


Since the US is said to be about 75% Christian and was founded on maximum freedom for its people, I doubt whether the US will ever come up with a population control plan. It would be too controversial and it goes against promoting life and personal freedoms.

And while I cannot deny the wisdom of promoting life and freedom, sometime we must accept the lesser of two evils if promoting life turns into being more destructive to life than 'not promoting' it.

It then becomes a decision whether to choose between the 'greater good for the whole' or the 'greater personal right for the individual'... and the whole be damned. (Whole meaning entire human population of our planet.)

For instance, on a farm if the plants are planted packed like sardines (or 'packed like sushi' as they say in Japan) the plants do not flourish.

In nature, trees that are overcrowded weed themselves out by nature's decree. But if man forced the trees to not weed out and forces crowding the trees may die from disease due to a forced and unsustainable growth plan.

So it goes with how our planet is evolving...a sad but exactly true statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation

Now, I a not a tree hugger, green peace freak or communist. I drive dirt bikes, love 2 stroke 500cc thumpers, run jet skis and snowmobiles and could consume along with the best of em.

But I do respect and admire nature and most of all I respect and admire life and have had to 'mend my ways' so to speak once it sunk in how things were. And in the process I have given up a lot of personal desires for the greater good of the whole.

You see, the problem is not with the earth having enough land for all its people - the problem is with earth providing ad infinitum for all the needs the people crave.

The more people born, the more heat is produced from their life and all their cravings, As such, the warmer and more polluted the earth gets and the more energy they all use and the earths resources are depleted.

Fueling the problem of consumption is the games the Federal banks play with interest rates. They manage the economies in ways to fuel consumption to mask the real trend.

Our economy is not based on sustainable health - it is based low interest credit to encourage compulsive spending, debt, living a life of constant consumption with a 'disposable mentality' when it comes to durable goods.

All this consumption contributes to more and more global warming and the depletion of our natural resources. Then the governments juggle the numbers to make the inflation figures seem artificially low, so everyone's retirement portfolio will make them happy so they will continue to buy and consume more...and on it goes.

China and India are just starting to bloom with their demands for fossil fuels We haven't seen anything yet with the meteoric rise of gas, energy and over consumption.

In China the per capita car ownership rate is 40 car owners per 1000 persons. In India it is much lower, running 8 cars per 1000 people. As these two giants evolve more of their population will want cars...in India, they are making a $2500 car as well.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05 ... car_o.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20394364/

But what can one say about the problem unless people just cut back reproducing?

Everyone has a desire to have some sex stimulation and through that stimulation comes more and more people.

And everyone has a desire to keep warm when it is cold or to keep cool in the heat or move about the earth and wear clothes. And it is from all those desires that global warming fueled through the expenditure of fossil fuels takes place.

But the sad reality is even if people cut back having babies, we are only delaying the inevitable and that alone will not fix the problem. It can be compared to men stuck underwater in a crippled submarine. The more they move around, the quicker they run out of air and die. The less they move, the longer they can live...but the end result is the same.

Now maybe some genius will come up with a replacement for petroleum, natural gas and coal to meet all out needs. But it is unrealistic to think we can grow enough corn to fuel all the trucks, airlines, cargo ships, cars and other needs we humans have in addition run all the power plants and factories, heat and cool our homes.

You see all our energy needs are met with non sustainable non renewable resources whether it be coal, petroleum, or natural gas. Even nuclear power is dependent on the mining of uranium and has limits as to how long the supply will last.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

But lets not project too far in the future and try to keep our minds on the problems at hand.

$10 a gallon gas in the future? What about $40 a gallon gas??

No doubt! All we have to do is look to history for the answer.

When I first took notice of gas prices in the early 70's gas was .22 cents a gallon.

No one would have thought that gas would take a 1360% rise in price in 3 1/2 decades.

In addition to cars and gasoline, tons of other products and industries are dependent on crude oil as a component for their products.

http://www.lmoga.com/refoutput.htm

I can see how life has degenerated in recent years and this is just the tip of the berg for things to come. I am not an alarmist as one lady accused me, but I would do humanity a disservice if I did not bring this topic up now an again for discussion.

See my post

"Your sanity is my sanity and my sanity is your sanity."

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ ... opic=628.0

When you bring up population control the talk naturally turns to China and India.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_71563390

And population control alone is a controversial subject to discuss

..."when you get beyond the mythology and seriously examine the one-child policy, it is clear the policy is not viable even if one can stomach the horrendous human rights violations it entails."

From:

http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/count ... ld-policy/

But in reality, there is no such thing as 'opinionated' - 'provocative' 'controversial' subjects.

These are only subjective and prejudicial states of mind. Such 'mind blocks' may bother one, but do not bother another. As such, all problems related to 'controversial subjects' such as this are problems created in the mind...the mind of ego based, prejudicial man.

My own opinion is this:

Since the US enjoys so much freedom, be it freedom of religion or freedom of personal liberty, I doubt whether anything will ever be done with this topic and we will just keep growing with our population and our insatiable demands.

Any president would do doubt have little success in getting anything done with population control. We can hear the cries now...Communist!...Atheist!...Baby Killer....Hitler!!!!

So the best thing for the president to do would be to put it before the public every 3 years in a national election to get America's verdict on the subject. Then at least the president could say he tried, but the people of the US prefer to thumb their noses at the rest of the world and the vote is in...we will do as we like.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_o ... onsumption

When we can understand that all humans are interdependent and not independent of one another, we come to realize that we all share the same breath.

If anyone is against population control and has no other viable alternative to offer other than Communist!...Atheist!...Baby Killer....Hitler! - when they are asked what can be done to **slow down global warming - slow down over consumption - slow down the destruction of the human race that hell bent on growing at an unsustainable pace - they should respond:

"I just don't care...that is someone else's problem not mine."

Now, I don't claim to have the magic bullet to fix all our woes. I'm just a simple philosopher not a scientist or genius. All I can do is to bring the problem to the forefront and ask that we all work in a more healthier direction that the one we have been headed in.


(**It seems global warming can't be fixed, it can only be slowed down...too many people on earth to fix it...to many demands...too many cravings...best we can do is to slow it down)



Take care,


V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher

[codybarr]

This is just not the case.

Did you know that all six billion people living on planet Earth could all fit into an area the size of England, with more than 20 square metres each?

See: Where are all the people?

This is not an unpopular belief, here's a direct quote pulled in response to this same idea:

"Sounds like you’re relying on doomsayers like the atheistic population bombardier Paul Ehrlich, who was completely discredited when none of his ‘prophecies’ about mass famines and shortages came even close to being fulfilled."

[upallnite]

This is just not the case.

Did you know that all six billion people living on planet Earth could all fit into an area the size of England, with more than 20 square metres each?

See: Where are all the people?

This is not an unpopular belief, here's a direct quote pulled in response to this same idea:

"Sounds like you’re relying on doomsayers like the atheistic population bombardier Paul Ehrlich, who was completely discredited when none of his ‘prophecies’ about mass famines and shortages came even close to being fulfilled."

Or we could stack them on top of each other like fire wood. [/sarcasm]

I require 12 acres to maintain my lifestyle. 20 square meters is not enough room for my cat. I would like to see some of the people that say people could live in 20 square meters actually try to live in that space.

What would you have in your 20 square meters?

[codybarr]

The statistic is to show how very few people there are on Earth.
The fact that we can all fit onto an island is quite an eye opener to the idea that there are too many people in the world.

[Beto]

I have a feeling that with the advances made in the field of nanotechnology, and taking into account the exponential curve of thecnological advancement, it won't be long until the human life expectancy becomes such, that we either regard "having children" as something of less importance, or we start having a hell of a lot more children, with a hell of a lot less people dying. I'm more inclined towards the first, since people usually see children as a means of "perpetuating" oneself. And, of course, birth control should be much more accessible and accurate at that point. Since nanotechnology will be very cheap, third-world countries will have easy access to it as well.

[Goat]

The statistic is to show how very few people there are on Earth.
The fact that we can all fit onto an island is quite an eye opener to the idea that there are too many people in the world.

SOme factors you are not taking into account:

How much pure water (non contaminated) do we need to supply the world.

How many acres of food do we need to feed them?

What is the consumption of renewable resources vs how quickly those resources are replenished?

So many misconceptions.

[bernee51]

The statistic is to show how very few people there are on Earth.
The fact that we can all fit onto an island is quite an eye opener to the idea that there are too many people in the world.

Statistics can be interesting...

I read the other day of a man who drowned in a river with an average depth, in the part he was in, of just over six inches.

[MikeH]

IMHO the overpopulation/globalwarmingTM/doomsday scenario is just a secularist version of Revelations. Hey, theists can't have all of the end of the world fun, can they?

[Zzyzx]

.
Here are some statistics and calculations. Someone please check them for accuracy and applicability.

Of the earth's 148,000,000 km² (57 million square miles) of land, approximately 31,000,000 km² (12 million square miles) are arable; however, arable land is currently being lost at the rate of over 100,000 km² (38,610 square miles) per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land

Twelve million square miles of arable land (land that can be used for growing crops), divided by six billion world population = .002 square mile of arable land per person, times 640 acres per square mile = 1.28 acres of arable land per person.

An acre and a quarter average arable land per person is more than adequate IF that land is used for production of grains and vegetables. It may be marginal to inadequate if arable land is used to produce livestock and / or fuel.

Distribution and ownership of land may be as important as total arable land available – or more important. “Have vs. Have Not” inequality on individual, societal, and national levels leaves many without adequate food supplies.

Political, social and economic disruption and inequality also affect all of the above considerations.

Simple crowding in areas of arable soils and economic opportunity has produced great social problems.

Quality of life should be considered in addition to minimal requirements for existence.

Perhaps mankind would be wise to carefully study the advisability of increasing population.