Do you think " humans " are over populated?

[NiteMarcher]

My perspective is based on the empirical evidence of the damage which has already been done - mainly in the last 40years since the population nearly doubled. I see nothing new on the immediate horizon to see any change in that pattern before we reach 10billion.

Track the decline and draw your own conclusions about what we are really doing to arrest it.

I think you are a techno-cavalry man and I just don't buy into optimism which is not based on credible evidence of what is happening now - the time when the damage is been done.

Br Cornelius

You are so right..

The reefs in our oceans are dying...after that so will everything else that swims in there, one by one...

The honey bees aren't returning to the hives...where have they all gone?

Fresh water, spring water & rain water has actually become a commodity--who ever thought we'd be purchasing water out of a bottle?

The trees and forests have been slowly disappearing through man's carelessness, wildfires, etc.

Bottom line is we can't eat money, silver or gold and we certainly can't eat technology either--

†he food chain is slowly coming apart along with the privatization and contamination of our precious water....

You're right...mother earth has been rocking and rolling recently...just look at what's happening with weather all around us..

[Frank Merton]

I might suggest that what is overpopulated, at least in the States, is automobiles.

[Myles]

The ideal amount, in your opinion from a humanist perspective, is 12-14. From the chicken's perspective the ideal amount is 0.

Actually, the chickens prefer to be in the coop. They return throughout the day and right before dusk. They are easy prey for coons, dogs, groundhogs and many other animals.

[Frank Merton]

My basic view is that the more people on the planet the better, all else being equal. That means that we should have a population that is as great as the world can sustain indefinitely at an excellent living standard and no more.

The more people, the more Mozarts and Einsteins and the better the football and the better the art, etc. Plus, each person is a life; life is, we presume, a good thing. Maximize it.

The main reasons for suffering and deprivation even now have to do mainly with superstition and culture, not technology. In the meantime technology steadily progressively mitigates even these.

[Guest]

My basic view is that the more people on the planet the better, all else being equal. That means that we should have a population that is as great as the world can sustain indefinitely at an excellent living standard and no more.

The more people, the more Mozarts and Einsteins and the better the football and the better the art, etc. Plus, each person is a life; life is, we presume, a good thing. Maximize it.

The main reasons for suffering and deprivation even now have to do mainly with superstition and culture, not technology. In the meantime technology steadily progressively mitigates even these.

Very anthropocentric.

Personally I like to cast my net a bit wider and see every living thing as having an equal right to life. We are abusing that right by shoving them aside.

Br Cornelius

[+DieChecker]

That means that we should have a population that is as great as the world can sustain indefinitely at an excellent living standard and no more.

Out of curiousity... What number would you peg onto that "as great as the world can sustain"?

[Guest]

Out of curiousity... What number would you peg onto that "as great as the world can sustain"?

There's a scientific answer to that and it aint 10billion - or even seven.

Br Cornelius

[Frank Merton]

Yes, I guess I am anthropocentric. I have my doubts that the way things are in nature is at all desirable. The animals live short brutal suffering lives and then are eaten or die of some horrible disease.

This business of "right to life" is a bit arbitrary. Do you object to spraying for termites or getting rid of tape worms? Where do you draw the line?

[Guest]

Yes, I guess I am anthropocentric. I have my doubts that the way things are in nature is at all desirable. The animals live short brutal suffering lives and then are eaten or die of some horrible disease.

This business of "right to life" is a bit arbitrary. Do you object to spraying for termites or getting rid of tape worms? Where do you draw the line?

I would be very reluctant to swat a spider if it didn't present a direct threat to me. However some species cohabiting with humans are incompatible (termites been an example). The solution is don't cover all of the termites territory with human habitation and give them an adequate space to make their contribution to the web of life.

The real issue here is that many species have been driven to extinction or are on the verge of extinction. They will never come back and they will be lost from their role in the greater scheme of things. That is an unacceptable state of affairs.

Br Cornelius

[Frank Merton]

I think you go too far in your worship of nature at the expense of human beings. There are a few extinctions, such as smallpox, that don't worry me. It is also a simple fact that 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, long before we showed up.

With proper management, humans and animals can do well together, and probably one day resurrect the more recently extinct species.

[Guest]

I think you go too far in your worship of nature at the expense of human beings. There are a few extinctions, such as smallpox, that don't worry me. It is also a simple fact that 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct, long before we showed up.

With proper management, humans and animals can do well together, and probably one day resurrect the more recently extinct species.

Natural extinctions are very different to human induced extinctions. We have a choice to make something extinct.

This image which shows the increase in annual rate of extinctions (not the cumulative total) puts what we are doing into stark perspective;

Biocide is occurring at an alarming rate. Experts say that at least half of the world’s current species will be completely gone by the end of the century. Wild plant-life is also disappearing. Most biologists say that we are in the midst of an anthropogenic mass extinction. Numerous scientific studies confirm that this phenomenon is real and happening right now. Should anyone really care? Will it impact individuals on a personal level? Scientists say, “Yes!”

http://www.dailygala...d_bigger_t.html

At the very least we should be viewing this in terms of its inevitable consequences for ourselves.

For me the loss of diversity and the fact that it will take millions of years for it to return is a very heavy burden to weigh on my mind.

Br Cornelius

Edited March 8, 2013 by Guest

[Yamato]

Instead of getting hung up on specific species as to where we "draw the line" how about let's not draw a line at all, and understand the value of biodiversity and start to support philosophies, lifestyles, conservationism, policies, and laws that increase it rather than the reverse.

[Guest]

Fundamentally its a flawed world view which draws a line between us as humans and everything else. We are inextricably linked and equal in value.

We are not some pinnacle of evolution - we are a small part in a massive tapestry of the expression of DNA on this planet.

Br Cornelius

[Render]

Fundamentally its a flawed world view which draws a line between us as humans and everything else. We are inextricably linked and equal in value.

We are not some pinnacle of evolution - we are a small part in a massive tapestry of the expression of DNA on this planet.

Br Cornelius

Then why do you say:

Natural extinctions are very different to human induced extinctions. We have a choice to make something extinct.

We're a part of it all aren't we, so why isn't this just the course of things.

Just like previous extinctions were part "of the grande scheme" of things, then why not this scenario.

The definition of nature is also flawed, nature is seen as this fauna flora thing that is and always has to remain the same...otherwise it's not "natural .

What if we could engineer our own nature, and thus further moving away from what earth provides. (im following Slavoj Zizek here a bit i know).

Can we agree that there is not a clean answer to this. Too much of our answers are opinion. What defines "overpopulation" as we are using the term? While I agree with those who say we will find a way to continue with more people, I'd argue that it's not ideal.

We "will" find a way isn't even correct, we've already found our way ... like humanity already has for thousands of years.

Change isn't per definition a bad thing, unless you're older than 70.

[Guest]

Then why do you say:

We're a part of it all aren't we, so why isn't this just the course of things.

Just like previous extinctions were part "of the grande scheme" of things, then why not this scenario.

The definition of nature is also flawed, nature is seen as this fauna flora thing that is and always has to remain the same...otherwise it's not "natural .

What if we could engineer our own nature, and thus further moving away from what earth provides. (im following Slavoj Zizek here a bit i know).

We "will" find a way isn't even correct, we've already found our way ... like humanity already has for thousands of years.

Change isn't per definition a bad thing, unless you're older than 70.

The only way to view your position is to assume that humanity is some self correction mechanism of the planetary system. I don't buy it. We are a plague like any bacteria that eventually kills its host and dies out as a consequence.

The assumption that we have a right to exterminate a whole species because we are part of nature is morally bankrupt and repugnant. Its a form of extreme humanism which will be its own correction.

Ultimately in the grands scheme of things it will not matter as the planet will recover and become as diverse as previously - but I see no reason to pat ourselves on the back for what we are doing to reduce the planetary systems diversity. Cleverness maybe able to postpone the inevitable consequence's of our destructive tendencies - but it will show a profound lack of wisdom in our application of that cleverness.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

Change isn't per definition a bad thing, unless you're older than 70.

So that's it, isn't it. It's either good or bad depending on how you see it, and not necessarily because we're restricted to anthropocentric points of view. Destruction of habitats is change that's bad for whose habitat is destroyed. Extinction is bad for what goes extinct. You wouldn't try either one of those on and expect it to fit, you're only concerned about your own habitat and what perceivable changes happen to it.

[Render]

The only way to view your position is to assume that humanity is some self correction mechanism of the planetary system. I don't buy it. We are a plague like any bacteria that eventually kills its host and dies out as a consequence.

The assumption that we have a right to exterminate a whole species because we are part of nature is morally bankrupt and repugnant. Its a form of extreme humanism which will be its own correction.

Ultimately in the grands scheme of things it will not matter as the planet will recover and become as diverse as previously - but I see no reason to pat ourselves on the back for what we are doing to reduce the planetary systems diversity. Cleverness maybe able to postpone the inevitable consequence's of our destructive tendencies - but it will show a profound lack of wisdom in our application of that cleverness.

Br Cornelius

So, do you then agree with the policies that a certain amount of deers, boars, wolves "have to be " shot every year because they could "unbalance" the biodiversity ?

[Guest]

So, do you then agree with the policies that a certain amount of deers, boars, wolves "have to be " shot every year because they could "unbalance" the biodiversity ?

In the absence of top predictors (because we displaced them) then yes. The need to resort to such activities shows that we have been destroying our environment for a very long time.

This cannot be the precursor to a justification of our right to drive species into extinction - surely not !!

This is the raw fact which all your rosie glasses wide eyed optimism pointedly ignores - the damage is been done and is ongoing and will lead to the eventual loss of probably half the species on the planet unless we fundamentally address the main drivers - of which population is the primary cause.

Br Cornelius

Edited March 8, 2013 by Guest

[Bavarian Raven]

There's a scientific answer to that and it aint 10billion - or even seven.

Most estimates I've read about in uni put it at about 500 - 800 million, one billion tops. And apparently this is a number that needs to be reached in the near future. Does start get one worrying...

[bom shankra]

This one is for render et al. (ghost of christmas future you might say!) - Passed on to me through 'profile status' by a kind forum member.

Dinosauria, We (charles bukowski)

Born like this

Into this

As the chalk faces smile

As Mrs. Death laughs

As the elevators break

As political landscapes dissolve

As the supermarket bag boy holds a college degree

As the oily fish spit out their oily prey

As the sun is masked

We are

Born like this

Into this

Into these carefully mad wars

Into the sight of broken factory windows of emptiness

Into bars where people no longer speak to each other

Into fist fights that end as shootings and knifings

Born into this

Into hospitals which are so expensive that it’s cheaper to die

Into lawyers who charge so much it’s cheaper to plead guilty

Into a country where the jails are full and the madhouses closed

Into a place where the masses elevate fools into rich heroes

Born into this

Walking and living through this

Dying because of this

Muted because of this

Castrated

Debauched

Disinherited

Because of this

Fooled by this

Used by this

p***ed on by this

Made crazy and sick by this

Made violent

Made inhuman

By this

The heart is blackened

The fingers reach for the throat

The gun

The knife

The bomb

The fingers reach toward an unresponsive god

The fingers reach for the bottle

The pill

The powder

We are born into this sorrowful deadliness

We are born into a government 60 years in debt

That soon will be unable to even pay the interest on that debt

And the banks will burn

Money will be useless

There will be open and unpunished murder in the streets

It will be guns and roving mobs

Land will be useless

Food will become a diminishing return

Nuclear power will be taken over by the many

Explosions will continually shake the earth

Radiated robot men will stalk each other

The rich and the chosen will watch from space platforms

Dante’s Inferno will be made to look like a children’s playground

The sun will not be seen and it will always be night

Trees will die

All vegetation will die

Radiated men will eat the flesh of radiated men

The sea will be poisoned

The lakes and rivers will vanish

Rain will be the new gold

The rotting bodies of men and animals will stink in the dark wind

The last few survivors will be overtaken by new and hideous diseases

And the space platforms will be destroyed by attrition

The petering out of supplies

The natural effect of general decay

And there will be the most beautiful silence never heard

Born out of that.

The sun still hidden there

Awaiting the next chapter.

Edited March 8, 2013 by bom shankra

[Myles]

We're a part of it all aren't we, so why isn't this just the course of things.

Just like previous extinctions were part "of the grande scheme" of things, then why not this scenario.

I would say because we have the ability to think and make the correct decisions (or the wrong decisions). I don't think leading any species to extinction is the correct move.

[Sakari]

We are a plague like any bacteria that eventually kills its host and dies out as a consequence.

Br Cornelius

So true......

[Betrayal of Humanity]

To those who think humans are over populated what would you solution be to change this?

[Frank Merton]

Most estimates I've read about in uni put it at about 500 - 800 million, one billion tops. And apparently this is a number that needs to be reached in the near future. Does start get one worrying...

Based on what? What estimates? This is just nonsense some extremist has come up with.

[Guest]

Based on what? What estimates? This is just nonsense some extremist has come up with.

Not really, its based on individual resource usage and the rate of the planet to replenish those resources.

Its quite a simple equation really - account for what you have in total, calculate how quickly it accumulates. Then calculate how much an average individual uses and how much is recycled (recycling also uses resources). Its so easy to do the calculations you could perform them to a degree on your PC.

The conclusion is somewhat less than a Billion people and that is a very reasonable conclusion. Current rates of resource depletion mean that we would need about 4 planets to make the replacement rate sustainable.

You have to understand that the only goal worth pursuing is one of indefinite sustainability - ie we can live like this forever without destroying our ecosystem. Anything less is just delaying the inevitable day of reckoning.

Br Cornelius

Edited March 9, 2013 by Guest