:rotflmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
Printable View
:rotflmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
This tells you nothing about overpopulation...Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Nah, not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
I don't get the point that you were trying to make...Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Try to find a similar image from 30 years ago and you will understand my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
less light pollution 30 years ago? :p
fewer oil rigs (?) between Scotland and Sweden? :confused:
:bandit:
Would there be more red lights 30 years ago? :p :
For example.Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
I miss the days when you would go for a walk in the nature without stumbling on a highway after an hour or so. :\
Depends where one lives. I'm not sure that would ever have been possible in many places in the last 100 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
One of the reasons why I'd love to emigrate to somewhere like Sweden.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Just move to North Wales. We live literally hundreds of metres from an area of outstanding natural beauty and whilst there are little towns dotted around the place there is plenty of space to roam :)Quote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
I often thought about that too. Norway and Finland might also be a good choice. And Siberia would be a sure hit. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
But 30 years ago I could walk for hours without seeing a road or hearing a car, now it is impossible in the very same places. :(
I don't understand why someone should be ashamed for considering the idea of a need for limiting the population. There's no shame here, as the idea is based on the planet's resources and how they can sustain life. It's simple logic that the population of the planet is rising exponentially, whereas the resources that we use are not increasing.
So, at some point there are too many people, whether it's now or in the future. It's irreponsible NOT to consider that scenario, not shameful to think about it. No-one has proposed a cull.
The question of how we tackle a problem of overpopulation is another thing entirely. Apart from the cultural sensitivites, and the unequal sharing out of riches, it's a really difficult problem to overcome.
But also, if we manage to get people on board with the idea of limiting reproduction, where does it leave society? You know, grow up, finish school, meet someone nice, get a home, settle down, and then....what? Watch TV? Play computer games? Wifeswapping clubs? What are people expected to do with their lives?
There are already too many people.Quote:
Originally Posted by fandango
Luckily for us in developed countries the people living in 3rd world countries are not using the same amount of resources as we do, otherwise we would have huge problems, and this also explains why developed countries have no real interest in improving those 3rd world countries' situation.
how bad would it be if world war 1 and 2 did not happen
world war 1 and world war 2 over 200,000,000 dead
It's at least one thing that communism has got right - the ability to control the population. Democracy will struggle more to implement such measures. You don't have to worry about losing the next election if you're the only political party.
</end controversy>
Kind of a brutal and expensive birth control pill I would say.Quote:
Originally Posted by thunderbolt
There are too much people already and they are literally consuming the planet, exterminating all (other) animals. This can't be right IMO.
You sound like my wife schmenke :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
I have to disagree about the fresh water though. Yes, there is a limited supply of fresh water in some countries/areas, but on a whole most countries are fine water wise if their resources are maintained adequately. Many countries border the ocean, where dessalination plants can produce fresh water from the vastness that is our oceans. I mean, Dubai for example relies solely on this type of water supply and they have grown at a rediculous rate over the last 20 years. The reason many countries don't go this route? "It's too expensive". That is another prime example of man making problems worse for himself when it could be made better with a bit more willpower and forgetting about money for once. Governments can buy fancy cars, but they can't build dessalination plants? The world is screwed up man!
There are plenty of resources on this planet for our current population, they are just not managed properly and sadly never will be.
All the weekend I was terorised that someone will notice that I "ate" three zeroes during conversion ( although the reasonong was correct ). Happy to see that nobody did. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
So: 33000 square km = 33000000000square m
See? It's not a problem of population but of using resources. To my knowledge exactly in the developed countries we notice a decrease of the rate of natality. At the same time I think that in the 3rd world countries we should take into account the rate of infantile mortality which is probably high.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Then it's the index of " hope of life " which is different in developed/3rd world countries.
I think that it would be interesting to see the evolution in the last 100 years of such indexes in different part of the world.
Well, I'm afraid that if it's not about a genocide no other solution is good for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
But as latin say :"De gustibus non disputandum est ". :laugh:
If sterilization of poor nations is the right solution for you then all I can say is I'm happy in real life I don't have to deal with people like you.
The difference between us is that your reasoning comes from a fact ( Survival is quite barbaric now in many areas of the world ) and mine from an ideal: Survival shouldn't be barbaric now in many areas of the world .
And I suspect that we have different opinions on the " many areas of the world " part. :laugh:
It varies inside countries too. e.g. North of England is very well provisioned for water supplies, the south is not!Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
The resources have to come from somewhere! And desalinisation is very expensive, it also takes a large amount of energy to run. Dubai can do that because they have vast oil reserves, other countries aren't so lucky.Quote:
Many countries border the ocean, where dessalination plants can produce fresh water from the vastness that is our oceans. I mean, Dubai for example relies solely on this type of water supply and they have grown at a rediculous rate over the last 20 years. The reason many countries don't go this route? "It's too expensive". That is another prime example of man making problems worse for himself when it could be made better with a bit more willpower and forgetting about money for once. Governments can buy fancy cars, but they can't build dessalination plants? The world is screwed up man!
True, you just have to be sensible about things. e.g. Don't have 10 kids if you live in a desert and can't feed yourself in the first place..Quote:
There are plenty of resources on this planet for our current population, they are just not managed properly and sadly never will be.
Serves them right for living in the south I say :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Sorry 555, but I'd suggest a bit of research.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
The facts are that the reliable sources of fresh water worldwide are diminishing rapidly. Examples:
Underground aquifiers are depleting. Both in the arid American west and Africa, wells are having to be drilled increasingly deeper to reach water.
Much of central Asia's water supply relies on snow melt from the Himilayan glaciers which are evaporating an alarming rate (the Ganges and Yangtze rivers are examples). Similarily, much of the American Northwest relies on glacial melt water from the Rocky mountains which have all but vanished. The schmenke family visited "Glacier National Park" in Montana this past summer, and guess what... The glaciers had vanished long ago :s . Similarly, if anyone wants to set foot on the famous glaciers near Jasper, Canada, I'd suggest you do it soon, because they will be gone in our lifetimes.
The Colorado River is so dry that its waters no longer reach the ocean.
Google mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa and you'll see that Africa's only glacier, supply for much of that region's fresh water, has all but disappeared.
I could go on...
Desalination plants are expensive construct, but are even more expensive to operate. They require an enormous amount of energy which many countries simply can't afford, not to mention the obvious environmental impacts.
We also are sad we have to deal with people like you - unknowing - uncaringQuote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
One billion people live on less than $1 a day, the threshold defined by the international community as constituting extreme poverty, below which survival is questionable. That number encompasses a multitude of people living in varying degrees of poverty—all of them poor, but some even more desperately poor than others
schmenke, I can't argue the facts about glaciers melting etc as we all know that is happening. Your last paragraph though clears up exactly what I have been saying. There are plenty of resources available for our current 6 billion+ population. Just because there is a lack of funds to build something that can sustain us does not mean resources are scarce or are not there.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
We have more than enough vital resources to sustain our current population, we just need to manage them, manage our future population growth rate and decide, "Is it too expensive to save mankind? Is a dollar worth more than our races future?"
Instead of eating three Big Mac burgers at lunchtime then, why don't you donate two of them to these poverty stricken people? You will hopefully wipeout obesity in the land of stars and stripes and help feed two starving children, even if its not the best meal they could have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
And just what makes you think I eat big mac burgers?Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
Its just an example of our lifestyle of excess. We consume more than we need to, for no reason other than just because we can. I am also guilty of this, as most people are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
Yeah... Fortunately there are compassionate guys like you who think that poverty can be eradicated by sterilization of poor people.... :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
So it's more compassionate for people just to be able to breed however they want in a society that can't sustain itself with its current population let alone with more people? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by gadjo_dilo
Well, I don't think it's right for me to decide on the sexual life and family planning of the others. One man in this country tried to do this and tried to be in control of natality. He finished by being shot on Dec 25th 1989. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel
The guy had taken some other " interesting " measures and I wonder why none of you thought of these alternatives. At the end of the day don't you fear the resources aren't enough for all? So here they are:
He thought a programme of rational feeding. So our food was rationalized at 1 l of oil and 1kg of sugar per person per month and you could buy these only from a certain shop and only with your ID card. Then you couldn't buy more than a bread/day, you weren't allowed to buy more than 300g of salami/person. If you pretended that your family consists of 3 persons and you want the whole piece of salami, the shop assistant would have cut the piece in 3 parts. Otherwise it was the "danger" to take the piece and dry it for later.
Then we have periodic power cuts. We have cold in houses and at work. Some of us took small radiators at work and hide them under the desks. But we were controled by the fire department and get substantial fines.
We have a "clever" programme for warm water: only between 6-9 and 18-22.
Electricity was rather cheap only for 60KW/apartment/month. Those who dared to use more were penalized by paying the exceed double or triple ( can I forget the day when the electricity bill was higher than my father's pension? ).
Not only that the gynecological control was severe and abortions illegal ( to the extent that a woman was let to die if she had one ) but those who were over 23 y.o. and had no children were forced to pay a " celibate tax ".
Results: population increased, consume was reduced at the limit of survival (but we didn't parish!, on the contrary, we developed new "techiques" of survival , some at the edge of absurdity ), and the international debt of the country in december '89 was ZERO ( theory of conspiracy says the guy was shot by command of international finance cos he set a bad example for other poor states :laugh: ).
No we don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
We must look past the hypocrisy of assuming our current lifestyles can be maintained with careful management while ignoring the poorer societies' living standards. If we believe that poorer societies are entitled to the same standards of living as the privileged “west”, then they would be entitled to equal access to resources and rates of consumption. 6+ billion inhabitants consuming at the current “western” rates results in quickly depleted resources. We are seeing this as we speak as some Asian nations are now starting to consume at increasing rates, diminishing world-wide availability of, for example, petroleum products.
Re: desalination plants. Money is not the issue. The money is required to pay for the energy needed to operate them. The required energy comes from resources which we are saying are being depleted, e.g. fossil fuels, hydroelectric. The energy required to operate a moderate desalination plant is about the same as required to power a small town :mark: . With the exception of nuclear, non-fossil based sources are not an option. Wind and solar simply do not provide sufficient stable electricity to power a desalination plant. Poorer countries simply can't afford to operate desalinatioin plants and provide affordable energy for their growing populations.
With the melting of the polar ice caps, we’ll all soon be inundated anyways, so grab your speedo and I’ll meet you by the shoreline :p :
Amen brother, but I don't think I would look as good as you do in a speedo :DQuote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
I would replace kids with immigrants in your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Which is the problem in Africa, most people there just dont think at all. That is why they are at the development level they are and that is why they are starving so much there. Yet the population keeps rising tremendously all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Them being very religious + Catholic Church being hypocrite and stupid and not allowing them to use condoms isn't helping either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker