*Membership spots not really limited!
*Membership spots not really limited!
L'Indépendant wrote:If he's at all concerned about global warming and hunger, maybe he should turn his buffalo loose into the wild, till his land and start planting wheat to feed the world. Until then, he can talk all he wants and I'll continue not to take him seriously, especially considering a lack of credentials on the subject. When he eats his first human, then I'll give him another thought.
Nope, I just think he's sticking with a very Malthusian thought, which I don't necessarily agree with. There's plenty to go around right now, the problems are distribution, ignoring common sense (as far as agriculture and wise resource use) and excess.Alex Delarge wrote:I think you misunderstand the problem...
Making more food only makes more people. What we have been doing for the past decades is trying to make as much food as possible. That only works so far, eventually without population controls, people will begin starving once population max nears. Then you will have yourself a true crisis. We need to look at what we can safely sustain long term in terms of food production and limit human growth based on that.
It is the only responsible thing to do and the only true solution to the problem, unless we start colonizing other worlds and outsourcing population.
L'Indépendant wrote:His argument is the type that leads to population control measures. What right does anybody have to decide who breeds and who doesn't?
I don't think we can really get into the real solutions on a message board. We can despair, which is what these arguments sound like, or we can actually find solutions, which are out there, being employed (just not on the scale they need to be), mostly for lack of political power.Alex Delarge wrote:I guess my argument would be what right does anybody have to decide anything? Not just who breeds and who doesn't. You cannot have someone else deciding how much you eat for the very same reasons.
Here is your problem. Finite space. Our current system is freedom and let people do what they want. Ok, let's dial up the speed and see what happens over time...As long as conditions are good, people thrive, when conditions are bad, people die. Given finite space and resources, only so many people can be currently living without hitting some barrier, no matter how large and no matter how far away that barrier is. Any needed increase of food production, after effective use of current resources will hurt the environment and make life here worse off over time. Once we approach population max all the things we destroyed for food production can NEVER come back. NEVER.
So it becomes an inevitable conclusion and a simple question. Which is worse, population control forced upon by society, or population control forced upon you by the environment? One is living people suffering and dying and the other is telling people you cannot have more than two children. That seems like a simple choice to me.
Now once we start having more deaths than births, due to some random event, you can adjust the birth rate, but in all honesty, I can see no other way, the things you mention are only band-aids on a more serious problem.
MoneyMelon wrote:I think we should take the "Do not eat" warning off of those little packets that come with electronics.
If we need to explain that your stereo didn't come with a snack, we're just holding back the natural order of things.
You're forgetting, though - humankind's reason and rationale and ability to act against nature may be its saving grace, if looked at optimistically. There'll be a point where more and more people get on the "oh shit I should do my part" bandwagon and tailor their actions a little in defense of the common good.Alex Delarge wrote:L'Indépendant, it seems you take a more practical, present day approach to these problems. I have a habit of "living in the future" and looking at things on really long time lines. I get that habit being a computer scientist, looking at an algorithm and seeing what it will do, no matter how long that takes.
Your approach will not work long term. It may work today and tomorrow, but not in the distant future.
Imagine the world as a Rubik's Cube. Each square represents space for things. Your ideas are to take those squares and make them more useful or productive, but it is still a Rubik's Cube. I agree that we should do all the things you say, but they won't solve the problem, only prolong it.
Finite space, will always eventually fill up.
Once that point is achieved whether that is 50-90% of surface usage or whatever, people will eventually starve and suffer. No matter what you do, letting people grow and allowing them to go in a finite space is going to breed suffering once things stop thriving.
No way around it.
Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 39 guests