Show of HandsShow of Hands

TheMadScientist November 18th, 2017 6:31pm

It's been suggested that humanity limit its numbers in order to ensure sustainability of the planet. Do you think red streets would make a green planet? (Assume we'd target people from groups you choose and eliminate 20-40% of the total population.)

10 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

shygal47 Florida east coast
11/21/17 1:19 pm

Just practice birth control.

Reply
ScenarioNations California
11/18/17 2:50 pm

Okay I'll explain overpopulation for those who are scientifically illiterate. There are resources on earth. These resources can only sustain a certain amount of people in a region. Eventually if you have too many people in an area, resources either run out or are stretched thin. This is of course if everyone has rights to these resources. Resources like clean water can run out, desirable land can run out, and minerals that we mine can run out. This is a fact. Are we running out currently? Of some of these? Yes. Of all of these? Not necessarily but with time and will, yes. That's why conservation is important. Same with recycling. Same with coming up with new means of clean and renewable energy.

But do I support killing people?
Hell no.
I do support people using birth control and condoms though and we can solve over population with that. We can also colonize other worlds and spread out our population. With funding we can do it.

Reply
bower8899 ...
11/18/17 2:56 pm

Why I support putting more money into pregnancy prevention and space exploration

think4yourself Not a safe space
11/18/17 3:43 pm

Scenario. Many in the scientific community said our current population is unsustainable but there are plenty of resources for everyone. What “scientifically illiterate” people like you fail to see is as technology has advanced so has food production and access to clean water so as we continue to advance there will be even more resources available. Also most advanced nations are not reproducing enough to keep up with their current population and would be in decline if not for immigration making up the difference.

ScenarioNations California
11/18/17 3:48 pm

I disagree with the idea that some resources will multiply the more we advance. For example oil or clean water. Now we could expand into the stars to find more natural oil or water, but it doesn't mean these are renewable lol. What you're referring to is when technology reaches a point where we get renewable energy. Sunlight for energy. But I'm referring to resources that aren't renewable. We must ditch these for renewable sources which can be expanded upon as time goes on.

TheMadScientist the mad laboratory
11/18/17 4:10 pm

The Earth has a limit of sustainability at around 15 to 50 billion people. Even if it's 500 billion, there is _a_ limit.

Mastery of fusion is required to get us beyond anything but minor improvements - e.g. Could get us beyond the energy we receive from the sun.

Mastery of space travel is needed for more room for us to live.

Until then, most of us are using valuable resources and contributing little more than noise.

think4yourself Not a safe space
11/18/17 4:41 pm

Resources have multiplied as technology has increased. The amount of food we get per acre now is tremendously higher than when farming first began and will continue to increase. As far as population growth goes, it is already leveling off and once the third world nations catch up we will have a population decline problem. Japan is currently having majors problems due to a decreasing population.

TheMadScientist the mad laboratory
11/18/17 6:21 pm

Think - we are currently limited to 100% of the energy from the sun to the earth.

Think Lovin Life
11/19/17 9:41 am

Mad ... do you think the “limit” on resources are a fixed/constant, or do you think that resources are a function of our ability to use them?

MadCow True GOP
11/18/17 2:37 pm

Just exchange economic aid for sterilization. It's voluntary, and targets those least capable of taking care of themselves and most likely to do damage by living below basic standards.

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 2:57 pm

That's...scary

pcisbs1 Baltimore to Central PA
11/18/17 9:06 pm

What’s wrong with you?

think4yourself Not a safe space
11/18/17 2:28 pm

Overpopulation is a myth. No bloodshed needed.

Reply
cyanospool The Deep North
11/18/17 2:23 pm

Humans just need to start reevaluating their needs. Throughout human history, no one has ever needed the amount of frivolous crap you can buy in the developed world. It's fine to have hobbies and technology, but materialism is getting out of control. A lot of people blame the undeveloped world for "overpopulation", but the 1-2 children the average American parents have use like 100x the amount of resources compared to the 5-10 kids each couple has in undeveloped countries. I'm not advocating any policies, let me be clear, but you cannot seriously complain about overpopulation when you buy a new phone every couple years.

Reply
Cole12 ...
11/18/17 2:56 pm

Exactly

"Oregon State University researchers have calculated the savings from all kinds of conservation measures: driving a hybrid, driving less, recycling, using energy-efficient appliances, windows and light bulbs. For an American, the total metric tons of carbon dioxide saved by all of those measures over an entire lifetime of 80 years: 488. By contrast, the metric tons saved when a person chooses to have one fewer child: 9,441."

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 2:57 pm

The problem is most Americans can't afford those things. We need to be making sustainably affordable

cowboy Dawns Highway
11/18/17 2:18 pm

What do you think the baby killers at Planned Parenthood are doing. They are continuing the Nazi eugenics program Margaret Sanger started.

Reply
Senate101 San Diego
11/18/17 2:06 pm

Yeah, but that doesn't make it a good thing. If every human died, sure there would be no noise pollution. Doesn't make it a viable idea.

Reply
TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
11/18/17 1:31 pm

There is no overpopulation, only misallocation of resources. The entire world population could fit on the island of Maui.

Reply
DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/18/17 1:40 pm

I would like that. Aside from agricultural zones which are relatively far from certain urban centers, I'd love to see the large majority of the population living in urban environments, such that the rest may be returned to other species, as it used to be.

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 1:53 pm

I've had the same idea, wasdarb. Decolonizaton on a big level...removing humans

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/18/17 1:55 pm

More precisely, desettling. Other species aren't colonized. But their ecosystems are dominated by humans. But basically we have plenty of resources available to us as it is now. We can repurposed we have through heavy recycling of old materials.

ozzy
11/18/17 2:17 pm

We do that, it’s called deserts areas and arctic areas. Pretty much no people, and voluntary. Lol

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 2:17 pm

Yeah. With layered farms now we can abandon a lot of the land we needed before

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 2:19 pm

Ozzy, we are destroying many ecosystems. It's time to stop.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/18/17 2:24 pm

It seems Ozzy didn't know we've been extracting oil from the Arctic and the desert for quite a while.

cyanospool The Deep North
11/18/17 2:27 pm

Precisely, tlaney. If we can just scale back our water, plastic, and energy consumption, overpopulation is virtually a non-issue. The real issue is how rabid people get when anyone suggests we cut back on wasteful and consumerist behaviors.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/18/17 2:42 pm

"The real issue is how rabid people get when anyone suggests we cut back on wasteful and consumerist behaviors."

Yet you continue to be a defender of individual liberty. Individualism is threatening the survival of the planet.

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 2:44 pm

The most adamant supports of consumerism are big businesses...

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/18/17 2:46 pm

But the masses of first worlders defend it too. We hear lots of rhetoric about ending consumer society. But whenever anyone suggests we do anything about it, people flip out.

ozzy
11/18/17 2:50 pm

I’m actually for a much smaller population.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/18/17 2:51 pm

I wouldn't be opposed to that, but only if it happens naturally. It's not one of those issues that are so important we need to force it to happen.

ozzy
11/18/17 2:55 pm

I don’t think that individualism is hurting the environment. The worst offenders I’ve seen on the environment are hipster progressives and government agencies.

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 2:55 pm

My point is it's hypocritical to attack consumerism while defending capitalism

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 2:58 pm

I know for a fact tom is capitalist. Pretty sure you are too

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 2:58 pm

And your last statement did defend it

The worst offenders are businesses

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/18/17 2:59 pm

I see capitalist Brazil cutting down the Amazon and capitalist Canada building pipelines all throughout the country.

ozzy
11/18/17 3:02 pm

Socialist Brasíl and socialist Canada. Geez
I believe fully in capitalism. I don’t attack or defend consumerism. We have done more to heal the environment is the last 70 years. It is in far better shape than when the baby boomers inherited it.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/18/17 3:03 pm

Basically, everything you don't like is socialist.

cyanospool The Deep North
11/18/17 3:43 pm

Doctor, I honestly currently don't have a position on ethical individualism because I just don't feel I can make good judgements of both the cases for and against it. So please don't put words in my mouth or make assumptions. For every comment I've made seemingly in support of individualism, I guarantee I've made other comments elsewhere that would be considered an opposition. I also don't know how to address the issue of consumerism and wastefulness, but I do believe a shift in people's attitude is a necessary component. That's all I meant with my comment.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/18/17 3:46 pm

I'm sorry for the harshness, the miscommunication was on me. I intended to point the 'you' more broadly at western society, and really the globe, not at you in particular. Again, my bad.

cyanospool The Deep North
11/18/17 3:50 pm

It's okay, I see what you meant. I do want to say that there will come a day when we need to get both individualists and non-individualists on board with saving the planet and our species, so while I appreciate you approach, I'm not sure just taking down individualism as a construct will be the be all end all key.

DoctorWasdarb Marxist Leninist Maoist
11/18/17 3:55 pm

I don't think individualism is in itself the problem, but the symptom of the greater problem of capitalism.

bower8899 ...
11/18/17 4:01 pm

Consumerism and capitalism is actually anti-indivualisn

MrMilkdud
11/18/17 1:24 pm

Progressives are so bloodthirsty.

Reply
qmastrangelo Pottsvegas, PA
11/18/17 1:23 pm

Population growth naturally levels off as economies advance

Reply
Radon Parts Unknown
11/18/17 1:21 pm

Anyone who thinks we need to thin out the population are welcomed to start it with themselves. Oh wait, it's never them who have to die. Always other people.

Reply
MrMilkdud
11/18/17 1:23 pm

Streets running with blood from all the people communists, socialists, and progressives want to kill.