| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 10:41:12 AM | Interesting q.
I do not mean to sound disingenuous but this is not original, it is a q that has been in circulation for about 100 years - still it is an interesting q so let me offer a perspective.
As population grows + resources diminish = starvation happens ...this is true and our resources will diminish certainly but do not underestimate the historical human ability to adapt. This is what has separated us from other species over so many hundreds of years and we survive because we develop certain inherent attributes globally to respond to impending conditions. It is no secret that those with excess weight tend to survive longer in areas of famine. They have developed a very advanced storage system which while it may make them less physically productive and appear less attractive it does make them far but more likely to survive food shortages. More and more children for no reason seem to be being born larger than normal. It has not been explained. Genetics has been offered as the most common answer and I would offer this as proof that this is in fact too be expected if our species is evolving in anticipation of an impending world condition. Also science has advanced at an alarming rate and alternate fuel sources are being discovered as well as means of providing nourishment. It may not be pretty to think of eating insects but our planet has more insects than anything and they too are growing at an alarming rate...why perhaps this will be one of our main food supplies in the future... protein is at an incredible concentration in insects and roots provide both fiber and many essential vitamins. Still I know starvation will increase in 3rd world nations which is an unfortunate reality. We as one of the richest nations of the world should do more to help address this problem. But I am an optimist...we will adapt.
I think time travel is a far more interesting q…what do you think? *smile* | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 11:46:18 AM | | The "Over population" issue is about ethnic cleansing and the ability to weaken societies into mallable conditions for elites to control us. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 12:16:17 PM | | Time travel is, indeed, interesting to think about (smile). Erlich--with Population Bomb--did this, in a sense. What he did, I would say, was intellectually travel to the future. He made predictions and 'returned' to the present to deliver a message. Some argue that Erlich was being a chicken little and because his predictions have not happened the argument was incorrect. I think he was too dramatic. I also think his predictions are somewhat of an example (thus far) of a self-defeating prophesy—meaning that BECAUSE of the warning, behavior and actions were adjusted (thus preventing the prediction from coming true.) | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 1:29:49 PM | Maybe. Or, he assumes to much.
"Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives."
Margaret Sanger.
The term "Over population" is just another form of Crypto Eugenics. If Maragaret Sanger had her way most of this on this forum would probably have been aborted due to defectiveness. Most of the sources of these people spouting over population as a problem are directly connected to these eugenicists. I will not take these people with a 'grain of salt', I will simply punch them in the face. They are telling me that the most beautiful woman I have ever seen would not be allowed birth because of policy. That is a future I dare not see. How's that for chicken little?  | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 1:44:05 PM | Read up on a geographer named Malthus. He wrote a famous book, I believe in 1780, predicting that as the world population spiked it would inevitably be cut back down by war, disease, famine and one other factor I forget. His point was that the population, like everything in nature, would adjust itself. He forgot to factor in scientific progress, which is understandable in that day and age, so the world population has been increasing despite all of those things happening. Still, the Malthusian theory is still popular and might make for interesting background reading.
And my point is that this has been debated for over two hundred years and every time we've found a way around it. The question is, can we keep doing so? | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 1:47:49 PM |
" ... I will simply punch them in the face. "
uhhmmm. ~  ~
Dan,
...as you continuously attempt to malign Margaret Sanger and ALL methods of Birth Control,
perhaps you might keep in mind that statements that Margaret Sanger *may have* made,
were in a climate of Eugenics by STERALIZATION.
Now certainly even you,
might see temporary birth control, controlled by the Individual, .. as a lessor of 2 *evils* ?
And perhaps the strategy to lobby the legislators of the time, with that pitch ?
Personally i see Birth Control as far more humane, than small children who can't be fed,
dying slowly of starvation. Is that what you'd prefer ? | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 2:02:17 PM | Dan, I think your position is far too reactionary.
You need to seriously think about this population growth (DOUBLING) issue. Suppose two people are in a room. They double. Those four double. Those eight double. At some point that room is half full. As more people are after fewer available resources [and the time for replenishment and natural renewal--soil fertility, for example--isn't there, fallow times are shortened, more marginal lands put into cultivation, etc.] the chances for violent conflict over basic needs increases. As people are more densely populated, the chance for epidemic can rise. As there are more people to feed on marginal land, the chance for famine can increase. Corporations certainly have a part in that. For example, where agricultural corporations hold productive lands (that could grow food) and produce cash crops (often for export), small farmers are often pushed onto marginal lands. Those lands might protect the watershed forests that provide year-round water or are homes to the insects that pollinate crops, or people grow on soils that are quickly depleted of nutrients, and so on. There is much more to those issues, but that is an example.
Do you think that war, disease and famine are better than birth control options? That does not make sense to me. Family planning includes having children later and spacing time between children, as well. That slows the rate of increase. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 2:22:26 PM | Wrong and double wrong.
However lola I agree that the individual should have their own choice, and if they can either educate themselves and develop means of birth control to make their own autonomy, all the power to them. I of course practice this myself.
These people have been doing this for generations. Nothing has changed and will not change they are just more covert. They claim to come in help/peace and as friends. They are doing neither.
As far as starvation goes, they are creating a false delema, there is more than enough resources on this planet to feed everyone everyday. In fact in many of those countries food simply rots because of disputes over pennies.
Dharma, I'm not a retard, I know what half life is, most people do by the time they are in grade six.
I personally don't think I am being reactionary enough. The populace is being swindled by a method of propaganda that is aiming to destroy us. You , me, Lola, and everyone else on this forum is of peasant class, in the elites perfect world none of us exist. They have been more than open about their plans to reduce population to under a billion. These same family members who are born of ruling class and aim to keep it that way.
Do you think that war, disease and famine are better than birth control options? That does not make sense to me. Family planning includes having children later and spacing time between children, as well. That slows the rate of increase.
Obviously I am stating that it *is* a tactic of war in the psychopolitical sense. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 2:48:25 PM | Here are a few articles that elaborate on some points above.
War Against Nature and People of the South by Vandana Shiva
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Globalization/War_Against_Nature_VFTS.html
from Water Wars by Vandana Shiva
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Vandana_Shiva/Water_Wars_VShiva.html
Monocultures of the Mind by Vandana Shiva
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Vandana_Shiva/Monocultures_Mind.html
More by Shiva at:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Vandana_Shiva/Vandana_Shiva_page.html
Is Humanity Suicidal? by E.O. Wilson
http://www.dhushara.com/book/diversit/extra/suicide.htm
About Shiva: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Heroes/Vandana_Shiva.html
About Wilson: http://www-museum.unl.edu/research/entomology/workers/EWilson.htm | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 3:11:16 PM | I read the first article Dharma.
This is essentially my belief. That those that are preaching overpopulation are the same monopolists that are turning these farmers into theives through legalese.
Why would I support their views? | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 5:53:53 PM | | About 4/5 down the Monoculture article, Shiva talks about 'ecofeminism' too. One of my points is that I believe population is an issue we need to think about as humanity, but distribution and consumption (and markets and ther issues in those articles) are also VERY important. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 6:13:04 PM | | That's because echofem is really just a remake of 'communism'. I've studied feminism enough to know what the major points are and they are almost always the same. If I were you I wouldn't waste my time and just start reading marxism etc....rather than second hand referbishments. The outcome is the same is all I'm saying. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 6:16:03 PM | I think that 'communism' is a loaded term and has really has no meaning for me. While some ecofeminist ideas might be influenced by ideas of Marx, I don't think those are the same at all. That was around before Marx, anyway. This is why I prefer to hear descriptions than labels. "Democracy" means something MUCH different to me than it does to many. If we clearly defined that word, we could say if something is or is not that. Overpopulation is another word that needs to be talked about (what do we mean by this) so this is a great thread.
Is the planet currently overpopulated if we all want to drive hummers? Yes, by far. Even if expecting less than that. Is the planet currently overpopulated if we all want to live off the land with no consumer products (no shampoo, no books, etc)? No. Are we willing to go to either of those extremes? I am not. I'd like some balance now. I am not removing myself from implication in this, either. I drive a car, use a computer, etc. I try very hard to consider the implications of everything I consume. Although I use electricity, I have all energy efficient bulbs, I do at least half of my 'shopping' at goodwill, I am vegetarian (20 vegetarians can be fed off of the same land as one meat eater). I would do the same if I were a billionare, but most don't. Afluence, per se, is not the source of the problem. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 6:59:46 PM | | You seem like a decent gal Dharma. I have to ask, why the "gender" connotation in your belief system? | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 7:03:00 PM | | Because belief systems worldwide are too skewed right now. Not for male, but a patriarchial and destructive mindset. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 7:38:00 PM | Okay.
So you equate the "patriarchy" as a destructive mindset and you believe that "feminism" is better. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 7:41:55 PM | | The population is soaring out of control because the impovrished countries are having way too many kids that they cannot afford. What a sad situation, and cruel to those children who suffer. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 7:45:45 PM | | Maybe 'feminism' is also a loaded term. Ecohumanism might be another way to see that. Or ecolifeism. These are words (and some words carry lots of connotations)... it is the concepts and implications of concepts that I am interested in the most. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 7:52:08 PM | Hogwash.
Go to Africa and ask some of the locals. Many of those people want the so called "starvers" we see on TV to die. They can't understand why we send them money or aid of any kind.
People are starving because the likes of the IMF are sucking the wealth of the land from those people.
The issue isn't over population, the issue is poor and greedy management of resources. You can wipe society down to near nil but if these greedy scumbags are still in power you're still going to have the same problem. Figure it out.
When that Feminazi took over UNICEF a few years ago before she was ousted she took 90% of the money recieved and spent it on abortions. I guess the best way to feed, clothe and educate kids is to kill them before they're born. I guess because I'm a man I can't understand such feminist brilliance. Things like the Patriarchy would probably do something like care for their families. How stupid. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 7:56:48 PM | Dharma , you can call it apple pie for all I care. It's your belief system and you have every right to follow it.
Is 'feminism' a loaded term? I think so, but I do believe your heart is in the right place. Ecohumanity seems more inclusive, and if you think women are getting a raw deal you should maintain your stance regardless of what I think. Besides Ecofem is easier to say than Ecohumanitarian. Or is it? Hmmm Ecofeminist,,,,Ecohumanitarian? Hmmm I guess both could work. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/16/2005 8:32:26 PM | read my posts on the threads 'abortion and hell' and 'devil and god.' (though, on that devil and god one, you'd have to read all posts... but you might learn something you never expected...)
I don't care about the label ideas have. Like I pointed out before, there is a kind of mindset that permits oppression to be viewed as acceptable. That kind of mindset is articulated in many forms of ecofeminism, but also in many other ways (that was just my first example, here). | |
|
Home
login 
