A Deceptively Simple Question

[vz71]

So we go for the economically expensive option, rather than the natural limitation option.

As many of the posters here have already surmised with the proponents of this population issue, they believe human life is cheap.
The above quote shows us this.

 

[vz71]

Every other mammal and almost certainly birds, too.

Well, I will simply repeat my earlier statement…

Since it is you that have now made claim to other sentient creatures on this planet besides man, I believe it is your responsibility to show the evidence and proof of this.
Name these other creatures and please provide proof of their sentience.

 

[vz71]

Food distribution is likely to equalise once every human is content to accept subsistence living - staple grains, the odd fruit, seasonal vegetables and minimal animal protein…Until every single person in the West accepts necessary limitations on our standard of living,…

Note the assumptions in the quote.
Humans MUST accept subsistence living…Necessary limitations…

There has not even been a problem shown to exist, yet the proponents already have a plan on how we must act.

No doubt we must act now before it is too late, and forget taking time to actually fact check the data.

This is just providing more and more evidence to my earlier statement.

There is no problem. There are actions that people want to have done, so a crisis and solution have been made up to suit.
The actions are abortion, euthanasia, and contraception.
The crisis is false.
The solution is fiction.

 

[fix]

Hmmm… so observing the fact that the Earth can not sustain our current population, let alone current population trends, means you think humans are the problem?

It means some value the earth more than human life.

 

[redhen]

You would first have to show that the world is, in fact, overpopulated. And, that there are not sufficient resources (food, water, etc) for the population that exists today. And, that the population is growing at an “unlimited” rate.

If you can show all three of your premises are true, then we will have something to discuss. Of course, none of them are true, so we do not.

“The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth’s limits.”

un.org/popin/icpd/conference/ngo/940909224555.html

A warning from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Signatories include 104 scientific Nobel Laureates, and " a majority of the members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences"

Also for your consideration; well.com/~davidu/extinction.html

 

[Sair]

There is no problem. There are actions that people want to have done, so a crisis and solution have been made up to suit.
The actions are abortion, euthanasia, and contraception.
The crisis is false.
The solution is fiction.

So you come up with your own conspiracy theory?

I don’t recall ever mentioning abortion, euthanasia and contraception as solutions - only redistribution of wealth/resources, education and opportunities provided to women worldwide, and the choice to have fewer children. That choice may result in contraception, of course, but it might also be accomplished through abstinence. As for abortion and euthanasia, they are different issues which you have merely chosen to associate with the problem of overpopulation.

 

[Sair]

Well, I will simply repeat my earlier statement…

Ignorance ain’t bliss, it’s just ignorance.

If you’ve never interacted with other animals, or if you have somehow missed the fact that they experience pain and pleasure, amongst other emotions, here are some links you may find instructive.

ciwf.org.uk/animal_sentience/science/research/scientific_papers/default.aspx

awionline.org/www.awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/05_54_2/542p67.htm

messybeast.com/emoticat.html

 

[tjm190]

No.
It means that the person observing the problem has been very badly misinformed.
However, once the real information is given a person, what they do with it is going to tell. Does this person embrace the human race or do they see humans as the problem?

One need look at the prospective ‘fix’ for this made up issue to see the real agenda behind such a story.

Ah, then you should be able to enlighten me by explaining why the food/water related issues I posted aren’t real.

 

[tjm190]

Our ability to utilize science to efficiently grow food to feed the population is not nearly as finite as people would have us believe.
Further, until 100% of the arable land is actually in use towards this goal, the problem is with distribution…not production.

I already explain that since current production levels rely on finite aquifers and petroleum based fertilizers, production is likely to go down in the futures or have it’s growth severely limited. Do you have a retort? (“Science can do it later!” is not an acceptable answer.)

 

[vz71]

Ah, then you should be able to enlighten me by explaining why the food/water related issues I posted aren’t real.

Sure.

Because at the present time we are not producing to capacity.
There are vast tracts of farmland that simply are not put to use.

Until we are producing at capacity, there is no way anyone can claim there is not enough food to go around.

This perported population problem is not there.
As stated earlier, the problem is with human greed and sin.

 

[vz71]

“The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. Its ability to provide for growing numbers of people is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth’s limits.”

No one has disputed the finite nature of the resources we have.
What is in dispute is the idea that the population is a problem.

At present, there are massive amounts of resources simply being wasted.
Until the waste is gone, no one can claim the population to be an issue.

This is similar to arguments my 9 year old makes.
He claims that the teachers at school did not give him enough time to do a school project, yet at the same time he squandered the time he had.
Likewise here, you cannot claim there are too many people for the planet to support while squandering the resources of that planet.

 

[vz71]

I already explain that since current production levels rely on finite aquifers and petroleum based fertilizers, production is likely to go down in the futures or have it’s growth severely limited.

Yes you did. I already ignored it.
Conjecture is not worth arguing over.
Now if you have some hard data to look at, great. But do not sit back on a claim of ‘likely’ and dish out a helping of abortion as the cure.

(“Science can do it later!” is not an cceptable answer.)

Agreed. So no more claims that medical science will advance and cause problems for the population.

 

[vz71]

Ignorance ain’t bliss, it’s just ignorance.

How true.
So have you come up with that proof of other sentient life on earth yet?
Come on now, you did say it was so, so how about that proof.

If you’ve never interacted with other animals, or if you have somehow missed the fact that they experience pain and pleasure, amongst other emotions, here are some links you may find instructive.

The experience of pain or pleasure is not proof of the sentience that you promised several posts ago.

 

[iamrefreshed]

problem of overpopulation.

What problem?

 

[vz71]

So you come up with your own conspiracy theory?

Nope. I simply recognize the truth that is there.

I don’t recall ever mentioning abortion, euthanasia and contraception as solutions - only redistribution of wealth/resources, education and opportunities provided to women worldwide, and the choice to have fewer children.

OK, are you the only one arguing the cause of overpopulation?
But I would find that very difficult to believe given the web pages and news articles dedicated to the topic as well as the various scientific articles written in the late 70’s and early 80’s about the population bomb.

You may or may not have mentioned them, but they are integral to the side that believes population to be an issue, and if you wish to take up that side and to defend that side, then you are in the very difficult position of defending the entirety of it.

Now if you wish to claim various parts of the overpopulation argument to be wrong, that is great. But you may find yourself taking heat from both sides of the issue.

That choice may result in contraception, of course, but it might also be accomplished through abstinence.

Oh…so where exactly are you going to draw the line? I am finding it difficult to tell.

As for abortion and euthanasia, they are different issues which you have merely chosen to associate with the problem of overpopulation.

Not I.
As stated earlier, they are an integral part of the overpopulation argument.
If you find abortion and euthanasia to be evil, then I would strongly suggest you take a look around you and see the company that this overpopulation argument has placed you in.

 

[vz71]

un.org/popin/icpd/conference/ngo/940909224555.html

And I quote from the article:

1. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.

Now I suppose the argument can be made that this does not refer to contraception and abortion, but in this country this exact phrase has been taken up by the abortion industry for so long that to say otherwise is willfully ignorant.

 

[St_Francis]

…I know there are people on this forum who don’t actually care about anything except humans, but habitat destruction is a problem for other sentient creatures, and therefore ought to be a matter of concern on compassionate grounds, to say nothing of environmental and biodiversity issues.

This is a very interesting fallacy you are using here. The word sentient became popularised in the US through science fiction as meaning having a human-like consciousness and intelligence; it was used to describe extra-terrestrial beings whom we needed to treat as we would human beings.

The animal rights people have picked this word to describe the capacity to feel pain and suffering, and so the meaning then expands to cover terrestrial animals as well.

You are conflating the two in order to include animals among the groups to which in Western tradition we would have to extend a high level of care and concern. Because the word became popular as the West explored the possibility of a repetition of its history vis a vis other beings which were improperly not classified as human/deserving of care and concern in the setting of space exploration, it has become very linked to a period in which we did not show appropriate care and concern.

However, using “sentient” to cover animals as well is a fallacy because it totally ignores the very deep difference between humans and animals. You are claiming a human need for animals, and this is incorrect.

Moreover, unless you are a complete vegan who uses no animal products at all, you too are already ignoring needs you are assuming for animals that we need to consider. So, unless you are vegan, your argument is hypocritical, and if you are vegan, well, it’s incorrect.

 

[tjm190]

Sure.

Because at the present time we are not producing to capacity.
There are vast tracts of farmland that simply are not put to use.

Until we are producing at capacity, there is no way anyone can claim there is not enough food to go around.

This perported population problem is not there.
As stated earlier, the problem is with human greed and sin.

But sustainability is an issue as well isn’t it? If we farmed that land, the freshwater would disappear even faster, as would the petroleum based fertilizers. And a great deal of the fertile land not being farmed is being kept fallow so that we don’t deplete it.

 

[tjm190]

Yes you did. I already ignored it.
Conjecture is not worth arguing over.
Now if you have some hard data to look at, great. But do not sit back on a claim of ‘likely’ and dish out a helping of abortion as the cure.

Fresh water and petroleum are crucial to current food production, right? Do you acknowledge that both of those are being depleted?

Agreed. So no more claims that medical science will advance and cause problems for the population.

So since we can’t claim science will improve the outcome, you need to explain how we’re going to double food production in 70 years. You must take into account the fact that how much you increase production is limited by petroleum and fresh water supplies. Of course, you also need to remember that desertification in Africa and soil depletion in slash-and-burn areas are creating greater problems everyday.

 

[vz71]

But sustainability is an issue as well isn’t it?

Perhaps, but that does not imply a problem with overpopulation.
It implies a problem with resource utilization.

If we farmed that land, the freshwater would disappear even faster, as would the petroleum based fertilizers.

But again, this not a population problem, it is a resource problem.
And one I will be more then happy to argue over once this overpopulation silliness is ended.

And a great deal of the fertile land not being farmed is being kept fallow so that we don’t deplete it.

I would be more liely to believe it is done to maintain the marketability of farm products.