Arguing overpopulation?

[ValPal]

Economics talks about how scarce resources are allocated among unlimited wants. The resource issue is addressed head on, without having to dehumanize people.

I should also add that this assumes rational markets. When the resources necessary for survival are what is scare, the markets do not act rationally. Resources then exchange hands by force.

 

[BobCatholic]

I should also add that this assumes rational markets. When the resources necessary for survival are what is scare, the markets do not act rationally. Resources then exchange hands by force.

Resources necessary for survival are always scarce. But 99% of the world lives in peace.

 

[BobCatholic]

I’m not interested in “schools of thought” and the quantization of issues which cause the failure to see the big picture.

I am seeing the big picture. I just refuse to dehumanize people by holding to the overpopulationist position.

In your opinion. That’s an extremist position which I give no credence to.

So you reject overpopulationism?

The resource issue is always addressed.

Nope. For overpopulationists, they never address the resource issue, they blame “too many people” and seek to reduce the population by whatever means. Then what happens is that fewer resources are available because there are fewer people making them, and things get worse, so more population reductions take place. This causes a vicious downward spiral until people get the clue and reject overpopulationism. Hopefully before WW3 takes place.

Population levels are directly related to resources; that’s point can’t even be argued

When economic situations are positive, then so is population growth. And vice versa.

 

[ValPal]

I am seeing the big picture. I just refuse to dehumanize people by holding to the overpopulationist position.

You idea of “overpopulationists” is an extremely fringe radical view that I’ve never heard of. Given that I’ve been a vegan and dealt with all sorts of people that are way left of leftists and have not heard of your version of “overpopulation,” I’d suspect is simply a straw man to beat on.

So you reject overpopulationism?

I reject your version of extreme overpopulation, which essentially doesn’t exist except for some loons. I also reject the extreme right position that thinks that resources will just pop up out of thin air because they want them too.

Seriously, where do people come up with the stuff?

 

[BobCatholic]

You idea of “overpopulationists” is an extremely fringe radical view that I’ve never heard of. Given that I’ve been a vegan and dealt with all sorts of people that are way left of leftists and have not heard of your version of “overpopulation,” I’d suspect is simply a straw man to beat on.

It is not a straw man. These overpopulationists will dehumanize others, calling for forced abortions, forced sterilizations, imposed famines (google “Holodymyr” and Mao’s 20 million dead by starvation) - this is not extreme stuff, this is run-of-the-mill overpopulationism. This has happened so often, it is not “fringe” but very common.

Oh and watch when the “death panels” start operating making sure that the “surplus population” and “worthless eaters” have their health care denied. And yes, those are the terms overpopulationists use to describe the people they have dehumanized. In addition to “pulsating mass of maggots” (another favorite term used by overpopulationists)

Oh, and should I continue? History is replete with examples of people dehumanized.

I said it before and I’ll say it again: No overpopulationist will ever say they are part of the surplus. They really don’t believe the lies they are trying to sell us.

Overpopulation is a myth anyway. Birth rates are declining and the population has hit its maximum point (or will soon) - then it is downhill from here. Fertility rates are WAY BELOW replacement rates. This means population going down over the next 100 years.

The movie “Children of Men” is more likely to happen than “overpopulation”

I reject your version of extreme overpopulation, which essentially doesn’t exist except for some loons. I also reject the extreme right position that thinks that resources will just pop up out of thin air because they want them too.

I don’t believe that resources will “pop out of thin air” but I definitely believe that making sure people don’t breathe air (because they’re dead) is not the answer. Dehumanizing others is not the answer.

 

[TimeEntrance]

This tends to be the icing on the cake of when I fail at arguing my cases on abortion.

I can never disprove it, because space is not an issue when it comes to overpopulation. And, this tends to be the only argument I can usually come across. Even so much as a few apologists on Catholic Answers simply using the “Texas can hold us all” argument.

How do you disprove overpopulation when it comes to resources? The more people born, the more resources we need, which are dwindling.

Is the only logical answer, “Whether resources are dwindling or not, you have absolutely no right to kill.”?

I accept the argument about carrying capacity. But I really don’t think the earth is nearing its carrying capacity. Some nations may be nearer to their own carrying capacity than others.

Exponential population growth since the Industrial Revolution has adversely impacted the earth’s environment too.

From my perspective the United States as deforested as it is still brings in huge numbers of immigrants, which suggests to me the carrying capacity of the United States is not nearing its limit. Overpopulation general envisions a scenario of poverty that most humans lived in centuries ago when Europe was much more forested and technological innovations did not provide the comforts of life we have today.

Amerindians in the Amazon live in rich, bio-productive environments yet they live in the type of poverty (tribal living, primitive living) the champions of overpopulation fear.

But one thing I notice is that those that complain the earth is overpopulated never applaud or speak well of men choosing the entire the priesthood and live celibate lives. Or try to live celibate lives and not produce offspring. They do, however, applaud homosexuality as helping to reduce overpopulation.

 

[TimeEntrance]

All of this passes over the point that someone is suggesting “If there are too many people, we should kill some.”

And I bet these same people would object to the fact that DEER are treated this way.

Eh… good point. I never thought about that.

 

[ValPal]

It is not a straw man.

I understand where you are coming from. You’re just tossing people with certain beliefs in a group and calling them “overpopulationists.” They’re not really a group, just certain fringe people with fringe beliefs, like the “world population can fit in Texas crowd.”

Mao’s 20 million dead by starvation) - this is not extreme stuff, this is run-of-the-mill overpopulationism.

I’m rather familiar with Chinese history for many reasons. My children are Chinese, I’ve been to China several times, study a Chinese martial art with lineage, and am an avid reader of Chinese history. You are so far off base with this I’m wondering if you just pulled this out of the air. The starvation was simply a failed social program; it couldn’t work because the people of China were expected to implement a program that they didn’t have the skills to do. This isn’t the only failed program; the Cultural Revolution was another disaster. BTW, I got my information regarding this not only from history books, but from speaking to Chinese people in China regarding this issue. They don’t worship Mao, BTW, the respect him for uniting China but acknowledge his failures.

It should be noted that your “overpopulationist” concept of Mao is contrary to fact. Mao encouraged Chinese women to have as many children as possible, and woman that had more than 10 children were rewarded and held in high esteem. The limiting of the number of children came much later.

Oh and watch when the “death panels” start operating making sure that the “surplus population” and “worthless eaters” have their health care denied.

This has to do with the distribution of resources. This is another subject altogether. People blame “death panels,” yet contribute to the very problem by eating unhealthy, not exercising, etc. which is the root cause of over 90% of the chronic diseases we. see today

I said it before and I’ll say it again: No overpopulationist will ever say they are part of the surplus. They really don’t believe the lies they are trying to sell us.

When you make up an arbitrary group of people, I guess you can make up any characteristics about them.

Overpopulation is a myth anyway.

Tell that to isolated populations that have had zero growth rate for 1,000s of years. Nature limits itself.

I don’t believe that resources will “pop out of thin air” but I definitely believe that making sure people don’t breathe air (because they’re dead) is not the answer. Dehumanizing others is not the answer.

Ignoring that fact that cheap stored energy sources are not infinite isn’t the answer either. Do that, and you’ll ending up causing the very problem that you are arguing against.

 

[RobbyS]

I’m very aware of this. This is the what people argue should be done. Of course, when people have to actually do that, they’ll fight it like cats and dogs. People don’t want to give up their comforts.

1. 
   *]Furthermore, except by decimation and slavery, they cannot be compelled to do this. The elite of Mexico refuse to share except with members of their family and their social peers
   
   .
   
   The Church would disagree on this point. Birth control (via NFP) is permitted for just reasons. Genocide is never permitted.
   
   Practically speaking in our society, birth control means contraception and abortion.
   
   I’m aware of this. One of the more recent examples I’ve read about was the Chinese Long March. The stress was so severe that some woman never had their period again. It might just happen too. There are major economic shocks when a resource goes from slight oversupply to slight undersupply.

1. 
   I understand that the population of Iran is dropping, even though women are far from being “modern” in their general views.

 

[ValPal]

I understand that the population of Iran is dropping, even though women are far from being “modern” in their general views.

Practically speaking in our society, birth control means contraception and abortion.

Maybe in our society, but believe it or not we’re not the only people that live on this earth.

Furthermore, there is a big difference between contraception and abortion. Thee are many people that use contraception but do not believe in abortion. Stats also bear this our out in western society, and its obviously more dramatic in the Muslim world.

 

[BobCatholic]

I understand where you are coming from. You’re just tossing people with certain beliefs in a group and calling them “overpopulationists.” They’re not really a group, just certain fringe people with fringe beliefs, like the “world population can fit in Texas crowd.”

No, overpopulationists are those who think that there are too many people in the world and that causes problems.

They dehumanize people. Simple as that.

The starvation was simply a failed social program; it couldn’t work because the people of China were expected to implement a program that they didn’t have the skills to do.

I see, blame the victims. Wasn’t Mao’s fault.

Tell that to isolated populations that have had zero growth rate for 1,000s of years. Nature limits itself.

That’s exactly my point. The world’s population will hit a limit then start declining. We will never have “overpopulatin”

Ignoring that fact that cheap stored energy sources are not infinite isn’t the answer either.

I don’t buy into peak oil. It is a fringe belief. I thought you didn’t believe in fringe beliefs.

We do have hit peak refining capacity, we have not built any new refineries in 30 years. And we will never build another refinery. No matter how high gas prices get.

 

[ValPal]

No, overpopulationists are those who think that there are too many people in the world and that causes problems.

They dehumanize people. Simple as that.

I’ll finish my book on Irish Faeries, then the next fiction book I’ll read is about these overpopulationists.

I see, blame the victims. Wasn’t Mao’s fault.

Nobody said it wasn’t Mao’s fault, and in fact, as noted earlier, the Chinese people recognize Mao’s failure. However, to say Mao implemented these policies because he was an “overpopulationist” is either egregious ignorance on the subject or a blatant lie.

I don’t buy into peak oil. It is a fringe belief. I thought you didn’t believe in fringe beliefs.

I don’t. Peak Oil is a fact, and it’s predictions are plugging right along. People are predicting and are all ecstatic about the U.S. becoming the largest oil producer in the next few years. What they don’t discuss is the EROEI of this oil obtained from, say, fracking. It’s not the amount of energy source, but the EROEI of the energy source that matters. If the EROEI is less than 1.0, it might as well not exist in the first place. The much lowers EROEI of these sources falls right in line with Peak Oil Theory. The timing of it is also consistent with Peak Oil Theory, though obviously it can’t be p(name removed by moderator)ointed.

 

[manualman]

There comes a point when further arguments don’t help. Valpal is there. You can get him in a total, 100% logical headlock and he’ll just say “You’re too western, you can’t understand.”

 

[ValPal]

There comes a point when further arguments don’t help. Valpal is there.

True. My problem is that I understand the science between behind this and have the degree on the wall to prove it. I also have a professional peer that is a mineralogist that was formerly involved in the oil business and now deals with mineral (and other resource) rights. We come from different backgrounds, and have a very different way of approaching the subject, yet we come to the same conclusion.

Most people that dismiss this subject don’t understand it, and just throw around “facts” that are just outright false.

You can get him in a total, 100% logical headlock and he’ll just say “You’re too western, you can’t understand.”

That’s part of the problem. That’s besides that fact that nobody can dispute the facts.

BTW, I can get out of a headlock very quickly…just one of my many self-defense skills.

 

[BobCatholic]

I’ll finish my book on Irish Faeries, then the next fiction book I’ll read is about these overpopulationists.

So basically you’re denying that overpopulationists actually exist?

I thought you were arguing for overpopulationism. You keep saying there are too many people for the resources that exist.

The issue isn’t “too many people” the issue is “not enough resources”

How the issue is defined, is how the solution is determined. If there are too many people, overpopulationists always call for blood.

If there are not enough resources, the solution is to get off our lazy butts and make more resources.

Nobody said it wasn’t Mao’s fault, and in fact, as noted earlier, the Chinese people recognize Mao’s failure. However, to say Mao implemented these policies because he was an “overpopulationist” is either egregious ignorance on the subject or a blatant lie.

My point is Mao dehumanized the people, just like overpopulationists did. You blamed the people because as you said:

"it couldn’t work because the people of China were expected to implement a program that they didn’t have the skills to do. "

So you blame the Chinese people’s lack of skills (blaming victim), and not Mao (the victimizer)

Peak Oil is a fact,

The only reason gas prices are up are because we haven’t built a new refinery in over 30 years. We are at peak gasoline capacity, not peak oil. Gas prices will rise like a nutjob over the years and certain people will scream “peak oil!” when it is really “peak refinery”

 

[ValPal]

So basically you’re denying that overpopulationists actually exist?

You’re particular definition of “overpopulationist?” Yes. It’s an extreme definition that others don’t use.

If there are not enough resources, the solution is to get off our lazy butts and make more resources.

We’re not God. The finite fossil resources we have were made in nature over millions of years.

My point is Mao dehumanized the people, just like overpopulationists did.

Is a leader that encouraged women to have as many children as possible, and held those with greater than 10 children, an overpopulationist? Even the Catholic Church doesn’t go that far…

When you make a mistake, it’s best to simply admit it and move on.

The only reason gas prices are up are because we haven’t built a new refinery in over 30 years. We are at peak gasoline capacity, not peak oil. Gas prices will rise like a nutjob over the years and certain people will scream “peak oil!” when it is really “peak refinery”

EROEI is going down, and as a result prices are heading up relative to the rest of the economy, no matter what you do.

Building refineries will simply result in short term price drops. However, realize that companies are looking at the situation long term. If these companies predict that the supply of oil is going to go down over the next 10 years, and it takes several years to get approval for a refinery, they’re not going to invest in a project that requires a 25-year operation to get a return on investment. The oil companies know what the oil supply situation is a whole lot better than you and me. If you’ve been paying attention, some of these companies have already been attempting to find other sources of income because they are aware that they are going to have to divest out of oil.

 

[ValPal]

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about, from Chevron’s CTO. Remember that someone like him is hired to make money for the company, so he’s not some fringe nut job. Also remember that the alternate sources mentioned in the article have a much lower rate of return than conventional oil.

news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9803819-7.html

So, know you can stop arguing with me and start arguing with your friendly neighborhood CTO.

 

[BobCatholic]

You’re particular definition of “overpopulationist?” Yes. It’s an extreme definition that others don’t use.

So you are saying there are no such thing as people who think there is overpopulation then.

Is a leader that encouraged women to have as many children as possible, and held those with greater than 10 children, an overpopulationist? Even the Catholic Church doesn’t go that far…

I didn’t call him an overpopulationist, I compared him to overpopulationists because both of them have the same idea: Kill people. 20 million people dead is OK as long as he pushed for more babies? I disagree with you on that.

You misinterpreted what I wrote. And I think on purpose.

Building refineries will simply result in short term price drops. However, realize that companies are looking at the situation long term. If these companies predict that the supply of oil is going to go down over the next 10 years, and it takes several years to get approval for a refinery, they’re not going to invest in a project that requires a 25-year operation to get a return on investment. The oil companies know what the oil supply situation is a whole lot better than you and me. If you’ve been paying attention, some of these companies have already been attempting to find other sources of income because they are aware that they are going to have to divest out of oil.

They’re looking for alternate sources of fuel because at these high prices they have become more economical. When oil is $20 a barrel, they won’t even consider them.

Here’s an example of what I’m talking about, from Chevron’s CTO. Remember that someone like him is hired to make money for the company, so he’s not some fringe nut job. Also remember that the alternate sources mentioned in the article have a much lower rate of return than conventional oil.

news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9803819-7.html

You’re citing a guy who works in IT, who retired a year after writing that article? I think I’ll ask the COO instead. And I don’t see the COO or the CEO saying anything about Peak Oil. I know, must be a conspiracy.

 

[Brendan]

You’re particular definition of “overpopulationist?” Yes. It’s an extreme definition that others don’t use.

Here is the definition that I saw Bob use

overpopulationists are those who think that there are too many people in the world and that causes problems.

How do you find that to be an ‘extreme’ defintion.

It seems pretty basic to me.

 

[ValPal]

I didn’t call him an overpopulationist, I compared him to overpopulationists because both of them have the same idea: Kill people. 20 million people dead is OK as long as he pushed for more babies?

That was not his goal. He killed some political enemies. The 20,000,000 number has to do with failed social programs, where he did not intend to kill people, any more than Henry Ford intended to kill people by inventing the automobile and causing auto accidents. Don’t mix the the two up.

I disagree with you on that. You misinterpreted what I wrote. And I think on purpose.

You’re misrepresenting the facts (probably unintentionally, since you clearly do not understand the history regarding this matter).

They’re looking for alternate sources of fuel because at these high prices they have become more economical. When oil is $20 a barrel, they won’t even consider them.

Assuming they will either find the cheap energy resources to do so or demand plummets. They’ll need that cheap oil too, given how much energy is burned off processing these new sources.

You’re citing a guy who works in IT, who retired a year after writing that article?

Got it…so he’s a dummy.

Do you have anything to offer besides off the cuff comments?