How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Place your trust in God to alleviate any doubts.

To those who make “overpopulation” arguments (pro-abortionists love that “argument”):

Deceived into believing that to save the Earth from it’s imagined problems that abortions are the solution? How many abortions will solve the imagined problems? No one says. Since Roe vs. Wade, in the USA 40 million deaths by abortion. Nothing has been solved by abortion. The proponents of Abortion would argue that abortions prevent social stigmas, empower the woman, prevent deaths from illegal abortions. In theory, abortions should be self-eradicating as the weeding out of undesired babies result in solved societal problems, increased pay, boundless opportunities increased social standing, FREEDOM.

Hasn’t happened.

In 1965 there were an estimated 500 female deaths from illegal and immoral abortions. Now, USA performs about 1.2 million abortions per year. Freedom indeed. The world’s people have been sold a “bill of goods” and Satan always requires payment. Welcome to enslavement.

And people today wonder why things are so wrong.

 

[kimmielittle]

Place your trust in God to alleviate any doubts.

To those who make “overpopulation” arguments (pro-abortionists love that “argument”):

Deceived into believing that to save the Earth from it’s imagined problems that abortions are the solution? How many abortions will solve the imagined problems? No one says. Since Roe vs. Wade, in the USA 40 million deaths by abortion. Nothing has been solved by abortion. The proponents of Abortion would argue that abortions prevent social stigmas, empower the woman, prevent deaths from illegal abortions. In theory, abortions should be self-eradicating as the weeding out of undesired babies result in solved societal problems, increased pay, boundless opportunities increased social standing, FREEDOM.

Hasn’t happened.

In 1965 there were an estimated 500 female deaths from illegal and immoral abortions. Now, USA performs about 1.2 million abortions per year. Freedom indeed. The world’s people have been sold a “bill of goods” and Satan always requires payment. Welcome to enslavement.

And people today wonder why things are so wrong.

:clapping::clapping:

 

[Warrior1979]

Absolutely! ** IF **, that last part of your statement, were the proven / case. It is not and so becomes nothing but speculation.

You haven’t provided any evidence that limited, nonrenewable, and nonreplaceable resources can support continued growth.

In short, if you can’t convince me - how do you intend to convince grownups?

I’m not interested in convincing anyone. You can listen to what I have to say or completely ignore me…I simply don’t care. You’re going to believe what you want to believe, but I can assure you that your analysis is severely lacking in fundamentals.

Most of my arguments are simply common sense, with fundamental scientific principles to back it up.

 

[kimmielittle]

You haven’t provided any evidence that limited, nonrenewable, and nonreplaceable resources can support continued growth.

Sorry, It’s not my burden to offer evidence - you are making this claim

I’m not interested in convincing anyone. You can listen to what I have to say or completely ignore me…I simply don’t care. You’re going to believe what you want to believe, but I can assure you that your analysis is severely lacking in fundamentals.

Most of my arguments are simply common sense, with fundamental scientific principles to back it up.

You’ve been asked to produce your “back it up” sources.

Surely as a “scientist”, you understand that your conviction / speculations without qualifying support…

 

[Warrior1979]

Sorry, It’s not my burden to offer evidence - you are making this claim

It’s simply common sense. If you don’t understand that a limited resource is limited, and that a system based on that resource cannot continue to expand indefinitely, there is simply no way that I will convince you of anything.

Surely as a “scientist”, you understand that your conviction / speculations without qualifying support…

I do…you are not interested in hearing it. And, for a time, you have the luxury of ignoring the inevitable.

 

[Warrior1979]

Place your trust in God to alleviate any doubts.

To those who make “overpopulation” arguments (pro-abortionists love that “argument”):

Some people like to spew this dishonest argument out to support their cause. The unfortunate effect is that it makes the one throwing out this argument look like a radical, and results in discrediting their cause.

Fact is, it has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to with living within the limits of what God has provided us on this planet. Focusing on abortion will simply make one entirely miss the reality of the situation.

 

[kimmielittle]

It’s simply common sense. If you don’t understand that a limited resource is limited, and that a system based on that resource cannot continue to expand indefinitely, there is simply no way that I will convince you of anything.

I might understand it - IF you produce sources supporting it.

Can “energy” from oil / coal / nuclear be replaced?
Is “energy” resources at a stalemate?

Please provide references to support your statements.

.

I do…you are not interested in hearing it. And, for a time, you have the luxury of ignoring the inevitable.

Again your “inevitable” is being called to question - please support it with more than your speculations.

I honestly, don’t understand your reluctance in supporting your statements. Clearly, you are convicted in your beliefs. Can you support them?

 

[RobbyS]

Place your trust in God to alleviate any doubts.

To those who make “overpopulation” arguments (pro-abortionists love that “argument”):

Deceived into believing that to save the Earth from it’s imagined problems that abortions are the solution? How many abortions will solve the imagined problems? No one says. Since Roe vs. Wade, in the USA 40 million deaths by abortion. Nothing has been solved by abortion. The proponents of Abortion would argue that abortions prevent social stigmas, empower the woman, prevent deaths from illegal abortions. In theory, abortions should be self-eradicating as the weeding out of undesired babies result in solved societal problems, increased pay, boundless opportunities increased social standing, FREEDOM.

Hasn’t happened.

In 1965 there were an estimated 500 female deaths from illegal and immoral abortions. Now, USA performs about 1.2 million abortions per year. Freedom indeed. The world’s people have been sold a “bill of goods” and Satan always requires payment. Welcome to enslavement.

And people today wonder why things are so wrong.

The problem is zero-sum thinking.If someone could have thoughly measured the socio-economic assets of the world in 1500, and assumed development to continue at the same rate as for the previous ten thousand years, and then developed a computer program that predicted future growth, then his predictions would have correct until about 1700. It just so happened, however, that in 1500 history took a different turn. Europe exploded out of its bounds and the result was the scientific revolution and the industrial revolutions. The world population boom followed this vast expansion of human knowledge and technology.

The problem is, basically, the
terrible pessimism that has griped Europe since 1945, after 30 years of slow growth and terrible war. After the period of rebuilding, which was led by a still Christian survivors of the war, the West has slunk into a kind of hedonistic despair, with new generations who have lost faith in their national cultures. Since our own elites tend to ape European elites , the same attitudes have afflicted our colleges and universities, except those involved in the hard sciences. Generally, those in the humanities have internalized the socialist critique and accepted as dogma the speculations of Marx and others ,of his ilk. But it also reaches into the commercial classes. They accept the notion of economic man. They accept the pessimism of Malthus and the amorality of Ricardo. To them man is but a produce and a consumer, and they think they need to calculate just how many workers and how many customers are needed to sustain wealth over the short term of their careers. Which is why the Church is skeptical of both capitalism and socialism. My problem with many Churchmen, however, is that they trust the state too much. Which is why, paradoxically, they support the Democratic Party even though it has become the party of radical secularism and liberal Christianity.

 

[Warrior1979]

I might understand it - IF you produce sources supporting it.

Can “energy” from oil / coal / nuclear be replaced?
Is “energy” resources at a stalemate?

Only with other stored energy sources.

The rules for any energy source do not change, including those for fossil fuels. Their creation required huge amounts of energy (name removed by moderator)ut (heat, pressure, etc.), at a net energy loss. It’s just that we never see the net energy loss, because man didn’t have anything to do creation of those sources.

Once we start creating our own sources, we end up uses up the resources even faster because we can’t ignore the energy use to create the source. We end up with less energy than what we started with (basic thermodynamic principle never shown false).

Please provide references to support your statements.

What I’m stating is just simple, accepted scientific principles that any with any college-level science would know about. You can read about some of these ideas from the people that discovered the principles, such as Boltzmann or Maxwell. Or just google “entropy” or “thermodynamic principles.”

please support it with more than your speculations.

I honestly, don’t understand your reluctance in supporting your statements. Clearly, you are convicted in your beliefs. Can you support them?

Second law of thermodynamics
Second law of thermodynamics
Second law of thermodynamics
etc.

Please explain to me why this principle does not apply?

You keep asking for evidence, I keep noting it, and you keep ignoring it. It’s one of the reasons these discussions are, for the most part, pointless…people spend more energy ignoring facts than examining them.

If you can prove that this principle does not apply, do the research and write the paper. You will absolutely win the Nobel Price, since you will have made one of the most important discovery is science in the history of man.

(Note: there is a theory that entropy could decrease in a contracting universe. It’s doubtful man will ever get to observe that, given that our sun will be burned out long before that occurs…if it occurs. It’s also doubtful we could survive anyway, because our bodies are not designed for that type of universe).

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Fact is, it has nothing to do with abortion, and everything to with living within the limits of what God has provided us on this planet. .

I think you may have something here. See I look that it this way, I do not see a limit to what God have provided. I would say it have more to do with those that need to stop being greedy and start the proper managemnet of our resouces.

 

[wynnejj]

Let’s put some perspective on this.

The CIA World Factbook gives the following world statistics:
population: 6,928,198,253 (July 2011 est.)
land area: 148.94 million sq km
arable land: 10.57%
permanent crops: 1.04%

If you do the math, you will find that the theoretical maximum of 100% land use for crops divided equally among all people would allow for 5.3 acres per person today.

If we accept that only 11.61% (= 10.57 + 1.04) is deemed usable for growing crops, then that would work out to a little over 3/5ths an acre per person today.

Can you imagine being allowed to farm only 3/5th an acre for your yearly food supply?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Let’s put some perspective on this.

The CIA World Factbook gives the following world statistics:
population: 6,928,198,253 (July 2011 est.)
land area: 148.94 million sq km
arable land: 10.57%
permanent crops: 1.04%

If you do the math, you will find that the theoretical maximum of 100% land use for crops divided equally among all people would allow for 5.3 acres per person today.

If we accept that only 11.61% (= 10.57 + 1.04) is deemed usable for growing crops, then that would work out to a little over 3/5ths an acre per person today.

Can you imagine being allowed to farm only 3/5th an acre for your yearly food supply?

Are you sure? Did you double check your numbers? Do you give credit for tropical places where you can get three or four crops a year? Did you fail to include living in a houseboat or in a house on stilts out over the ocean where you can just toss a fishing line over the side or through the floorboards?

 

[wynnejj]

Are you sure? Did you double check your numbers? Do you give credit for tropical places where you can get three or four crops a year? Did you fail to include living in a houseboat or in a house on stilts out over the ocean where you can just toss a fishing line over the side or through the floorboards?

Are these serious questions? The math is correct. Feel free to double-check me.
As to the rest, well …

 

[wynnejj]

Let’s put some perspective on this.

The CIA World Factbook gives the following world statistics:
population: 6,928,198,253 (July 2011 est.)
land area: 148.94 million sq km
arable land: 10.57%
permanent crops: 1.04%

If you do the math, you will find that the theoretical maximum of 100% land use for crops divided equally among all people would allow for 5.3 acres per person today.

If we accept that only 11.61% (= 10.57 + 1.04) is deemed usable for growing crops, then that would work out to a little over 3/5ths an acre per person today.

Can you imagine being allowed to farm only 3/5th an acre for your yearly food supply?

Here’s the math

148,940,000 sq km
x 100 hectares / sq km
x 2.471 acres / hectare​

= 36,803,074,000 acres
/ 6,928,198,253 persons​

= 5.312069986 acres / person
x .1161 arable acres percentage​

= 0.616731325 arable acres / person

 

[Warrior1979]

Can you imagine being allowed to farm only 3/5th an acre for your yearly food supply?

It can be done by forcing (name removed by moderator)uts into the system…but only for a time if those (name removed by moderator)uts are finite. And that is where we are now.

 

[wynnejj]

It can be done by forcing (name removed by moderator)uts into the system…but only for a time if those (name removed by moderator)uts are finite. And that is where we are now.

I’m not sure what you are referring to? Are you talking about fertilizers? Chemicals?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The only people starving right now is where there is a perfect command economy: North Korea.

The only places that are hurting … and then only by artificially driving up the price of food … is where subsidies are being given to REMOVE food from the food stream and using it to make fuel … corn to ethanol … basically a version of the command economy to forcibly reduce the food supply. Even so, plenty of corn is being produced.

A lot of marginal land can be used to raise various types of livestock.

So you really want to take a close look at those numbers.

Otherwise we would already be starving all over the planet and that just is not happening.

There are problems, as I said, in North Korea … and in parts of Africa, but only where there are command economies. Zaire and Zimbawbe and other countries that now have command economies USED to produce food surpluses before they adopted the command economy structure.

 

[wynnejj]

So you really want to take a close look at those numbers.

cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html
Where it says “Select a Country”, select “World” from the pull-down menu.
Click on the plus sign to the far right of Geography for the source of land area values.
Click on the plus sign to the far right of People for the source of the population values.
Then do the math. The math is correct and the numbers come from the CIA World Factbook. What more can I tell you?

 

[Warrior1979]

I’m not sure what you are referring to? Are you talking about fertilizers? Chemicals?

That’s part of it. Fertilizers and other chemicals (pesticides, etc.), of course, have to be produced, which means the net energy used per land unit increases. The output of the land also increases, but not by the same amount.

Crops can also be grown in artificial environments (greenhouses, etc.), which requires a very intense use of resources, at a net energy loss, of course.

 

[Warrior1979]

The only people starving right now is where there is a perfect command economy: North Korea.

That’s not true, of course. There are plenty of starving an malnourished people around the world.

The fact is, nature takes it course. People can only starve so long, at which point they die; i.e., population reaches a steady state.

The only places that are hurting … and then only by artificially driving up the price of food … is where subsidies are being given to REMOVE food from the food stream and using it to make fuel … corn to ethanol … basically a version of the command economy to forcibly reduce the food supply. Even so, plenty of corn is being produced.

Interestingly enough, ethanol is a case study in energy production. Ethanol is produced at a net energy loss; it requires more fuel (name removed by moderator)ut than one gets out. As a result, both corn and fuel prices rise when it is produced as a noticeable level.