How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phil8888
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is extremely inadvisable to base continuation of the human species on “what if” scenarios. If you’re wrong, people die, and possibly a lot of them.

You’re assuming that God will continually replenish the earth. I seriously doubt it at this stage of our existence. That may occur after the events of the Book of Revelation unfold.
 
real world and entropy.

good one!
Yup…we wouldn’t want a scientific theory never proven to be wrong get in the way of one’s own personal opinions!

One thought I’ve always had is that some people considered prophets (I’m not talking about Catholics in particular) are simply people that see reality for what it is, while everyone else is so engrossed in their own opinions they can’t see it.
 
Yup…we wouldn’t want a scientific theory never proven to be wrong get in the way of one’s own personal opinions!

One thought I’ve always had is that some people considered prophets (I’m not talking about Catholics in particular) are simply people that see reality for what it is, while everyone else is so engrossed in their own opinions they can’t see it.
Never let reality get in the way of a really neat scientific theory.

Theories are neater and cleaner and less messy than reality.

I cite as my authority: Dr. Sheldon Cooper.
 
There is no overpopulation problem.You could fit everybody in the world in the state of Texas with each family being able to land.These people who say we’re overpopulated are people who think everybody should be able to live like kings here on earth.People are starving because not enough people share and becausse of the gov.in those countries don’t care if people starve and the wars which decimate the lands.There is more than enough food right now that noone should go hungry anywhere.It has nothing to do with overpopulation.
 
Never let reality get in the way of a really neat scientific theory.

Theories are neater and cleaner and less messy than reality.

I cite as my authority: Dr. Sheldon Cooper.
Maybe you and Dr. Cooper can put together your evidence and submit it to a scientific journal. Once again, that type of overturning of scientific theory will put you in an annals of history right up there with Newton and Einstein. Of course you’ll also win the Nobel Prize.🙂

The reality of the situation is that it is extremely rare that scientific theories get overturned, unless they are purely theoretical (and thus speculative). They simply get encompassed in a new theory, expanding our understanding. As a simple example, Einstein’s theories didn’t change anything observed in Newton’s theories; his theories simply expanded on Newton’s theories as more complex phenomena were observed. In other words, entropy is not going away any time soon.
 
There is no overpopulation problem.You could fit everybody in the world in the state of Texas with each family being able to land.
So what? You focus on one element that in and of itself is utterly irrelevant. The population must be examined in the context of land needed to support the population. If every can fit inside of Texas, yet the land area necessary to support that population exceeds the size of the earth, then you’ve got a major problem.

Technically, the earth isn’t overpopulated; it is simply at a steady state. However, the current population levels are only sustainable through intensive use of finite resources. Once the resources cannot be extracted at an economically feasible level, the world population will decrease accordingly.
 
Nobody believes that it takes a world to support a pop.of 6 billion living in Texas.Our use of the world resources is because this world of ours wants luxury.there is no end to what man wants.Many people I suppose think everybody should owna plane.When I we going to start living like people and get away from this attitude of using up everything this earth has supplied.Our thirst for luxury is unquenchable.
 
I’m not sure that’s an issue.

Natural populations are self-limiting in size, because as they approcach the limiting capacity, there is increasing pressure against reproduction (less food available, more violence due to crowding, etc.)

For human beings, there are other factors:

–increased movement of women into the professional world rather than traditional “family” role

–increased use of the younger years for education, professional development and the “yuppie” life (and searching for the “perfect relationship”) resulting in fewer children

–increased financial burden to raise each child

etc.

The result is that without any deliberate population-control measures, the population will hit an inflection point and then flatten out. It’s happening in the western countries and in Japan, and as the nations of mainland Asia become more prosperous, it will happen there, too.

ICXC NIKA
I don’t follow this. The population is flattening out in the West because of birth control, largely. It seems incoherent to argue that the population-control advocates are wrong and point to their success as evidence that they are wrong. The question is not: will the earth become overpopulated if people marry late, practice birth control, and have few children, but rather: will the earth become overpopulated if people practice Catholic sexual morality, refraining from sex outside of marriage and not using any artificial means of birth control (and not even using natural means without some specific reason, according to the stricter interpretation of Church teaching).

If your best answer is, “God won’t let it happen,” that isn’t going to be very convincing to anyone not already convinced of your understanding of God’s will. Typically, when people have to appeal to that argument, it’s because they misunderstand God’s will in the first place. Such an irrational appeal to God’s will smacks of the kind of position Pope Benedict criticized (and controversially identified with Islam) in the Regensburg address.

Edwin
 
I don’t follow this. The population is flattening out in the West because of birth control, largely. It seems incoherent to argue that the population-control advocates are wrong and point to their success as evidence that they are wrong.
Methinks that you and I are using different definitions of “population control.”

I am inalterably opposed to “population control” in the sense of coercive policies such as those implemented in China et al, which use legislation and penalties to specifically limit or lower the population. Contraception, as such, if used freely, while not consistent with the Catholic Church, is not “population control” as i understand it.
The question is not: will the earth become overpopulated if people marry late, practice birth control, and have few children, but rather: will the earth become overpopulated if people practice Catholic sexual morality, refraining from sex outside of marriage and not using any artificial means of birth control (and not even using natural means without some specific reason, according to the stricter interpretation of Church teaching).
Actually, if everybody refrained from sex outside marriage, the world P would flatten out, because women can have only a limited number of children in the course of life. Add to this the continuing pattern of later marriages, and there would be no population issues.

The vast majority of the world is not Catholic, so it makes to sense to blame Catholic morality for the large present-day population.

It’s interesting that you add “refraining from sex outside of marriage” as a cause of alleged overpopulation. Logically, whenever sex is “refrained” from, there would be fewer children, just as when food is abstained from, the human body will not gain weight. Do you think non-marital sex fights overpopulation?

ICXC NIKA
 
… yesterday in the New York Post by Kyle Smith: “Profits of Doom.” It’s nothing that we haven’t talked about here on the program. He lays it out, though, exceptionally well, and his point is"Ha ha. Harold Camping – what an idiot! He predicted the end of the world on May 21. Last week, the Christian radio station owner said he was kind of right, though no one else noticed, and anyway the judgin’ will continue until (new date!) Oct. 21 of this year, when the world really and truly will be destroyed, probably. What you didn’t know is that after his loony prediction, Camping was promoted to full professor at Stanford and rewarded with adoring mainstream press coverage, more than a dozen appearances on ‘The Tonight Show,’ prestigious awards and praise from the Obama administration’s chief science advisor."

"Did you know any of that happened? “Sorry, I got one detail wrong. It wasn’t Camping who reaped those earthly rewards for his cosmic wackiness. It was Paul Ehrlich. In his psychedelically doomy 1968 catastrophe [book], ‘The Population Bomb,’ Ehrlich argued that birthrates were out of control and would cause worldwide crisis.” I remember, folks, I was in Pittsburgh in 1972 working for a Top 40 radio station that at the time was owned by ABC. This is 1972. This book was '68, '69, Population Bomb, and it was about how we’re destroying the planet and we’re not gonna survive beyond the year 2000. Program director made us read it.

Well, didn’t make us but when he calls you in, suggests it’s important to read the book, you do it. It wasn’t mandatory, but it’s just like another program director I worked for in Kansas City who required me to read some book by Gail Sheehy called Passages. You remember that? Yeah, I had to read it. Well, I had to go through the motions. I had to make it look like I had read it. I know, I know. I know exactly what Passages was, Snerdley. It was the first of the feminazi book – well, one of the first of the feminazi, you know, “Get in touch with yourself wherever yourself happens to be” kind of books. But I remember the people telling me about the Ehrlich book in the early seventies. For some reason doom and gloom, people glom onto that.

It’s a magnet. It’s amazing how susceptible people are to believing this doom and gloom stuff, and yet a book about eternal happiness and so forth? That’s greeted with skepticism. But the end of the world? Oh, yeah? When? How can I sign up? "In his psychedelically doomy 1968 catastrophe [book], ‘The Population Bomb,’ Ehrlich argued that birthrates were out of control and would cause worldwide crisis. He came by this not through Divine Revelation but through Divine Equation, a k a the liberal scripture of pseudo-science. Ehrlich ‘calculated’ using the equation I = P x A x T. This means that Human Impact (I) on environment equals the product of Population, Affluence and Technology. No room for imprecision there!

“Conclusion: 'In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death…” This is what Ehrlich wrote in 1968. “‘In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death… nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the human death rate.’ Ehrlich predicted England would cease to exist by 2000. (N.B. he meant the whole country, not just that pathetic soccer squad.) In 1970 he thundered, ‘In 10 years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.’ He [said] that by 1980, life expectancy in the US would decline to 42 years. Not quite getting the message, the world population both a) continued to grow and b) lived longer and healthier than ever.”

In the face of all of this, “Ehrlich has [said] that he was kinda sorta right, and the worst you can say is that, like preacherman Camping, he was a little early,” but I’m still right! I’m just a little early, here. “President Obama’s point man on science, John Holdren, is an Ehrlich man,” and, as I say, we’ve talked about the all this but the way Kyle Smith lays it out, it’s really fascinating. "A text version of a speech Holdren gave in 2006 was accompanied by a footnote in which he praised Ehrlich’s call to end population growth ‘a key insight … the elementary but discomfiting truth of it may account for the vast amount of ink, paper and angry energy that has been expended trying in vain to refute [the theory].’

“There are Ehrlich-men everywhere, and that ehrlich is German for honest just makes it so much richer, doesn’t it? In 1970, when the first Earth Day caused the first spike in atmospheric baloney, LIFE ‘reported’ that ‘In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution … by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half …’” Mr. Smith has an aside here: “Note to younger readers: Visible smog was the thing we were all afraid of before we became afraid of invisible carbon emissions,” but there’s always something that’s going to kill us and wipe us out. “Wisconsin Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote at the time [in 1970], quoting with approval Dr. S. Dillon Ripley of the Smithsonian Institute, that ‘In 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80% of all the species of living animals will be extinct,’” by the year 2000.
 
continued:

“Time quoted ecologist Kenneth Watt as saying there wouldn’t be any crude oil left by 2000. A scientist named Harrison Brown at the National Academy of Sciences said the world would be out of lead, zinc, copper, tin, gold and silver by now. ‘Dead Heat’ author Michael Oppenheimer…” I first saw this guy on This Week with David Brinkley. I was in Sacramento so it had to be 1984, 1985. He was on the Sunday Brinkley show, and I saw this guy predicting global warming in 20 years, and we only had a limited amount of time before it was going to forever alter life on the planet. Now, he did say he couldn’t conclusively prove it, but if he was right all this destruction would happen in 20 years – and so, therefore, we had to start taking remedial steps immediately whether he was right or not 'cause we couldn’t risk being wrong 'cause it was all gonna happen in 20 years.

Michael Oppenheimer “a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, said in 1990 that by 1996, the greenhouse effect ‘would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots … a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.’” Now, they asked him about this. He’s still around. “More recently he said, ‘On the whole I would stand by these predictions.’” So, I was just a little early. "Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at England’s climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, said in 2000 that because of global warming, within a few years, ‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is’ and flurries will be ‘a very rare and exciting event.’

“Heavy snowfall in England last year was, of course, also attributed to global warming. Scientists love to see their names in print, don’t they? Coincidentally, they also love grant money, book deals, awards. The easiest way to obtain these things is by alarmism. No one ever made a buck saying, ‘The situation in the future will be pretty similar to what it is now,’” we don’t really have anything to worry about. You don’t get rich that way. But his point is Harold Camping did nothing different than Paul Ehrlich or any of these other scientists, not one thing different. The difference is that Ehrlich is still a hero. He was on The Tonight Show ten or 15 times. He did get an advanced professorship at Stanford, and he’s a leftist – and these people still stand by this stuff!

In TIME magazine and Life magazine, in the seventies, you read that there would be no United States by the year 2000. The guys cannot be more profoundly wrong and yet they are still highly respected in their fields and on the political left. It’s just amazing. They’re charlatans. There’s nothing scientific about them. They’re abject liars. They make it up! Oppenheimer, all these guys, they’re nothing but a hoax. Folks, it’s liberalism, and liberals lie. And that’s how they earn money, and that’s how they keep you scared to death. That’s how they get you to agree to sit by with your taxes raised. It’s how they get you to accept the notion that you’re responsible for it. But you can be saved if you’ll buy a Prius, or a Volt or what have you.

If you’ll just let the state control you, then you can be forgiven your environmental sins.

[MORE LATER]
 
I’ll do it for ya.

This just in:

At last the media is talking sense!

It pays to check out Tim Flannery’s predictions about climate change:
by Andrew Bolt

Tim Flannery has had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking human-made climate change will destroy Earth, says Andrew Bolt.

TIM Flannery has just been hired by the Gillard Government to scare us stupid, and I can’t think of a better man for the job.

This Alarmist of the Year is worth every bit of the $180,000 salary he’ll get as part-time chairman of the Government’s new Climate Commission.

His job is simple: to advise us that we really, truly have to accept, say, the new tax on carbon dioxide emissions that this Government threatens to impose.

This kind of work is just up the dark alley of Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, that bible of booga booga.

He’s had years of practice trying to terrify us into thinking our exhausts are turning the world into a fireball that will wipe out civilisation, melt polar ice caps and drown entire cities under hot seas.

Small problem, though: after so many years of hearing Flannery’s predictions, we’re now able to see if some of the scariest have actually panned out.

And we’re also able to see if people who bet real money on his advice have cleaned up or been cleaned out.

So before we buy a great green tax from Flannery, whose real expertise is actually in mammology, it may pay to check his record.

Ready?

In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney 's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city “facing extreme difficulties with water”.

Check Sydney 's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start.

In 2008, Flannery said: “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.”

Check Adelaide 's water storage levels today: 77 per cent.

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems … ".

Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane 's dam levels: 100 per cent full.

All this may seem funny, but some politicians, voters and investors have taken this kind of warming alarmism very seriously and made expensive decisions in the belief it was sound. So let’s check on them, too.

In 2007, Flannery predicted global warming would so dry our continent that desalination plants were needed to save three of our biggest cities from disaster. As he put it: "Over the past 50 years, southern Australia has lost about 20 per cent of its rainfall, and one cause is almost certainly global warming .

“In Adelaide , Sydney and Brisbane , water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”

One premier, Queensland ‘s Peter Beattie, took such predictions - made by other warming alarmists, too - so seriously that he spent more than $1 billion of taxpayers’ money on a desalination plant, saying “it is only prudent to assume at this stage that lower-than-usual rainfalls could eventuate”.

But check that desalination plant today: mothballed indefinitely, now that the rains have returned. (Incidentally, notice how many of Flannery’s big predictions date from 2007? That was the year warming alarmism reached its most hysterical pitch and Flannery was named Australian of the Year.)
 
This finale bit had to be cut for length:

Back to another tip Flannery gave in that year of warming terror. In 2007, he warned that “the social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally” by governments worried by the warming allegedly caused by burning the stuff.

We should switch to “green” power instead, said Flannery, who recommended geothermal - pumping water on to hot rocks deep underground to create steam. “There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia’s economy for the best part of a century,” he said.

“The technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward.”

Flannery repeatedly promoted this “straightforward” technology, and in 2009, the Rudd government awarded $90 million to Geodynamics to build a geothermal power plant in the Cooper Basin , the very area Flannery recommended. Coincidentally, Flannery has for years been a Geodynamics shareholder, a vested interest he sometimes declares.

Time to check on how that business tip went. Answer: erk.
The technology Flannery said was “relatively straightforward” wasn’t.
One of Geodynamics’ five wells at Innamincka collapsed in an explosion that damaged two others. All had to be plugged with cement.

The project has now been hit by the kind of floods Flannery didn’t predict in a warming world, with Geodynamics announcing work had been further “delayed following extensive local rainfall in the Cooper Basin region”.

The technological and financing difficulties mean there is no certainty now that a commercial-scale plant will ever get built, let alone prove viable, so it’s no surprise the company’s share price has almost halved in four months.

Never mind, here comes Flannery with his latest scares and you-beaut fix.

His job as Climate Commission chief, says Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, is to “provide an authoritative, independent source of information on climate change to the Australian community” and “build the consensus about reducing Australia 's carbon pollution”.

That, translated, means selling us whatever scheme the Government cooks up to tax carbon dioxide, doing to the economy what the floods have done to Flannery’s hot-rocks investment.

See why I say Flannery is the right man for this job? Who better to teach us how little we really know about global warming and how much it may cost to panic?

Incidentally he [Tim Flannery] is on $3,600 a week of our taxpayers money for working just three days a week making up more bullsh*t.

Please send this on and tell all Australians about these global warming imbeciles and in particular this number one idiot Tim Flannery.
 
The source for the Bolt op-ed … column … was heraldsun.com.au

Got timed out.

heraldsun.com.au/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predictions-about-climate-change-says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

The point is that whenever someone from the left makes a claim or a promise that leaves you temporarily flummoxed or at a loss for words … make the following assumption: “the left always lies” … and then proceed with vigor to check it out from every direction. Even with the media covering for them, you will be able to find the truth.

You don’t have to go trumpeting that fact, just repeat it to yourself. That no matter how seemingly persuasive it may sound. The left lies.
 
I don’t play the left/right, us/them game, nor am I interested in the opinions of biased individuals. I simply prefer to stick with facts.

I don’t believe every lunatic that comes along, nor do I necessarily believe everyone that starting p(name removed by moderator)ointing dates of events. But the effects of various gases in closed environments is known. The question isn’t if global warming can occur, but rather what mechanism prevents it from occurring, and what are the limits of that mechanism.
 
I don’t play the left/right, us/them game, nor am I interested in the opinions of biased individuals. I simply prefer to stick with facts.

I don’t believe every lunatic that comes along, nor do I necessarily believe everyone that starting p(name removed by moderator)ointing dates of events. But the effects of various gases in closed environments is known. The question isn’t if global warming can occur, but rather what mechanism prevents it from occurring, and what are the limits of that mechanism.
“But the effects of various gases in closed environments is known”. Not entirely true.

And besides the Planet Earth is very far from a closed environment AND we know very little of the effects of the various gases and other things on Planet Earth.
 
I’ve thought about this before and I think others have brought it up in various ways, but here goes:

I do not believe in the whole overpopulation myth or the belief that humans are parasites on this Earth and that we must work to reduce our numbers, etc.

But what would you say to this argument:

The Earth is limited. There is only so much room and resources, etc. Even if it would take 50 billion or 500 billion people or whatever to exhaust the resources, at some point, they would be exhausted. Therefore, at some point we would be required to limit the number of children we are having, and having more people would be unsustainable.

How would you respond?
There is false logic at work in this Original Post.
  1. I know I can calculate an infinite mathematical series and eventually the population of the planet Earth will reach infinity.
  2. I know that when I add up the Earth’s resources, they are finite.
Therefore: eventually the population will out run the resources.

Here is the problem:

You do not really know what the sum total of the Earth’s resources are.

You may THINK you know.

You may think that you cannot figure out a way to extract more resources from the Earth.

But SOMEONE ELSE may very well be able to figure out how to get more resources out of the planet Earth.

For example, at one time, aluminium was a very rare metal. Then Hall stepped in and devised a process that rendered aluminium to be very cheap.

Natural gas was at one time relatively rare. But in the past two years, vast quantities of natural gas have been discovered all over the world.

You can find similar discoveries with almost every resource.

Just because YOU [or your professor] cannot envision vastly increased natural resources, doesn’t mean that someone else cannot.

And that future someone will not be motivated to find the new supply of natural resources until the scarcity causes the market price to rise high enough to make it worthwhile to innovate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top