How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phil8888
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are we heading down the path of december212012.com/ ?
Or, polereversal.com/ ?
Get serious:

kingofdcp.downloadbox.org/movies/magnetic-storm-cataclysmic-pole-shift_90132.html

Read down to the lava record of magnetic field directional changes … and then factor in the wiping out of the planet’s population every so often.

So, expending a lot of energy to suppress population growth doesn’t make much sense when the population gets wiped out every 25,000 years and … we are overdue for such a shift …

Eat, drink and be merry.

“Acting responsibly” … suppressing population based on sophomoric faculty lounge conversations doesn’t seem to make any sense.

There are plenty of resources to tide us over until the next wipeout.

Poetic … isn’t it … wipeout … reported from Hawaii.

[We need some fast polynesian drums about now.]

Now … if Hawaii is too exotic for you … then try Oregon:

science20.com/make_love_not_war/blog/earth’s_weakening_geomagnetic_force_and_possible_polar_reversal-76775

OR, if you are stuck in your mother’s back spare bedroom, then google:

" hawaii lava record pole reversal "

Come on, guys … get out of the faculty lounge!
 
Try this … price out a ticket to Hawaii … call ahead and tell “them” that you want to visit those lava fields with the magnetic record of geological shifts.

Seriously.

Plan a trip so you can see for yourself.

Do some geological homework.

There is no substitute for a personal field trip.

There is no way you can get the whole picture from a few magazine articles, a web page or two, some television program and some professor.

Make a field visit. See if you can spend some actual time. Maybe some geology course includes a field trip.

Sometimes the stuff you read, just isn’t so.

If you can afford it, make a trip to Mount Erebus.

Or to any volcano. Learn everything you can find. Volcanoes and their debris fields and lava fields are fabulous pictures into the history of the planet and into what is going on even as we speak.

If you are on the West Coast of the USA, visit Mount St. Helens. [Wonder why the park rangers won’t let you take even an ounce of lava, even though it spewed million of tons of the stuff.]

Visit Pompeii and wonder …
 
=phil8888;7706503]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?
Science has shown that EVERY PERSON in AMERICA COULD BE PUT INTO THE STATE OF FLORIDA [hope notl I live there:D] AND EVERY PERSON IN THE ENTIRE WORD WOULD FIT INTO THE STATES OF TEXAS AND CALIFORNIA!

If you or the holders of such a position have traveled at all NY, [up-state], California in the moutains, Florida ALL OVER THE PLACE, Michigan outside the Bifg cities ALL have ENOUMOUS Open spaces as do all the sates I have flown over. This is silliness personified to support an erranr position.🤷

God Bless,
Pat
 
This from a paid subscription eletter, which I’m trying to negotiate a “deal” with … [how to get it free].

Anyway, it basically turns the “overpopulation argument” upside down in an instant. It verifies that energy is now a surplus item, with minor exceptions for Japan, Korea and the UK. [But even that could change].

It’s the NGI Shale Newsletter.

U.S. Shale Reshaping Global Gas Market, Says BP
June 9, 2011

The United States in 2010 continued to lead the world in natural gas production, boosted by massive shale deposits, according to the latest statistical review by BP plc.

The United States also was the world’s biggest gas consumer last year, according to the 60th annual BP Statistical Review of World Energy, which was unveiled on Wednesday. The review covers all forms of energy use worldwide and is considered an objective, global energy data report that is used by business, academics and governments to inform policy and decision making.

Worldwide gas output rose a record 7.3% y/y, or 217 billion cubic meters, with nearly one-third of the gains (31%) originating in the former Soviet Union, followed by the Middle East. U.S. gas production rose more than 4%.

“Production exceeded the 10-year average growth rate in all regions,” the report noted. “The U.S. remained the largest producer for a second consecutive year, with supply of unconventional gas continuing to grow. In Europe, output reversed previous declines and was the highest since 2008.”

North American proved reserves at the end of 2010 totaled 350.8 Tcf (9.9 trillion cubic meters), with the United States accounting for 272.5 Tcf. Canada had an estimated 61 Tcf, while Mexico had about 17.3 Tcf.

Global natural gas reserves in 2010 increased by 5 billion cubic meters (0.3%) to 187.1 trillion cubic meters, according to BP’s data. The 2010 global reserves/production (R/P) ratio was 58.6, a decline from 62.7 in 2009.

“World natural gas proved reserves in 2010 were sufficient to meet 58.6 years of global production,” said Christof Ruhl, BP Group’s chief economist. Ruhl was in charge of compiling the data.

“R/P ratios declined for each region, driven by rising production. The Middle East once again had the highest regional R/P ratio, while Middle East and former Soviet Union regions jointly hold 72% of the world’s gas reserves.”

Unconventional gas grew “despite weak North American natural gas prices,” which traded at record discounts to crude oil. The United States also had the world’s biggest increase in volumetric gas consumption, rising by 5.6% to a new record high.

“The shale gas revolution in the U.S. and massive changes in LNG [liquefied natural gas] markets are reshaping the world of natural gas,” said Ruhl.

Because of the massive amount of shale gas in North America many gas U.S. producers and LNG import facilities are working on ways to export excess gas supplies.

[My Note: it will be AT LEAST 2015 before the U.S. starts exporting LNG because of permitting issues and the long lead times for the compression / liquification equipment.]

According to the BP data, global LNG supplies in the last five years have grown by a cumulative 58%, which is three times faster than total gas production, the economist noted. In 2010 “the supply of LNG expanded by an unprecedented 22.6%,” or 55 billion cubic meters.

The worldwide natural gas trade saw robust gains overall last year, jumping by more than 10%, with LNG shipments alone recording a 23% gain. Qatar’s LNG shipments were up by more than half (53.2%). Among LNG importers, the largest volumetric growth was in South Korea, followed by the United Kingdom and Japan.

“LNG now accounts for 30.5% of global gas trade,” Ruhl noted. "We see how as a result of the shale gas revolution in the U.S. and the amount of LNG available globally, now there’s competition between gas and coal, with gas increasingly replacing coal and power generation in many countries.

“And because of this big difference now between oil prices, kept high by OPEC, and gas prices kept low because of abundant supplies, we see countries switching.”

One of the biggest findings in the latest report is the “tremendous energy demand growth, the highest growth rates…for primary energy since 1973, the highest energy consumption ever, highest energy consumption per capita,” said Ruhl. A worldwide economic recovery in 2010 resulted in robust energy growth, with “the strong bounce back, in particular, of the industry sector,” Ruhl noted.

For the first time, China overtook the United States as the world’s largest energy consumer, according to the review.

“Energy intensity – the amount of energy used for one unit of GDP [gross domestic product] – grew at the fastest rate since 1970,” said Ruhl. “And so, when all the accounting is done, planet Earth – we all – consumed more energy in 2010 than ever before.”

Overall, gas consumption by members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) jumped by 6.4% y/y, or 93 billion cubic meters, “with consumption attaining all-time highs.” Developing countries’ gas consumption also grew, jumping by more than 7% – 63% higher than in 2000. India’s gas demand was up by the largest margin y/y, rising 21.5%.

China gained the lead in a year in which a rebound in the global economy drove consumption higher and “at a rate not seen since the aftermath of the 1973 oil price shocks,” said BP CEO Bob Dudley. The growth in energy consumption was broad-based, he said, with both mature, developed economies and developing countries growing at above-average rates.
 
If it matters, one of professional peers is a geologist that formerly worked in U.S. oil production. He still deals with energy, but in a different capacity. He’s basically saying don’t believe the hype regarding natural gas. He believes reserves are being overstated, due to time limits placed on drilling proven undeveloped reserves. He also notes that the drilling is brutally expensive.

Another interesting thing I’ve learned is the potential for small earthquakes due to injection. Apparently they’ve already occurred.
 
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?
Learn to share. I mean really, the Earth is pretty big. It’s true things are a lot easier when there are fewer people, and it’s also true that resources aren’t infinite. But I don’t think we’re anywhere near the point where we have to worry about it if we learn to share.

That’s what all the overpopulation arguments really come down to isn’t it? “The climate is changing because there’s too many people.” Is that really the only solution? The earth is a shared resource. The air is a shared resource. The water is a shared resource. So learn how to share it.
 
If it matters, one of professional peers is a geologist that formerly worked in U.S. oil production. He still deals with energy, but in a different capacity. He’s basically saying don’t believe the hype regarding natural gas. He believes reserves are being overstated, due to time limits placed on drilling proven undeveloped reserves. He also notes that the drilling is brutally expensive.

Another interesting thing I’ve learned is the potential for small earthquakes due to injection. Apparently they’ve already occurred.
Do your own reading.

Prove it’s hype.

Do your own reading:

Start with the links here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=564249

Show us the earthquakes due to hydraulic fracturing for shale oil and shale natural gas. [DEEP well injection near earthquake faults … basically lubricating the slip planes … is totally different from hydraulic fracturing. Two totally different things. Not related. Some people have also complained about injecting water into volcanic formations for geothermal extraction of heated water … also totally different.]

So, show us the earthquakes due to hydraulic fracturing for shale oil and shale natural gas.
 
Learn to share. I mean really, the Earth is pretty big. It’s true things are a lot easier when there are fewer people, and it’s also true that resources aren’t infinite. But I don’t think we’re anywhere near the point where we have to worry about it if we learn to share.

That’s what all the overpopulation arguments really come down to isn’t it? “The climate is changing because there’s too many people.” Is that really the only solution? The earth is a shared resource. The air is a shared resource. The water is a shared resource. So learn how to share it.
Sometimes, the word “share” is just a radical political code-word for “ration” … because there isn’t enough of a resource to go around.

But if resources are plentiful and abundant, then the need to “share” i.e., ration] may not be necessary.

So take a look at the actual resources and see if scarcity really exists.

In some cases, people in the desert have flash floods and they don’t attempt to capture and store any of that water. In some cases, water is just not where it is wanted, so that is why we construct reservoirs and aqueducts and pipelines … to capture it and bring it to where the people want to live. New York City has been capturing water from upstate New York for maybe one hundred years.

Los Angeles has been capturing water from other parts of the state for forever … and they still have flash floods that run out to the sea.

Sometimes droughts are cyclical … you need to research actual water conditions and not make stuff up. Australia experienced drought for some years and some policy wonks insisted the drought was permanent. They spent BILLIONS on desalination. And then the floods came. Turns out the rainfall REALLY IS CYCLICAL

Israel is a desert country and has developed water development unique to arid lands; but you won’t see their neighbors adopting their techniques, many of which are rediscovered ancient water practices.

Take a look at air quality after a mega-volcanic eruption … the Earth has a way of cleaning the air by itself. Ever wonder about that?

Some people have been complaining that man-made chemicals do not occur in nature. But check out **naturally-occurring organo-halogens ** … gases that get pumped into the air by the planet, itself … the Earth is FAR more complex than you can imagine … Check out Gordon Gribble’s work. It will take more than shooting from the hip … he was attacked for years and then showed more than 4000 examples.

It’s possible to argue and argue and argue and debate and debate and debate.

But go and look this stuff up.
 
I did…after I got to speak to an expert and found out about this information. He’s an apolitical realist, like myself, and doesn’t have an agenda.
Since he is an expert, then please post his CV and Web site. Share his interesting information with the rest of us.

If he is unwilling to share with the public, then by definition he is not an expert.
 
Since he is an expert, then please post his CV and Web site. Share his interesting information with the rest of us.

If he is unwilling to share with the public, then by definition he is not an expert.
I don’t post the personal information of others. I will say that he is an older timer, former oil industry worker, registered geologist in Arkansas, and is currently dealing with shale plays. If you’ve done your research, you would know that is where they are having small earthquakes.
 
I don’t post the personal information of others. I will say that he is an older timer, former oil industry worker, registered geologist in Arkansas, and is currently dealing with shale plays. If you’ve done your research, you would know that is where they are having small earthquakes.
I do a LOT of homework on the subject, which is why I challenged your “expert”.

If he’s an “expert”, then he is public.

So, go and ask him for his permission.
 
I do a LOT of homework on the subject, which is why I challenged your “expert”.

If he’s an “expert”, then he is public.

So, go and ask him for his permission.
Sorry, but I’m not asking my professional peers to come onto some forum and provide free services. Nor am I going to post their personal information to be bothered, especially for people I don’t know.

It also serves no purpose. You’re set in your ways, and you’re not changing your mind anyway.
 
Sorry, but I’m not asking my professional peers to come onto some forum and provide free services. Nor am I going to post their personal information to be bothered, especially for people I don’t know.

It also serves no purpose. You’re set in your ways, and you’re not changing your mind anyway.
This is supposed to be about science.

It’s not about “trust me; I know what I’m doing”.

In science, EVERYTHING is laid out in front of everybody to pick over.

That’s the way science is done.

[ya know, all you have to do is provide a Web site or two where your friends’ stuff is published. Even a blog. ]

“free services” … come on … gimme a break. scientific discussion is supposed to be free and open … not held close to one’s vest like cards in some high stakes, no rules poker game.]
 
i hold with Monte on this one.

Your earlier assertion (that everybody needs to revert to hunter gathering) is an extreme one, therefore, the burden is on you to defend it.

An appeal to authority doesn’t work if it takes the form, “I know somebody who says, and he is an authority, but I’m not saying any more.”

If this individual is in fact an authority, they must have something out there in dataspace. There is no need to violate or claim to be defending their privacy.

ICXC NIKA.
This is supposed to be about science.

It’s not about “trust me; I know what I’m doing”.

In science, EVERYTHING is laid out in front of everybody to pick over.

That’s the way science is done.

[ya know, all you have to do is provide a Web site or two where your friends’ stuff is published. Even a blog. ]

“free services” … come on … gimme a break. scientific discussion is supposed to be free and open … not held close to one’s vest like cards in some high stakes, no rules poker game.]
 
This is supposed to be about science.
Then it might be a good idea to start first by understanding basic scientific principles. Without that basic understanding, the discussion is pointless…as it has so far.
“free services” … come on … gimme a break. scientific discussion is supposed to be free and open … not held close to one’s vest like cards in some high stakes, no rules poker game.]
Even people that write the articles and give seminars get paid.
 
i hold with Monte on this one.

Your earlier assertion (that everybody needs to revert to hunter gathering) is an extreme one,
It’s also an extreme interpretation since I didn’t say this.

To reiterate, a hunter gather society lives within what nature provides. Modern society does not. We need an ever increasing amount of finite resources just to live at the level we do. What happens when those resources run out at an affordable? We once again have to live within what nature provides.

Most people simply don’t get this. The resources don’t have to run out; they just have to be unaffordable; i.e., more energy to extract the resource than is actually obtained from the final product. Once that happens, the resource ceases to be used. If an analysis ignores the basic scientific principle, it’s simply not a credible source.
therefore, the burden is on you to defend it.
I simply couldn’t care less if anyone believes me or not. If your not interested in understanding the basics, you won’t be interested in learning the principles based on them, from either me or anyone else.
 
It’s also an extreme interpretation since I didn’t say this.

To reiterate, a hunter gather society lives within what nature provides. Modern society does not. We need an ever increasing amount of finite resources just to live at the level we do. What happens when those resources run out at an affordable? We once again have to live within what nature provides.

Most people simply don’t get this. The resources don’t have to run out; they just have to be unaffordable; i.e., more energy to extract the resource than is actually obtained from the final product. Once that happens, the resource ceases to be used. If an analysis ignores the basic scientific principle, it’s simply not a credible source.

I simply couldn’t care less if anyone believes me or not. If your not interested in understanding the basics, you won’t be interested in learning the principles based on them, from either me or anyone else.
Evidently, you cared enough to get into this debate in the first place. So defend your position.

I know about chemical entropy. I don’t need to learn “the basics” from you or anybody else on the Internet.

Internet content is, generally, worth the paper it’s printed on:)

ICXC NIKA.
 
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?
… my dear friend ,

… just did some rough calculations that i hope are right but you’ll get the idea i’m sure , the earths land surface if we allot 30 m2 area for every person would cater for 5 trillion people all at once , that’s 5,000,000,000,000 people , but if we allow for high rise buildings then lets say real high rise and allow 1 m2 for each person on the earths land surface ( not the sea surface ) and it can hold 150 trillion people at once now , so 150,000,000,000,000 , but it could be more and we could find a way to use the other 71 % odd of the earths surface on sea and then if we get the same high rise perhaps starting on the ocean floor , numbers would be 367.5 trillion people or over 56,500 x as many people as we have now on earth , the earth can hold many people , it will take an awful long time to increase population by 56,500 x for each and every person here , and then the earth is quite crowded , given currently the worlds population is going up by say 1 % per year avge , then it will take somewhere like 40,000 yrs ( you can do the maths if you want , it’s approx ) for the world to achieve max population if each person uses avge 1 m2 space of the whole surface , but then we have capacity for greater numbers such as the sea can hold much more and the land can have higher high rise buildings and we can go underground too , so lets be conservative and estimate we can accept 10 x the number of human beings on the planet for full capacity , that means it might take 400,000 years to reach full capacity now ,it can jst keep going like this too , then we look to the stars and given the enormous breathing space we have there and there should be ample time to perfect space travel , space stations and start colonising the cosmos as i’m sure we’re originally meant to , how many can we fit there ??? , the mind boggles , it’s so many and the universe is always expanding and why could god not create more galaxies if needs be ??? , we can go on forever here , but what about natural resources and food and drink ??? , what is sustainable ??? , well , scientists need to help us to live in perfect harmony with nature and perfectly naturally and we need to push for this , sustainable use of resources is achievable , we need not use anymore resources than say the cats and dogs do , if we live truly naturally we will use virtually no resources in that there will be no waste or excesses due to greed , we take and give back in a perfect stream of interchange of mass with and on our planet , we are not meant to plunder the planet for wealth ,we are meant to live naturally and in perfect harmony with our planet – if we do this we don’t need much of it’s resources at all , we take food and drink as essentials , we produce medicine and housing , if it is finetuned and you eliminate all greed and waste you will use very little , it can be done , in the garden of eden there is no waste or greed or resource probs like here – that would be the goal , though the goal is partial due to the fall and sin , but we can go interstellar for resources too , as we would have anyway , and there’s the fact this world is coming to an end soon – when jesus returns , that’s it , i got the figures searching the stats and using a calculator , they are a rough guide only , hope it helps , overpopulation is a myth of course , an excuse to eradicate the weak and defenselss humans ,

… god bless and love you 👍🙂 ,

… john …
 
Question: Why would I grant any credibility to an unnamed friend…especially, when the debater who introduces the “unnamed friend expert” consistently debates, using fallacies in logic - trying to make a case?

Appeals to Authority - let alone appeals to an unnamed authority.

Ad hominem arguments - directly or implied by the debater …" If your not interested in understanding the basics, you won’t be interested in learning the principles based on them, from either me or anyone else." Implications without evidence ].

The above is also a Dismissal of evidence without providing any evidence.

Zero support with outside evidence links ] - creating oneself as an “Authority”

The list is staggering IMO

Many can be found here.
don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

I hope this helps:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top