OverPopulation Myth??

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLAL
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CharlesDarwin said:
or were just smart enough to manage resources for sustainability?
Click to expand...
or are they in a bad position when the older population can no longer be supported by the younger population? Europe is in trouble. The pension crisis is just the tip of the iceburg.
 
😛 I sometimes wonder about the whole “troll” thing? I’m a huge SF Giants fan. A bunch of Dodgers or Phillies fans always come on our board and bug us. I never go on a Dodgers board. I don’t want to have to fumigate myself! 😛

Seriously though, I don’t get the whole troll thinking? So provocative and goofy:shrug:
Whitacre_Girl said:
Actually, I think it’s more ironic that you’d come onto a religious board and make a comment like this…troll much?
Click to expand...
 
gurneyhalleck1 said:
😛 I sometimes wonder about the whole “troll” thing? I’m a huge SF Giants fan. A bunch of Dodgers or Phillies fans always come on our board and bug us. I never go on a Dodgers board. I don’t want to have to fumigate myself! 😛

Seriously though, I don’t get the whole troll thinking? So provocative and goofy:shrug:
Click to expand...
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional respons or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

It’s a sport IMO. There can be good trolls, but most are BAD
 
NE_Catholic said:
or are they in a bad position when the older population can no longer be supported by the younger population? Europe is in trouble. The pension crisis is just the tip of the iceburg.
Click to expand...
planet health comes before economic health

w/o a planet the economy is sort of a bust anyways
 
I’m well aware of what a troll is, NE. Thanks. I don’t understand their motivation and what pleasure they get from it. That’s all. 😉
NE_Catholic said:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional respons or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

It’s a sport IMO. There can be good trolls, but most are BAD
Click to expand...
 
CharlesDarwin said:
planet health comes before economic health

w/o a planet the economy is sort of a bust anyways
Click to expand...
that is just a non-sensical statement. What does a self-sustaining population to support older citizens have to do with ecology?
 
CharlesDarwin said:
indeed…I notice you didnt go after NE for the same thing though 🙂
Click to expand...
Duly noted, except I really do not want to go after anyone. But you are correct.

And as to trolling, it was an uncharitable ad hominem. It was also inaccurate as you are, by and large, on topic and you are not pulling a hit and run.
 
pnewton said:
Duly noted, except I really do not want to go after anyone. But you are correct.

And as to trolling, it was an uncharitable ad hominem. It was also inaccurate as you are, by and large, on topic and you are not pulling a hit and run.
Click to expand...
indeed, i only stated what i did hoping NE would see the error in his statements and never thought that what i said would be taken too seriously.

and thank you for your support not necessarily of what i say but of how i am saying it 🙂
 
Very nice! Thank you! There is at least once scientist who believes that IF there were such a thing as global warming, the increased C02 would actually be beneficial to plant life and we would have even more food.

🙂
 
In the US, farmers are paid billions of dollars every year to grow nothing.
Click to expand...
I beg to disagree. Corporate farms might be making the money, but the individual farmers working under their employ are living one hell of a tough life. In my little town of Burdett, Kansas a good three quarters of the population (which was about 200) were farmers and vary few made over 30,000 a year. When you have to by seed, equipment, fuel, fertilizer, pesticide, electricity to irrigate, crop insurance, feed your family of five, pay your rent/mortgage, try to get your kids an education, and then have just a little left to do something fun with that money disappears VERY fast.

Food, Inc. & Earthlings… Watch these two movies and see how the corporate food industry works. You will think twice every time you go to the store.
 
Please bear in mind as you read this that I am actively studying energy - looking at available resources, how they are being utilized and the effect on economies, the environment etc.

Overpopulation would never occur if everyone lived at subsistence 3rd world levels.
This means giving up all forms of electricity and everything that follows
  • access to regular clean water
  • ease of storing vast amounts of food
  • ease of transport
  • access to pharmaceutical drugs, hospitals and operations with anesthetics
  • internet
  • easy access to paper directly affecting schools
    etc
The result would be a massive increase in deaths due to sanitation problems, increase in child mortality rates, a decrease in age of death, mass fighting over resources, relocation etc.
This is natural population control and it is horrific.
Who could inflict these results on another?

Please bear in mind that unless we have made substantial developments in clean energy and reduced our CO2 output by 2050 - when the world population is expected to reach 9 billion many people will be massively displaces due to severe droughts, excessive flooding and the rise in acidity of the sea (major affect on the fish population).

This is only a small proportion of the problems facing us in the future.
Are each of you who reject the danger of overpopulation willing to permanently give up your all modern amenities including public spaces, parks and beaches? Willing to reduce you’re intake in food to 3rd world level and send the money you save to feed or help those who need it most? No you’re not, I seriously doubt you will give up anything substantial for the sake of others right to populate the world as they see fit.
 
Dear pnewton

How do you plan on breaking off the ice at the poles and getting it to the countries that need it most? What about the creatures that live there, penguins in the south pole and many creatures that rely on the ice areas for breading; whales being a fine example.

Desalinization is extremely expensive to put in and many areas do not have that type of resources. Where they do great care has to be taken in redistributing the highly saliently water back into the sea so that it doesn’t pollute the local area.

In regards to your comment about agriculture not being dependent on fossil fuels.

Firstly how do you think water, grain, livestock and food actually get from the resource areas to the areas they are utilized to the centers of population?

By trucks, planes and trains - fossil fuel or electricity from fossil fuel
Food is stored in massive refrigeration units to preserve it - fossil fuels.
Food is sent into manufacturing (for cheese, breads, packaged meals etc) which uses massive amounts of fossil fuels to power the machines.

This does not even look at the fuels used in the actual production - tractors, harvesters, mass irrigation - which incidentally deprives and decimates ecosystems of the waterways used.

Rob’s Wife
a) before fossil fuels were plentiful people were subject directly to nature by starving in famines due to droughts and floods and things like potato blight (source of the Irish famine). This is because once fossil fuels become so limited that they are not available for fertilization then they won’t be available for much else, like refrigeration.
b) while wind energy is going ahead in leaps and bounds it is also intermittent and not a constant source of energy on which our economies and daily lives depend.

We need to learn how to use less energy and consume less this will facilitate a larger population to a point.

On the birth control issue - the Catholic Religion is on of the most fundamental in this regards. Even Islam considers it sinful to have more children than you can handle.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_birth_control
I always wonder which belief has it exactly right?
 
NE_Catholic said:
kinda ironic they are losing population and importing religious people. They care more about trees than people.
Click to expand...
Probably because each person is responsible for his/her self as an adult whereas a tree can’t make an argument for it’s survival or get out of the way when axed.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Very nice! Thank you! There is at least once scientist who believes that IF there were such a thing as global warming, the increased C02 would actually be beneficial to plant life and we would have even more food.

🙂
Click to expand...
Please read below it states that to a point plant life will increase and then be limited by other factors such as water and nitrogen.

newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-cosub2sub-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top