The Population Bomb.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crescentinus said:
Simple. Because the charge of “overpopulation” is used by the eugenicists who seek to remove groups of people out of existence. I used to agree to the idea of overpopulation, until I found out that this alarmism is not going to work.

So what? There are bad Catholics…does that mean all Catholics should be demeaned and Catholicism summarily dismissed?

There are many reasonable people that believe we are either in, or heading for a population crisis, as well as resource problems, etc. Does that mean all of these people, which includes faithful, pro-life Catholics, should be throw in with some radicals? If so, you become no better than the people you criticize.
Click to expand...
 
Ridgerunner said:
It’s very difficult to predict the future.
Click to expand...
Bingo.

Exact dates cannot be predicted for very complex issues with huge numbers of multiple variables. Personally, I just look at the variables and the trends, and make predictions on probable outcome.

Unfortunately, way too many people focus on one wrong aspect, such as a date prediction, and use that to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some go further and mock and ridicule people. They never go further to see what is actually under the hood.

Furthermore, nobody is ever completely correct. Newton wasn’t and Einstein wasn’t. But we don’t mock and ridicule them. However, while they didn’t have an absolute all-encompassing solution, they lead us in the right direction, allowing others to build on what they discovered. We should focus on the facts, not obsess on a single point or two that is not quite correct.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
So what? There are bad Catholics…does that mean all Catholics should be demeaned and Catholicism summarily dismissed?

There are many reasonable people that believe we are either in, or heading for a population crisis, as well as resource problems, etc. Does that mean all of these people, which includes faithful, pro-life Catholics, should be throw in with some radicals? If so, you become no better than the people you criticize.
Click to expand...
There are two questions here:

First, do the reasonable people to whom you refer reasonably base their opinions on reliable facts?
Second, alternatively, do otherwise reasonable people allow themselves to succumb to the propaganda of those whose objectives really are things like eugenics without realizing they are being had?

Either is a legitimate line of inquiry.
 
Ridgerunner said:
There are two questions here:

First, do the reasonable people to whom you refer reasonably base their opinions on reliable facts?
Click to expand...
Yes. In fact, their based on basic scientific principles. If someone is going to debunk a theory based on basic scientific principles, they’re going to have to do explaining to do.
Second, alternatively, do otherwise reasonable people allow themselves to succumb to the propaganda of those whose objectives really are things like eugenics without realizing they are being had?
Click to expand...
Either is a legitimate line of inquiry.
Click to expand...
Eugenics in never part of any discussion that I or my peers involve ourselves in. That’s for the radicals, and those that like to focus on the radicals.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
So what? There are bad Catholics…does that mean all Catholics should be demeaned and Catholicism summarily dismissed?

There are many reasonable people that believe we are either in, or heading for a population crisis, as well as resource problems, etc. Does that mean all of these people, which includes faithful, pro-life Catholics, should be throw in with some radicals? If so, you become no better than the people you criticize.
Click to expand...
Point = missed

I was making point that the overpopulation alarmists’ alarms seem rational but are ultimately unfounded.
You had Malthus where he predicted that the world will run out of resources by 1890, but the Industrial Revolution came along and he eventually retracted his position.
You have Erlich who predicted that the population would starve unless the population is controlled, but the Green Revolution came along and revolutionized agriculture. Now, why on earth did large-scale famines like the one that ravaged Ethiopia in the 1980’s happen?
In the case of Ethiopia, let’s turn back the clock to 1973-1974. That’s when the Derg, a communist militia, ousted the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie I from power and established a communist republic. In order for the Derg regime to better arm itself, it sold off large parts of Ethiopia’s food supply in order to buy weapons. A few years later, a drought came and the harvests failed. Instead of having food reserves, the Derg had money that went into buying weapons. Hence, many Ethiopians starved to death as a result. Had the Derg failed in taking power, then the famine’s effects would have been minimized to say the least.

Point is, the alarmists’ alarms had been defeated by technological advances.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
Yes. In fact, their based on basic scientific principles. If someone is going to debunk a theory based on basic scientific principles, they’re going to have to do explaining to do.

Eugenics in never part of any discussion that I or my peers involve ourselves in. That’s for the radicals, and those that like to focus on the radicals.
Click to expand...
There are arguments both ways by reputable people, and you know that. “Science” does not tell us what the population will be at any given point in the future. Nor does it tell us what the next technological developments will be or it would tell us right now what they are.

I never said you are a proponent of eugenics, only that some proponents of population limitation and resource use limitation avowedly are. And, not surprisingly, such people put their programs in ways they think will be the least off-putting.
 
Crescentinus said:
Point = missed
Click to expand...
lol
I was making point that the overpopulation alarmists’ alarms seem rational but are ultimately unfounded.
You had Malthus where he predicted that the world will run out of resources by 1890, but the Industrial Revolution came along and he eventually retracted his position.
Click to expand...
Point = confirmed

Point confirmed in the first two sentences. 🙂
You have Erlich who predicted that the population would starve unless the population is controlled, but the Green Revolution came along and revolutionized agriculture. Now, why on earth did large-scale famines like the one that ravaged Ethiopia in the 1980’s happen? In the case of Ethiopia, let’s turn back the clock to 1973-1974. That’s when the Derg, a communist militia, ousted the Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie I from power and established a communist republic. In order for the Derg regime to better arm itself, it sold off large parts of Ethiopia’s food supply in order to buy weapons. A few years later, a drought came and the harvests failed. Instead of having food reserves, the Derg had money that went into buying weapons. Hence, many Ethiopians starved to death as a result. Had the Derg failed in taking power, then the famine’s effects would have been minimized to say the least.
Click to expand...
Point = missed

I have not made reference to anything like the above, nor does it address any of the points I’ve made.
Point is, the alarmists’ alarms had been defeated by technological advances.
Click to expand...
The “discovery” and access to cheap fuel sources is the primary reason that recent history has evolved the way it did. Technology was used to access them. If cheap resources (EROEI >1) don’t exist, then the technological advances are pointless.

Resources that are “not stored” (wind, solar, water, etc.) are not a substitute for resources that are “stored” (coal, oil, etc.). That’s why those “not stored” resources, used for all of mankind’s history in various forms, because secondary to the stored resources. Eventually that will reverse itself, when these stored resources provide less energy than the natural resources.
 
I never insinuated that WarriorMonk is a believer in eugenics. However, I have seen a lot of overpopulation alarmists that believe in some form of eugenics as a solution to the world’s problems.
 
Crescentinus said:
I never insinuated that WarriorMonk is a believer in eugenics. However, I have seen a lot of overpopulation alarmists that believe in some form of eugenics as a solution to the world’s problems.
Click to expand...
I’m aware of that. It’s just that in these type of discussions, many people take the POV that if people believe in one thing, they all must have similar characteristics. A lot of the people do believe as I do with regard to resources and effects; however, our “solutions” are entirely different.

I don’t have a solution, other than nature will take its course. That’s almost always the result, because people in general prefer inaction over action, simply because it’s easier. That’s been the case over the course of human history; I can even start referencing old Chinese fables that say exactly that.
 
How many people can the earth support?

Ten Billion? One trillion? Ten trillion? Hundred trillion? Quadrillion? Hundred quadrillion?

The land surface of the earth is about 150,000,000 square kilometers. One square kilometer contains one million square meters.

If we put one person on each square meter of land, we can have
150,000,000,000,000 people standing on little rugs. Who wants to stand in Antarctica? Sahara? Amazon? Himalayas? Cleveland?
 
The problem isn’t so much significant population increase or aging but increased resource consumption due to a growing middle class, and that in light of environmental damage and peak oil.
 
This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:
  • the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
  • posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.
Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top