• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Overpopulation -- problem?


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#121 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 14 December 2008 - 10:46 PM

I don't want to live in a habitat underground. Having a human population 2000 times that there is now isn't feasible. Also there are large areas of nature that should be protected. Also people may want to live in privacy in small villages isolated from each other etc...
We would have to get to other solar systems if the number of humans expanded that much.
No such scenario is going to happen anyway because if aging is cured people will adjust the number of children they create like in Japan now when actually too few people are born.

#122 drus

  • Guest
  • 278 posts
  • 20
  • Location:?

Posted 20 December 2008 - 04:57 PM

there is no over-population problem...never has been...and never will be! this is a myth perpetrated by the ideology of the corporatocracy and capitalist elite of our world, and based on the false concept of percieved scarcity that runs our current world economy. i have no doubt that the earth is quite capable of supporting several hundred times what our current world population is, if resources were handled more efficiently and equitably.

#123 abolitionist

  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 20 December 2008 - 05:09 PM

there is alot of optimism here - that we could support many times our present population

if only somehow we could get our acts together...

why not prove that we can avoid polluting our planet and develope sustainable energy before increasing the population dramatically?

there is definately the potential to clean up our acts, but the reality is that we are quickly destroying our planet with pollution (and I'm not talking about Co2)

and we definately do not have the will or desire to keep our fellow humans from starving and dying of wars and famine

that's self-evident - look around at all the senseless suffering and depravity, if we can stop it, why don't we?

why not take care of the existing population level before increasing it?

to blame it all on the elite is to ignore human nature

we are not designed to think globally - we are selfish and short sighted creatures

overpopulation is here and now - and until you can fix it, stop making claims that in the future everything will just be so great

that we'll all have everything we need and live forever

that's been the promise as far back as humanity has existed - but take a good look at our world

why make more children when so many are starving and dying without parents or basic life support? it's reckless and selfish

--------------

low birth rate is a myth

there is no standard that says we need to produce a given amount of humans, we should learn to adapt so that we become longer living and self sufficient

without needing to create life haphazardly in order to sustain our greedy careless lives

Edited by abolitionist, 20 December 2008 - 05:16 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#124 drus

  • Guest
  • 278 posts
  • 20
  • Location:?

Posted 20 December 2008 - 05:31 PM

there is alot of optimism here - that we could support many times our present population

if only somehow we could get our acts together...

why not prove that we can avoid polluting our planet and develope sustainable energy before increasing the population dramatically?

there is definately the potential to clean up our acts, but the reality is that we are quickly destroying our planet with pollution (and I'm not talking about Co2)

and we definately do not have the will or desire to keep our fellow humans from starving and dying of wars and famine

that's self-evident

to blame it all on the elite is to ignore human nature

we are not designed to think globally - we are selfish and short sighted creatures

overpopulation is here and now - and until you can fix it, stop making claims that in the future everything will just be so great

that we'll all have everything we need and live forever

that's been the promise as far back as humanity has existed - but take a good look at our world

why make more children when so many are starving and dying without parents or basic life support? it's reckless and selfish

--------------

low birth rate is a myth

there is no standard that says we need to produce a given amount of humans, we should learn to adapt so that we become longer living and self sufficient

without needing to create life haphazardly in order to sustain our greedy careless lives



couple things i'd like to address here. i agree that it is everyone's responsibility...but most people will follow.....or work within the given system without much question. those who have the 'power' make the rules more or less. and yes as far back as humanity has ever existed people have always looked or hoped for something better...and we should continue to do so. however never before in human history have we had the scientific knowledge we do today...thats the difference, and IT WILL EVENTUALLY make all the difference in the world. we can fix it, much of the technology is available now to change things for the better....i'm not making any outlandish claims. children starve and die for exactly the reasons i have stated. i'm ignoring human nature? can you define for me what human nature is exactly? selfishness is just as much a choice as is freedom and liberty. we are intelligent, sentient thinking beings...to blame our problems on our 'nature' is a bunch of BS.

#125 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 20 December 2008 - 05:56 PM

we are not designed to think globally - we are selfish and short sighted creatures


Speak for yourself. Greedy selfish creatures dont get done the things that this wolrd has gotten done and is doing.

I keep forgetting to try to articulate the most obvious reason why potential over population problems are not a reason to slow or stop indefinite life extension. I also dont see others pointing it out, which is kind of confusing now that I think about it. Maybe because its kind of hard to state clearly.

If the world is over populating and we are going to reach a crisis point, then we are either going to all suffer and die, or figure out a solution to the problem whether we have life extension or not. So killing people now by supporting putting off life extension is not the solution to the problem.

Besides, if we are all packed in like sardines and somebody decides to have another baby, and that baby is going to cause additional hardship, people arent going to let them. It seems to me that this isnt that hard of a scenerio to figure out. Its certainly not so great of a horrible stumping problem that we have to advocate eternal obliteration of good people to combat it.

#126 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 20 December 2008 - 10:55 PM

It is a basic human right to live as long as they want, but why should people be allowed to have as many children as they want? Is it really more important to have children than to live?

I don't think birth control is a good idea but what is the alternative? It is not a solution to have a population that is 100 times this amount on the planet because eventually there will be 1000 times this amount in any case and at some point it will not be possible to sustain more humans.

Edited by VictorBjoerk, 20 December 2008 - 10:56 PM.


#127 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 21 December 2008 - 12:33 AM

It is a basic human right to live as long as they want, but why should people be allowed to have as many children as they want? Is it really more important to have children than to live?

I don't think birth control is a good idea but what is the alternative? It is not a solution to have a population that is 100 times this amount on the planet because eventually there will be 1000 times this amount in any case and at some point it will not be possible to sustain more humans.


Exactly, thats another great way to put it, the right to continue living takes precedence over the right to make more life.

I wrote analogy about this in my blog. It talks about the situation in terms of 600 people being trapped in a warehouse forever, then it basically comes down to a guy standing by a composter saying "Hey Bob! Your the oldest here now at 63, Tom and Suzy here just popped out another baby here, hate to bother you but we need to make room." Bob looks up from playing cards and says, "Ahh shucks, and I had a good hand here too, but, we have to make room for Tom and Suzys new baby so by y'all!" *Jumps into composter waving goodbye.

Who really thinks that Tom and Suzy would get away with that?

#128 abolitionist

  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 23 December 2008 - 09:13 PM

there is alot of optimism here - that we could support many times our present population

if only somehow we could get our acts together...

why not prove that we can avoid polluting our planet and develope sustainable energy before increasing the population dramatically?

there is definately the potential to clean up our acts, but the reality is that we are quickly destroying our planet with pollution (and I'm not talking about Co2)

and we definately do not have the will or desire to keep our fellow humans from starving and dying of wars and famine

that's self-evident

to blame it all on the elite is to ignore human nature

we are not designed to think globally - we are selfish and short sighted creatures

overpopulation is here and now - and until you can fix it, stop making claims that in the future everything will just be so great

that we'll all have everything we need and live forever

that's been the promise as far back as humanity has existed - but take a good look at our world

why make more children when so many are starving and dying without parents or basic life support? it's reckless and selfish

--------------

low birth rate is a myth

there is no standard that says we need to produce a given amount of humans, we should learn to adapt so that we become longer living and self sufficient

without needing to create life haphazardly in order to sustain our greedy careless lives



couple things i'd like to address here. i agree that it is everyone's responsibility...but most people will follow.....or work within the given system without much question. those who have the 'power' make the rules more or less. and yes as far back as humanity has ever existed people have always looked or hoped for something better...and we should continue to do so. however never before in human history have we had the scientific knowledge we do today...thats the difference, and IT WILL EVENTUALLY make all the difference in the world. we can fix it, much of the technology is available now to change things for the better....i'm not making any outlandish claims. children starve and die for exactly the reasons i have stated. i'm ignoring human nature? can you define for me what human nature is exactly? selfishness is just as much a choice as is freedom and liberty. we are intelligent, sentient thinking beings...to blame our problems on our 'nature' is a bunch of BS.


prove it

why don't we solve our problems then - before increasing the population?

because we are selfish beings - do you deny that that is our genetic design?

we were molded for a different environment where we didn't have to think globally or live in complex societies

look around - if it wasn't our nature to be stupid and selfish we wouldn't have these problems

DNA is the root of all our problems - not the myth of free will

Edited by abolitionist, 23 December 2008 - 09:27 PM.


#129 abolitionist

  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 23 December 2008 - 09:16 PM

i'm not saying that we shouldn't try and hope for immortality or the end of involuntary suffering

i'm just saying that we should get our acts together before we keep expanding our population

it's obvious that we can't deal with the population as it is - otherwise we would

we always pass the buck to future generations, this has been the course of human history

but until we address our bad genetic design, we'll never have a world of peace and prosperity

because the human drive is for dominance within subjective context which is relative to others

so some will always keep others from getting higher so that they can remain dominant

it's in the genes

Edited by abolitionist, 23 December 2008 - 09:28 PM.


#130 .fonclea.

  • Guest, F@H
  • 300 posts
  • 2
  • Location:none

Posted 24 December 2008 - 12:22 AM

It is a basic human right to live as long as they want, but why should people be allowed to have as many children as they want? Is it really more important to have children than to live?

I don't think birth control is a good idea but what is the alternative? It is not a solution to have a population that is 100 times this amount on the planet because eventually there will be 1000 times this amount in any case and at some point it will not be possible to sustain more humans.



Birth control is the great and only one valuable idea from the moment we leave the chance for all of us to be a mother/father just once.
We learn a lot when we give birth, i never had any children, i don't plan to have one within 3/4 years but i know i'll miss something if i don't.

The bad thing is parents will automatically choose a child with the best genetic profiles.... like fruit and vegetables, humans will loose their "bio-diversity".

There is also the death penality: i've allways been against but it could be used first to eliminate all "deficient" member of the community.... and then because of human selection at birth, there will be less risk of shizophrenie,...


It souds horrible but all that threat souds horrible because it is actually not so far from what the nazi wanted to do.

Edited by .fonclea., 24 December 2008 - 12:24 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users