A potential and controversial solution to overpopulation.

[Darth Rotor]

What if your assumptions are wrong?

What I learned a while back was that, if the assumptions are wrong, the plan often has trouble in implementation.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

do to the resource use per capita it is indeed a population problem.

you can make a choice, less people with higher standards of living or more people with lesser standard of living.
both seem not possible so far. so the problem is either your way of licing or to much population.

But that's simply not true. We don't have a problem of not having enough resources, or capability to extract them and turn them into end product. We can do that right now, but we have extraneous problems preventing us from being more productive.

We do not have infinite resources, but we have plenty of resources. We have plenty of land to harvest food, we have plenty of oil, (again I'm confident that we will come up with a solution well before the wells are tapped) we have plenty of air, water, granite, trees, etc, etc.

Prove me wrong. But remember, your argument is that there is an unsustainable ratio of people to resources, in an absolute sense, not in the sense that there are barriers to production or inefficient yield of those resources due to any extraneous and human created problems.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

What if your assumptions are wrong?

Then it's bad news.

But first of all, it's not exactly a wild guess that we will find new and more efficient, environmentally friendly ways to power our world. There's quite a bit of evidence in my favor. Do you disagree?

But yes, if there are no artificial barriers to voluntary trade, entrepreneurship, and production, and we still are never able to phase out say, gasoline and coal, then yes, population control would likely be the only viable solution.

But it's still a solution. It still means I'm right, that the problems were unsolvable, we tried, we failed, and now we must implement the only solution we are capable of thinking of: controlling the population so that each person gets more of the finite supply of x, y, and z.

Can you honestly deny that I'm right about this? It's not a problem, but simply a type of solution to the other problems. Whether we are able to solve them or not doesn't change the fact that those are the problems.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

The gene would have to be in females only otherwise it'd be useless.

'splanashin plz&ty

Since a small number of men are already having most of the sex with almost all women

sauce??

Intelligence doesn't matter, as the USSR proved.

What matters is freedom, and specifically, economic freedom. Which is to say, the recognition of property rights in a stable society with rule of law. People need to be secure in the product of their own efforts, be it from high taxation or de facto confiscation via over-regulation, to kickbacks to local mafia thugs or local politicians or officials.


In that environment, then we breed advancing technology and solutions to problems the most quickly.

Couldn't agree more. And in fact, saying that overpopulation is a problem reminds me of the symptom/cause confusion of the argument against sweatshops. The sweatshop is merely a symptom of the real problem: poorly enforced or defined property rights for any number of reasons, and corruption, either governmental or otherwise, and lack of economic freedom to pursue whatever you dream up.

SO THIS IS WHAT IT'S LIKE WHEN DOVES CRY.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

'splanashin plz&ty



sauce??





SO THIS IS WHAT IT'S LIKE WHEN DOVES CRY.

been drinkin a little tonight?

 

[DC]

But that's simply not true. We don't have a problem of not having enough resources, or capability to extract them and turn them into end product. We can do that right now, but we have extraneous problems preventing us from being more productive.

We do not have infinite resources, but we have plenty of resources. We have plenty of land to harvest food, we have plenty of oil, (again I'm confident that we will come up with a solution well before the wells are tapped) we have plenty of air, water, granite, trees, etc, etc.

Prove me wrong. But remember, your argument is that there is an unsustainable ratio of people to resources, in an absolute sense, not in the sense that there are barriers to production or inefficient yield of those resources due to any extraneous and human created problems.

we have enough for the status quo. But only China and India reaching the same resource use per capita would change that drastically.

Time will prove you or me wrong.

 

[SezMe]

But first of all, it's not exactly a wild guess that we will find new and more efficient, environmentally friendly ways to power our world. There's quite a bit of evidence in my favor. Do you disagree?

Yes.

But it's still a solution. It still means I'm right, that the problems were unsolvable, we tried, we failed, and now we must implement the only solution we are capable of thinking of: controlling the population so that each person gets more of the finite supply of x, y, and z.

Can you honestly deny that I'm right about this?

Yes. And, please leave the holier-than-thou attitude at home.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

Yes.


Yes. And, please leave the holier-than-thou attitude at home.

I didn't mean to be patronizing.

But you simply state, matter-of-factly that you disagree, but you haven't explained why?

The only way you can be right is if the problems you've listed are truly unsolvable in an ultimate or tautological sense. I think you're in the minority if you hold that view, and I can't see any reason why you should think that, given that we are making progress on those problems right now.

 

[Beerina]

? i probably misunderstand you, but do you believe this planet can hold an infinite number of human beings?

This is an old red herring. It could hold trillions, and we're a long, long way from that.

And trillions, in a free economy, would be generating solutions to problems at an astounding rate.

 

[Beerina]

What if your assumptions are wrong?

They are not.


Opposed to that, we have definite, repeated proof that straying from property rights with a secure rule of law does, in fact, cause far more misery than the kinds of things you worry about. Witness North vs. South Korea, or Hong Kong vs. the rest of China, especially several years ago or more.

Or Haiti vs. The Dominican Republic, for that matter. Government matters. And the errors it make matter. "Environmental issues", statistically, pale in comparison to how badly things can affect humans.

 

[Beerina]

we have enough for the status quo. But only China and India reaching the same resource use per capita would change that drastically.

Time will prove you or me wrong.

Here's a hint: These theories have been tested, and you will turn out wrong.

 

[DC]

This is an old red herring. It could hold trillions, and we're a long, long way from that.

And trillions, in a free economy, would be generating solutions to problems at an astounding rate.

LOL dream on.

 

[DC]

Here's a hint: These theories have been tested, and you will turn out wrong.

partly free markets are fine and well in most sectors, but in the essential important sectors not at all.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

partly free markets are fine and well in most sectors, but in the essential important sectors not at all.

This is vague bordering on meaningless.

The point of this specific argument is that more people is better, and that the problem is not "too many people," but rather other problems, like authoritarian policies, no freedom, no human rights, violence, corruption, no property rights, no economic autonomy, etc, etc.

These things can be solved. And the solution is not limited to, restricting the growth of population. At least not for now, or our lifetimes.

I ask you to prove that overpopulation is the cause of human suffering.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

LOL dream on.

LOL make your case then. What's the limit for population of human beings on planet Earth, and why?

 

[SezMe]

I ask you to prove that overpopulation is the cause of human suffering.

While I'll post more later, I wish you'd stop demanding "proof". There is no such thing in matters such as this and demanding it is silly. There are values, judgment calls, models, projections, data, etc., etc. There is no PROOF.

 

[kevinquinnyo]

While I'll post more later, I wish you'd stop demanding "proof". There is no such thing in matters such as this and demanding it is silly. There are values, judgment calls, models, projections, data, etc., etc. There is no PROOF.

Well I disagree. I don't think demanding proof is silly.

I guess I'll just wait then, but I have to tell you, I'm not thrilled that you've prefaced your response by deeming "PROOF," invalid.

It's not opinion. We're not talking about whether lavender is prettier than fuchsia, we're talking about a real issue, and you've provided nothing to back up your claim that population is a problem.

 

[DC]

This is vague bordering on meaningless.

The point of this specific argument is that more people is better, and that the problem is not "too many people," but rather other problems, like authoritarian policies, no freedom, no human rights, violence, corruption, no property rights, no economic autonomy, etc, etc.

These things can be solved. And the solution is not limited to, restricting the growth of population. At least not for now, or our lifetimes.

I ask you to prove that overpopulation is the cause of human suffering.

We are not even able to solve the Global Warming problem or at least take meaningful steps to counter act it. and our markets are not really free.
And somehow you believe that deregulate the market will make companies and private persons, take more care for pollution and global warming?
The contrary would happen.
As big communities we are not even able to do enough, why on earth would you think we would be able to if the community does not force people to take more care?

 

[DC]

LOL make your case then. What's the limit for population of human beings on planet Earth, and why?

what the limit is, depends on the use of resources and the creation of pollution and global warming.
and why? what do you think will happen to the oil reserves when China and India reach our standard of living? What would happen to pollution? Global warming?

btw, do you even believe in global warming?

 

[Darth Rotor]

LOL make your case then. What's the limit for population of human beings on planet Earth, and why?

That isn't the same issue of whether or not population, and specifically over population, is a problem.

In particular, overpopulation is a root cause of war, though you can argue that the "overpopluation" is confined to a locale or area. But if you scale that up, you run across the root cause of friction that can lead to war.

See Darfur, where the population has exceeded the lands' ability to support two different groups, so their general struggle has turned into a form of war, raiding, and slaughter.

The population pressure is mitigated, or not, by resources and social frameworks.

Beerina's point about government matters is spot on, if you bother to check about six thousand years of human history. A densly populated Holland has social structures that a denstly populated Rwanda or Kenya does not, as yet, have. Guess who has had trouble with violent clashes?

Population pressure: it's real, and it is a root cause of problems.

The other question you ask, "what is the population figure for Earth" is bounded by at least two factors:

What assumptions you first make on the social structure to be established, and the supply of fresh water.

With a nomadic social structure, you need more acres per person than with an agrarian one, for example. The water never stops being an issue.