Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Robert Greene

How Do We Deal With Overpopulation, While Respecting Human Rights?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Overpopulation is a myth peddled by environmentalist control freaks, and bad demographers from the 90's.

You are funny.    One look at Google Earth shows you we have destroyed most of the healthy ecosystems on the planet.  Just go over Brazil and take a look.  Do you see any rain forests left?

Then go over BC and take a close look at all those bald patches on the slopes of the Coastal Mountains.  We are an unstoppable pest driven by some crazy greed and operating under a false and destructive system. 

Think about gold for example.  About 90% of it has no practical usage except for making bullions or jewelry.  For generations we have been destroying habitat for this metal.  What happens with the accumulation of the useless metal I do not know, but I imagine it is kept in some vaults where some sub-humans feel rich and use the metal as some form of control over the banking system and the rest of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, cougar said:

You are funny.    One look at Google Earth shows you we have destroyed most of the healthy ecosystems on the planet.  Just go over Brazil and take a look.  Do you see any rain forests left?

Then go over BC and take a close look at all those bald patches on the slopes of the Coastal Mountains.  We are an unstoppable pest driven by some crazy greed and operating under a false and destructive system. 

Think about gold for example.  About 90% of it has no practical usage except for making bullions or jewelry.  For generations we have been destroying habitat for this metal.  What happens with the accumulation of the useless metal I do not know, but I imagine it is kept in some vaults where some sub-humans feel rich and use the metal as some form of control over the banking system and the rest of us. 

I see lots of rain forests left, especially in Brazil. Brazil and BC aren't overpopulated, and neither are countries with a lot of gold. Some parts of the globe are overpopulated, usually big cities, but in general, the earth could sustain a lot more humans than currently inhabit the planet, and it is not even close to overpopulated.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I see lots of rain forests left, especially in Brazil. Brazil and BC aren't overpopulated, and neither are countries with a lot of gold. Some parts of the globe are overpopulated, usually big cities, but in general, the earth could sustain a lot more humans than currently inhabit the planet, and it is not even close to overpopulated.

Please look again carefully.  Overpopulation in  a province and damage to its environment are not related in a very straightforward way.

While more people generate more waste and pollution of all sorts, the forests in BC are destroyed under the pressure of international demand for timber.  Same with all other natural resources and wildlife.

 

Edited by cougar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cougar said:

Please look again carefully.  Overpopulation in  a province and damage to its environment are not related in a very straightforward way.

While more people generate more waste and pollution of all sorts, the forests in BC are destroyed under the pressure of international demand for timber.  Same with all other natural resources and wildlife.

 

Lots of forests in BC too, just because there is demand for timber doesn't mean all the forests in BC will be gone soon. You look again carefully, you missed a lot forests, to fear monger about overpopulation, which is a myth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Lots of forests in BC too, just because there is demand for timber doesn't mean all the forests in BC will be gone soon. You look again carefully, you missed a lot forests, to fear monger about overpopulation, which is a myth.

I guess you can keep your point of view and I can keep mine.    We can leave it at that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make less babies. If sex is needed either use contraceptives or don't let it out into the woman's vagina. Or if unsure about children, don't have children at all or adopt one instead of making one.

Edited by Alex Reese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2019 at 1:11 AM, cougar said:

You are funny.    One look at Google Earth shows you we have destroyed most of the healthy ecosystems on the planet.  Just go over Brazil and take a look.  Do you see any rain forests left?

Then go over BC and take a close look at all those bald patches on the slopes of the Coastal Mountains.  We are an unstoppable pest driven by some crazy greed and operating under a false and destructive system. 

Think about gold for example.  About 90% of it has no practical usage except for making bullions or jewelry.  For generations we have been destroying habitat for this metal.  What happens with the accumulation of the useless metal I do not know, but I imagine it is kept in some vaults where some sub-humans feel rich and use the metal as some form of control over the banking system and the rest of us. 

So you did post on this Thread.... I guess that guy influenced you.... but I don't see him mentioning anything about hoping there is a pandemic to whipe people out. In my opinion capitalism can't survive in an overpopulated world. Future generations won't have the same freedoms, we have today... because things will become less affordable, as resources become more difficult to obtain.

At some point, overpopulation will lead to less freedom, instead of more freedom. Just look at all the new rules and regulations coming about.

There was an interesting debate about overpopulation with Piers morgan recently... and you could see a conservative hack saying.... We should encourage more babies... because we need more people, and more diversity of thought, to solve the worlds environmental challenges.

Canadians seem to take overpopulation more seriously, because they grew up loving nature... but if you go to Politically Correct europe... all they do... is encourage mass immigration and the expansions of their cities.

 

Edited by ProudConservative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ProudConservative said:

So you did post on this Thread.... I guess that guy influenced you.... but I don't see him mentioning anything about hoping there is a pandemic to whipe people out.

Yes, It looks like I posted.   I am mostly influenced by my own experience and concerns but I am open to other points of view if well presented and backed by evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cougar said:

Yes, It looks like I posted.   I am mostly influenced by my own experience and concerns but I am open to other points of view if well presented and backed by evidence.

Ya, but when you say.... you're looking forward to the Chinese dying... you put fuel into the Agenda 21 conspiracy theorist, who think people like Bill Gates... want to murder billions of people to depopulate the planet.

The far right, and the far left... won't have a conversation on overpopulation.... It's usually the moderates, who can look at things objectively, and make some proposals... that seem to go nowhere.

The FAR right will accuse you of being a new world order hack... If you try to do anything to encourage people to have less babies

Apparently the elites are looking forward to "The Great Culling"

 

Edited by ProudConservative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ProudConservative said:

So now alot of people hoping the Coronavirus cause depopulation.

Cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, eyeball said:

Cite?

If you watch some of the live youtube feeds about the death toll, many people in the comments are saying that depopulation in a good thing. There are comments all over the internet saying this will help save the earth.

Edited by ProudConservative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2017 at 12:56 PM, Robert Greene said:

Why are we spending billions on energy retrofit programs, climate change research, environmental consultants, and conservation, when we are spending next to nothing to slow down population growth? We're putting a lot of resources into energy efficiency, but all that goes to vain when we ignore rapid population growth. We can't allow ourselves to go beyond 10 Billion, or there will be severe consequences for our quality of life, and environment. We need a plan for humanity to survive at least another 1000 years, and ethical depopulation might be the solution.

Are we simply going to ignore the issue, and let countries like India and China get over 2 billion? How will future generations maintain a high quality of life, when the resources start to run out? What will the quality of life be like for them, when they can't get access to affordable food, housing and transportation? The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic. We are running out of farmland, and we don't need to watch the Amazon get destroyed, in order to make room for new farms.

By gradually reducing the World's populating, we could start to regrow forests outside cities, providing a beautiful landscape and recreation opportunities for future generations.

How do we proceed with aggressive action on overpopulation that will be ethical, and not interfere with humans rights?

I give you a picture of Mexico City, showing 16 Square kilometers, without a park or woodlot. How do we get nature back in a rapidly growing city?

 

Mexico.jpg

They already figured that one out in 1940, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2020 at 8:01 PM, ProudConservative said:

Carl Young is a slippery fellow, he never tells ya what he honestly believes... only leaves ya with little clues.

Like Neil Young... better to burn out than fade away.

My views are that people who have attained wisdom, and understand the complexity of our systems and are empathetic ... do recognize what is needed, and the futility of trying to make it happen.  A wholesale redesign and reconstruction of society, well... that might work... but WW2 was kind of the result of that.

I believe the new society is being built beside the old one as we speak, and governments will have little to do with it, and it will be both 'left' and 'right'.

The environmental challenges will happen and the result is anyone's guess, but the dinosaurs of the petroleum industry are slowly lying down for sleep.

Also population growth has little to do with it - it's CO2 production.  You can have population levelling, or shrinkage and still have increased CO2.  You can have population growth and reduced CO2.  The Teck letter has highlighted to me that the world is moving towards CO2 reduction now in earnest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2020 at 7:25 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Like Neil Young... better to burn out than fade away.

My views are that people who have attained wisdom, and understand the complexity of our systems and are empathetic ... do recognize what is needed, and the futility of trying to make it happen.  A wholesale redesign and reconstruction of society, well... that might work... but WW2 was kind of the result of that.

I believe the new society is being built beside the old one as we speak, and governments will have little to do with it, and it will be both 'left' and 'right'.

The environmental challenges will happen and the result is anyone's guess, but the dinosaurs of the petroleum industry are slowly lying down for sleep.

Also population growth has little to do with it - it's CO2 production.  You can have population levelling, or shrinkage and still have increased CO2.  You can have population growth and reduced CO2.  The Teck letter has highlighted to me that the world is moving towards CO2 reduction now in earnest.

You are doing a lot of talking here, without trying to solve the overpopulation problem. So now, why don't you show us how you can do some walking?

So, how would you deal with over-population? Just asking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There is no overpopulation problem.

 

The only one who thinks so is conspiracy theory Bill Gates and his nefarious genocidal foundation.

Absolutely, there is an over consumption problem not an over population one.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2020 at 4:20 PM, Michael Hardner said:

There is no overpopulation problem.

 

The only one who thinks so is conspiracy theory Bill Gates and his nefarious genocidal foundation.

Now  Mr. Harder. Please be fair.

https://blog.arcadia.com/10-key-facts-statistics-overpopulation/

The concept of over-population is complex and ties in to many issues.  Its not just an issue of the total number of people on this planet, but how we are distributed geographically and what happens when we are concentrated into specific areas not spread out and how we use the planet when we are "over-concentrated" in specific areas.

To say India and China are not over-populated or the same for Nigeria or other countries with populations they can't sustain is pointless.

Cairo is a classic example of over-population and Egypt itself concentrates its population along a strip close to the Nile River.

Canada is not overpopulated if you are to talk of the entire nation's size, but 90% of its population is in a 200 square mile radius along the US border and please do not tell me Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal do not have high density issues.

Mexico City, Calcutta, New Delhi, Mumbai, Rome, Paris, London, Netherlands, have challenges with their population density. Israel is a tiny nation. It may not have lots of people compared to Nigeria or China but its a huge problem where to place people. Likewise in the Gaza and West Bank.

Its fine to say the world is not overpopulated but when you cancel out its inhospitable land zones and the ocean, just how much land is left for people to live on and do you think you can move Chinese and Indians there without a problem?

How we use our natural resources and how we pollute is directly related to energy consumption which is directly related to where populations concentrate.

Just what is the difference between over-concentration and over-population? Does anyone really know?

All scientists do know is problems arise with over-concentration of any one life form dominating an ecosphere and that most of the time refers to rats, cock-roaches and homo sapiens or other vermin or pests.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rue
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2020 at 10:25 AM, Michael Hardner said:

 

Also population growth has little to do with it - it's CO2 production.  You can have population levelling, or shrinkage and still have increased CO2.  You can have population growth and reduced CO2.  The Teck letter has highlighted to me that the world is moving towards CO2 reduction now in earnest.

Not true. Where population over-concentrates in density C02 production escalates dramatically. You can check that out yourself.  I guess I watch too much of that commie David Suzuki.

Its confusing. He also has time to play centre on the Habs. I had no idea he could to both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rue said:

Not true. Where population over-concentrates in density C02 production escalates dramatically. You can check that out yourself.  I guess I watch too much of that commie David Suzuki.

Its confusing. He also has time to play centre on the Habs. I had no idea he could to both.

Yes, but there's a missing part to your equation.  They are generating CO2 not because they are clumped together but because they are consuming more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, but there's a missing part to your equation.  They are generating CO2 not because they are clumped together but because they are consuming more.

True. aLSO TO B E FAIR TO YOU herr Harder, in support of your argument there is this study I found that says energy consumption goes down 12%:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988312000059

Here is one that advocates for packing us together in high density areas to reduce energy use:

https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/future-energy-why-power-density-matters

However that said I found many that said there is no real energy savings in high dense areas as its offset by inefficient buildings so it depends on what kind of buildings you build. The studies also show population density in itself is not the true issue, its the lowering of carbon emissions when using energy that will be the key issue.

Also the key issue to population growth is finding food and water and we must remember the  moreepeople are born the more likely they move to cities demanding water and food not to mention an increase in laws and rules to stop them from killing each other if they do not work. So yes I concede  you can make a good argument for cities Senor Harder saving energy but they also increase use of energy and create other social issues such as crime, increased demands for control over individual rights, and  in the short term air pollution from cars.

Most studies will go on to state that unless cities engage in low carbon energy models, they actually simply increase CO2 emissions....but you knew that from many other things I have read from you.

So  let me pose it this way if I may:

According to the UN and most demographers there is agreement that  currently, the Earth’s population is growing by  give or take 60,000 people every eight hours  or two children born every second somewhere around the globe. Now although Slinky Dog has only made one post, I would suggest with a handle like that, he may be responsible for many of those  births. That said,  most demographers agree with our current population growth we’ll need 50 percent more energy to sustain humanity by 2050 and so of course  more food, water and shelter, putting a strain on our renewable resources, as well, keeping in mind i we throw away 1/3rd of the world's edible food supply as waste which is mind boggling and high density populations make huge amounts of garbage and strain the sewer and refuse systems.

Now we are told  United States has a population of just over 300 million people --or  about 5 percent of the people on Earth yet it consumese 20 percent of the world’s energy and cause 19 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases while China  with 20 percent of the world's population is responsible for 33 percent of its greenhouse emissions.  India the second largest population uses only 5 percent of the world's energy....but  with 1.2 billion people, it's responsible for almost 17 percent of the Earth’s population. In the United States, 40 percent of their  water resources are already so polluted, they're unsafe for fishing or cannot support aquatic life. What happens when all these mega cities people need to pee and poo? Where does all their garbage go?

That alone should tell you that:

1-demand for energy across the globe will increase and  contribute to deforestation, global warming and other environmental issues like pollution and acid rain;

2-any energy savings we can get the first world to incorporate will be offset by population increases outside the first world;

3-the key to survival is in recycling or waste and garbage as the world shrinks or it will as it is now, kill us off-the epidemic rates of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, are lifestyle diseases related to urban living. So are so many other diseases. The sheer concentration of micro-waves and radiation let alone exposure to car exhaust in cities is killing us.

I do not want to be reborn living in a mega-city teaming with millions in tiny spaces. Yech. Give me a home where the Buffalo roam and the skies are not cloudy all day with acid raid clouds and surveillance satellites. Mr.H I relish the little time I have left and hope to retire driving about in Canada's vast spaces singing to pine trees and talking to chipmunks (the real monks) about the Mandela effect as well as talking quantitative physics with  moose and musk ox (they smell like politicians) or the con's of vegetarianism with Polar Bears or finding the elusive Bigfoot which I know is a relative of Shaq O'Neil..

That said clearly population rise increases energy usage and energy usage increases exploitation of the earth's resources leading to permanent damage and toxic pollution, etc.

 

 

 

Edited by Rue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...