Overpopulation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2017, 06:53 PM
RE: Overpopulation
(28-01-2017 03:05 PM)Manic Wrote:  
(28-01-2017 01:31 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  How long do you piss all over the toilet lid -- before you find a "scientific proof" that you need to put the lid up to take a leak??????

.............

If there's a smaller group of people -- putting out the same amount of environmental contamination per person as a larger group of people --- which group do you think is going to make the greater environmental impact?????

You really "need the math" to figure out the blindingly obvious????

Sorry to put this post here, I was gearing up to reply to your ridiculous argument, but my sister died last night unexpectedly, my head is up the creek now, I've been drinking today. She was 50 years old and worthy of her place on this planet, I am gutted, absolutely gutted.

Sorry to hear! Heart

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2017, 10:21 PM
RE: Overpopulation
(27-01-2017 07:17 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  In any closed environment - there is a maximum sustainable population for any given organism in that system. If the population of any one organism gets too high - it will hit a tipping point - and something -- usually a lack of food, or a toxic level of it's own waste products -- start to kill off the population growth.

The technical term is carrying capacity. It's more difficult to calculate for humans because our relationship with our environent is much more complex than with non-sentient organisms. The consensus is that the maximum short-term carrying capacity for our species is about 10 billion individuals. The long-term, sustainable carrying capacity is more difficult to estimate but is likely 100 million, give or take an order of magnitude. That means that we're already 1 to 3 orders of magnitude above the Earth's long-term carrying capacity for our species.

Here's one quick factoid that illustrates the problem.
[Image: land_mammals.png]

So, simple problem complex solution. Typical. Here's what doesn't work:

- Gradual reduction in birth rates: OK, strictly speaking this works but it's such a long-term solution that we'll all be dead before it can have much of an effect.

- Rapid reduction of birth rates: China's one child law is a textbook case in how not to do this. It pretty much requires a despotic regime to implement and a great deal of planning on how to avoid or mitigate the worst of the conequences.

- High death rates: Morality aside, unleashing any one of the Four Horsemen to deal with overpopulation just leads to a collapse of civilization and boom and bust population cycles that are worse than the status quo.

- Politicians: Arguably worse than any of the Four Horsemen, politicians are notoriously myopic and impossible to get motivated on multi-generational plans. They are also just crafty enough to realize that the politician who turns Child Tax Credits into Child Taxes is destined for rapid replacement by somebody who is much more pro-breeder.

- Targetting developped nations: The majority of these already have Fertility Rates that are less than 2 and either have stable or shrinking populations. In the USA, the population is only growing because of lag effects and immigration. With a TFR of 1.87 and falling you will soon need those Mexicans and Syrians just to maintain a stable population base.

What does work is education, birth control and prosperity. Education, especially amongst women, helps to lower the TFR. This is even more effective if birth control is easily available. Prosperity lowers the TFR by making endlessly popping out rugrats less desirable given the option of an otherwise comfy lifestyle.

[Image: 708px-TFR_vs_PPP_2015.png]

The Global TFR is already falling rapidly. It's down from ~4.9 in the 1950s to just ~2.3 today. This is likely to fall below 2 in the next ten years and stabilize global population within the next 30 to 40 years.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
29-01-2017, 08:28 AM
Overpopulation
Ever worked as a paramedic in the ghetto? Section 8 housing? Your eyes are opened real quick as to this issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2017, 08:39 AM
RE: Overpopulation
I think they should pay people to voluntarily sterilise themselves.

When a person reaches a certain age, lets say 21+, they can choose to be sterilised for a large cash sum.

If you pay somebody £25,000, that would be considerably cheaper than having to pay for another 1+ members of society throughout their lives.

It wont happen though, caus of capitalism.

I feel so much, and yet I feel nothing.
I am a rock, I am the sky, the birds and the trees and everything beyond.
I am the wind, in the fields in which I roar. I am the water, in which I drown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like bemore's post
29-01-2017, 09:03 AM
RE: Overpopulation
(29-01-2017 08:39 AM)bemore Wrote:  I think they should pay people to voluntarily sterilise themselves.

When a person reaches a certain age, lets say 21+, they can choose to be sterilised for a large cash sum.

If you pay somebody £25,000, that would be considerably cheaper than having to pay for another 1+ members of society throughout their lives.

It wont happen though, caus of capitalism.

Modern resurgence in eugenics did start with a Brit. Which is kinda ironic given the royal inbreds various genetic malformities.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2017, 09:38 AM
RE: Overpopulation
(29-01-2017 09:03 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(29-01-2017 08:39 AM)bemore Wrote:  I think they should pay people to voluntarily sterilise themselves.

When a person reaches a certain age, lets say 21+, they can choose to be sterilised for a large cash sum.

If you pay somebody £25,000, that would be considerably cheaper than having to pay for another 1+ members of society throughout their lives.

It wont happen though, caus of capitalism.

Modern resurgence in eugenics did start with a Brit. Which is kinda ironic given the royal inbreds various genetic malformities.

My idea isnt Eugenics. Its not choosing who over any particular reason. Its voluntary. Im not aware of any voluntary eugenics programme's in history?

I feel so much, and yet I feel nothing.
I am a rock, I am the sky, the birds and the trees and everything beyond.
I am the wind, in the fields in which I roar. I am the water, in which I drown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2017, 09:51 AM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2017 09:55 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Overpopulation
(29-01-2017 09:38 AM)bemore Wrote:  
(29-01-2017 09:03 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Modern resurgence in eugenics did start with a Brit. Which is kinda ironic given the royal inbreds various genetic malformities.

My idea isnt Eugenics. Its not choosing who over any particular reason. Its voluntary. Im not aware of any voluntary eugenics programme's in history?


There's Great Britain's 1913 Mental Deficiency Act and while the sterilisation programmes were never legalised, ... "those in support of eugenics shifted their lobbying of Parliament from enforced to voluntary sterilization, in the hope of achieving more legal recognition." And there's the non-profit Project Prevention in the US. There are more.

Compulsory and voluntary or incentivized sterilization programs are both eugenics.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2017, 09:55 AM
RE: Overpopulation
(29-01-2017 08:39 AM)bemore Wrote:  I think they should pay people to voluntarily sterilise themselves.

When a person reaches a certain age, lets say 21+, they can choose to be sterilised for a large cash sum.

If you pay somebody £25,000, that would be considerably cheaper than having to pay for another 1+ members of society throughout their lives.

It wont happen though, caus of capitalism.

I've had this idea myself -- and the most common response I've gotten - is "You're trying to eliminate the poor people".


As if that's a bad thing.

Isn't elimination of poverty a GOOD goal???

I don't see it as "eliminating poor people" -- I look at it as giving poor people a chance not to be poor.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2017, 10:21 AM
RE: Overpopulation
(29-01-2017 09:55 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(29-01-2017 08:39 AM)bemore Wrote:  I think they should pay people to voluntarily sterilise themselves.

When a person reaches a certain age, lets say 21+, they can choose to be sterilised for a large cash sum.

If you pay somebody £25,000, that would be considerably cheaper than having to pay for another 1+ members of society throughout their lives.

It wont happen though, caus of capitalism.

I've had this idea myself -- and the most common response I've gotten - is "You're trying to eliminate the poor people".


As if that's a bad thing.

Isn't elimination of poverty a GOOD goal???

I don't see it as "eliminating poor people" -- I look at it as giving poor people a chance not to be poor.

It's not like these things haven't been considered before. The ethics of it look too slippery for me without my crampons.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
30-01-2017, 07:35 AM
RE: Overpopulation
(29-01-2017 10:21 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(29-01-2017 09:55 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I've had this idea myself -- and the most common response I've gotten - is "You're trying to eliminate the poor people".


As if that's a bad thing.

Isn't elimination of poverty a GOOD goal???

I don't see it as "eliminating poor people" -- I look at it as giving poor people a chance not to be poor.

It's not like these things haven't been considered before. The ethics of it look too slippery for me without my crampons.

Why do you think it's unethical to encourage people to forego procreation in an overpopulated world????????

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: