Discourse on the Need of Properly Securing a Solution to th

**(EDIT: Somebody made the character-count on the title box less than it needs to be. This post is on overpopulation among other things).

The population of the world is increasing. That much I know, because a school was built in my own town which already has a suitably functional building and staff for an education such as I had. Fallacy-hunters will be quick to point out the possibility that some of the world’s existing persons could have departed their location, to arrive in the area of mine, leaving the population as a whole of an equal number. In defense, I would admit the possibility, but point out that observations peculiar to our own being must be considered legitimately generalizable lest we risk the danger of a more global skepticism in many other areas where such generalizations occur, including science. And I would further add, that the fact of increasing population is as well-documented a scientific fact as any other piece of knowledge. I’m sure there is more for a fallacy-hunter to say here, but until presented with evidence to the contrary, let’s get on with the real topic.

I am not well-read in any of the literature relevant to the topic of overpopulation. In fact, it may seem a leap to decide that the world is over-populated rather than just more-populated. All I can do here, (not having read the relevant literature), is press on your intuitions. --Don’t you dislike people? Hm? --Think about how they are. Think about how the self-interested nature and drives of each make solving a problem like the litter of deposited cigarette buts on a thoroughfare intractable. I blame the creator of the universe, but some will blame evolution, and though surely the camp that I’m apart of will have one-uped the opposition in the order of causes, that debate is quite tangential to the current topic.

Those who know me, and who are given to personal attacks, may at this juncture point out that I live in such a sparsely populated area that I have to travel some distance even to meet my closest neighbour. That is true. But not far from here, in the municipalities of Southern Ontario, the problem is magnified. And in the cities of Toronto and Ottawa, and others, the problem of overpopulation has reached such a point that the common people forgo the liberty of listening to the music of their choice, and the freedom of communting where they will, to stand shoulder to shoulder, cramped in giant cars that are called buses. And these leave you where the partially accountable government, (accountability is diluted proportionately to the actual population), decides it should, to walk the rest of the way. I could bring to bear on the topic other such experiences, but I assume they are familiar to the most of you.

And let no one doubt that something needs to be done. --That people starve and die because farmable land is devoted to coffee and tea and tobacco to satisfy the choice of these overgrown cancerous populations, and other such things. The problem seems to be that off telling someone why sticking his dick in certain places is to the detriment of himself, despite all appearances, because it seems that it being merely to the detriment of the rest of us is insufficient to get someone even to deposit a cigarette butt in a garbage can. I am not saying that people should put their dick in a garbage can, or even commit the impropriety of sticking it in a woman’s ass and pretending that you missed the spot aimed for.

I am not so much proffering a solution as I am beginning a dialogue on the need to find one. And I expect that the considerations I’ve raised will be helpful in beginning that conversation. There is one thing that I should eliminate as a solution, though, first of all. There are some here, at this website, who will suggest that the solution would be forced sterilization, forced something or other, or forced castration passed off as an accident at forced circumcisions. I say that to force anything is contrary to everything I stand for, as a conservative. I don’t expect everyone to agree, but if your solution is no better than the ones I’ve mentioned, then I am glad we have jail cells for you.

From the overpopulationmyth.com website:

Whole World, 6.5 Billion, fit in any US State? Yes!
Largest State----Alaska: 4 Bedroom House for each person!
Smallest State–Rhode Island: Dancing Room!

And here is another way in which the world’s population can be put in perspective:

From the Global Issues website:

[Decided to shorten this. You can go to the Global Issues website for considerably more info.]

[b]Infectious diseases continue to blight the lives of the poor across the world. An estimated 40 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, with 3 million deaths in 2004. Every year there are 350–500 million cases of malaria, with 1 million fatalities: Africa accounts for 90 percent of malarial deaths and African children account for over 80 percent of malaria victims worldwide.

Number of children in the world 2.2 billion. Number in poverty 1 billion (every second child).
For the 1.9 billion children from the developing world, there are:
•640 million without adequate shelter (1 in 3)
•400 million with no access to safe water (1 in 5)
•270 million with no access to health services (1 in 7)
Children out of education worldwide121 millionSurvival for children
Worldwide,
•10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children population in France, Germany, Greece and Italy)
•1.4 million die each year from lack of access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation
Health of children
Worldwide,
•2.2 million children die each year because they are not immunized
•15 million children orphaned due to HIV/AIDS (similar to the total children population in Germany or United Kingdom)

Consider the global priorities in spending in 1998

Global Priority

$U.S. Billions
Cosmetics in the United States 8
Ice cream in Europe 11
Perfumes in Europe and the United States 12
Pet foods in Europe and the United States 17
Business entertainment in Japan 35
Cigarettes in Europe 50
Alcoholic drinks in Europe 105
Narcotics drugs in the world 400
Military spending in the world 780

And compare that to what was estimated as additional costs to achieve universal access to basic social services in all developing countries:

Global Priority

$U.S. Billions

Basic education for all 6
Water and sanitation for all 9
Reproductive health for all women 12
Basic health and nutrition 13[/b]

Snap son. iambiguous, could you please delete everything you have cut and pasted from some other website in your post above this one? Thanks, Mo

How is it not relevant to a discussion of overpopulation? As you yourself note:

And let no one doubt that something needs to be done. --That people starve and die because farmable land is devoted to coffee and tea and tobacco to satisfy the choice of these overgrown cancerous populations, and other such things.

I just expanded that approach to include the manner in which political economy impacts on the actual world we live in.

And I truly concur when you argue:

There are some here, at this website, who will suggest that the solution would be forced sterilization, forced something or other, or forced castration passed off as an accident at forced circumcisions. I say that to force anything is contrary to everything I stand for, as a conservative.

And I concur as a liberal.

Perhaps you can convince a moderator that I am hijacking the tread and have him obliterate it. I will certainly stand by his right to do so.

I think the world is already overpopulated, that it cannot support the current population without over time making the place pretty unihabitable. Now I would guess the build ups of heavy metals, radiation, hormones, pesticides and other carcinogens, and likely soon nanomachines will somehow be survived by some creatures, but the lush ecosystems and the large human population will get smashed, even at current levels. I suppose one should try to demonstrate this, but frankly this is such a complicated set of phenomena I would prefer to just call this my guess, however pretty damn certain I am. And then the population is increasing. I think more negative tipping points will happen, perhaps piling up rather fast.

Unfortunately, I do not think we will learn any other way but the hard way, the species as a whole that is. I won’t come and argue this position, because the people who think dialogue can be part of a solution I am rooting for, though without much hope.

I think it will take widespread disaster and a very clear trimming back of the species before any real changes are made at global levels - read: with any real effect. And even then these changes will come too late for most species and most of ours.

To put a practical spin on this position: I think stuff has to be in people’s faces. Only self-interest and fear can amass enough change momentum. So whatever is done, needs to scare people and engage their self-interest.

I agree with this part. Totalitarian type solutions will create resistence and violent resistence. Not that would only object on consequentialist grounds.

I would go even further and say that guilt is not going to work either. making people feel guilty about the consequences of overpopulation and also waste society. This can create some short term gains, but in the long run, people don’t like it and rebel.

The economic disparity material is close enough to derailing, in this context. You can expand any discussion into political economy if you really want, but please save it for the threads where the OP is about political economy. Matters of population and health are (tangentially) relevant. In this case, Mo_ appears to be writing a satire on the thought processes of people who are concerned about overpopulation, but the thrust of the thesis is currently lost on me. Although it is an entertaining OP.

Given your support and the volume of text that was just cut-and-pasted, I hope you don’t mind my having redacted the economics. I added a link to the website you mentioned.

Before we can judge whether the Earth is overpopulated, one must know what the planet can support and how to be efficient with resources. We also must understand ourselves completely, in order to understand what we require the environment for and what our place within it is.

Our planet can support everyone alive this very day. Current ‘Economics’ is fucking stupid and detached from reality. Companies disregard natural resources, because scarcity in our current system, equals value in the remaining resources. Everyone fights for the bottom line ‘money’, instead of fighting for the well being of our planet, and with that, ourselves.

We have to learn to love each other, and our planet. To respect what enables life and don’t live for fear. We are lead by men who live for fear. Live for control. Are you surprised children starve to death everyday without need?

If any part of you tries to justify this, it needs to be cut out of you and purged.

THINK WITH YOUR HEART, NOT YOUR HEAD.

Fuck you, friends. Fuck you all. I love you.

Okay by me.

The problem isn’t overpopulation, the problem is over consumption. Let’s start genetically modifying future generations to be smaller (that’s probably why ET was such a little fucker). Also, let’s start going for quality goods rather than disposable ones, eg stop using disposable nappies (diapers) etc.

At the current rate we are liable to eventually have a similar problem even if we engineer future generations to be shorter and less rotund.

Well I live in the country and get in traffic jams on b roads, every trek to the nearest towns gets me in jams and sometimes no parking. You can increase infrastructure but you will always get bottlenecks, and they get worse the larger the town gets.
When they landed on the moon there was 3 billion, now there are 7 billion. If we sorted out the worlds problems as in iambiguous’s post, no doubt it would rise far faster.
Britain has I higher population density than china, and it will get worse as cheap labour from eastern Europe keep coming here.
People want lots of shit, poor people want to be able to buy lots of shit, it drains the worlds resources and eventually we will be eating insects [already sold as insect-burgers in Holland] ~ or so it was said on a show about how we will live in the future.

We may be able to fit the population of the world into one state, but not feed them [in all ways] within that context, and many parts of the world are deserts.

Somewhere along the line we will have to sort the population problem out, so why not start now before its too late.

Quality of life; wouldn’t it just be better if there were less people? Ok so it doesn’t matter for america as it is not overpopulated.

Given that the situation is as advertised (which is dubious), there are only 4 options available concerning an attempt to correct it.

  1. Decrease the birth rate (already in force)
  2. Increase the death rate (already in force)
  3. Both 1 & 2 (already in force)
  4. Let nature take care of it.

So the question of using force is merely one of Manipulating how many and who lives or dies.

Oddly, nature already has a solution. But that solution doesn’t involve control of people over people. To me, the better solution is to realize how nature has really been taking care of that situation for millions of years (and I’m not speaking of competition) and seeing how to get along with it rather than implement a man-made control mechanism.

Interestingly, the human body stops producing cells at a specific point without the brain commanding it to do so. Even sub-atomic particles grow up to a specific point and stop growing, without Man dictating what that point shall be. There is an inherent governor to growth in all things. Speculative manipulation is not required. The only issue is getting along with it, rather than trying to BE it.

Is it? I think that our western self limiting on how many children we have, is supplanted by continual immigration from poorer nations? proof is in the pudding.

james

Here I have to disagree, the only thing nature has to stop population growth is starvation. What else do you mean? should we leave it to fate or something.

I fear that overpopulation would be destructive to the planet before we reach starvation point.

Gerald S. Paint,

That was the abstrusest and most confounding metaphysical jumbo that I have seen apart from Hegel. What in god’s name are you trying to say, specifically? I feel like I’d have to be initiated into some sort of dark cult before being allowed to have your passage decoded. Good lord.

Anyways, I’d like to echo Amorphos’ question: Are you saying we should act so as to starve people, just as nature does when its resources are sufficiently diminished? Good god man.

I am an eternal optimist. I don’t go in for Moreno’s proselytising doom and gloom. And I am lead to believe, by Moreno’s dark and pessimistic views on human nature, that he must have so little faith in people that I should be likely to avoid his company given that person he knows best from which to draw his outlook on humanity is himself. Add to this the fact that I have hitherto solved many problems far less out of my control than the problem of overpopulation. …Ahem.

…Well, this is a tough one in any case.

The last part of this post seems clearly ironic. The first part seems like some poor deduction used for what purpose…
to write critically about me.

Perhaps the irony at the end means what came before was ironic. But then I can’t get that to work. If, as it seems, you were spending time, off topic in your own thread, to demonstrate something negative about me,
why?

In your PM you also expressed the belief that humans learn the hard way. It seemed like you thought I was disagreeing with you and you wanted to make clear you also believed this. Now this belief - that we seemed to share privately - now is publically attributed only to me and indicates I am a pessimist, which I am not - though I can sympathize with that assessment given what I posted here - but also that I am someone to be avoided.

Or maybe this was all merely humor and nothing else.

Proselytizing?
Is that what I am doing while others are just discussing, presenting their ideas and opinions. I must go over my posts. I have somehow managed to go beyond arguing for what I believe, when I do that, to proselytizing. Interesing I have this ability, but I would prefer to have control over it.

I specifically ended that ‘gloom and doom’ post with a shot at finding a solution, trying to make a positive and useful spin out of my negative assessment of human nature. This is Proselytizing? Not that you responded to that part. Skimming, Mo? Or my other post in this thread.

If it’s any help: I announce that Mo is not like me. He sees through me and can describe my negative qualities and what I am like in life. People should not associate him with my beliefs and should also be aware, even in threads where he does not make his opinion of me clear, he does not approve of my hidden agenda or what I really believe. He can probably help the gallery also avoid other people posting at ILP who have similar negative qualities to me.

I don’t know what’s up with you, Mo. This speaking to others negatively about me where I can ‘overhear’.

I feel suddenly like I am back in high school, or at least some archetypal one.

I think I’d prefer to use the ignore function in relation to you again and not short term.

I don’t know if the Foe function cuts off PMs, but please don’t PM me. The disconjunct between PM you and public you, here, is a little ookie.

Ohh for godssakes. Tune in, you stale-faced humorless… Did you even read the OP, Moreno? This post is my only post in this thread that departs from that same style. And it’s not irony, there, it’s lightheartedness and my attempt at morbid humor as a way of approaching a serious topic for every reason that you would approach a topic seriously, just without the actual superficial seriousness. If it’s any excuse, I’ve been reading Nikolai Gogol’s Dead Souls and was probably trying to mimic the tone in a first person style.

For the public record (a repeat of what I’ve already said elsewhere publicly):
I believe that Moreno is often one of the rare geniusi of this forum.
When I call or imply that Moreno is shifty, deceptive, underhanded, or something like that, or that he has alterior motives of something sinister or any claim equally ridiculous on its face, it is because of Moreno’s style of philosophizing, at least the style I’ve seem him use. That is the style of adopting an opponent’s maxims as if he were endorsing them, which he may or may not actually share, to expose an internal inconsistency, all the while leaving hidden what maxims he might actually think are true. I’m exaggerating and embellishing even here.
And when I call or imply that Moreno has something like an occult epistemology, is a priest, is proselytising, or any sort of equally preposterous claim, it’s just because he once himself endorsed intuition in some way that I vaguely remember and which seemed like it was actually his own view.

Feel free to put me on ignore. It’ll be your loss.

That is your erroneous theory (starvation). Competition is also proposed by those who don’t think very deeply.

The problem that you face is that in order to maintain control, problems such as over population are created artificially. Thus if you go by what you see today, you are merely playing the current game of “show them that they have to bow to our control”.

As long as such a game is being played, the “Original Sin”, nothing you deduce as “normal behavior” is actually natural.

Lions or even rabbits or monkeys do not stop population growth from competition nor starving.

Could you give me a heads-up the next time you’re going to go off like this. I am sometimes eating or drinking while I read this website. I think the goal here, should be clarity. Strive for clarity. It’s not exactly clear what you’re trying to say, but what is clear is that you could say this more clearly if you wanted to.