Just had steamed turkey meatloaf with anchovies on top.
(Pork is better than turkey though.)
Great argument for meat.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Overpopulation?
- Thread starter robocop (actually)
- Start date
(Pork is better than turkey though.)
Great argument for meat.
When I was in high school, I had a math teacher who one day attempted to debunk the "myth" of over-population by calculating that every human then alive could be given an acre of land and fit into an area the size of Texas. A few decades later, I heard Rush Limbaugh debunk the "myth" in the same manner -- only by Rush's time, the population of the world had grown so that everyone would be given only a quarter-acre, rather than an acre.
Now what both of those "geniuses" failed to calculate were the earth's available resources, and how much of those resources the human population would consume at various standards of living. In short, their method of debunking the over-population "myth" did nothing of the sort.
Now what both of those "geniuses" failed to calculate were the earth's available resources, and how much of those resources the human population would consume at various standards of living. In short, their method of debunking the over-population "myth" did nothing of the sort.
74x12
Well-Known Member
My opinion is we need to raise the standard of living and emphasize education to third world countries. It's just a fact people in more developed countries have less children. Another reason I oppose unlimited immigration from third world. They want free stuff; we could use money to help them in their own land rather than giving them freebies in our land. Unfortunately I'm not world dictator (kidding) and also agendas are being acted on that do not allow these things to happen. We're all fooled if we think we understand the real political scene. The public only knows maybe less than nothing about the real geopolitical scene.
TheBannerofHomuraAkemi
Active Member
Sounds tasty.
I'm not a huge fan of pork, but I love me some beef, chicken, and shellfish.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
there was a doomsday special years ago on tv
ten very smart people ....each with his own extinction scenario
the brief and well spoken fellow in the middle said.....
the earth has sufficient chemistry to support 9billion people
I shall live to see the turmoil begin
Curious George
Veteran Member
It is interesting. I question the fear mongering of overpopulation propaganda. I am not so sure that I believe that the population will continue on exponential growth, we have seen population growth in many areas change. So to assume it will continue at exponential growth is not necessarily consistent with data. When we are worried about propaganda it is always good to ask some questions. What message is being sold? Who benefits? Who is harmed?
Whether or not overpopulation is a myth, I do hope all people recognize we should use our resources wisely.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
I am glad that I won't be alive to witness the birth of a true Darwinian society("survival of the fittest"). Once our world population reaches 11 Billion people(in the next 40 year), we will be confronted with just how far humans will go to survive. And, no amount of Religious, Political, or Social dogma, will placate this instinctive and hardwired drive. We will all eventually go the same way as the other 99.9% of all species on the planet. Extinct!!! So rejoice in the fact that you even exist. Don
The issue isn't really the number of humans but rather the lifestyle these humans are demanding. Pampered Westerners are responsible for destroying the biosphere much more than Africans and Asians (whom we like to smugly and racistly cast aspersions upon as they attempt to pursue the standard of living we have designated as enviable in our propaganda), due to our post-industrial sophisticated lifestyles and consumer capitalism which leeches off of the resource rich areas of the Earth while leaving the indigenous populations in abject poverty.
Watched the video, and as with science there are always alternate fields of study, that might illuminate more data on the subject.
So the video matches what we find in Ayurvedic understanding: that there are different body types, and these will absorb nutrition differently; thus we can not set one diet for everyone.
Eating meat, cows milk, and eggs isn't a diet; it stems from religious beliefs, and not biologically and nutritionally based (please note much of the nutrition we were taught at an amateur level, was sponsored by the agricultural industry, telling us we need to eat their products).
Our bodies are not physically designed/evolved to eat animal products, and these cause numerous side affects from trying; such as diabetes 1 & 2, which can be cured by going vegan in 30 days.
Cancer is directly affected by being in acidic environment, and Dr Otto Warburg got the Nobel Prize in 1931 for recognizing cancer can not live in an alkaline environment.
So part of the reasons i listed, "We can not sustain a none vegan planet" is because people are dying due to bad nutrition on a mass scale; with us on the verge of a pandemic, due to sick animals being given increased amounts of antibiotics, to try and contain it.
How our treatment of pigs is leading to the growth of 'superbugs' in humans
In my opinion.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
The issue is entirely in the numbers. The infrastructure necessary to support any increase in population is not based on lifestyle preferences, or the inordinate amount of human consumption and greed. It is based entirely on demand and the numbers. Put simply, the cake is finite, and eventually the pieces will be too small to share with everyone evenly. Money, greed, and lifestyle preferences have no effect on replenishing our planet's dwindling natural resources. Eventually, we all will have a taste of this abject poverty within 50-60 years. Don
I might be the peskiest purveyor of over-population warnings on RF, but "propaganda"?
Perhaps I could counter with "Over-population denier!", eh.
The possibly real propaganda is the common & bi-partisan call for a larger population
to advance economic health & competitiveness. It's not only dubious in the short term,
it's utterly unsustainable in the long run.
Questions:
What is the optimum population?
Are we better off with bigger cities & less natural space?
Can we have a strong enuf economy with the population we already have?
While it's possible that over-population could lead to catastrophes, eg, more
periodic mass starvation, I find that too speculative to be worth considering.
Public policy should be based upon more mundane inevitabilities of population
increase (relative to no growth)....
- Energy usage will increase. In the short term, this will mean nuclear, fossil
& hydro energy growth.
- More people = more pavement, more buildings, more cars, more artificial
landscape, more farmed land, & more depletion of the ocean's inhabitants.
- More loss of natural environment.
- More concentration of people in cities vulnerable to sea rise.
- More AGW
One can argue that if only people became vegan, ended GW, & lowered
their standard of living, that the Earth could easily support more people.
To that I say.....
Let those things happen first, then we can talk about raising the bar.
Til then, an increasing population looks like a lowering quality of life.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Best thing to watch on this subject is a brilliant lecture from a couple of years ago by Hans Rosling:
Simplified version: global overpopulation is not as significant an issue as we think it is, and the steps we have taken thus far to prevent it are more effective than we realize.
Without commenting on the video, "significant" is a subjective thing.
He might not be bothered by some results of our burgeoning population,
but I have different values, & a different concern for the immediate &
distant future.
Is this insignificant?
Nearly half marine population lost in last 40 years - CNN
Study: Marine Species Collapse by 2048
I don't think so.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Have you watched his lecture?
Not yet.
I responded to commentary surrounding it.
This is just not true. Not even close to true.
We already have vastly too many humans to sustain us all at ordinary US standards. And the big challenge facing the human race is that the desperate poor, who have historically settled for bare subsistence, are starting to demand a more equitable share.
We privileged folks, mainly in the first world, are either going to share or there will be huge conflicts.
History suggests that devastating war is more likely than privileged people giving up their privilege.
Tom
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
I made no comment on the significance of the effect of human overpopulation on marine life, nor did either I or Hans Rosling assert it was "insignificant" or than he "wasn't bothered" by some of its effects. I simply said that the conclusion of the lecture were that the risk of overpopulation were not as significant we tend to think.
Don't formulate reactions to opinions you haven't heard or had explained to you yet.
And that is the part I responded to.
You posted the opinion to which I responded.
I made it clear that it wasn't about the video (which I can't yet watch).
If you don't want responses, I advise against posting opinions.
Something else that has the potential to be a big problem: non-GMO and organic food.There is loads more room for everyone; the problem isn't the amount, it is the style of living...
Like if people were all vegan, and planted more fruit trees; instead of chopping rain-forests down for farms, the sea levels would be falling.
- We can not sustain a none vegan planet.
- We can not sustain one that extracts the earth from beneath our feet, as eventually things collapse.
- We need to exchange hemp for oil, paper, wood, housing, plastic, etc.
- We need to have completely renewable energy.
- We can not sustain corporate economic growth.
In my opinion.
It's a lot like a meat-based diet: it's horribly inefficient and would be completely unsustainable if the whole world lived that way. Also like a meat-based diet, it doesn't have any real benefit for the people eating only non-GMO and organic foods, and can create problems, even if only a few people partake of it.
But my big worry is that other parts of the world will follow the Western trend and start insisting on non-GMO and organic food, too. Then we'll be even more screwed than we already are.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
With strawmen.
With strawmen.
And yet you expressed a reaction to an opinion as if it was something they held or said, despite the fact that you had no idea.
Except you responded to something that was an opinion neither held nor implied to be held by either me or by Hans Rosling.
I put it to you that a doctor and statistician who has dedicated his life to researching the causes, effects and solutions to global overpopulation and pandemics might actually care more about and be more familiar with the effects of human overpopulation than you are.
Just saying.