Overpopulation?

[socharlie]

Yes, some think so, depopulation methods are widely implemented.

Sperm count in Western men plunges to record low
Sperm count in Western men plunges to record low
world wide sperm count crisis-
this is main success of the multifaceted effort.

 

[YmirGF]

Sperm count in Western men plunges to record low
world wide sperm count crisis-
this is main success of the multifaceted effort.

From the article

"The study did not examine causes but scientists believe the amount of chemicals used in everyday products, industry and farming may be behind the crisis."

LOL. They didn't examine causes but are prepared to point the finger anyways? How scientific is that, eh?

 

[socharlie]

From the article

"The study did not examine causes but scientists believe the amount of chemicals used in everyday products, industry and farming may be behind the crisis."

LOL. They didn't examine causes but are prepared to point the finger anyways? How scientific is that, eh?

they know cause because they created it.

 

[YmirGF]

they know cause because they created it.

They created what?

 

[Revoltingest]

From the article

"The study did not examine causes but scientists believe the amount of chemicals used in everyday products, industry and farming may be behind the crisis."

LOL. They didn't examine causes but are prepared to point the finger anyways? How scientific is that, eh?

With all the pesticides which can interfere with human hormonal
functions, it's a pretty good guess. In this context, "believe" is
much more speculative than "know".

 

[columbus]

With all the pesticides which can interfere with human hormonal
functions, it's a pretty good guess. In this context, "believe" is
much more speculative than "know".

It isn't just pesticides.
There's a ton of various possibilities. From packaging to upholstery to exhaust to, you name it. Maybe metals in cookware.
We live in a chemical soup and really don't know the subtle long term effects of much of it, much less the many various combinations.

But I can't help but point out that less first world people isn't really a problem, in the long term global situation.
Maybe It's A Miracle!

Tom

 

[socharlie]

They created what?

many methods of depopulation, it is one of very important tasks of modern science to create as humane as possible way to reduce population, including sperm count issue.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Elaborate it isn't, effective and just, yes
Ethical? Probably more ethical than the idea of forced sterilizations, forced abortions, and if that doesn't seem to work basically taking the food from those you can because in the end that is exactly what it will come down to and I think we all know that. You speak of genetic stagnation as if you may not be a part of it, what makes you special and are you sure you may not end up with a genetically inherited disease? If you have a child that is born mentally or physically disabled would you request it be sterilized or euthanized so it doesn't possibly pass on defective genes and if you wouldn't, who are you to make these decisions for another?

Once again (and let me see if I can put it in planer terms here, because you seem to have completely missed it in my last post), I am not advocating that anyone be removed/killed/forced-to-do-anything/etc. My point was exactly that it makes these issues no less problems facing humanity to acknowledge that we can't ethically enforce anything that directly helps the situation. It makes them no less of a problem even if it is deemed that there is absolutely nothing that can be done about them. Your solution seems to be that we simply neglect to discuss it at all. That, or, have a body of people willing to off their own family members make all the decisions for us.

And yes, I readily admit that I am part of the genetic stagnation! I have bad eyesight... a trait that I passed on to my own kids. And no... I am not going to sacrifice myself, my children, or anybody else for either issue. At least I acknowledge the problems as problems, and I would be willing to talk about them openly and honestly. Your policy seems to be to simply ignore/deny/divert-attention away from the issue - and my guess is that it has very much to do with what one of the other poster's astutely pointed out (@wizanda to be specific) in that the perception of overpopulation ends up being a lifestyle issue. I'm already vegan, already buy barely anything at all for myself, work at home and drive only when necessary and otherwise walk or ride a bike as often as possible. There are plenty around me who scoff at my lifestyle - as if it were any of their business, or at all within their control. And quite often I can boil their condescension down to their own fear of having to actually acknowledge that some of their choices may not be in the best interest of those around them... and that they aren't really doing as much as they could be to reduce our risk of strangling off our only known home in the universe.

 

[columbus]

As a nonparent, I feel kinda entitled to bother less with recycling and conservation and such.
I have already made the biggest contribution I am capable of in that regard. My lifestyle is still very low impact, by USA standards. But I don't feel I have the same obligations that parents have.
Tom

 

[robocop (actually)]

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.

So we should get people out of extreme poverty, as lifespans go to 70 the children stay at 2 and that's already close, we will grow to 11 billion before leveling off because of longer life and children growing up and the 11 billion need to use the same energy there as our 7.5 billion do now.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Whenever anyone says overpopulation is a problem I suggest that they kill their families and then themselves to help lessen the problem.
The evidence:
One less family to feed, but for some reason they never seem to include themselves or their families as part of what they see as a problem.
despicable!

And if you suggest that the solution is to kill off a bunch of OTHER families do you get a lot of people who agree that this would be a wonderful solution? I think that MOST people would be opposed to solving the overpopulation problem by slaughtering a bunch of innocent people, be they your own family or the families of others. And I hardly think that makes them despicable.

 

[Revoltingest]

As a nonparent, I feel kinda entitled to bother less with recycling and conservation and such.
I have already made the biggest contribution I am capable of in that regard. My lifestyle is still very low impact, by USA standards. But I don't feel I have the same obligations that parents have.
Tom

This means that I'm better than you.
I've not reproduced, but I still recycle & do the green energy things.
Don't be surprised if someone here nominates me for sainthood!

Oh, rats....I just committed the sin of pride.

 

[columbus]

This means that I'm better than you.
I've not reproduced, but I still recycle & do the green energy things.

I haven't been aboard a jet in 30 years. How many miles have you racked up on your various trips in a vehicle that could house a family in Haiti?

Wanna get into a "greener than thou" thing with me?
Tom

 

[Curious George]

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.

Absolutely propaganda.

But I noticed that you did not disagree that we should use our resources efficiently. We may disagree on the most efficient use, but at least we are having a conversation without one of us shouting gloom and doom. We are starting from a common point. You ask some interesting questions but I do not know if we have enough data to answer the first. Nor have we even established parameters to consider it.

Your list of short term inevitabilities are interesting points to consider. They are dealing with resources. Here is where I think the discussion should be focused. How can we optimally utilize our resources.

 

[Revoltingest]

I haven't been aboard a jet in 30 years. How many miles have you racked up on your various trips in a vehicle that could house a family in Haiti?

Wanna get into a "greener than thou" thing with me?
Tom

I avoid planes like the plague.
And my little airplane travel has a lower carbon footprint than getting divorced.
Mr Van travels only when absolutely necessary to save historic machinery for posterity.
And I combine trips, even hauling machinery for friends so that they travel less.
And when I travel, I'm very green....wasting no water on things like bathing.
It's not easy being green.
(Actually, it is.)

 

[Revoltingest]

Absolutely propaganda.

Mine or the expansionists?

 

[socharlie]

And if you suggest that the solution is to kill off a bunch of OTHER families do you get a lot of people who agree that this would be a wonderful solution? I think that MOST people would be opposed to solving the overpopulation problem by slaughtering a bunch of innocent people, be they your own family or the families of others. And I hardly think that makes them despicable.

we do kill some, what do you think happens in the Middle East? Their birth rate is way to high.

 

[columbus]

they know cause because they created it.

What makes you think it's "created", as opposed to an unintended side effect of millions of tiny choices made by almost everybody?
Including you.
Tom

 

[socharlie]

some 20 years of research of this matter, it is huge...

 

[Curious George]

Mine or the expansionists?

You questioned my use of propoganda. It is media for a message. You are being sold something. It is certainly not a discussion. It preys on people's fear of not having enough resources in order to sell you other ideas.