The moral issue of population growth

[Revoltingest]

Something related to over-population in the news....
Growing up near green spaces is linked to better mental health

Children who grow up in greener surroundings have a greatly reduced risk of developing mental illnesses later in life, research suggests.

A study that tracked almost a million people found that those who were raised among the lowest levels of green space were as much as 55 per cent more likely to develop disorders such as substance abuse, stress-related illnesses and schizophrenia.

A leafy childhood environment was as strongly linked to a person’s mental health as their family history of mental illness and only slightly less than their parents’ socio-economic status.

The link to good mental health was just as strong for those who lived in green areas of cities as for those who grew up deep in the countryside.

One in six people over…

Want to read more?
Subscribe now and get unlimited digital access on web and our sm

 

[columbus]

A study that tracked almost a million people found that those who were raised among the lowest levels of green space were as much as 55 per cent more likely to develop disorders such as substance abuse, stress-related illnesses and schizophrenia.

Personally, I am pretty sure that moving from downtown Gary, IN to the green and leafy suburbs of Greenwood, IN (home of the Grand Dragon of the KKK) improved my mental health.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally, I am pretty sure that moving from downtown Gary, IN to the green and leafy suburbs of Greenwood, IN (home of the Grand Dragon of the KKK) improved my mental health.
Tom

I've driven thru Gary IN.
It is not like this.....

 

[columbus]

I've driven thru Gary IN.
It is not like this.....

No, it's really not.
But I did go to swimming lessons in a huge, overheated, dimly lit YMCA pool full of nude men.

Back in the good old days of the 60's.
Tom

 

[1213]

...
Is uncontrolled population growth a moral issue and if so how can we respond?

I don’t think population growth is bad or wrong or problem. Problem is that some people are too greedy and selfish and want all for themselves. World has lot of room and we could easily have food and everything good for all, if we would want. But for greedy and evil people, nothing is sufficient.

 

[Bear Wild]

I don’t think population growth is bad or wrong or problem. Problem is that some people are too greedy and selfish and want all for themselves. World has lot of room and we could easily have food and everything good for all, if we would want. But for greedy and evil people, nothing is sufficient.

So no matter how many people exist on the earth even if every inch of land has someone standing on it is still not a problem? Or do you not see it as a problem because when it the population gets too big that mass suffering, starvation, war, and disease will finally get rid of any problem with population growth so there is no need to worry?

 

[Skwim]

Malthus wrote "Essay on the Principle of Population" in 1798. He predicted that population growth would lead to starvation and that increasing food production would only increase the population growth until it again reaches to the issue of starvation. Poverty is inescapable and related directly to population growth.

In early 2000 a professor of the University of Texas predicted humans had already reached the carrying capacity of the earth and increasing problems related to population and signs of the stress were already developing. He was then condemned as an abortion proponent when all he was saying was something had to be done to slow down population growth without mentioning abortion.

The city of San Antonio is reaching the limits of the gigantic underground Edwards aquifer that supplies the city with water. They are now considering pumping water from lakes to the north.

Despite what we know will eventually happen the population of the world is growing faster with only disaster ahead. Despite this we are advancing medicine to save lives and let people grow older and increasing the demand on the earth for more food and water.

Is uncontrolled population growth a moral issue and if so how can we respond?

My remedy is to adopt the "China Solution." Limit children to two per mother. And give monetary awards to those who have only one or none at all.

.

 

[Valjean]

I've driven thru Gary IN.
It is not like this.....

Well, it was an OK place till that pool hall opened up, I'll tell ya what...

 

[Valjean]

I don’t think population growth is bad or wrong or problem. Problem is that some people are too greedy and selfish and want all for themselves. World has lot of room and we could easily have food and everything good for all, if we would want. But for greedy and evil people, nothing is sufficient.

 

[Valjean]

I don’t think population growth is bad or wrong or problem.

So you don't acknowledge our role in Climate Change? Habitat loss? Aquifer depletion? Pollution? Ocean acidification?

World has lot of room and we could easily have food and everything good for all, if we would want. But for greedy and evil people, nothing is sufficient.

But the world does not have lots of room. The food, aluminum, wood, petroleum, &c, needed to sustain even a monk consumes many acres, depletes a lot of resources and creates lots of pollution. Many, like wildebeest or wolves, require vast tracts of land to survive.

What does "lots of room" mean to you?
We need more than out personal living space to survive. We consume resources, and we have a carbon footprint.
If we're using resources faster than they're replaced: We Are Overpopulated.

There is also the rest of the world's population to consider. We are not the only organisms on Earth, and our right to life doesn't take precedence over the rest of creation. Maintaining biodiversity is a prime moral directive. It takes precedence over the interests of any single species.

Don't be human-centric. it's greedy and immoral.

 

[Bear Wild]

So you don't acknowledge our role in Climate Change? Habitat loss? Aquifer depletion? Pollution? Ocean acidification?


But the world does not have lots of room. The food, aluminum, wood, petroleum, &c, needed to sustain even a monk consumes many acres, depletes a lot of resources and creates lots of pollution. Many, like wildebeest or wolves, require vast tracts of land to survive.

What does "lots of room" mean to you?
We need more than out personal living space to survive. We consume resources, and we have a carbon footprint.
If we're using resources faster than they're replaced: We Are Overpopulated.

There is also the rest of the world's population to consider. We are not the only organisms on Earth, and our right to life doesn't take precedence over the rest of creation. Maintaining biodiversity is a prime moral directive. It takes precedence over the interests of any single species.

Don't be human-centric. it's greedy and immoral.

I agree with you completely. The most important thing humans can do is to go beyond their human-centric view and recognize the complex interaction we have with our world if we are to survive. My biggest problem with many religious views is that they place man above all other forms of life with the attitude that the rest of the earth including its life, water and other recourses are there for man to use as needed without respect for other life and the impact to the environment. It seems to take a higher level of thinking to see beyond our (human) direct needs and see how we are interdependent and is best interest to support the world we are interdependent with. Protecting biodiversity thus land for other life, limiting human population, and creating only degradable products or at the least only recyclable are our greatest moral issues.

 

[1213]

So no matter how many people exist on the earth even if every inch of land has someone standing on it is still not a problem? Or do you not see it as a problem because when it the population gets too big that mass suffering, starvation, war, and disease will finally get rid of any problem with population growth so there is no need to worry?

No, I think population is not a problem, because it is possible to feed all and there is lot of room still. We are not even close to that “every inch of land has someone standing”. All world’s people could still fit on the surface of biggest Finnish lake, if they would be put on every inch. World has really lots of room. The real problem is that people use it poorly and obviously some would like to have it all to themselves.

 

[Valjean]

No, I think population is not a problem, because it is possible to feed all and there is lot of room still. We are not even close to that “every inch of land has someone standing”. All world’s people could still fit on the surface of biggest Finnish lake, if they would be put on every inch. World has really lots of room. The real problem is that people use it poorly and obviously some would like to have it all to themselves.

Again, it's not a matter of personal space. It's a matter of acreage used to sustain our lifestyles. You have to count the Brazilian bauxite mines and cattle ranches as part of your "room."

Yes, if we massed all people together in a single space it might be surprisingly small. If you massed all the bacteria in a man dying of Plague into a single space they'd also take up very little room -- but we must judge them by their fruits.

The big question is: are we leaving enough room for the wildebeest, caribou, tuna, wolves and whales to live? They cannot live in small, isolated reserves.

The world can survive without humans. It can't survive without phytoplancton, rainforests, animals, &c. In fact, humans can't survive without biodiversity. Biodiversity is the priority, not our single species.
Don't be speciesist and human-centric. See the big picture.

 

[Brickjectivity]

"By not having any children I've more than done my share of saving the planet!" -- True or False?

 

[Valjean]

Well, I couldn't quantify 'one's share', but you've done more than most.
Thanks.