Why is this rarely discussed?

[vev46]

The more I listen to all the pundits and assorted other opinioneers, the more I conclude that there is one factor that is always left out of discussions about the environment, energy, socio-economics, and touches pretty much everything having to do with all of the ills afflicting humanity. The logical bottom line is that until population stabilizes, world-wide, humanity will constantly be chasing after solutions to an ever-increasing number & severity of problems. Get it through your heads everyone, the Earth is FINITE! Who in their right mind expects, for example, that technology will always find the answer to our problems? Can anyone imagine this country with 500 million people? The world with 20 billion? Well, sooner or later it's coming, and I'm sure glad I won't be here to see it. Sure, the carrying capacity of this planet is far larger than where we're at now, but who wants to live in a world at its carrying capacity? Mankind has the ability to substantially prevent & cure disease, (so far), and extend life spans to who knows where, but is this what our goal should be? The natural world has built-in regulation that ensures populations of species are in balance with the environment, but not so with mankind. The U.S. has passed 300 million. What do you think that our founding fathers would have said if asked whether the constitution they came up with would work for 300, 400, or 500 million of us? Democracy as we know it would be crushed under the weight of so many people. It's not puzzling that China is not a democracy. To me, the choice is simple: either the population stabilizes at a sensible number, or this pie of ours will get divided up into so many pieces, that our quality of life would go right down the toilet. Of course, there's always the Doomsday solution. Maybe a disease that nobody can find a cure for, or a celestial catastrophe, or God forbid, nuclear war. But I say that it's better to prevent more people from coming into existence than to have more people merely existing. Many believe we are slowly losing our freedoms, and I agree. This is a direct consequence of the pie pieces getting smaller. I doubt that with our form of government any serious discussion of population stabilization can ever take place, because it would be in direct conflict with our most basic tenets of privacy and the pursuit of happiness. This is why I am not optimistic about the future, and why I'm glad to have lived when I have, and the reason I brought no children into existence.

Where am I wrong?

 

[eots]

shhhhh.....[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oo9zHkv8uSU]YouTube - Alex Jones -- EndGame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement 1[/ame]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The idea that we are anywhere near the limits this planet can sustain are ridiculous.

Ohh and while we are on the subject just HOW do you intend to control the growth of population? In the western world the birth rate is already right at the replacement rate. The places that are breeding are India, China and the third world.

How exactly to you plan to stop them?

 

[Angel Heart]

Fertility Rates (Children per Family)

Shows that it's not the western countries that are the problem.

BTW the US fertility rates include all births including illegal immigrants births. Population Reference Bureau PRB Discuss: U.S. Birth Rate: Still Fueling Population Growth?

I have 5 children.

 

[vev46]

The idea that we are anywhere near the limits this planet can sustain are ridiculous.

Ohh and while we are on the subject just HOW do you intend to control the growth of population? In the western world the birth rate is already right at the replacement rate. The places that are breeding are India, China and the third world.

How exactly to you plan to stop them?

Like I wrote, RetiredGySgt, how close would you want to get to the limit of what this planet can sustain? And it really doesn't matter who is doing the breeding, does it? As far as controlling the population growth, this is the dilemma we face: basic human freedoms vs. the consequential realities resulting from our growing numbers. That is why I'm pessimistic.

 

[vev46]

Does it really matter which countries are the problem? It's generally accepted as fact that the U.S. will contain 400 mil. by 2050 absent something unforeseen. When politicians' primary goal is to expand their voting base so they can remain in power, we can count on stiff resistance so any and all attempts to limit immigration. The longer this situation exists, the harder it will be to reverse course. And capitalism, the primary force that gave us our high standard of living and quality of life, absolutely depends on an ever expanding base of consumers. How long can THAT be maintained? A true conundrum for which no solution exists.

 

[American Horse]

The idea that we are anywhere near the limits this planet can sustain are ridiculous.

Ohh and while we are on the subject just HOW do you intend to control the growth of population? In the western world the birth rate is already right at the replacement rate. The places that are breeding are India, China and the third world.

How exactly to you plan to stop them?

If the overall standard of living for the whole planet could be raised, as opposed to simply levelled, population growth rates would diminish to those of the US, which without its supplement from immigration, exhibits little to no growth at all.

There is already a philosophical paradigm in place in many parts of the world which would produce the desired result, but right now it is being demonized successfully by its primary philosophical/political opponent, prominently in its home court where it is on the decline; not a good forceast for your hoped for Nirvana, Vev.

It seems to me that besides vonuntarily self limiting the birth of children as posited above, there are just two other ways population can be controlled, and which will certainly come into play; pre-birth (birth control) or post birth (war, pestilence, and disease).

 

[Mad Scientist]

And capitalism, the primary force that gave us our high standard of living and quality of life, absolutely depends on an ever expanding base of consumers. How long can THAT be maintained? A true conundrum for which no solution exists.

Well, party's over, let's all go home then.

First off, the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. I truly doubt any of us could destroy it. Even if we exploded all the worlds nuclear missiles at the same time and kill all life on this planet it would continue to rotate around the Sun. Weeds would pop up, cockroach eggs would hatch, bacteria would still exist and evolve in the oceans, life would begin a new cycle. Probably in some way we would never expect.

You know, when wildlife gets too populous in certain areas, food supplies become scarce and animal populations dwindle on their own. Nature tends to find it's own balance just as water finds it's own level. The same thing will happen with us Humans.

But apparently you so upset and willing to give government far reaching powers to "solve" a "problem" that doesn't exist. They sure fooled you didn't they? Don't feel bad though, you have plenty of company.

Secondly, you say you haven't had any children. While I agree that it is your choice, and your choice alone whether or not to bring kids into this world, you have to ask yourself this question:
"Would my child have grow up to be the one to find a cure for AIDS? For Cancer? Would He or She have solved the worlds food problems?".

Finally, though you may see Capitalism as source of all the worlds' problems, it is in fact, the solution. Capitalism provides an incentive for people to improve products and services. Can you name ONE THING that was invented by Government and Central Planning? I can: Taxes. And that's not even beneficial is it?

While I find the good in people and see potential in everyone, it seems you only see the bad in people. Please do some self study in both Philosophy and Religion, I'll bet it'll help you immensely.

 

[MaggieMae]

The more I listen to all the pundits and assorted other opinioneers, the more I conclude that there is one factor that is always left out of discussions about the environment, energy, socio-economics, and touches pretty much everything having to do with all of the ills afflicting humanity. The logical bottom line is that until population stabilizes, world-wide, humanity will constantly be chasing after solutions to an ever-increasing number & severity of problems. Get it through your heads everyone, the Earth is FINITE! Who in their right mind expects, for example, that technology will always find the answer to our problems? Can anyone imagine this country with 500 million people? The world with 20 billion? Well, sooner or later it's coming, and I'm sure glad I won't be here to see it. Sure, the carrying capacity of this planet is far larger than where we're at now, but who wants to live in a world at its carrying capacity? Mankind has the ability to substantially prevent & cure disease, (so far), and extend life spans to who knows where, but is this what our goal should be? The natural world has built-in regulation that ensures populations of species are in balance with the environment, but not so with mankind. The U.S. has passed 300 million. What do you think that our founding fathers would have said if asked whether the constitution they came up with would work for 300, 400, or 500 million of us? Democracy as we know it would be crushed under the weight of so many people. It's not puzzling that China is not a democracy. To me, the choice is simple: either the population stabilizes at a sensible number, or this pie of ours will get divided up into so many pieces, that our quality of life would go right down the toilet. Of course, there's always the Doomsday solution. Maybe a disease that nobody can find a cure for, or a celestial catastrophe, or God forbid, nuclear war. But I say that it's better to prevent more people from coming into existence than to have more people merely existing. Many believe we are slowly losing our freedoms, and I agree. This is a direct consequence of the pie pieces getting smaller. I doubt that with our form of government any serious discussion of population stabilization can ever take place, because it would be in direct conflict with our most basic tenets of privacy and the pursuit of happiness. This is why I am not optimistic about the future, and why I'm glad to have lived when I have, and the reason I brought no children into existence.

Where am I wrong?

You're not wrong. I think about the population explosion as a factor in just about every political football, from global warming and the fact that OF COURSE man contributes to it because there are TOO MANY of us, to the strict constitutionalists who demand that the country fall back on the "original" intent of the Constitution, when the whole nation held only 70 million, not 302 million each having to have the latest techno necessity and gadget produced by thousands of factories and businesses.

 

[txlonghorn]

You don't have to worry...the population here in the US will not continue to grow at the same rate. Our new healthcare plan will be responsible for MILLIONS of deaths. Abortion will be as normal as a facelift soon enough and that will take care of many more millions. If we don't do something about North Korea soon, we might not have to worry about anything for very long. The fact that we were more concerned about the death of Michael Jackson that we are about the death of a nation is horrifiying to me.

What also horrifies me is the thoughts that some people have about population control and how it seems to be very easy to justify. Who do you plan to omit from the earth? Who do you plan to deny the right to live? How do you plan to ensure that our population doesn't make your life more uncomfortable? Should we kill all the Christians? Maybe we only kill every other hispanic that crosses the border. What about just pushing all the Jews we can round up into a giant vault and gas them... wait...that's already been done.

My honest opinion is that we have no idea what the future holds, so why spend so much time worrying about it??? But your thought process is very unnerving to those of us who have at least some consideration for those who have yet to be born.

 

[MaggieMae]

It seems appropriate to share this fascinating yet discouraging (and funny) article. Too many people? Check out how too many people treat Mother Earth like one big dumpster. We're ALL guilty.

Excerpt:

Our wasteful habits wouldn't matter much if there were just a few of us—a Neanderthal hunting band could have discarded six plastic water bottles apiece every day with no real effect except someday puzzling anthropologists.

But the volumes we manage are something else. Chris Jordan is the photographer laureate of waste—his most recent project, "Running the Numbers," uses exquisite images to show the 106,000 aluminum cans Americans toss every 30 seconds, or the 1 million plastic cups distributed on US airline flights every 6 hours, or the 2 million plastic beverage bottles we run through every 5 minutes, or the 426,000 cell phones we discard every day, or the 1.14 million brown paper supermarket bags we use each hour, or the 60,000 plastic bags we use every 5 seconds, or the 15 million sheets of office paper we use every 5 minutes, or the 170,000 Energizer batteries produced every 15 minutes.

The simple amount of stuff it takes—energy especially—to manage this kind of throughput makes it daunting to even think about our waste problem. (Meanwhile, the next time someone tells you that population is at the root of our troubles, remind them that the average American uses more energy between the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve and dinner on January 2 than the average, say, Tanzanian consumes in a year. Population matters, but it really matters when you multiply it by proximity to Costco.)

Would you like me to go on? Americans discard enough aluminum to rebuild our entire commercial air fleet every three months—and aluminum represents less than 1 percent of our solid waste stream. We toss 14 percent of the food we buy at the store. More than 46,000 pieces of plastic debris float on each square mile of ocean. And—oh, forget it.

Read the whole article:
Waste Not, Want Not | Mother Jones