Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Shaman wrote:3rd world mentalities never understand the environment.

I was on a Caribbean island and people would just throw there rubbish into the beautiful ocean. Western expats were trying to educate them, but they don't seem to get it..

They didn't realize that throwing trash in the ocean made there be trash around their island?

In the old days before all the modern products thats what that island did (this was Corn Island Nicaragua.. the wild west eh).. I guess they think it just takes it away. They have a dump now..

I was on a boat and watched everyone just throw their Styrofoam plates away, straight into the ocean. The main industry is lobster fishing lol.

Australians are damn anal about trash, I think if you did that here, you'd get a smack.

Like I said efforts were being made, but the general feeling I got from the regular locals was who gives a gak I'm trying to make enough money to eat.

All India has to say is it will keep its emissions and pollution to below 50% of the American per capita amount. Hell if its feeling that too much make it the Australian per capita amount. With the condition there is a the ability for there industries to use patented and copyrights green technologies to green their economy.

Completely fair, it means all the the US has to do is to reduce their own emissions and India will reduce its and now cheaply has the technology to do so.

Of course since western economies are looking to make a mint from these patents and the Indian per capita pollution is already so much lower than the US I can't see this going anywhere


Otherwise the commentary on Indian politics and society on the thread is laughable (the best being the politics being driven by the middle class!) - stick to GW.

The only real solution to environmental issues is to have less people.

The Earth is overpopulated. Everything else stems from this. If India and China would agree to reduce their populations to about 50 million (each), (and of course, the US agreed to reduce their population to about 20 million), then the world would be in much better shape than it's currently in. A total global human population of about 500 million is sustainable without environmental impact. Any policy change that doesn't include population reduction is going to fail.

Cool, you first then.

Sure. If I had any belief that the rest of the world would follow suit, I'd gladly go first. I'm not so egotistical to believe that my DNA is somehow special.

The continued survival of the planet is a noble cause to die for - far more important than squabbling over some oil in the middle east.

I think your view is overly pessimistic. I also think that the view of many of those espousing a climate catastrophe is pessimistic. There'll be a lot of ecological upheaval maybe, but people will manage, we always do. We're ingenious that way.
I think the planet can fit a good few more of us, if we get a little smarter about certain things.

Redbeard wrote: (and of course, the US agreed to reduce their population to about 20 million),

I can't see that being a vote winner really.

Da Boss wrote:I think your view is overly pessimistic. I also think that the view of many of those espousing a climate catastrophe is pessimistic. There'll be a lot of ecological upheaval maybe, but people will manage, we always do. We're ingenious that way.
I think the planet can fit a good few more of us, if we get a little smarter about certain things.

There are seven billion already. We're killing off other species at an unprecedented rate. Sure, we could speed that up, spread out even further, but why should we? Do we really need more humans? The vast majority of humanity does nothing worthwhile with their lives as it is. They spend their time gawking at the TV, voting for American Idol, and playing their X-boxes. Rather than figure out how to overwork the soil even more (talking about depleted water tables) and lace our food with even more chemicals, perhaps it's time to get the hint that if we can't produce enough food for everyone (we can't. Even in civilized countries, a large percentage of the population regularly goes hungry) maybe it's because there are too many mouths to feed.

reds8n wrote:

Redbeard wrote: (and of course, the US agreed to reduce their population to about 20 million),

I can't see that being a vote winner really.

Of course not. Sometimes you need a dictator to make the really hard choices. Voters always think small-scale.

If you are talking less people you ironically shouldn't be talking Indians. You have a bunch of poor people doing less damage than one American. For instance there are 765 cars per thousand people in the US, 12 in Indian and 2 in Bangaldesh. Power wise the US generates 29 times more per capita than India. And on and on.

You come from a developing country all this talk is simple seen as arrogance and exploitation by rich countries.

Something else thats entertaining - there is no dissent in countries like India on climate change. All believe it is happening. You will find no serious politicians or scientists saying its a hoax/not happening etc. I suspect this is due to the fact they stand to suffer the most being least able to afford adaptations and that they see it as basically not their fault

@Redbeard:I really find your ideas offensive, not in the normal way, but on a deeper level. It's the same sort of horror I feel when people espouse breeding licences and IQ tests to have kids.
That's not intended as a personal attack or anything, a lot of times what you post makes a lot of sense to me. But I could never agree with you on this, I think.

And you haven't described the majority of the world's population there AT ALL.

Redbeard wrote:Do we really need more humans? The vast majority of humanity does nothing worthwhile with their lives as it is. They spend their time gawking at the TV, voting for American Idol, and playing their X-boxes. Rather than figure out how to overwork the soil even more (talking about depleted water tables) and lace our food with even more chemicals, perhaps it's time to get the hint that if we can't produce enough food for everyone (we can't. Even in civilized countries, a large percentage of the population regularly goes hungry) maybe it's because there are too many mouths to feed.

I think you may be a western, maybe even an American. Why would I think so? Because your world view is limited to your bedroom window

Factually on food production you are of course massively wrong. Not to mention all the 'wastage' that goes into meat production and such like. Culturally you will discover as you age and maybe broaden your horizons that the majority of the world does not own an x-box. Or even a playstation 2. You are pushing it to say the majority have TV's.

And worthwhile is such a wonderful word. Some would said its a scientific breakthough of global implications. Others that it means being a good parent and raising your children as decent citizens. With you x box ownership is a non starter (clearly a sony man you).

Redbeard wrote:The Earth is overpopulated. Everything else stems from this. If India and China would agree to reduce their populations to about 50 million (each), (and of course, the US agreed to reduce their population to about 20 million), then the world would be in much better shape than it's currently in. A total global human population of about 500 million is sustainable without environmental impact. Any policy change that doesn't include population reduction is going to fail.

Why would the US have to reduce its population by so much percentage-wise compared to India and China? What about Europe, South America, and Africa? I don't even know why I am questioning this, your Malthusian philosophies are disgusting at their core!

Da Boss wrote:I think your view is overly pessimistic. I also think that the view of many of those espousing a climate catastrophe is pessimistic. There'll be a lot of ecological upheaval maybe, but people will manage, we always do. We're ingenious that way. I think the planet can fit a good few more of us, if we get a little smarter about certain things.

Agreed. Redbeard has obviously never been to the Great Plains, West Texas, Western Canada or Siberia...

The_Real_Chris wrote:If you are talking less people you ironically shouldn't be talking Indians. You have a bunch of poor people doing less damage than one American. For instance there are 765 cars per thousand people in the US, 12 in Indian and 2 in Bangladesh. Power wise the US generates 29 times more per capita than India. And on and on.

THat may be but India makes up for it in its horrific environmental safety regulations. India has some of the most polluted areas on the planet, the Ganges for example, and the government has done nothing about it. Also, India and China are both very, very wealthy countries, its just the money is concentrated in the upper echelons of society.

The_Real_Chris wrote:Something else that's entertaining - there is no dissent in countries like India on climate change. All believe it is happening. You will find no serious politicians or scientists saying its a hoax/not happening etc. I suspect this is due to the fact they stand to suffer the most being least able to afford adaptations and that they see it as basically not their fault

Of course there is no dissent, India doesn't have the same social mentality as Western countries. Not to mention the difference in educational standards.

Redbeard wrote:There are seven billion already. We're killing off other species at an unprecedented rate. Sure, we could speed that up, spread out even further, but why should we? Do we really need more humans? The vast majority of humanity does nothing worthwhile with their lives as it is. They spend their time gawking at the TV, voting for American Idol, and playing their X-boxes. Rather than figure out how to overwork the soil even more (talking about depleted water tables) and lace our food with even more chemicals, perhaps it's time to get the hint that if we can't produce enough food for everyone (we can't. Even in civilized countries, a large percentage of the population regularly goes hungry) maybe it's because there are too many mouths to feed.

And you paint little toy army men and "fight" them against other imaginary armies using dice and a BGB from some crazy old Englishman. I don't think you can criticize people for how they spend their free time...unless of course you actually think that W40K is the epitome of intellectual and cultural advancement.... Also people don't go hungry in developed countries for lack of food, to think so is foolish.

Redbeard wrote: Of course not. Sometimes you need a dictator to make the really hard choices. Voters always think small-scale.

I may not be the biggest fan of Democracy or Republicanism, but I am definitely against despotism and dictatorships. Obviously you aren't even sold on your idea that the world is overpopulated, because you are still alive.

Da Boss wrote:@Redbeard:I really find your ideas offensive, not in the normal way, but on a deeper level. It's the same sort of horror I feel when people espouse breeding licences and IQ tests to have kids.
That's not intended as a personal attack or anything, a lot of times what you post makes a lot of sense to me. But I could never agree with you on this, I think.

I don't expect many people to agree with me; that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Most people want to turn a blind eye to the global population crisis because of what it means at a personal level to them. It's someone else's problem, and you can continue with your life, getting married, having kids, and so on, because, at the moment, it doesn't affect you personally.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Factually on food production you are of course massively wrong. Not to mention all the 'wastage' that goes into meat production and such like.

I am? Got data?

...Others that it means being a good parent and raising your children as decent citizens....

Adding to an overpopulation crisis is not a worthwhile activity. To be a decent citizen involves showing a concern for your community, not just yourself. Adding more people to the world does not show this concern.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Agreed. Redbeard has obviously never been to the Great Plains, West Texas, Western Canada or Siberia...

I haven't been to Siberia, I have made it to the other places you mention. I don't follow your argument though. Are you saying we could pave over those places and put up more subdivision to house more people? Sure, turning much of our remaining farmland into more population centers wouldn't possibly have any impact on further world hunger.

Also people don't go hungry in developed countries for lack of food, to think so is foolish.

Of course not. They go hungry because food is so plentiful that everyone has easy and affordable access to it...

Obviously you aren't even sold on your idea that the world is overpopulated, because you are still alive.

You're the second person to make this rather weak and poorly thought-out argument. As I indicated before, if I thought it would do any good, I'd be happy to die for my cause. We all die sometime. However, one person acting alone isn't going to change anything, and it's foolish to suggest that it would. What's needed is something akin to what China has implemented, where couples are limited to a single child.

I'm not even bothering to read the thread.

The USA and China account for 50% of world CO2 output (ish, that's energy use which isn't always the same thing.)

Britain accounts for 2%.

After the USA and China, India, Brazil and Russia are the next key countries. It's a waste of time anyone else doing anything unless the USA and China are on board.

India refusing to accept limits is only what the USA did after Kyoto (under Clinton, I think.)

It doesn't matter anyway if climate change isn't androgenic.

Oops, nevermind this.

Redbeard wrote:
I haven't been to Siberia, I have made it to the other places you mention. I don't follow your argument though. Are you saying we could pave over those places and put up more subdivision to house more people? Sure, turning much of our remaining farmland into more population centers wouldn't possibly have any impact on further world hunger.

Vertical farms, mass hydroponics, genetic engineering...the only real impediment to solving world hunger is monetary (and, by extension, human).

Redbeard wrote:
Of course not. They go hungry because food is so plentiful that everyone has easy and affordable access to it...

The economics have very little to do with quantity, and everything to do with sustainable income with respect to producers. Know anything about farm subsidies?

Redbeard wrote:
You're the second person to make this rather weak and poorly thought-out argument. As I indicated before, if I thought it would do any good, I'd be happy to die for my cause. We all die sometime. However, one person acting alone isn't going to change anything, and it's foolish to suggest that it would.

You aren't addressing his criticism. You already believe this little bit of mimetic nonsense left over from the 70's. You are part of a group of people who believe it. If you were not its unlikely that the meme would exist for you to believe, as I know you didn't create it, and I doubt you arrived at this conclusion independently. You have exactly as much certainty with respect to collective suicide as you will ever have, and you still won't choose it. That should illuminate something about human psychology.

Redbeard wrote:
What's needed is something akin to what China has implemented, where couples are limited to a single child.

No, we need time to pass in order to prove your theory correct. Of course the proof will be a series of resource wars which will most likely kill the necessary number of people. Said wars may begin as a result of your inconceivably stupid rhetoric.

Kilkrazy wrote:

It doesn't matter anyway if climate change isn't androgenic.

KK wins the thread for saying androgenic.

To continue this threadjacking on over population. The current world population is estimated at 6.7 billion and is not expected to reach 7 billion for a few years. By 2050 population growth is expected to flatten out considerably, sitting at about 12 billion. That 12 billion is well within most researchers numbers on sustaibilty.

As to food production, it should be noted that food production has increased faster than population growth has over the past 50 years. And to the point of lack of food in the industrialized world, give me a break. It is estimated that less than 3% of people in North American and Northern Europe go hungry due to lack of food.

More points to bring up, the number of species are decreasing just not at a rate that hasn't been seen before. Several periods through-out geological history have seen species disappear at faster rates. This is just occuring due to non-natural causes. Also the low number RedBeard stated as being sustainable was surpassed half a millinia ago and we seem to be doing fine.

To say the human population cannot be sustained on this Earth is to say that one has little faith in humanity to solve any problem set before it, IMHO.

But we're not doing fine. Sustainable doesn't mean keeping that many people alive, it means keeping that many people alive indefinitely. Glaciers are melting. Water tables are failing. This many people are causing lasting environmental effects on the planet. That's not sustainable. It may be supportable, for the short term, but it's not sustainable.

You contradict yourself in describing sustainablity. Either it can or cannot keep people alive. Glaciers are melting, they do that. The water table is falling and the sea level is rising, I'm sure that we'll figure out how to turn this into keeping us in our swimming pools. As to lasting environmental effects, lasting how? Mother earth will rebound on us and we will figure out how to live with it w/o wholesale slaughtering of 85% of out fellow man (regardless of the value of those lives).

We are not over-crowded, over-populated, or over-whelming the Earth by any measurable degree.

Earth will do just fine no matter what we do. We may or may not be screwed but Mother Earth hasn't even noticed humans yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides make it hotter and the birds will be happy. Soon they will revert to their dinosaur selves and eat us all.

There is so many possibilities to increase efficiency it is ridiculous. Eco-communities will likely be somewhat of a model for the future, using all the technologies we have at our disposal (most of which are passive, and relatively simple in concept).

Just working in a garden I know how easy it actually can be to provide food for a community. The distribution is the real problem. Working by myself, for less than 5 hours a week, I can provide enough food to feed dozens of people, for weeks on end. When it comes down to the ways that I can actually accomplish this, the limitations are simply linked to the system that is already in place.

Anyway though, if you really feel that the world is that overpopulated... seriously though, what a bunch of nonsense... People drive good concepts into the ground, because thinking in circles makes them feel better.

Frazzled wrote:Earth will do just fine no matter what we do. We may or may not be screwed but Mother Earth hasn't even noticed humans yet.

Technically this planet is going to be fried within a few trillion years or so... but yeah, that is an awfully old rock, floating around space, for an awfully long time.

Besides make it hotter and the birds will be happy. Soon they will revert to their dinosaur selves and eat us all.

We are starting to make 'dinosaurs' now, who knows, maybe we will be eaten by our very creations.

I'm not worried. Killer attack wiener dogs have already proven their ability to adapt, adjust, overcome. But they still can't open plastic lids so will need us around long into the future.