View Poll Results: Should we control the population?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Limit the amount of children people can have.

    6 23.08%
  • Don't believe it there's enough food!

    13 50.00%
  • Don't care.

    2 7.69%
  • Other

    9 34.62%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 52

Thread: Eat well or Procreate?

  1. #21
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,034

    Re: Eat well or Procreate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    If the past century has proven anything in demographics it is how unrealistic population planning actually is barring draconian methods, and even then you subject yourself to terrible unanticipated side effects since this generally creates massive imbalances between the elderly bulge and the youth workers. My biggest problem with population control advocates (aside from the deeply immoral ways it has been implemented) is that they tend to only see humans as mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, and nothing more. Every additional human is also a mind, which when confronting resource challenges is our greatest natural resource. One of the greatest things of the past twenty years as been the re-emergence of a billion human beings onto the modern stage in the form of China. The burgeoning scientific research and great contributions emanating from India, China, etc are a crucial boost to our efforts to advance the species over the course of 21st Century.
    There's more than one way to control populations -- we need not resort to catapulting extraneous people into outer space. As populations become more educated and financially stable fewer children are born. That's a noble goal and it's good enough for me.

    Anyway, if it turns out that a zillion billion people on the planet is what finally spurs us to develop the technology to go out and colonize the universe, and a year later a giant meteor comes and obliterates earth, I'll concede to your position. Until then seven billion people is enough. We are not in danger of going extinct.

  2. #22
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,034

    Re: Eat well or Procreate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    But limited resources is relative. Our resources have remained the same (and they are enormous), it is our ability to access them that has continually increased. We haven't even begun to tap the gargantuan reserves of our earth's crust or our oceans, we aren't anywhere close to running low on resources.
    I don't believe it's wise to account for future developments in resource extraction. I believe we should be focusing on conservation of current resources and lowering (or simply sustaining) the population (that doesn't involve catapulting extra people into outer space).

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Eat well or Procreate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    There's more than one way to control populations -- we need not resort to catapulting extraneous people into outer space. As populations become more educated and financially stable fewer children are born. That's a noble goal and it's good enough for me.

    Anyway, if it turns out that a zillion billion people on the planet is what finally spurs us to develop the technology to go out and colonize the universe, and a year later a giant meteor comes and obliterates earth, I'll concede to your position. Until then seven billion people is enough. We are not in danger of going extinct.
    Your opinion, while common, assumes there is no possibility of a boom and bust.

    If we become too populated for the carrying capacity of our ecosystems, well that'll just motivate us to invent our way out of it! -- It doesn't work that way, actually.

  4. #24
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Eat well or Procreate?

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    People keep saying the population growth is slowing and that the current trend says it will level off then decline. But resources like food, water and energy are being strained and we will continue to need renewable sources in the future.

    It seems like one is possibly coming up for food. NASA awards grant for 3-D food printer; could it end world hunger?

    Here's my question should we allow the population to grow to this point where we have to eat purely processed food made of bugs and byproduct stuff? We've already got "pink slime" and "soy grits" as meat fillers. Does that really sound like quantity of people, over quality of living is desirable?

    I think the vast majority of people could grow gardens and raise basic livestock in our back yards if we had to. As much as GMF scares me, I think rapid growth/larger harvest/larger produce engineered crops could play a role if we had to. The only thing I'm worried about with respect to starvation are environmental disasters (chemical and nuclear) that could make soil so contaminated it won't produce crops and freshwater supplies for both drinking and irrigation drying up in places. Interestingly, rapid advances in alternative energy could concurrently address fresh water shortage concerns namely hydrogen power, which has just one pollutant, distilled water.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  5. #25
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,034

    Re: Eat well or Procreate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Your opinion, while common, assumes there is no possibility of a boom and bust.

    If we become too populated for the carrying capacity of our ecosystems, well that'll just motivate us to invent our way out of it! -- It doesn't work that way, actually.
    Where did you get the idea I assumed either of those things?

  6. #26
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Eat well or Procreate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Where did you get the idea I assumed either of those things?
    Maybe I misinterpreted, and if so, my bad. It was just my first reaction tonthe idea that we will grow so populated as to need to colonize space (ridiculous) or that 7+ billion people will stop exploding in population if we can all just get them to the point of being middle class and educated (also ridiculous).

  7. #27
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    35,034

    Re: Eat well or Procreate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Maybe I misinterpreted, and if so, my bad. It was just my first reaction tonthe idea that we will grow so populated as to need to colonize space (ridiculous) or that 7+ billion people will stop exploding in population if we can all just get them to the point of being middle class and educated (also ridiculous).
    My position is we should be planning to sustain or even lower current populations in order to conserve natural resources, and that educated and financially stable communities tend to have lower birth rates, so that is a goal we should be striving for. Is there something wrong with that?

  8. #28
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: Eat well or Procreate?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Every year, 15 million children starve to death. The World Health Organization estimates that 1/3 of the world's population is starving. One out of every eight children under the age of 12 -- in the United States -- goes to bed hungry every night. "It is estimated that some 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition, about 100 times as many as those who actually die from it each year."

    I'd say we've already reached critical mass. Wouldn't you?

    The world hunger problem: Facts, figures and statistics
    No .
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #29
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,301

    Re: Eat well or Procreate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    My position is we should be planning to sustain or even lower current populations in order to conserve natural resources, and that educated and financially stable communities tend to have lower birth rates, so that is a goal we should be striving for. Is there something wrong with that?
    All those in favor of population control, need to stop have sex now!
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #30
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: Eat well or Procreate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    My position is we should be planning to sustain or even lower current populations in order to conserve natural resources, and that educated and financially stable communities tend to have lower birth rates, so that is a goal we should be striving for. Is there something wrong with that?
    Well, no, not in theory anyway. There may be some idealistic underpinnings to the first position (central environmental and energy sustainability planning is politically unpopular because it's not pro-growth enough), and the latter might be a correlation/causation error.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •