CONTROVERSIAL: Paper due the 11th.
 

I am writing a series of papers based on the following concept:
Overpopulation: A result of societal immaturity, which is creating the strife on current economies and ecosystems by creating “over-demand” of resources. Overpopulation is a cause of many of our contemporary issues.

This is what I have thusfar.
Discuss points and counterpoints. Please explore the idea thoroughly. The edges are still rough, but I think this type of forum debate could help my papers considerably.

I will post updates as I progress through the week to be sure.



EDIT: This is definitely a rough sketch of my ideas. Please ask me to clarify any points as it will help shape my paper as well.

Interesting topic.

I almost posted that monarchy should be in your timeline before republic but then I saw that you had it all laid out correctly. It is interesting to note how advanced of a civilization the Romans had before it crumbled and the world was ruled by reeruned Monarchies/Dictatorship.

Although at the same time you might want to throw the Greeks in there before the Romans, and they were a Democracy if memory serves.

I think going from TRIBES to REPUBLIC is a bit of a giant leap, don't you think?

There is also the Chinese to consider...if memory serves they had an advanced society compared to the rest of the world well before the Roman Empire.

I will discuss tomorrow, after freshening up (sleep) and post an update.

I couldnt find the word for clans fighting for power in my head and I had ideas to develop, my bad.

O BTW if this thread falls off the front page, the members of Chiefsplanet clearly lack any opinion on anything.

That is basically a form of a tribe, IMO.

irregardless of opinion, something will be done by the global elite in the forthcoming years to dramatically curb overpopulation.

In various research that I have read ... I came across a nugget that David Rockefeller head of Rockefeller family, Trilateral Commission, and Council of Foreign Affairs, said the population should be systematically decreased by upwards of 80%. :eek:

**** it,
I cant sleep now. I will post some essays that developed into this idea.

Consumer Freedom
Juliet Schor presents an argument to limit consumerism based on environmental protection and societal needs. She then presents some rather sophomoric counter-opinions with stronger supporting essays. However, I find her opinion to be rather socialist and quite unwieldy.
There are better ways of protecting the environment than limiting consumerism. Perhaps limiting production is the solution. By moving the supply line to the left, the demand will decrease as will the equilibrium price. Thusly people will have to be more selective in their more environmentally destructive products. I as much as anyone, am against taxes against the individual, however, taxes could be employed to raise the price and have a similar effect. It would be easier than redistributing the wealth on a national level and preserve the spending rights of the consumer.
Societal needs are an issue Schor attempts to tackle. Again, she falls short of acknowledging reality. The democracy is a body designed to preserve the rights of the individual. To attempt to blend individuality with socialism is impossible. It has been tried on multiple occasions in the Soviet Union, North Korea, and China. The nations died in a swill of corruption. They began to revert back to capitalism and they boomed for it. Perhaps the problem is not the system, but the number of people within it.
Coping with the demands of six billion people must be taxing on the Earth. Perhaps if humans had not inflated to such great quantities, resources would not be so scarce and the Earth would not be so damaged. Perhaps the problem is not within the amount people as individuals consume, but the amount of people scrambling for the limited resources at hand. The human race as a whole has grown disproportionately to its environment. Thus a destructive cycle has begun in which the human’s individual desires outweigh the capacity of the environment, and therefore, crush it. Population control is the necessary step to obsolving the societal issues at hand, not limiting consumer rights to protect an overburdening populous.
The overburdening populous continues to lumber towards its doom, however. Population growth is still quite out of control and the issues will remain as long as people are so near-sighted. I, for one, will take it upon myself to have no children and to die young. After all, quality of life is not the same as length. Quality is defined by the individual, by the consumer.

Responsibility
“I, Myles Horton, take full responsibility, with what I know, what I intuit, what I believe, what I guess, what I feel. I’m making this decision, and I accept it as my responsibility. I can’t blame anyone.” Myles Horton has reached a point in his maturity curve where he can take responsibility for his actions.
There is a maturity curve upon which each person and even society on a whole level sits. Along with gaining maturity, one begins to accept the consequences for one’s own actions, if not just for foresight that honesty will get you further than dishonesty. Certainly, people, as they mature, can begin to look further ahead than the simple immediate gratification and see that further down their path of life, it would be more beneficial for them to be responsible. They have the trust of others to gain and less integrity to lose rather than losing both in a defaming revelation later on.
Society also has advanced on a maturity curve, though much slower. Slavery was commonplace not 100 years ago, and now oppression based on skin color seemingly is on the fringe of being deserted. This is an example of society maturing along that curve. Unfortunately, society is not yet at the point where it takes responsibility for its destructive nature. All people are responsible for the slowness of societal growth along the maturity curve.
There is a tie between personal and societal maturity. Societal maturity can be nothing more than the average of personal maturities, within a democracy. Because the majority rules, their maturity level is reflected in the way they lead life and the standards that they hold others to (their laws.) Ironically, people are born and grow into societies maturity level and usually achieve little additional growth. This is what makes maturity growth so difficult. It would seem, the only was to grow beyond the bounds of society is to remove oneself from society.

The Problem Before Us
“The problem before us is how to feed billions of new mouths over the next several decades and save the rest of life at the same time, without being trapped in a Faustian bargain that threatens freedom and security.”(Wilson, 118) Genetic engineering will surely play a strong part in this operation, but will they be enough? And if the genetic engineer is coming along too slowly, will the technology be rushed into implementation?
With many mouths to feed, agricultural production will become more and more important. Genetic engineering can be a valuable asset to our food production if contained and tested properly. GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) can provide drastically increased production in the same amount of space through protection from pests, enhanced growth rates, and even in durability to the elements. With the increase of population, the demand for meet will rise, therefore creating a rise in price of meat. The rise in price of meat will create more dependence on agriculture, making the strain on the agricultural industry even greater, as they will need to produce all the more. GMOs can help with that, but they need to be properly contained and tested first.
Rushing a GMO into production could be disastrous. GMOs have the potential to harm people on intake, as well as to become weeds. For example, there was a GMO that was crossed with a peanut plant to give it added protein. Unfortunately, it was not adequately tested and people who were allergic to peanuts reacted when they ate the GMO. A GMO could also easily become a weed because we make them into “super plants.” Some are immune to herbicides. If they should spread from the crop areas and infest peoples gardens, destroying the other plants that are around it. Caution must be exercised if GMOs are to be implemented successfully.
As with most solutions, the one involving GMOs must be one of moderation. They can benefit mankind and help humans to get over the peak of the population curve, but they must be well tested and contained. If the situation is mistreated, a great benfit will be lost and/or great damage will be inflicted.

well form this sprung a delegation from each tribe used as a representative, I would think.

realistically they could feed the world if Hemp was legal.

ive heard this argument... It intrigues but does not convince.

That's garbage. How are they going to kill over 5 billion people?

The main point is that population is headed to 9 billion before starvation starts to kill. That is 150% of our current population. That would be 150% the taxation on the resources and environment.

Hemp bread?

They could probably feed the world, regardless. America is greedy and selfish.

It may be necessary
Edit:

Think, people will be killed by starvation. The massive infanticide of females in china will also contribute to a population curb within the generation as well. The point is that, while technology has allowed us to exceed our normal carrying capacity on earth, it is destroying the earth itself along with our race.

3 billion people don't get added to the population overnight. You're looking at roughly 50 years before we hit 9 billion. Who knows what happens in that time frame? The moon might be colonized.

Technology will save us. Either that or ****ing aliens.

Starvation is a possiblity I suppose, but I don't see the "global elite" carrying out some scheme to murder billions of people. The revolt would tear the planet apart.

Are you suggesting the moon can support 3 billion people? 2075 the world should peak between 9bill and 10 bill according to wilson in the future of life

it is highly likely. Although, who has the right to say so, or do so? The last person who tried to eliminate a vast amount of the population was Hitler... then the Abortion Clinics...

Plus you have to factor in that science will soon allow us to fool the death gene for an extended period of time, thus keeping us at a decent physical fitness level, and living upwards of 120-130 years.

technology is one source of the problem. Not the solution.

Im hoping that society can mature to recognize the need to contain our own population be the time that the discovery is available. Coincidently, the majority of species have gestation periods relative to their life span. humans do not anymore... (they used to.) This is another possible source for overpopulation. See Ideas are coming now. I knew this was a good idea

I have a 6-DVD series on the universe and space... they say that if we could terraform Mars within 120 years....

we start by sending machines to pollute the atmosphere... that will create carbon dioxide... then in 50 years we send trees to be planted... etc...etc...

interesting possibility... considering it would take HOW MANY YEARS to even fly to Mars? Plus when you factor in the Van Allen Radiation Belt, long space travel may not truly be a reality, yet.

The moon is approximately 1/8th the size of the earth, correct? However, there's no water on the moon. I'm no scientist, but I'm guessing the moon is more than capable of supporting 3 billion, maybe more.

How far away is Mars? :)

I believe it was frontierism that also allowed for population expansion in america. people would keep moving west if resources got too low. Again, I will state frontierism to be a cause, not a solution.

yeah, great. Have us do your dirty work. whaddanasshole.

That's ridiculous.

check my last response to ali chi3fs.

I am using you like a $10 hooker... (hopefully this post will be enough to drag endelt into the thread... he always has a lot to say.)

I say we need to move 3 billion or so people to Greenland. ITS FUGGING HUGE!!!

http://www.rain.org/homeschool/world...ntry-names.gif

Well for one thing, I'd send the plants and machines at the same time. That way there's no downtime for the plants to get there when enough CO2 is created.

Humans have been here for thousands of years. We ain't going anywhere.

You bring up a great point. Earth has huge ****ing tracts of land that we haven't even exploited yet. Plus look at all the ****ing water! Are you telling me we can't terraform a few islands and move some people?

Bio-domes on Greenland, bitch!

There's also the opportunity to move people underground if need be.

Anyway, have a look-see at those essays i posted previously...

You think Russia is teeming at the edges with people? Hell no. There's ample room for people to migrate, to.

BIO DOMES!

well sleep calls again. looking forward to further discussion in the morning.

I cant believe this fell off the front page.

I heard a report today that 8 million Africans will die in the next 20 years from AIDS. If we can get those kinds of rates in a few undesirable countries too, the over-population thing might work itself out.

This is the whole Malthusian argument, which I think has been solved. If humans add net value to society, there is no such thing as overpopulation, because they'll add more resources than they consume. The problem only occurs when you have people who require more resources than they produce.

Now youre assuming that the resources are the same. What about trees? Can humans produce more trees than they consume over a 150 year time frame?

8 million is about 2% of the population fwiw....

I thought the number was 80 million, but I could be wrong.

I think it was 80 million...it just didn't sound right when I was typing it.


So is that a better start Nightfyre?

20% is a start. However the people being eliminated are those whom are least taxing on the environment...

Yes.

Case in point. The upper Appalaichains in the northeastern part of our contingent states: Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine.

When the settlers landed in our country, that area was sparsely populated by trees. The settlers needing more ample vegetation and such, planted. (Forgive me for I've forgotten the species or types of trees in reference). But, the fact is- the trees have nearly consumed all of New Hampshire and Vermont and Delaware- even though the population continued to rise dramatically, so did the trees.

Sure. As long as one of those humans figures out a method to do so. The odds are good. Either that, or someone will invent a material that replaces wood and is common (e.g., plastic).

A professor of mine once mentioned the ratio of value of products between ingenuity and raw materials. We're able to create products now that are highly valuable and use very little raw material. 50 years ago, an adding machine was all full of gears and mechanical things, and printed results in paper. Now we have calculators that are 1/20th the size (less raw material), have internal mechanisms made out of 1/100th of an ounce of silicon, and print their results on long-lasting, reusable LEDs instead of paper. The value of the materials in a calculator are far less than 1 percent of the value of the finished product. I thought it was an interesting point.

Look at the damage we are currently causing the environment with our vehicles and coal power plants worldwide. Soon there will be no ozone and the world will be too warm to sustain certain lifeforms. Its only a matter of time until it catches up to us. Also, feeding 10 billion people would be difficult.

You should read some of Wade Davis's work.

Particularly, Shadows in the Sun

An excellent book that will help answer some of your questions. Besides, near the end- it includes a delirious tale of his exploration into the Sonoran deserts of Arizona to smoke toads.

Also, quality of life would drastically increase with a much smaller population because there would be less resource scarcity and damage done to teh environment.

There is a finite supply of accessible oil (I think estimated at another 30-40 years worth) so I believe that problem will self-correct before the ozone disappears.

Coal is also limited, although I am not sure how much we have.

In general, the best solution to overpopulation would be self-regulation (people would have less children) but that would require a radical shift in world attitude. I wouldn't expect that to occur soon although Japan has come to that point.

I agree. Self-Regulation is horribly inefficient, but what can one do but draw attention to the problem and its sources? Dogmatism is a plague on this planet.

I recently finished the book "Inevitable Surprises" by Peter Schwartz. There is a chapter or two in there discussing current population trends (i.e. rather than booming overpopulation -- which everyone feared 15 yrs. ago -- pop. growth is leveling off and pop. overall is heading toward stabilization rather than uncontrolled growth) and it's a good read.

I really don't trust estimates that oil will "run out" in 20, 30, 50 or 100 years. Many experts were saying the same thing 20 years ago. There is a lot of oil out there that is not being exploited because of cost -- i.e. it's too expensive to extract it, like in Canada. As the price of oil continues to rise, more and more of that will be economically feasible to go after.

New oil deposits are also being found, as our drilling technology improves (massive props to the History Channel).

Actually, I believe coal is one resource that is still in abundant supply. Most experts think that the end of the coal supply is nowhere in sight.

Not going, to read the whole thread, but Britain is not a monarhcy but rather a parliamentary system. Also, I'd put a 3 next to America.

The other thing (already mentioned in this thread) that effectively reduces population is disease. I have not done any research into the topic but I believe there is a correlation between overpopulation and disease. Certainly there is a correlation between ignorance and disease which is one of the reasons why disease is so devastating in underdeveloped countries where education is poor. Of course the other problem in underdeveloped nations is the poverty which is typically associated with unsanitary living conditions.

Religious-based and culture-based attitudes are excepcionally difficult to change. Unfortunately, procreation is often rooted in these concepts so again, I would say education might be the most effective tool in combatting overpopulation.

Ok, depends who one believes, I guess. I am certainly not an expert but my original statement is true. There is a finite supply of accessible oil. At some point that supply will be exhausted.

FWIW, I was speaking of prerevolutionary britain.

Yeah, last year in my environment class, the prof said there's enough to last another 500 years at the current consumption rates.

ANd my bad about the monarchy Nightfyre, I thought you were listing them according to a timeline. The revolution took place long before WWI.

Sorry, I didn't choose my words well. Limited was used in the sense of finite. Coal is not a renewable energy source so at some point in the future it will be gone. But I believe you are correct as far as the estimates go. At current consumption rates we should have hundreds of years of coal supply.

Of course some of that is due to the fact that we choose to use other, less-pollutive energy sources such as oil. If at some point we choose use more coal (possibly when the oil is gone) the estimate may change.

Hopefully, we will move towards more renewable and less pollutive energy sources such as solar technology.

Nuclear energy isnt a bad short term solution. It is well contained, efficient and environmentally friendly.

My prof, last year, said that the resources were not a problem. There are many alternatives, it's just that oil is the cheapest right now. Once that runs out - we move on.

Edward Wilson, a professor at Harvard (quite dogmatic in his support of the environmental causes....) believes that we are destroying ourselves as a race. Read The Future of Life .

white trash (or all trash in general) breeds at a much faster rate than normal, intelligent people. A generation or 2 from now the US will be extremely overpopulated with white trash. It starts when they have kids at 16 and then by 25 they have 4 or 5 kids and 15 years later those parents have 20 grandchildren.

I think mandatory abortion should be enforced

I don't think I would categorize nuclear energy as environmentally friendly. Nuclear waste is extremely hazardous.

It comes in small quantities due to the enthalpy of the reaction. Really, when compared to Hydroelectric and coal, it is a godsend. Plus we can launch all that shit into space at a later date.

Of course we are, I never said we aren't. I'm saying the world won't end once we run out of oil.

I actually believe that long-time welfare moms should be sterilized. There should, IMO, be a time limit for welfare benefits. Need short term help? Fine society will help you. Need long term help? Ok, but there is a price you must pay. Anyone who exceeds a reasonable time limit can still receive the benefits but will be sterilized. I don't mind helping someone for a short time until they can support themselves (mistakes do happen) but I don't think that society should allow one to make a career out of having children one cannot afford.

I think the same thing of fathers who knowingly and willingly fail to pay child support.

Can't afford the kids you have? Ok, society will pay for your mistake but society will make sure that offenders have no future mistakes that society has to pay for.

50 years ago, no one could fathom feeding 5 billion people. Ag technology has done wonders. Even if we don't improve technology at all going forward, I'll bet there are millions of people in China and India that will triple or sextuple their productivity once current technology reaches them.

As for the energy thing and pollution, it's cleaner in most American cities than it was 50 years ago. The Third World will catch up eventually.

Once something is recognized as a problem, humans solve it, or at least mitigate it. The only thing we have to fear is a huge, fast-moving surprise.

How Naive... Lets look at the ozone and global warming again.... or the irrepairable damage done to ecosystems?

I'll bet you $50 that we've satisfactorially addressed ozone and global warming issues within 40 years, unless it turns out that they're naturally phenomena outside human control. (And if that's the case, we'll adjust to them.)


And as for irrepairable damaged to ecosystems, define irrepairable. And then define damage. I think that perhaps 1 percent of local damage to local ecosystems can't be fixed within a hundred years, and if that's the case on the local level, it's the case on the global level.


I'm not saying that humans can't screw stuff up. I'm just saying that they can fix their screwups.

Well, look at the 1000x increase in extinction rate for starters...

Cavemen wandered around with mammoths, giant sloths, sabertooth tigers, and all sorts of other animals that don't exist today. Didn't seem to hurt things any.

Extinctions have occurred as long as there have been creatures.

There has been an INCREASE in EXTINCTION by 1000 times. I dont care who you are, you can't contort that statistic into some normality.

Nyghtfire,

That statistic IS somewhat distorting in that its driven mostly by loss of insect species from chopping down rainforest in South America.

The underlying premise of your stat is that "the world is dying b/c we are losing species". Yet, sheer number of species is not necessarily a measure of a productive ecosystem. For example, take pre-industrial europe vs. South America. South America would had vast numbers more species.....but the LACK of species in europe did not mean it was an "unhealthy" ecosystem.

However, our rainforest policy has been a disaster that we have been well aware of for over 20 years. The problem isn't so much that you are simply destroying species, because extinction is a fact of biology. As conditions change, species go extinct. The problem with the rainforest is that after you chop it down and farm it...in not too many generations, you lose the water in the system and you've created non-productive desert land (see North Africa).

Humans changing ecosystems IS not necessarily a problem, its simply an accelerated selection pressure on the system. What is the problem is when you reshape the environment into something less productive in the long term.

Im using the extinction of species as a measure of environmental damage done relative to before the onset of the human race.

My exact point is that your assertion is a misuse of this stat. My statement is that a productive environment and numbers of species aren't exactly the same things.

LOLOL..

you know..i could really help you on this topic. I have an undergrad molecular bio degree, 3 semesters of grad school....then decided to go to law school. After being a bio tech patent lawyer....i decided to work on a night school MBA, where i studied some economics.

SO i know lots about social engineering b/c law, at its core, is about using the coercive force of government to change behavior.

I also am very fond of a subject i took in grad school...call Sociobiology which looks at how darwinian natural selection operates on human behavior.

I would appreciate that.