Running out of Room

Originally Posted by blackraven

xSoulx - Thanks for stopping in and giving your thoughts on this subject. A country where there is reproduction requirements probably is see as a criminally inclined organization because it is inherent that humans desire freedom in all choices. I think we have a lot of control over the future in a great many areas such as turning back the clock on global warming by changing our human habits. We can further increase technology in the future as has been the case especially in the last two centuries. I guess I'm one to try to believe in and help change for improvement. I like the idea of doing whatever comes natural to me, although I don't know if I have the ability to relinquish trust that I will always do what's best or others will. I suppose in the best case scenario humankind has the increased conscience to live harmoniously with all other humans, animals and plant life. But money tends to dictate human behavior, example: if humans keep cutting down forests at the current rate, future generations will have lower quality of air to breathe. That's what I mean when I talk about the conscience of man. Animals and plants follow a pattern of natural processes, but does man?

Thank you for your input xSoulx.

Blackraven

Yes, I would actually agree about restricting human reproduction as criminal. I actually believe that there are ways to solve overpopulation that don't involve stealing individual liberties or actively killing people. A few ideas I have are: Improving sanctums on free speech, discontinue all suicide and anger management hotlines and services, decrease social expectations from people, strengthen the spirit science lobby, bring back the death penalty while doing little to prevent them from criminals from acting as they please. Normally I believe in helping those in need and I know this proposition sounds cruel, but I also believe in respect and individuality. I also understand that, as you said, it all revolves around money. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Mathew James]

Originally Posted by blackraven

Yes, exactly, Gem. That was part of my response to xSoulx, that money controls human behavior.

Money controls the people who are in control of the populations, and a great source for money is war, and war is a great method for population control. Any time the people who are in control are threatened by a lack of land, the solution for them is easy, start another war.

mj

[knightofalbion]

Originally Posted by jillianspapa

Non-renewable resources are limited and dwindling at an alarming rate, and we're polluting / destroying renewables (other than sunlight) at a similar rate. People are in denial about global warming because it might affect their bottom line.

Remember the lesson of Easter Island, a small microcosm of Earth. Inhabitants used up nearly all the natural resources, and in the process, nearly wiped themselves out. Settlers came on ships, gave them new diseases, and finished the job.

I'm afraid we're in for a rude awakening, and probably sooner than we think.

Raising the collective consciousness and median standard of living for the world might help avert disaster.

Easter Island, yes, a very good analogy.

And also the Mayans... People were blinded by the prospect of some geophysical cataclysm, they overlooked the fact that the Mayan civilization collapsed basically because they were too greedy and exhausted the resources of their environment necessary to sustain their way of life.

[LPC]

It is possible, on the other hand, that falling fertility in both developed and developing countries may help reverse the current population increase. See
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...y-decline.html
and
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...rtility-rates/

It is unlikely that humans will become extinct, but a steady decline in population would be a good thing for the world.

[blackraven]

Originally Posted by H:O:R:A:C:E

the overpopulation problem has been evident for quite some time; Make Room!Make Room! (the basis for Soylent Green) was published in 1966.
it's been an undeniable issue since then at least.
there is absolutely no human reason for populating the world as we've been doing. it's not serving the planets purpose(s).
who's agenda IS it serving [i ask you]?

H:O:R:A:C:E - It seems there are camps that say population growth is the natural order of things, however, overpopulation is the present state of things and continues to rapidly move into the issue of running out of room. When humans can no longer coexists with nature and run out of resources for all to live on, that's a problem. As far as agenda goes, I would think in most cases it's the human need to produce babies out of a loving relationship regardless to the state of things going on in and around the world. That's nature at the core as even animals have an innate drive to bring offspring into the world. I just think if the inhabitants of the planet saw the ripple effect that overpopulation has on a shrinking finite little blue marble they would take things into their own hands and not wait for a god to intervene.

Blackraven

[blackraven]

Originally Posted by jillianspapa

Non-renewable resources are limited and dwindling at an alarming rate, and we're polluting / destroying renewables (other than sunlight) at a similar rate. People are in denial about global warming because it might affect their bottom line.

Remember the lesson of Easter Island, a small microcosm of Earth. Inhabitants used up nearly all the natural resources, and in the process, nearly wiped themselves out. Settlers came on ships, gave them new diseases, and finished the job.

I'm afraid we're in for a rude awakening, and probably sooner than we think.

Raising the collective consciousness and median standard of living for the world might help avert disaster.

jillianspapa - We speak the same language. People ARE is denial about global warming and countless other issues that is destroying the planet for all the inhabitants living on it. I'm like you. I'm afraid it's going to take more and more disasters to wake the masses up. Wild fires due to dry conditions, flash floods, alarming amounts of tornadoes and people fighting over territories to live on are the maladies of our times. Resources do run out. What will everyone do should they not be able to put gas in their car? What will everyone do when pollution causes everyone to walk around with gas masks on? I didn't realize Soylent Green came out in 1966. We knew back then what the future would hold for us, but we made little change to preserve the planet.

Blackraven

[blackraven]

Originally Posted by xSoulx

Yes, I would actually agree about restricting human reproduction as criminal. I actually believe that there are ways to solve overpopulation that don't involve stealing individual liberties or actively killing people. A few ideas I have are: Improving sanctums on free speech, discontinue all suicide and anger management hotlines and services, decrease social expectations from people, strengthen the spirit science lobby, bring back the death penalty while doing little to prevent them from criminals from acting as they please. Normally I believe in helping those in need and I know this proposition sounds cruel, but I also believe in respect and individuality. I also understand that, as you said, it all revolves around money. A wolf in sheep's clothing.

That's just it, xSoulx, it's quite a dilemma to know where to begin sometimes in solving issues when those measures taken step on the toes of individuality and freedom, resulting in a price paid.

Blackraven

[blackraven]

Originally Posted by Mathew James

Money controls the people who are in control of the populations, and a great source for money is war, and war is a great method for population control. Any time the people who are in control are threatened by a lack of land, the solution for them is easy, start another war.

mj

Matthew James - Land is our biggest resource and everyone wants their slice of it. War is the product of believing there is not enough for everyone to share. Truth be told, it's getting harder and harder to share a finite resource and so people fight to control regions of the planet. People die over this madness and people profit from it at the same time. You make a good point.

Blackraven

[blackraven]

LPC - Thank you for bringing those very interesting articles to the thread. Infertility may slow population growth, but according to wikipedia:

"The global population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion in 2012. It is expected to keep growing to reach 10 billion by the end of the century."

The real question is, just how many people can the planet sustain livability using a finite amount of resources? I don't know the answer to that myself.

Blackraven

[knightofalbion]

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/