| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Questions for Brewster; A conversation | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 21 2012, 01:25 AM (991 Views) | |
| Pat | Feb 21 2012, 07:49 AM Post #21 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Colo, I read your comment and I want to keep this conversation going with Brew one on one. If you ever want to discuss something with me in like manner, let me know. I'm open. |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Feb 22 2012, 12:13 AM Post #22 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus Although I had not read anything by Malthus in the past, this Wiki article outlines his principle positions and thoughts on famine, disease, war, as being positive when population growth is considered. He also mentions birth control, abortion, reductions in sexual activity, and common sense as being a more desirable approach to the problem an excess population. I would add climate and weather patterns being additional stress points as populations reach the saturation point in some regions, rendering the ability of the people to feed themselves more dependent on begging from outward sources than actual productivity increases in food stuff. CO2 output, which some attribute to the bulk of today's weather patterns is in my opinion, a natural outcome from having too many people on the planet. The thought of a species affecting the very nature and sustainability of the host planet seems macabre , obscene. I think Brew, you are concentrating on the wrong issue. Without the population growth, the planet easily accommodate the industry and waste of productivity. I also think that Malthus is right, famine, war, and disease will solve the population issue and along with it, the climate/weather concerns you concentrate on. Outside forced sterilization or a blockade of food imports to populations that stretch to the breaking point nature, can you think of any viable alternatives? Look at the number of bloody wars present on the planet right now. All I might add, occurring in regions that the population has a hard time feeding itself. Would we be more humane if we left them be to murder off each other? Edited by Pat, Feb 22 2012, 12:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Feb 22 2012, 12:35 AM Post #23 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm sorry, Pat, I find it hard to accept the pessimism of an 18th century writer as a valid argument for 21st century policy. The best thing you can say about his writings is that they were a wonderful prompt for Darwin to develop his theory of Evolution. In any case, I don't think trying to starve 3/4 of the world to death would produce the results you wish - it's much more likely it would result in WWIII. In addition, we have repeatedly proven Malthus wrong - we have continued to grow more food, more comfort, more of virtually everything. But now we have run into a new barrier, one that Malthus could not even imagine. And we must tackle it head on, with the same determination and ingenuity our forefathers tackled the problems of their day. If we don't, we deserve whatever we get. A question for you: Do you really think the sense of Enterprise is gone? That our generation and the next must resign itself to an increasingly meagre future? |
![]() |
|
| Pat | Feb 22 2012, 12:49 AM Post #24 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
quote: "In any case, I don't think trying to starve 3/4 of the world to death would produce the results you wish - it's much more likely it would result in WWIII." But you just mentioned two the the historical outcomes to population overgrowth in this sentence Brew. War, disease and famine historically have dealt with excess population. This wasn't a theory of Malthus, but rather the facts that came from his historical research. Plus it is common sense. I might add, the cause and affect of changing weather patterns will reduce the likelihood of the world's food supply keeping up with a few billion more mouths to feed. Since war, whether it be WW111 or not will increase as a natural offspring of excess population, I think we let it run it's course where it breaks out. Once food becomes more scarce, market forces will make buying it from outside sources impossible for impoverished populations. I think years before any real threat of climate changes is upon us, that the population will naturally shrink through the above sources. And CO2 output reduce as a result. Edited by Pat, Feb 22 2012, 12:54 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Feb 22 2012, 01:32 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The worst aspect of your idea, Pat, is that the people who would starve to bring the population down are the very the people who are contributing relatively little to CO2. The most likely outcome is that we'd have misery for Billions while warming continues to skyrocket. But even if it worked, and considering the world's population is still growing, how many years do you think it will take to get it down to a manageable number, say 2 Billion? Short of WWIII, that is - it's generally known that's a war nobody wins. Edited by Brewster, Feb 22 2012, 01:35 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Pat | Feb 22 2012, 01:46 AM Post #26 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good question Neal. I read somewhere in the past, that 500 million human beings makes more sense for the size of our planet. But I suppose with modern advances in science, the planet can get by with 2 billion. I can't answer how long it will take to reduce the population by 5 billion. I have read that since modern transportation has extended virtually worldwide, that a pandemic could spread in a matter of days. Some form of virus or plaque could accomplish the goal were it to be capable or rapidly morphing faster than scientists could find a response. The more likely scenario with be a nuclear event, which seems more likely each year. In that case, there would remain sporadic population bases in remote areas, but in the densely populated center, where more than 90% of the world's population exists, total annihilation would exist within a few months of the event. Now this is my opinion, not based on any models. Famine would be the more diabolical reaction. This process would take far longer and most likely not result in such a reduction. The wars associated would be more affective. None of this is pleasant to consider, but given the selfish nature of our animal instincts to breed and pro-create, I don't see any way out of this. Maybe that is the design or our species. A constant series of spurts and retreats in population, and evolution. |
![]() |
|
| Sea Dog | Feb 22 2012, 01:52 AM Post #27 |
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think Pat, since you advocate rather brutal measures to lower the population, you should start by shooting your family, then yourself. Every little bit helps! |
![]() |
|
| Brewster | Feb 22 2012, 01:55 AM Post #28 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And that's where we differ - I see a very possible way out of this. With renewables to power our life, modern, efficient agricultural methods, better city and transport planning, we can ALL lead better, more prosperous, and healthier lives, with more freedom for the average person than he/she has ever enjoyed in the past. I agree that population cannot continue to grow forever, but our experience since WWII shows that the more prosperous and happier the society, the slower the growth rate, with no drastic action needed. And no, it's not the other way around - prosperity came first in every country that has reduced its fertility. Edited by Brewster, Feb 22 2012, 02:09 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Pat | Feb 22 2012, 02:58 AM Post #29 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Renewables might be a solution down the road, but not when we are talking about this level of over population. The population is increasing faster than new efforts to deal with it can come on line. And in the end, it is only a temporary solution. I think we are at the tipping point, and nature will soon solve the problem. |
![]() |
|
| Mountainrivers | Feb 22 2012, 04:22 AM Post #30 |
|
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
At your age, nature could solve the problem sooner than you expect. Sorry, couldn't resist. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)





10:16 PM Jul 11
