Human overpopulation

[DArtagnan]

It's certainly a pathetically stupid and unsubstantiated theory

 

[zahratustra]

Ebola will hopefully take care of it. When mother earth is hurting it takes care of it, its hardly the first time..

I always invite people who say stuff like this to prove the strength of their convictions (and to help ease off the burden of the overpopulation) and be the first to jump off a high-rise building. So far, no takers…

 

[Korplem]

Overpopulation has been a problem before, which science solved. In the early 20th century, the population was nearing it's max of about 2 billion. A man by the name of Fritz Haber (Not even a good man, by the way) found a way to pull nitrogen from the air and put it into the soil, resulting in the ability to produce much more food on smaller plots of land.

So, I guess my point is, that I think science will get this one too. I don't like to say it, because it's a little too close to saying God will fix it. The difference here is that science has a pretty good track record of fixing things.

 

[Monolith]

Overpopulation has been a problem before, which science solved. In the early 20th century, the population was nearing it's max of about 2 billion. A man by the name of Fritz Haber (Not even a good man, by the way) found a way to pull nitrogen from the air and put it into the soil, resulting in the ability to produce much more food on smaller plots of land.

So, I guess my point is, that I think science will get this one too. I don't like to say it, because it's a little too close to saying God will fix it. The difference here is that science has a pretty good track record of fixing things.

That is an interesting notion, but you're forgetting that it goes both ways. As you say, overpopulation doesn't only depend on a certain static amount of people. Throw some cataclysms at us - droughts, floods, mega volcano eruption - that cause overall global food shortage and we could be just as well thrown back to a population cap of 5, 4 or 3 billion. Dunno how much science could help if that were to happen suddenly.

 

[ManWhoJaped]

Except that it causes a significant problem of an aging population and makes pension schemes (and the like) completely unsustainable. So unless you are a fan of having everyone work until they drop dead, its not a very good policy.

That's just made up to justify immigration. To take care of elderly you need doctors, not toilet scrubbers. The doctors imported from abroad are mostly inferior, and they are only numerous enough to take care of the other immigrants.

The more immigrants come the worse medical care has gotten, not the other way around, because it's creating a big shortage.

 

[Korplem]

That is an interesting notion, but you're forgetting that it goes both ways. As you say, overpopulation doesn't only depend on a certain static amount of people. Throw some cataclysms at us - droughts, floods, mega volcano eruption - that cause overall global food shortage and we could be just as well thrown back to a population cap of 5, 4 or 3 billion. Dunno how much science could help if that were to happen suddenly.

That's true. Global warming (please, people, let's not start a GW debate -- I'm just using it as an example) could really throw a wrench into our food supply system.

However, in the event of an extreme change like sustained severe drought, I think as a society we would have a much more concerted effort to fix it rather than if it was just a gradual increase in population.

 

[The Wanderer]

Thinking about the thread's title, I think it's more a matter of the human race constantly wasting resources on a daily basis and the fact that humans do not help each other out.

I'll give one example of each :

Wasting of resources (Supply and demand):

Capitalism has decided that for a certain amount of product and for a certain amount of demand, you get a price that people will accept to pay.

Well talk about fruits since it's one I remember I was given when I was in business school.
After an amount of days that I forget, to sustain the same price for the longest time possible, those whom supply the products will throw them away into landfills. I've seen piles and piles of perfectly good oranges and apple thrown away. This if nucking stupid. Oh. They do this for milk too. And probably many other products. Hummm. Donuts…

Humans not helping eachother out :

The 1%, which are the 20% of humans that hold 80% of the wolrd's riches, keep the dough to themselves.

Yes, there are a few philantropists but not enough to make a significant change.
I am probably misinformed so don't pitchfork me. I admit this.
Misters Gates and Buffet give some but the others are hungry for their money…

On Reddit, I recently read a link of an Idian man whom possessed a 1Billion $ house. 600 people were required monthly to maintain it functionnal. The home has 28 floors…

Oh. I also remember of a Prince or something of the Arabic land that had two hangars that held 600 cars in total………….. Good for him right???

There is an overpopulation but that's not the chief problem.
The problem is the egotistical nature of the human race.

PS : Earth still has areas that we do not inhabit : Sea and the Hollowed part of it.
The hollowed part if folklore but what if?

PPS : How could I not mention the human race not helping with the cleaning of the Gange, Fukushima or Thchernobyl...

Like Joxer said. I am ashamed to be human but not only sometimes but Always...

 

[Pladio]

It's stranger cause I agree with your principle but almost none of your points...

Thinking about the thread's title, I think it's more a matter of the human race constantly wasting resources on a daily basis and the fact that humans do not help each other out.

That's what I agree with.

I'll give one example of each :



Wasting of resources (Supply and demand):



Capitalism has decided that for a certain amount of product and for a certain amount of demand, you get a price that people will accept to pay.

It's not "capitalism" which has decided anything.

It's the way people work.

If you were selling one apple for one dollar and no one needed it, then you would need to reduce your price.

If the next day you have a new apple an you're selling it for one dollar and one person offers you one dollar then you have sole your apple.

If the day after that you have only one apple which you were planning to sell at one dollar but two people come to you at the exact same time asking for that apple then the two options you have is to split the apple in half and sell it to each for half or ask them to offer you a better price. Then the one who gives you two dollars would get the apple.

It's the essence of capitalism that most people would decide to sell for more.

But capitalism didn't decide it, humans do.

Well talk about fruits since it's one I remember I was given when I was in business school.

After an amount of days that I forget, to sustain the same price for the longest time possible, those whom supply the products will throw them away into landfills. I've seen piles and piles of perfectly good oranges and apple thrown away. This if nucking stupid. Oh. They do this for milk too. And probably many other products. Hummm. Donuts…

Yup, waste is really bad in many places. I agree with this point.

In reality, so is eating ten times as much as you need.

Humans not helping eachother out :



The 1%, which are the 20% of humans that hold 80% of the wolrd's riches, keep the dough to themselves.



Yes, there are a few philantropists but not enough to make a significant change.

I am probably misinformed so don't pitchfork me. I admit this.

Misters Gates and Buffet give some but the others are hungry for their money…



On Reddit, I recently read a link of an Idian man whom possessed a 1Billion $ house. 600 people were required monthly to maintain it functionnal. The home has 28 floors…



Oh. I also remember of a Prince or something of the Arabic land that had two hangars that held 600 cars in total………….. Good for him right???

I agree that many people are selfish.

PPS : How could I not mention the human race not helping with the cleaning of the Gange, Fukushima or Thchernobyl...



Like Joxer said. I am ashamed to be human but not only sometimes but Always...

Actually, the cleaning of the Ganges is a culturally sensitive topic and some people would be very angry if other than Hindus did it.

People gave a lot of aid to help after Fukushima.

For Chernobyl Russia refused the aid of western countries.

 

[DArtagnan]

Capitalism isn't the worst idea in the world, it's just a really, really bad idea when combined with human nature.

If you want a system to work to the benefit of all people - you need to understand human nature first.

That's pretty much the issue with all the political or economic systems we've attempted so far. They've been designed without insight into human nature, with the pathetically stupid approach of EXPECTING the system will be respected and used in the right spirit.

You need to design a system where respect is irrelevant.

 

[zahratustra]

That's just made up to justify immigration. To take care of elderly you need doctors, not toilet scrubbers.

BS! You need taxpayers. And that means doctors AND toilet scrubbers.

That's pretty much the issue with all the political or economic systems we've attempted so far. They've been designed without insight into human nature, with the pathetically stupid approach of EXPECTING the system will be respected and used in the right spirit.

You need to design a system where respect is irrelevant.

True, but things are changing. And the change is called "Behavioral economics"

 

[The Wanderer]

It's stranger cause I agree with your principle but almost none of your points…

Lol.
It's cool. I'm not good at debating yet.
I'll keep on practicing.

It's not "capitalism" which has decided anything.
It's the way people work.
It's the essence of capitalism that most people would decide to sell for more.
But capitalism didn't decide it, humans do.

I meant that people chose capitalism in America.
Capitalism is having a free market where one company has to ''fight'' another one that produces the same product. The fight is for the sales and having the best return on assets for the investors. I.E. Profit.

Steal underpants + ??? = Profit!!!

From what I understand, I feel that what you are saying is the law of Supply and Demand. There is also another tool that can be used with that. It's called the Price elasticity of demand.

I’ll leave it at that since I don’t want to turn this thread into one of economics and because I don’t want to say things that are false since my business classes have been taken some 15 years ago.

Actually, the cleaning of the Ganges is a culturally sensitive topic and some people would be very angry if other than Hindus did it.

Didn’t know this. Very well. That will take them centuries.

People gave a lot of aid to help after Fukushima.

Wasn’t aware of this.

For Chernobyl Russia refused the aid of western countries.

I remember reading something about this somewhere.

The general idea of my thought process is that the human race is xenophobic by nature.
We will not survive as a species for long.
The way I see it, the human race will be extinct before 3000 A.D.

 

[dteowner]

Capitalism isn't the worst idea in the world, it's just a really, really bad idea when combined with human nature.

If you want a system to work to the benefit of all people - you need to understand human nature first.

That's pretty much the issue with all the political or economic systems we've attempted so far. They've been designed without insight into human nature, with the pathetically stupid approach of EXPECTING the system will be respected and used in the right spirit.

You need to design a system where respect is irrelevant.

As is often the case, we start from the same assumptions but go in opposite directions. I agree with most everything you've got there, except paragraph 2. Based on the foundation laid by paragraphs 1, 3, and 4, the entire concept of anything working for the benefit of all people is fairly nonsensical. Still, you're dead on about human nature and systems consistently ignoring it.

 

[Korplem]

So, basically we need to abolish any sort of currency and just have robots take care of things while we eat and copulate in an utopia. Almost like the Matrix, expect not using us for energy. Actually, they could use us for energy, that sounds like a fair trade.

 

[zahratustra]

And how did you stumbled upon this particular conclusion Korplem? Nothing like this was proposed or discussed in this thread

 

[DArtagnan]

So, basically we need to abolish any sort of currency and just have robots take care of things while we eat and copulate in an utopia. Almost like the Matrix, expect not using us for energy. Actually, they could use us for energy, that sounds like a fair trade.

Well, not quite - but you're essentially half-right

 

[DArtagnan]

As is often the case, we start from the same assumptions but go in opposite directions. I agree with most everything you've got there, except paragraph 2. Based on the foundation laid by paragraphs 1, 3, and 4, the entire concept of anything working for the benefit of all people is fairly nonsensical. Still, you're dead on about human nature and systems consistently ignoring it.

It's sensical once you achieve enlightenment

 

[vurt]

I always invite people who say stuff like this to prove the strength of their convictions (and to help ease off the burden of the overpopulation) and be the first to jump off a high-rise building. So far, no takers…

That's retarded. Jumping of a building is not something that occurs naturally. I've never said getting a deadly disease would be from choice, which is what you are refering to here.

Deadly diseases is far from optimal but its been proven to work. You can fantasize about populating mars all you want, if my answer wasn't P.C enough for you.

It's certainly a pathetically stupid and unsubstantiated theory

Pretty easy to say when you have no arguments.

 

[JDR13]

Popcorn ready....

 

[DArtagnan]

Pretty easy to say when you have no arguments.

About as easy as claiming it's all the plan of Mother Earth without any arguments.

Only, not quite as Medieval-level stupid

 

[vurt]

Brainiac has already forgotten what the discussion was all about, how unusual. The issue was human overpopulation.

Please, provide us with evidence that when people dies off in large numbers (in my example, a deadly disease) that it wouldn't affect population in any way.