Human overpopulation

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.

Let's make this useful and stick to the discussion we're having.

This was your claim:

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

Meaning, you actually believe that Ebola is part of some grand plan from nature. Obviously, you don't have the first clue how inefficient Ebola is when it comes to killing millions of people.

So, provide evidence that it's actually in direct response to overpopulation, and I'll tell you why that evidence is bullshit.
 
That wasn't what you were refering to since you wrote directly under GG's post (who did not mention the gaia part of my post - obviously since its not the issue at hand).

I see you pull off these stupid little stunts all the time on the forums when you are losing over an argument, you probably think you come off as smart or imaginative or whatever goes on in your head, but you're really just embarassing yourself. A 10 year old could probably pull off something more believable.

Edit: and if you must know, i don't believe in "gaia", i've never claimed that i do. However i like the vision of it as a philosophical / or even "romantical" view of things sometimes. So i'm sorry to disappoint, i'm not some new age hippie :(
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
That wasn't what you were refering to since you wrote directly under GG's post (who did not mention the gaia part of my post - obviously since its not the issue at hand).

I see you pull off these stupid little stunts all the time on the forums when you are losing over an argument, you probably think you come off as smart or imaginative or whatever goes on in your head, but you're really just embarassing yourself. A 10 year old could probably pull off something more believable.

Edit: and if you must know, i don't believe in "gaia", i've never claimed that i do. However i like the vision of it as a philosophical / or even "romantical" view of things sometimes. So i'm sorry to disappoint, i'm not some new age hippie :(

Yes, I'm afraid that was what I was referring to, and I'm afraid I'm the one who would know as well. GG did respond directly to the pointlessly unsympathetic Ebola theory. There was no other theory I could be referring to.

I'm amused you would go through all of that bile just to avoid facing your own statement. If you're insecure, is it really necessary to attack like that? Weak :)

Based on your edit, I take it you're blaming me for not knowing you don't mean what you say - and that it's all some "stunt" that I so often pull around here.

That sounds reasonable :)

But that's ok. It's not unusual for people to chicken out once they've said something silly. Unfortunately, it's also not unusual for people to attack when they're inadequate for the task of being decent about their own mistake.

No biggie though. I think we've wasted enough space on this - and I'll let this rest.
 
If it really was what you were refering to (yeah right) then you could have quoted that part instead of making it look like your reply was an extension to GG's reply (which it does look like when you refuse to quote the part you are refering to AND you are replying under someone elses post).

No my edit doesnt change anything, what you assume is not an argument.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
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.

Human overpopulation and people dying off in large numbers are not related.

Up to the present days, people died in large numbers and yet the current situation has been reached. The Spanish flu killed a lot of people some time ago, yet the current situation is.

The affection must be happen in a certain way it curbs overpopulation, as dying off in large numbers is not a guarantee.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
From what I've understood populations normally increase as a result of war or catastrophes. The better we have it, the less children we make. Diseases like Ebola might kill many but will at the same time stop the development of many poor nations. You need something really nasty and horrible for us humans to actually decrease in population. And personally I'd expect such a scenario to make people more selfish and less concerned about the welfare of the earth. Thus not an ideal scenario in any sort of way.
 
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
302
Human overpopulation and people dying off in large numbers are not related.

Up to the present days, people died in large numbers and yet the current situation has been reached. The Spanish flu killed a lot of people some time ago, yet the current situation is.

The affection must be happen in a certain way it curbs overpopulation, as dying off in large numbers is not a guarantee.

You assume everything would be like it is today even if those occurrences never happened. I highly doubt that and there's no evidence to support it. A decrease in population is not permanent, it gives nature some breathing room for a period of time.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
What's that? Nothing is assumed. Sticking to what it is written may help.

The Spanish flu killed millions people all around the world (contrary to Ebola that is not going to kill in large numbers outside some parts of Africa)

Overpopulation as it is being spoken on here and as a current situation.

Nothing is assumed. Who's interested to know what the world would be liked without the Spanish flu past event? It is irrelevant.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Where is it written? Provide evidence for your claims. Provide evidence that ebola is not going to kill people in large numbers outside of africa. Until then you are assuming.

It's not irrelevant at all. Overpopulation as discussed in the OP is about the strain on the earth's finite resources and environment. OP suggests one answer, i chose a less sympatethic (as someone said) example of how it could get solved, and no matter what you assume i did not mean solved indefinitely (since we do recover after a certain amount of time).

Whatever. I'll move on now, there's too much focus on picking on irrelevant things because you're lacking any type of real arguments.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
3,263
Location
The land of rape and honey
Whether through plague, nuclear holocaust, asteroid impact, economic collapse, or quite simply the end of petro-fertilizers due to the drying up of oil reserves, any imbalance will correct itself.

And through it all, the Earth abides.
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
5,980
Location
Florida, USA
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'd agree that human wastefulness and selfishness is a huge part of the Overpopulation problem.

We have people driving inefficient gas-guzzling vehicles because they care more about how their vehicle looks or being big / spacious than conserving fuel. Public transportation is often stigmatized as a horrific ordeal that should only be endured by poor people (and to be fair, in many cities it is pretty inconvenient, uncomfortable, or downright unreliable at times). We're using a lot of land and resources growing grain, corn, and soybeans which could, (in theory) be fed to hungry people, but instead is going to feed livestock because well, lots of people like the taste of meat. And as you've mentioned, in many cases, we're throwing away perfectly edible food, for one reason or another.

I've worked in the produce dept. of a large supermarket for years. The amount of food we throw away every day is absolutely staggering. Of course, much of it is moldy, spoiled, or (in the case of juice, prepackaged salads, etc.) past the expiration date and you can't really expect people to eat this stuff, let alone pay for it. Since management tends to see running out of anything as far worse than having too much back stock, we tend to order more than we need and of course throw more away as a result. And in some cases, we're throwing away produce with minor imperfections like an apple with a tiny bruise because people are extremely picky. We do have a small rack where we can sell bags of ripe or slightly bruised fruits / veggies at reduced prices. This stuff sells pretty well as people love a bargain. Unfortunately management tends to consider this a very low priority so we don't stock it nearly as much as we could.

On the bright side, our company has recently started to have us separate our organic waste so that all of the store's "bad" produce, baked goods, and dairy products are supposed to go into huge dumpsters which will be used for compost or livestock feed. A lot of what we throw away is the "convenient" prepackaged stuff (pre-chopped veggies, sliced melons, etc.) which of course spoils quicker than whole stuff. Separating all the foods from plastic and packaging is pretty time consuming so a good deal of our organic waste still goes into the trash dumpster and ends up in the landfill. I guess it's still a small step in the right direction but still there's something very disheartening about seeing so much food, much of it perfectly edible, get thrown away.

So what's the solution to people being wasteful and selfish? Education may help to a point, but I don't think human nature can be changed easily. It seems that we need to come up with solutions that don't conflict with human selfishness (which is I think what DArtagnan has been getting at). As to exactly what that would look like I'm not sure. Giving financial incentives for doing the environmentally responsible thing seem to work alright, but of course someone has to pay them.

And capitalism is certainly not the ideal economic system as it always requires exploitation. Not everyone can become rich in a capitalist society because most of us have to do the manual labor and grunt work... The haves will always want to have more, while the have-nots struggle and fight over the scraps. And since overpopulation is worst in the poorest areas, (in numbers, if not in terms of resource conumption), capitalism definitely exacerbates the overpopulation problem.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
2,346
Location
PA
Where is it written? Provide evidence for your claims. Provide evidence that ebola is not going to kill people in large numbers outside of africa. Until then you are assuming.

It's not irrelevant at all. Overpopulation as discussed in the OP is about the strain on the earth's finite resources and environment. OP suggests one answer, i chose a less sympatethic (as someone said) example of how it could get solved, and no matter what you assume i did not mean solved indefinitely (since we do recover after a certain amount of time).

Whatever. I'll move on now, there's too much focus on picking on irrelevant things because you're lacking any type of real arguments.

Evidence for what? It is all self evident.

The Spanish flu killed millions of people. No evidence required.

Overpopulation is felt as present in these days. No evidence required (this very thread exists to discuss the bit)

The Spanish flu provided that large number of people dying off and yet, despite of it, overpopulation is felt as a problem (thus the existence of this thread required to discuss the topic)

So it makes the point for the first remark, that a large number of people dying off is not relevant to overpopulation.

The Spanish flu killed millions of people all around the world. No evidence required.

Ebola is not going to kill outside of some parts of Africa. It is not written that Ebola will not kill (in large number) outside of some parts of Africa.

There is no assumption here as it is the depiction of the current trend: people who are dying are located in large number in some parts of Africa. Tomorrow, the next week, and so on, the trend...

That is people who assume a change in the trend that must provide points to justify a change in the trend.

People who see the ebola will kill large numbers of people are assuming. They are the ones who.

The lack of arguments:
well, again, that is when telling that a large number of people dying off brings a remedy to overpopulation.

The Spanish flu (known to take a much larger toll than the current Ebola record) did not work that way since it happened in the past and people feel the urge of discussing overpopulation these present days.

There is no assumption at all by reporting that.
There is assumption when declaring that ebola will take care of when the Spanish flu did not.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
Back
Top Bottom