Originally posted by dryhump Obviously, when the planet becomes uninhabitable, people will die (animals too). Large scale mass extinctions have happened before (without human help). We should be more worried about feeding people who are starving to death now, which we absolutely have the resources to do.
I fail to see why concern for one impinges upon concern for the other. I'm perfectly capable of worrying about both simultaneously.
The Population Bomb (came out when the population of the world was between 3 and 4 billion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
"The Population Bomb was a best-selling book written by Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968. It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth. Fears of a "population explosion" were widespread in the 1950s and 60s, but the book and its charismatic author brought the idea to an even wider audience. The book has been criticized in recent decades for its alarmist tone and inaccurate predictions... "
Just more BS from the left, and it continues to this day
It's our planet, we can do whatever the hell we want with it.
Originally posted by rwingett Then why doesn't any other species permanently overpopulate their environment? They're all getting the same messages from their respective DNA that we are. The problem is not the DNA, but rather because we control our own food supply we have exempted ourselves from any external limiting factors on population growth. My entry in the sermon competition in the spirituality forum deals with this very topic.
Originally posted by TheBloop The Population Bomb (came out when the population of the world was between 3 and 4 billion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
"The Population Bomb was a best-selling book written by Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich (who was uncredited), in 1968. It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopu ...[text shortened]... can do whatever the hell we want with it.
And no, it is not selfish to have children.
agreed, have children that you can raise and take care of, responsibly.
What does it matter whether the human race is here in 50 years or 50 minutes? Aren't we just one big biological accident, a blip in the temporary casual acceleration of amino acid roulette. And when we are gone and the planet is a cesspit of decaying carboniferous life, who will care; the planet will rejoice in our downfall and party with the other planets. Eat drink and be merry...
Originally posted by TheBloop It's our planet, we can do whatever the hell we want with it.
Even if we accept the claim that it is "our" planet, it does not follow that it is your planet. My opinion of what we should do with it differs radically from yours. If we each had our own planet, then it would matter little to me if you destroyed yours, but your irresponsible actions are directly impacting me and the other 7 billion people on Earth and are destroying our shared planet.
IPAT is a formula for measuring human environmental impact, where I = P x A x T.
I = human environmental impact
P = population
A = affluence
T = technology
So even if we are able to stabilize the population at the optimistic estimate of 10 billion, the negative environmental impact of human population will continue to escalate as their levels of consumption and the intrusiveness of our technology increase. So stabilizing population at just below the Earth's breaking point isn't going to be enough. We need to come up with a radically different viewpoint, where success is not defined by ever increasing levels of consumption.
Originally posted by rwingett Even if we accept the claim that it is "our" planet, it does not follow that it is your planet. My opinion of what we should do with it differs radically from yours. If we each had our own planet, then it would matter little to me if you destroyed yours, but your irresponsible actions are directly impacting me and the other 7 billion people on Earth and are destroying our shared planet.
But if we are truly just a cosmic accident, what meaning can their possibly be in phrases such as "your planet" or "our planet". Asteroids don't care if the collide with planets and cease to independently exist. If I am just a randomly produced carbon unit, why in the world would I care if the planet ceased to exist 1 second after I die (or even right now)?
If in the year 2100 there are 20 billion people or 0 people, who cares? Is this not just the progression of random events among physical particles?
Originally posted by rwingett I fail to see why concern for one impinges upon concern for the other. I'm perfectly capable of worrying about both simultaneously.
Your concern for the other is foolish in the extreme because you don't know what tomorrow will bring. You do know that right now people are starving to death. Let the future take care of itself and do something to help people now.
Originally posted by rwingett Everyone should have fewer children.
The only parts of the world whose birth rates are too high right now are the underdeveloped parts of the world. So, if you really want to make a difference, rather than demanding that Europeans decrease their child output from 1.8 to 1.6 (or whatever), go to Arabia and Africa and demand that they decrease their child output from 5 to 2.
15 Sep '11 01:37
Is it selfish to have children?
Back to Top