should U.S. start controlling population growth?

[decem]

did you know that the world population didn't hit one billion until 1830? how about that it didn't reach two billion until 1930?

today the world population is 5.7 billion with a yearly growth rate of 1.6%. at this rate the world population will be ten billion by the year 2050.

does this concern anyone else? do you think the earth can handle this type of stress on its resources? if you said yes.. you might be interested to know that the U.S. is at or nearing it's carrying capacity... that is - it's ability to sustain population at a basic, healthy, moderately comfortable standard of living.

we are about to top out people. the standard of living that you are so accustomed to will not be available for you children. the standard of living in the united states in going to decrease unless the united states starts putting effort into controlling the world's population. why is the united states, the leader of the free world, so far behind china and india in realizing that this is a very real problem that needs tended to now.. not 40 years from now.. not even 10 years from now.

would you rather the population was what it was ten years ago? would you like the population to stay where it's at right now? or would you rather it grow until your children have no yard or park to play in... until there is mass shortages of food, labor, clean water, land, air, etc.. until viruses, fueled by overcrowding, kill in epidemic proportions.. until global warming as a result of the mass pollution warms the ice caps and drowns millions living in cities on the coasts.. until oxygen is sold in convenient stores the way that bottled water is today..

what reason do you have for the united states not implementing some form of legislation, as China did, to put a halt to this sleeping giant that is just waiting to take away our air, our water, our lives. did you say "because it's our civil liberties to have as many children as we want"?? if so, are you saying that it is more important for you to have the right to rear three children.. than for those same children to live in a world capable of providing them with the most comfortable standard of living this world could offer?

the u.s. and it's people, as well as the governents and people of the entire world, need to start following in china's and india's footsteps... and need to push past their demands for "civil liberties" in order to support a greater cause.... the continued existence of the human race..

 

[Crazier]

That's what big wars are for bro.
--

 

[TheGame2001]

yes

Yes Decem, you should be eliminated. That would be one less.

 

[mrbill]

The U.S. is not the problem population wise. The population growth here is relatively flat. It is mainly third-world countries that are having the hugh population explosions. This is a serious world problem.

 

[decem]

mrbill.. you are right in that the population growth varies from country to country.. and african countries are growing at a rate of 2.4%... but you are wrong in that the united states has no growth.. its growth rate is 1.4%.. that is enough to make a difference.. add onto that the number of people that immigrate here yearly..

the united states does indeed have a problem.. and it's your children and your grandchildren that are going to suffer the consequences if you do not begin taking action.

 

[manny78]

This is why starving people in India, Ethiopia and all those banana countries are necessary. Plus yes civil wars (Somalia for example) may do the job. Plus they should put the Ru-486 OTC all over the world.

 

[Crazier]

Alright decem... you've given us some facts, but you haven't given us your opinion as to what you think would alleviate the problem.

Should be do as China and limit one child per family? With our constitution, is that possible, or feasible? What's you idea's bro?
--

 

[manny78]

Alright decem... you've given us some facts, but you haven't given us your opinion as to what you think would alleviate the problem.

Should be do as China and limit one child per family? With our constitution, is that possible, or feasible? What's you idea's bro?
--

it isn't possible with your Constitution....BUT no more welfare and believe me it woudltn be that much interesting to have 4-5 kids.

 

[the nature boy]

what we need to do is have a limit on how long people can live. I think at age 75 people should be put to sleep. Their productivity is low, and their medical costs are high. Science is prolonging life, but is that really living? Is having Alzhimers or being stuck in a nursing home really being alive? no.

 

[danielson]

western countries use up more of the worlds resources anyway, so even if the third world countries have lots of people, most of them die at a young age

whats more worrying is if a country like china gets to a stage where it cant feed its people....because then they would be fighting others for food

 

[Raina]

Couldn't we just revoke breeding rights for really ugly people?? It would be practical and good for aesthetic purposes.

 

[the nature boy]

whats more worrying is if a country like china gets to a stage where it cant feed its people....because then they would be fighting others for food

you ever see the movie Soylent Green?

 

[Crazier]

I think at age 75 people should be put to sleep.

This is fucking hilarious. Reminds me of an episode way back in the day from 'Dinosaurs.'

Anybody remember that episode... or the fucking show for that matter?
--

 

[Crazier]

"Not the Mama, not the mama!"
--

 

[danielson]

you ever see the movie Soylent Green?

no

i wanna though. however i hope me knoing soyent green is people doesnt ruin it

 

[decem]

western countries use up more of the worlds resources anyway, so even if the third world countries have lots of people, most of them die at a young age

ahh.. but you're wrong.. these third world countries are growing.. they are making advancements in medicinal, socioeconomical, scientific, and every other aspect/forum where advancement is possible... and what are they striving for in their growth? a standard of living exactly like the u.s. why do you think people come to the u.s.?? for our standard of living. now.. if these developing countries with their growing populations reach the standard of living that the u.s. is at right now.. what do you think that will do to the carrying capacity of the entire world? how soon will the non-renewable resources (fuel, soils, minerals, ores) of our planet hold out??

 

[decem]

what we need to do is have a limit on how long people can live. I think at age 75 people should be put to sleep. Their productivity is low, and their medical costs are high. Science is prolonging life, but is that really living? Is having Alzhimers or being stuck in a nursing home really being alive? no.

nature boy has a point here.. why should unproductive members of society, especially those who are not really even alive, be allowed to drain more resources?

but you also have to realize that the age that people will have to reach before they come to a point where their lives are no longer productive will be increasing with the increase in scientific and medical advancements.. so in turn.. we will have to begin to slow the growth of the population that much more..

 

[Raina]

This is fucking hilarious. Reminds me of an episode way back in the day from 'Dinosaurs.'

Anybody remember that episode... or the fucking show for that matter?
--

WHy do I remember this?? Didn't they throw old people off a cliff once they hit a certain age??

 

[danielson]

ahh.. but you're wrong.. these third world countries are growing.. they are making advancements in medicinal, socioeconomical, scientific, and every other aspect/forum where advancement is possible... and what are they striving for in their growth? a standard of living exactly like the u.s. why do you think people come to the u.s.?? for our standard of living. now.. if these developing countries with their growing populations reach the standard of living that the u.s. is at right now.. what do you think that will do to the carrying capacity of the entire world? how soon will the non-renewable resources (fuel, soils, minerals, ores) of our planet hold out??

i dont deny their levels of industrialisation are increasing rapidly, india and china especially are shifting to fossil fuels (well until clinton *cough* sold/gave nuclear technology away)

but the fact still remains that the US alone consumes 25% (reported) of the worlds resources. thats just one country....add in europe, it goes up further.....we have the greater responsibilty to pour $$ into research and development of new technologies or these smaller countries will just not listen to us when we say 'dont give every china man a fridge'

we're not putting as much in financially as we could. and the oil companies have only 'just' switched to doing this (aside from exxon!)

 

[the nature boy]

no

i wanna though. however i hope me knoing soyent green is people doesnt ruin it

exerpt from Soylent Green:

Charlton Heston: "SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE!!!!! PEOPLE!!!!!"


THE END

 

[danielson]

it was on tv a while back but i missed it

 

[needleboy]

did you know that the world population didn't hit one billion until 1830? how about that it didn't reach two billion until 1930?

today the world population is 5.7 billion with a yearly growth rate of 1.6%. at this rate the world population will be ten billion by the year 2050.

does this concern anyone else? do you think the earth can handle this type of stress on its resources? if you said yes.. you might be interested to know that the U.S. is at or nearing it's carrying capacity... that is - it's ability to sustain population at a basic, healthy, moderately comfortable standard of living.

we are about to top out people. the standard of living that you are so accustomed to will not be available for you children. the standard of living in the united states in going to decrease unless the united states starts putting effort into controlling the world's population. why is the united states, the leader of the free world, so far behind china and india in realizing that this is a very real problem that needs tended to now.. not 40 years from now.. not even 10 years from now.

would you rather the population was what it was ten years ago? would you like the population to stay where it's at right now? or would you rather it grow until your children have no yard or park to play in... until there is mass shortages of food, labor, clean water, land, air, etc.. until viruses, fueled by overcrowding, kill in epidemic proportions.. until global warming as a result of the mass pollution warms the ice caps and drowns millions living in cities on the coasts.. until oxygen is sold in convenient stores the way that bottled water is today..

what reason do you have for the united states not implementing some form of legislation, as China did, to put a halt to this sleeping giant that is just waiting to take away our air, our water, our lives. did you say "because it's our civil liberties to have as many children as we want"?? if so, are you saying that it is more important for you to have the right to rear three children.. than for those same children to live in a world capable of providing them with the most comfortable standard of living this world could offer?

the u.s. and it's people, as well as the governents and people of the entire world, need to start following in china's and india's footsteps... and need to push past their demands for "civil liberties" in order to support a greater cause.... the continued existence of the human race..

Ok I'll thin out the heard a little! I have a ball peen hammer, an ice pick and some time to kill.

Should I start by disembowling people outside of bingo halls, or perhaps something more fun like beheading any guy in a gym caught wearing spandex!

 

[THeMaCHinE]

I shouldn't even enter into this conversation as I don't have time to pursue replies, etc. If I don't reply, please excuse... it's not because I don't want to...
-------

"One-Child Population Control Policy" of Communist China

* Initiated In 1979

* One child per couple

* All pregnancies must be authorized.

* Birth quotas (allowed numbers) are determined to attain the population targets (goals).

* Women are required to obtain a birth coupon before conceiving a child.

* Menstrual cycles are publicly monitored.

* Pelvic examinations are performed on all those suspected of being pregnant.

* All unauthorized pregnancies are terminated by abortion when detected regardless of stage of pregnancy. Use of forceps to crush the baby's skull or injecting pure formaldehyde into the soft cap of baby's head during or upon birth are means for "aborting" fully developed babies. Drowning or Smothering occurs in rural areas.

* Mandatory IUD insertion in women with one child. A one size large steel "O" ring IUD is used. Removal is difficult and X ray detection is possible. Other type IUDs are banned.

* Mandatory sterilization of couples with two or more children (November 1982 official circular of the Party Central Committee and the State Council).

* High rate of infanticide and abandonment of girl babies.

In accordance with Chinese tradition, daughters join the families of their husbands upon marriage and are seldom able to offer support or care for their parents in old age. By 1990 thousands of ultrasound machines were being imported to China. Domestic factories in China began manufacturing at the rate of 10,000 a year. In 1993 authorities banned the use of ultrasound for the purpose of sex selection, but the ban seems to be virtually unenforceable. Reports of sex ratios at birth for some areas has been 300 males to 100 females. A 1991 article in a Shanghai journal warned that if the sex ratios continued to rise, by the end of the century China would have an army of bachelors numbering some 70 million strong.

Official data on abortions show the annual total number of abortions increased between 1985 and 1990. Official data on birth control surgeries after 1990 are not available.

In 1983, the all-time peak year, family planning work teams carried out 21 million sterilizations, 18 million IUD insertions, and 14 million abortions (79 percent of the 21 million sterilization performed were performed on women).

More than half a billion birth control surgeries were performed between 1971 and 1990 (94 percent were performed on women). The Chinese government has conducted a highly coercive family planning program for 25 years.

Coercion, Punishment and Tactics

* Women who resist abortions for unauthorized pregnancies are harassed, visited repeatedly, and sometimes held by family planning workers until they comply.

* Night raids have occurred to capture women hiding or trying to flee from the birth planning workers.

* Extreme fines are given for unauthorized births often exceeding a family's total income.

* Illegal children (unauthorized births) are not entered on population register so the child receives no medical benefits, no grain rations, no opportunity to attend school, and no chance for employment.

* A "responsibility system" was instituted in 1961 for management of family planning targets. National targets are broken down into specific targets for the provinces.

* Provincial governors are required to sign contracts with central authorities to fulfill provincial population targets. Each level of authority signs with lower authority. In the late 1980's central authorities added a policy under which a leader who fails to meet his family planning targets is considered a failure and is penalized accordingly. Penalties include loss of bonuses, promotions and even their jobs.

* Since the 1980's the provinces have been encouraged to set up "qualified birth control villages." Couples eligible to have children under family planning regulations may only do so if no one in the village has an unauthorized pregnancy or birth.

* Lack of results is taken as proof the locals neglected to "strengthen their leadership" over family planning work.

* Washington Post described house smashing and high forced sterilization rates in 1991 and 1992.

* April 1993 - New York Times reports punishment by severe fines, confiscation of property, smashed houses, and physical beatings.
http://www.forerunner.com/lci/X0004_Population_Control_C.html

-------------
Are you going to be the guy that jams knifes into the heads of "unauthorized" babies as they do in China? You know, India had a population control method of tying unwanted female babies/children to poles and letting them starve to death.

I'm of the opinion that man will fix problems when he needs to. IF (despite all the stats in the world, things may change) it ever gets to the catacalysmic proportions that you fear, perhaps colonization of other planets, ocean colonies/farming and other things will be brought to the forefront. There are solutions that we have no concept of because the technology will be developed in the future and will be application-specific.

There may be other avenues to explore that don't involve wholesale murder of children.

Here's some other people's thoughts (some I'm with, some I'm not -- I'm just putting foward the info).

http://www.cato.org/dailys/05-15-99.html
http://www.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/pop-chi.html
The study finds that a lower fertility rate is a result of an adverse shock to agricultural output and a preference shift away from fertility. Government enforcement appears to induce only short term decreases. The empirical evidence suggests that only shocks to preferences (rather than government power) have induced long fertility cycles in China. The historical decompositions show that the sustained fall in fertility experienced by China in the 1970's is primarily explained by preference shifts. The results suggest that population control is not sufficient to promote economic development or sustainability without permanent shifts in individual preferences.
http://www.johnstons.org/roy/pages/populat.html

 

[decem]

listen assholes.. talk about the fucking movie in a different damn thread.. and concentrate on the question at hand..

manny.. it is in our constitution.. so is the world supposed to adapt to the constitution.. shouldn't the constitution have to adapt to the world? why can't we change it? it is a democracy..

crazier.. i do think that we should limit the amount of children we are allowed to have. i also think that the number of children you are allowed to have should depend on where you're at in the tax bracket.. which would determine how capable you are of providing for the children... which would result in a less of a burden on the government for taking care of such programs and welfare and food stamps... and more money for them to put towards science and research.

raina.. you may be joking.. but you bring up a good point.. soon.. thanks to research such as the genome project.. we will have the ability to determine if the child of a couple will be smart, healthy, sane.. as well as whether they're likely to be a criminal.. have a short or long life-span.. etc.. why shouldn't we use this to our advantage??

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

People really show their ignorance and arrogance in threads like this.

Danielson - It is the third world countries, by far, that are engaging in behavior harmful to the Earth. For example, they are just discovering freon, the king of ozone eating gases. Modern countries have gone away from this shit years ago. Likewise, theird world countries engage on unwise handling of other pollution issues, such as dumping, etc.


Decem - The energy resources of this planet are near limitless. We just have to learn to use things like nuclear power, and accept it as reality. It is oil companies and the like that are holding back this progress.

Nature Boy - You criticize old people for "not really living". what are you doing, that is so great? Do you pay anyone's salaries? Who benefits, from your existence? If we off-ed you, who;d notice, outside your family?

Decem again - your post about an overcrowded world with no yards, etc. is not going to happen. Good old fashioned ignorance...refreshing.

Nature will take care of this problem - it always has, and it always will.

Where is population growth happening fastest? Africa. Over there, AIDS is running rampant, killinfg people, controling population. AIDS is also running rampant in China and in India; they just don't leak that kind of news...but it is decimating their population.

In the Middle Ages, in Europe, when the population was exploding, the Black Death came along and wiped out 75,000,000 people. Look for much higher numbers by the time AIDS runs its course.

NAture will take care of this. In the meantime, I suggest you do something productive with your own life.

 

[decem]

1. The energy resources of this planet are near limitless. We just have to learn to use things like nuclear power, and accept it as reality. It is oil companies and the like that are holding back this progress.

2. your post about an overcrowded world with no yards, etc. is not going to happen. Good old fashioned ignorance...refreshing.

3. NAture will take care of this. In the meantime, I suggest you do something productive with your own life.

1. ok.. the energy supplies maybe limitless.. but what about the soil? how long until it so depleted of minerals that it will be incapable of yielding any harvest of any crop.. soil depletion is real.. and it is a major concern.. or so it should be..

another question for you.. regarding oil and pollution and what not.. how much of an impact do you think the automobile and petroleum industries have on the economies of the world? when pollution as a result of both of these industries begins to force us to find other means of travel and other sources of industry.. what is going to take over? will it be able to support the economy as well as these two industries do? or will economies the world over crumble?

2. ok... so you're saying that the amount of farmable land has not decreased in the previous 50 years? and you're also saying that the population growth has no effect on the amount of land available for anything other than housing or roads or land fills or office buildings? sorry bud.. but you're the ignorant one here.

ask your grandma if she notices any difference in the amount of land today.. in the amount of concrete covering it.. in the amount of housing where there used to be green fields.. as compared to just 20 years ago. shit.. ask your mother.. she'll tell you that land is disappearing left and right..

did you know that in the 1700's 95% of ohio was covered with trees.. and what is it today.. maybe 20%?? do you think that the loss of those trees from ohio alone has had no impact on the amount of oxygen in the air? did you know that those trees were cleared to support a growing population? how much longer until there are no trees? no oxygen?

3. this is what we must fight.. viewpoints like matt's. those people who are so ready to sit on their ass and pass the problems onto the next generation. those who are unwilling to open their eyes and realize that their is indeed a problem and that intervention is necessary.

 

[Crazier]

WHy do I remember this?? Didn't they throw old people off a cliff once they hit a certain age??

That's the one!!!

Sorry decem... but fuck man... it's funny shit someone know's what I'm talking about.
--

 

[danielson]

Danielson - It is the third world countries, by far, that are engaging in behavior harmful to the Earth. For example, they are just discovering freon, the king of ozone eating gases. Modern countries have gone away from this shit years ago. Likewise, theird world countries engage on unwise handling of other pollution issues, such as dumping, etc.

i agree with this, the china man and his fridge was the reference to freon ....thats why the rest of the world is so frightened at the thought of these guys becoming so industrialised

however, we as the western world haven't found many alternatives to oil....and we are using it a lot! its probably one of the most important industrail resources we have, and almos every country is dependant on it in one form or another (drugs, materials, fuel)

true, i think bush did make a shift to producing more energy via coal. but thats only a short term answer...he needs to throw lots of money into alternate energy sources. i cant remember if he did this ....either way the western world consumes a hell of a lot of oil, i'd wager more than the developing nations

also over irrigation/rapid creation of farmable land has lead to problems round the globe, US included

 

[the nature boy]

People really show their ignorance and arrogance in threads like this.

Danielson - It is the third world countries, by far, that are engaging in behavior harmful to the Earth. For example, they are just discovering freon, the king of ozone eating gases. Modern countries have gone away from this shit years ago. Likewise, theird world countries engage on unwise handling of other pollution issues, such as dumping, etc.

so you're saying we don't pollute as much as the 3rd world? how can you prove that? Who creates more trash and toxic and radioactive waste? Do you know? Freon is just a minor cause of ozone depletion?. Animals used for food consumption are more harmful to the ozone anyway. And who consumes more food and uses animals for food than the industrialized world? Who uses more pollution causing energy?

Also, while the 3rd world does cause pollution, they are not able to afford such anti pollution measures as the industrialized world. They have a hard enough time competeing as it is. Sadly the only way to rectify that matter is for the industrialized world to help. But that won't happen if we are to keep our economic advantage.

ignorant. yeah right.

 

[kitKat]

According to CNN China population growth is flat at present time....and they have created another problem 20% more men then women because of the one child policy.

This is from overpopulation.com...sorry link wouldn't work so I had to post text. Oh and it has a story on that site that backs up what Matt said about AIDS in China


Monday, February 01, 1999

A far more disruptive phenomenon than the aging of the population is China's sex ratio which has only grown worse in the past few years -- the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing reports that there are now 120 males for every 100 females in China. Historically, China has had a high sex ratio, but this level is unheard of in modern times.

The culprit appears to be modern technology combined with the one child policy. The male to female gap has grew significantly in 1980s and 1990s with the introduction of ultrasound and amniocentesis technologies into China. Both techniques made it much easier for parents to determine the sex of a fetus and abort female fetuses if desired. A study of the sex ratios of live births at 900 Chinese hospitals found the sex ratio increased from 108 in 1989 to 109.7 in 1991. Other Asian nations have seen their sex ratios increase as well, though none to the extent of China's.

Ironically China's one-child policy indirectly encourages couples to abort female fetuses. Since many Chinese still see the ideal family as one boy and one girl, a relaxation of the one child policy would likely discourage the strong tendency to use sex selective abortion to ensure the first child is a male in case the parents don't get the chance or can't afford to have a second child (in many parts of China, large fees are imposes on couples who have more than one child).

 

[HappyScrappy]

while the third world countries are currently doing most of the polluting (it costs more to put in more efficient and less polluting systems) - they also will do some of it b/c they can make big bucks doing it.
the states has lots of people here protesting if we use XYZ that is bad for the enviroment, so we farm it out to some 3rd world nation that needs/wants the money and then we take the end result (paper is a big one that comes to mind). that way "somewhere else" is the place getting fucked up and not our home soil - so it makes the companies here look better, yet they are still funding off soil pollution and environment destruction.

all about the benjamins.

 

[HappyScrappy]

and the standard of living is the number one control of population. if you are a poor country, then there are few skilled labor jobs and more just pure labor tasks that pay less. it benefits to have a family of more children b/c they can then go work and bring more money to the table.
whereas if your standard of living is higher, you have no need for this and the money you make can go towards relaxation or the accumulation of material goods.

 

[the nature boy]

excellent point HS. plus the labor is cheaper in 3rd world countries.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

another question for you.. regarding oil and pollution and what not.. how much of an impact do you think the automobile and petroleum industries have on the economies of the world? when pollution as a result of both of these industries begins to force us to find other means of travel and other sources of industry.. what is going to take over? will it be able to support the economy as well as these two industries do? or will economies the world over crumble?

Auto and petroleum industries can be replaced by a nuclear energy industry and a new transportation industry. How's "big steel" doing these days? 100 years ago, it was king of industry. Now, it is a relic. What about the railroads? Another relic. Who would have thought phone companies would be in trouble? Yet the Internet threatenes to reduce their role in the economy.

Technology will spawn new industries: a nuclear industry, a transportation industry to replace autos, as autos replaced rails...read a history book.

ok... so you're saying that the amount of farmable land has not decreased in the previous 50 years? sorry bud.. but you're the ignorant one here.

This would be a real crisis....if farming hadn't changed over the last 50 years. We don't use the same inefficient, destructive techniques we used back then. We have genetically altered crops to produce more crop yield. We have irrigation to create arable land that previously was not, and there are techniques to grow food without any soil. When you finish the history book, read a science book.

did you know that in the 1700's 95% of ohio was covered with trees.. and what is it today.. maybe 20%?? do you think that the loss of those trees from ohio alone has had no impact on the amount of oxygen in the air? did you know that those trees were cleared to support a growing population? how much longer until there are no trees? no oxygen?

Nothing like some good old speculation and guesses.

3. this is what we must fight..

We need to fight bozo's like you throwing all this crap around about overpopulation....did you just read a book about it and now you're all excited? First book on the subject sir?

Have you looked into what some newer technologies can do to reduce trash and pollution problems? Have you considered the role of Nature in all of this? the countries with the biggest overpopulaiton problems are China, India and much of Africa. It is no coincidence that they have the highest mortality rates among infants/young people, and the biggest problem with AIDS.

Do yourself a favor: look into nanotechnology and how it applies to overpopulation. The Rice University homepage is a good place to start. of course, go there after you read a few books.

 

[decem]

1. Auto and petroleum industries can be replaced by a nuclear energy industry and a new transportation industry. How's "big steel" doing these days? 100 years ago, it was king of industry. Now, it is a relic. What about the railroads? Another relic. Who would have thought phone companies would be in trouble? Yet the Internet threatenes to reduce their role in the economy.


2. This would be a real crisis....if farming hadn't changed over the last 50 years. We don't use the same inefficient, destructive techniques we used back then. We have genetically altered crops to produce more crop yield. We have irrigation to create arable land that previously was not, and there are techniques to grow food without any soil. When you finish the history book, read a science book.

3. We need to fight bozo's like you throwing all this crap around about overpopulation....did you just read a book about it and now you're all excited? First book on the subject sir?

1. the area i live was one of the largest producing areas of steel and it's economy fueled solely by the steel industry.. since the steel industry has went south.. laying off tens of thousands in my area.. this region is economically depressed to say the least.. not only that.. but as soon as the car industry, which is the only other industry in this area, dies.. and nothing comes to take it's place.. there will be a mass exodous to

2. sorry.. i didn't mean it that way.. guess i worded it wrong. i meant to bring up the fact that where there were once open, fertile fields or forests packed with 300 year old trees.. there are now housing complexes, gas stations, factories, and parking lots.. and this is increasing.. and if you really think that the amount of open land that's available for recreation and the land for the remaining wildlife, the animals that humans have yet to kill of that is, isn't disappearing at an alarming rate.. then you gotta screw loose buddy.

3. i don't know why you gotta go throwing names around.. i'm simply presenting a topic and my views on it.. and this topic has resulted in a much more interesting discussion than the usual fare of "look at the picture of my dog" and "i went to a club last night." and, yes.. i did actually just read a book on it.. it was my first book on the subject.. and you better call me sir you little bitch.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Decem

I can tell you just read a book on it. It's obvious by the way you throw around the opinions of the author as if they were your own. It is clear that the author made a few conclusions , supported them with advantageous data (statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want) and turned you into a believer before you did any thought of your own.

Was the name of the book "No one ever dies of overpopulation"? That's one you may want to look into.

If you want to actually learn something, read some conflicting views and make your own decision, instead of passing off someone else's conclusion as your own. It;s obvious and it makes you look stupid.

Economic sectors don't die out, they evolve. The steel workers are displaced because their skills were obsoleted by technology. The steel worker of yesterday who is unemployed is the displaced IT guy of today whose job was rendered unnecessary by software.

Today's energy sector will eventually be replaced by something else. How do you think carriage manufacturers responded to Henry Ford?


Decem - put what you are saying in perspective, and please address why Nature's remedies are not enough.

 

[decem]

they really are MY opinions..

look.. matt.. i do have a little more integrity than that..

i'm not frickin passing anyone's opinions but my own.. and i actually didn't read a book on it.. i just started an environmental geology course and the instructor talked for about 10 minutes on the subject. and really.. the only things he pointed out were the population numbers and the growth rates.. as well as the facts i stated about ohio's wooded areas, non-renewable resources, and carrying capacities..

besides the facts.. everything that i said were theories, speculations, and conclusions that i came to myself..

believe or not matt.. it is possible to one to come to such conclusions and develop such opinions on your own when you have a little bit of a brain.

so again.. everything that i've said.. besides the facts.. is already in my own words..

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

so you're saying we don't pollute as much as the 3rd world? how can you prove that? Who creates more trash and toxic and radioactive waste? Do you know? Freon is just a minor cause of ozone depletion?. Animals used for food consumption are more harmful to the ozone anyway. And who consumes more food and uses animals for food than the industrialized world? Who uses more pollution causing energy?

Also, while the 3rd world does cause pollution, they are not able to afford such anti pollution measures as the industrialized world. They have a hard enough time competeing as it is. Sadly the only way to rectify that matter is for the industrialized world to help. But that won't happen if we are to keep our economic advantage.

ignorant. yeah right.

Captain,

The third world has FAR more peopel than the "modern world". They don't have rules like "zero emissions" on cars. They don't have restrictions on what land can be used, etc.

The freon thing was just an example....there are dozens of others. there are no restrictions on checmical use, on fluorocarbons, on dumping and polluting water supplies (and consequently, food supplies)....the US and other nations are regulated to the teeth to control pollution.

You made a good point about 3rd world countries lacking the technology to control pollution.

They are the true polluters.

 

[danielson]

This would be a real crisis....if farming hadn't changed over the last 50 years. We don't use the same inefficient, destructive techniques we used back then. We have genetically altered crops to produce more crop yield. We have irrigation to create arable land that previously was not, and there are techniques to grow food without any soil. When you finish the history book, read a science book.

unfortunately

genetic engineering has flaws. we would be mass producing plants with a 'stagnant' gene pool, meaning if some nasty lil bug decided to attack them all we'd lose all our crops at once. plus long-term research hasnt been conducted on it yet, no matter how safe scientists think it is

The crop yield may increase using genetically engineered crops. however they have yet to produce a plant which can fixate its own nitrogen as this requires something like 20 different genes to be spliced onto the new plant. as a result, intensive farming methods are still a necessity which is harmful to the environment near by, and requires huge industrial efforts to produce fertiliser on a large scale. it also doesnt make any allowances for the decreasing levels of trace elements found in soil, meaning minerals etc are now being added artificially in some cases (i.e. selenium). increasing UV levels also mean some plants are much more at risk to being fried....genetic engineering might be an answer but it would alsomean all our foods would change colour...

also there have been huge problems with irrigation in that they temorarily turn bad soil into nice soil, but result in salination of the soil. its been a problem all over the world, US included

growing food without any soil would be very expensive. on a scle large enough to feed the worlds population (6 billion)....very hard

still with all this i guess this is where all the stuff you said about nature sorting itself out comes in.

 

[hayjay]

unfortunately

genetic engineering has flaws. we would be mass producing plants with a 'stagnant' gene pool, meaning if some nasty lil bug decided to attack them all we'd lose all our crops at once. plus long-term research hasnt been conducted on it yet, no matter how safe scientists think it is

The crop yield may increase using genetically engineered crops. however they have yet to produce a plant which can fixate its own nitrogen as this requires something like 20 different genes to be spliced onto the new plant. as a result, intensive farming methods are still a necessity which is harmful to the environment near by, and requires huge industrial efforts to produce fertiliser on a large scale. it also doesnt make any allowances for the decreasing levels of trace elements found in soil, meaning minerals etc are now being added artificially in some cases (i.e. selenium). increasing UV levels also mean some plants are much more at risk to being fried....genetic engineering might be an answer but it would alsomean all our foods would change colour...

***COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW CURRENT FARMING PRACTICES ARE HARMFUL TO THE ENVIRONMENT? CURIOUS. ALSO, YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT GENETIC ENGINEERING IS USED TO PRODUCE EXACTLY IDENTICAL PLANTS IS INCORRECT. MOST GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PLANTS ARE NOW RESTRUCTURED TO RESIST DISEASE, BUGS, HERBICIDES, ETC. I CAN SEE WHAT YOUR SAYING IF IT TURNS TO SOLE PRODUCTION OF THE FOOD SUPPLY.


also there have been huge problems with irrigation in that they temorarily turn bad soil into nice soil, but result in salination of the soil. its been a problem all over the world, US included

***MY EXPERTISE IS ONLY WITHIN CALIFORNIA. IRRIGATION IS NOT THE CAUSE OF SALINATION. ON THE CONTRARY DEPENDING ON GROUNDWATER DEPTH IRRIGATION CAN LEACH SALT THROUGH THE SOIL STRATA THEREBY ALLOWING FARMING TO OCCUR.

growing food without any soil would be very expensive. on a scle large enough to feed the worlds population (6 billion)....very hard

still with all this i guess this is where all the stuff you said about nature sorting itself out comes in.

 

[Citruscide]

Yes... population control should be instituted... no longer should families on welfare have 6 kids... that's retarded. If you can't afford to have kids, you get 1. Any more pregnancies and you get an abortion, charged to you, by the state... a second violatoin results in both the woman's and man's tubes being tied/cut...

Simple solution, a bit unconstitutional... but desperate times call for desperate measures... and nothing pisses me off more than a single mother on welfare with 6 kids.

C

 

[danielson]

***COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW CURRENT FARMING PRACTICES ARE HARMFUL TO THE ENVIRONMENT? CURIOUS. ALSO, YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT GENETIC ENGINEERING IS USED TO PRODUCE EXACTLY IDENTICAL PLANTS IS INCORRECT. MOST GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PLANTS ARE NOW RESTRUCTURED TO RESIST DISEASE, BUGS, HERBICIDES, ETC. I CAN SEE WHAT YOUR SAYING IF IT TURNS TO SOLE PRODUCTION OF THE FOOD SUPPLY.

***MY EXPERTISE IS ONLY WITHIN CALIFORNIA. IRRIGATION IS NOT THE CAUSE OF SALINATION. ON THE CONTRARY DEPENDING ON GROUNDWATER DEPTH IRRIGATION CAN LEACH SALT THROUGH THE SOIL STRATA THEREBY ALLOWING FARMING TO OCCUR.

nitrogen from fertliser seeps into rivers nearby. the increased fertiliser causes algae etc to grow a lot. when they die, bacteria decompose them and use up all the oxygen in the river/stream/pool and all the things in it die

when a plant is genetically engineered, it takes many clones to get the desired plant. this plant is then cloned progressivly. if a disease attack the plants, all the plants of that type will be at risk. but yes it will only be catastrophic if it was used as a large scale food source, that was what was being suggested however

the plant may have spefic DNA encoding from other species etc to produce a protein etc which wards off insect or someother characteristic but they havent produced one which is multi resistant to everything. the natural world adapts like matt said. plants resistant to attack before are now being attacked once again as diveristy in the pest has resulted in a pest which is immune to the effects of the engineering


as forthe soil salination.....just something i saw in a doccy. cant remember the exact location just that the soil was having toxic levels of selenium and salt in it as a result of irrigation


i only posted this stuff to try and get a bit more debate going on i personally dont think its as clear cut as others have suggested on here

 

[hayjay]

nitrogen from fertliser seeps into rivers nearby. the increased fertiliser causes algae etc to grow a lot. when they die, bacteria decompose them and use up all the oxygen in the river/stream/pool and all the things in it die

when a plant is genetically engineered, it takes many clones to get the desired plant. this plant is then cloned progressivly. if a disease attack the plants, all the plants of that type will be at risk. but yes it will only be catastrophic if it was used as a large scale food source, that was what was being suggested however

the plant may have spefic DNA encoding from other species etc to produce a protein etc which wards off insect or someother characteristic but they havent produced one which is multi resistant to everything. the natural world adapts like matt said. plants resistant to attack before are now being attacked once again as diveristy in the pest has resulted in a pest which is immune to the effects of the engineering


as forthe soil salination.....just something i saw in a doccy. cant remember the exact location just that the soil was having toxic levels of selenium and salt in it as a result of irrigation


i only posted this stuff to try and get a bit more debate going on i personally dont think its as clear cut as others have suggested on here

Toxic levels of selenium and salt have been found in areas that have a shallow strata (shallow clay layer that prevents water from leaching further). The western portion of the San Joaquin Valley has this problem. You may remember media talk about Kesterson which is where the excess irrigation water was being drained from these fields causing deformities in birds. The problem really grew when the media started saying irrigation causes this all over the world when it doesn't.

The nitrogen seaping into rivers is another area of contention. Plants grow where water flows. Plain and simple. Yes nitrogen helps speed up the issue. We are currently looking at the issue you are referring to (disolved oxygen), but it seems that every fix we look at it poses another problem somewhere else.

 

[youngdeltman]

Get the hungry to eat the homeless

that should solve a few problems

 

[danielson]

Toxic levels of selenium and salt have been found in areas that have a shallow strata (shallow clay layer that prevents water from leaching further). The western portion of the San Joaquin Valley has this problem. You may remember media talk about Kesterson which is where the excess irrigation water was being drained from these fields causing deformities in birds. The problem really grew when the media started saying irrigation causes this all over the world when it doesn't.

The nitrogen seaping into rivers is another area of contention. Plants grow where water flows. Plain and simple. Yes nitrogen helps speed up the issue. We are currently looking at the issue you are referring to (disolved oxygen), but it seems that every fix we look at it poses another problem somewhere else.

thats what they are teaching in school over here anyway ....but i do vaguely rember them saying something about water leaching and the clay, i saw this a LONG time ago

as for the nitrogen fix....thats also just what they taught us. plants have lived in that situation and so have fish so it must be the nitrogen.

you work for enviromental health? cool job in a warm country

 

[Test boy]

thats what they are teaching in school over here anyway ....but i do vaguely rember them saying something about water leaching and the clay, i saw this a LONG time ago

as for the nitrogen fix....thats also just what they taught us. plants have lived in that situation and so have fish so it must be the nitrogen.

you work for enviromental health? cool job in a warm country

Not just nitrogen. Phosphorous is a very popular fertilizer that makes algae very fecund.

 

[danielson]

Not just nitrogen. Phosphorous is a very popular fertilizer that makes algae very fecund.

oh yeah. thats big in washing up powders aint it.

all these biology lessons are coming back to me now . like a small quantity of the stuff cuts the oxygen absorbtion from the water too

 

[BuggyWhips]

People that shouldnt have kids such as the people who cant even afford themselves should be sterilized or something. On top of that we have enough people here. We should just close the borders and stop letting them in. Its our immagration policies that let these damn terorists here in the first place. Kinda like rodents that get into your house and u want them out.

 

[Warik]

I think the problem is the fact that we're all too concerned with fixing the problem here instead of taking the problem elsewhere. Did our world governments honestly think that this planet would be sufficient to house the increasing world's population?

Suggestion - stop wasting tax money on frivolous things such as welfare, social security, yada yada yada and dump it into space research. There has to be another Earth-like planet out there waiting for colonization.

No doubt about it - once this planet gets its act together, I'll be the first outta here. This place sux.

-Warik

 

[smallmovesal]

neuter all republicans MUAHAHAHAHA

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Suggestion - stop wasting tax money on frivolous things such as welfare, social security, yada yada yada and dump it into space research. There has to be another Earth-like planet out there waiting for colonization.

A recent article in teh Journal Science indicates that the likelihood of a planet similar to Earth in our galaxy is remote. In fact, it appears unlikeyl in much of the known Universe.

This was concluded by studying the distribution of heavier metals throughout the galaxy. There is a band which Earth falls into, where the distribution of metals is favorable to an oxygen rich atmosphere. There are no other known planets in this band.

You should read the article. it explaisn it better than I do.

 

[Warik]

A recent article in teh Journal Science indicates that the likelihood of a planet similar to Earth in our galaxy is remote. In fact, it appears unlikeyl in much of the known Universe.

This was concluded by studying the distribution of heavier metals throughout the galaxy. There is a band which Earth falls into, where the distribution of metals is favorable to an oxygen rich atmosphere. There are no other known planets in this band.

You should read the article. it explaisn it better than I do.

I don't think early 21st century human science is sufficient to conclude that there are no other planets in the universe capable of sustaining human life. It's absurd to state as such. Billions of galaxies composed of billions of stars around which there is often at least one planet. A billion billion planets and only one can sustain human life? Bullshit.

True, there are no other known planets. But then again, do we really know ANYTHING outside of our own solar system? Not really.

-Warik

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Read the article. it doesn;t say there are none. it says based on the distribution of heavy metals, 99.99% of these planets can be ruled out immediately. It is telling of other galaxies because we can determine the elemental composition of other galaxies throgh wavelengths and spectral analysis.

Thus the likelihood of one is greatly reduced. I agree with you - there is a lot(understatement) we don;t know...it;s a good article.

 

[HappyScrappy]

also the distance from the sun, the size of the sun, etc etc.
the earth will get closer to the sun soon (millions and millions of years - soon in astophysics terms) and our ecosystem will change dramatically and therefore life as we know it would as well.

it is impossible to say there are none like us out there b/c there is so much out there - but the odds, from a statistical standpoint are pretty funny. but since it is technically infiite and expanding and growing - when dealing with infinity in statistics, then that means you have a definite positive at some point in time - just that point is unknown.

 

[Warik]

Read the article. it doesn;t say there are none. it says based on the distribution of heavy metals, 99.99% of these planets can be ruled out immediately.

Oh, then that's different. 99.99% of one billion billion possible planets leaves us with 10,000,000,000,000,000 potential candidates.

And they speak as though it's "impossible." bwahaha

-Warik

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

You should read the article, or look into it yourself.

You can throw numbers like "trillion" around, but in the face of some real data, it seems less likely that we will discover carbon based life forms anytime soon on another planet.

And I am discouting the reality that we lack the ability to travel very far.

 

[gwl9dta4]

There are more planets out there then grains of sand on every beach on this planet. The numbers like billions, trillions and sexillions do not even begin to encompass the true number of planets out there.

Our science is still too primitive to tell things like that. It's all just theory and hypothesis. Too early to tell. But one thing is for sure, we must not be so arrogant to belive there is not another planet out there like ours, I mean what about all the ufo's?

 

[JuicyGirl]

I plan on having no more than 2 children for the reasons of population control.

Financially, we could support more but it is a moral issue to us. One child to replace myself and one child to replace my husband.

If everyone on the planet did this we would be able to maintain a good standard of living.