The Planet's Main Problem is Unsolvable

[IMPress Polly]

I'm sure many of you have guessed that, being a leftist, I'm also predictably an environmentalist and a proponent of animal rights and so forth. The more astute may also have noticed, however, that I don't post much those types of issues. You may be wondering what the deal is with that seeming inconsistency. The deal is that, as I stated briefly in the aftermath of one of the recent Oklahoma tornadoes, I don't think the essential problem the Earth faces can be solved. In my opinion, your average First World environmentalist is pretty naive about these things, believing that if we just talk about environmental issues enough, we can prick the conscience of ye wasteful average Jane and Joe such that they reform their lifestyles in sustainable ways or that we can use public office to address these matters. That's because your average First World environmentalist is relatively affluent (i.e. middle or upper class) and therefore imagines that the core problem the planet is facing is that of needless waste (something they can relate to). After all, the affluent really do waste a lot needlessly, and they accordingly can afford to change their lifestyles.

I disagree with these simplistic conclusions. This is the scope and nature of the problem in reality. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/30/population-growth-wipe-out-life-earth) I agree with the author's conclusion:


Only an idiot would deny that there is a limit to how many people our Earth can support. The question is, is it seven billion (our current population), 10 billion or 28 billion [all the prospects -- Polly]? I think we've already gone past it. Well past it.

That's right, folks, the core problem is that there are too many people; too many NEEDS, not too many WANTS. There are too many people in today's world who all need food, water, shelter, clothing, and other basics of life, and the number is rapidly increasing while the resources of the planet and the viability thereof are steadily decreasing. THAT is the core problem. We might be able to theoretically solve the problem of needless waste (though we'll choose not to in the real world), but we can't stop people from needing the basics. Most of the solutions the environmental movement proposes (like taxing food and carbon emissions), at that, reflect its class composition: they're designed to mainly hurt poorer people: to solve the planet's problems by punishing the poor for existing. Guess how likely those solutions are to get you elected (and especially RE-elected). Folks it's no coincidence that the environmental movement experienced a crash of its own when the global economy went down the tubes in 2008. While the prosperous concern themselves with the fate of the planet (or, if they're male, the national debt that their class could pay off in one day if they really wanted to), the poorer among us are more concerned about more immediate things like eating and getting to work and can't afford to pay higher prices. There are a growing number of food riots around the globe and much of it has to do precisely with "environmentally-friendly" schemes to minimize food production (which increases food prices) by paying farmers to make corn for fuel instead of for eating. Politically speaking, environmentalism cannot be richer people telling poorer people that they need to make sacrifices! That's not a winning argument. Yet it basically is the current state of affairs.

The real solution to the current problems facing our planet is to ban whole populations from reproducing for a period of time on a rotating basis. Good luck getting someone elected on that platform! Every instinct in the human body tells us to reproduce. Good luck radically altering human nature because that's the actual solution. It's not viable. It won't happen.

(By the way, as an aside here, realities like these cause me to reflect on the absurdity of people moralizing about the rights of single-cell organisms contained in the female body. If it weren't for those ever-controversial things like birth control and abortion, the planet's problems would be even worse than they are today, and the prospects for the future would be dimmer still! Anyone concerned about ecological sustainability should consider reproductive rights a sacrament, not a sin! Likewise, in view of the scope and depth of the ecological crisis before us, one wonders why anyone opposes gay people adopting gay sexual behavior or is paranoid about the BS prospects of people getting converted to homosexuality. Frankly, if it were possible to convert people from straight to gay (and it's clearly not), doing so on a considerable scale would probably be a good thing, considering that it would enable us to dramatically reduce our rate of reproduction without negating our basic instincts!)

What am I saying here? That we shouldn't try to save the planet? That the propertied classes needn't make sacrifices? On the contrary, I feel that those of us who care and are able (and this includes me) have a moral obligation to try anyway; to avoid waste and the exploitation (or even genocide) of other species for human benefit. But moralizing will not solve the problem. The problem is unsolvable. Take a look once more at the referenced article. Like it or not, that's a glimpse of our grandchildren's future. The time is now to start concerning ourselves hence not just with how to prevent the unpreventable that's already starting to unfold right before our eyes (and it's only just beginning, folks!), but with how to respond to it: how best to cope with the consequences of overpopulation (which, again, is already a reality, IMO; this is not a future-tense matter).

So yes, while I'm a moralist about these matters (i.e. I don't want to feel guilty), I'm not a utopian. Minor lifestyle tweaks won't fix the planet. Capitalism (obviously) won't fix the planet. Socialism won't fix the planet (it didn't even try in the 20th century). Democracy won't fix the planet. Nothing short of fundamentally altering human nature, which we can't do, will fix the planet. The planet is doomed to endure a tremendous beating and it's our fault, no getting around it. Sorry to be all pessimistic and depressing, but this is way I see it. Just thought I'd offer the explanation as to why I don't bother with these topics as much as some would think I should.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I actually agree with the overall idea here.

[Peter1469]

I think that progress is the answer.


Almost all of the additional 3.7 billion people from now to 2100 will enlarge the population of developing countries, which is projected to rise from 5.9 billion in 2013 to 8.2 billion in 2050 and to 9.6 billion in 2100.

But


In contrast, the population of the more developed regions is expected to change minimally, passing from 1.25 billion in 2013 to 1.28 billion in 2100. The net increase is due largely to migration from developing to developed countries.


Populations of 43 countries or areas are expected to decrease between 2013 and 2050; of these, 40 are expected to continue to decrease between 2050 and 2100. Several countries are expected to see their populations decline by more than 15 per cent by 2050, including Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Moldova, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, and Ukraine.



As developed nations advance, they urbanize and women get education; women wait longer to have children and populations levels begin to stabilize.

And we will have to look to space for resources and soon living space.

[Germanicus]

What if we become a more minimalist society that is also more self sufficient.

We could also use population control measures. The Family Planning Policy that China uses is a good place to start.

Ashley Judd has flirted with politics and I noticed she said something about wanting to prevent low socio economic families from having children. I think it is an idea worth consideration. No child should have to grow up in poverty and many poor people do not have the resources or skills to give a child every advantage in life.

I do not think it should be a right to reproduce. So if people can agree on that ( I wont hold my breath ) then that could be a starting point for population control/regulation.

[Chris]

So yes, while I'm a moralist about these matters (i.e. I don't want to feel guilty), I'm not a utopian. Minor lifestyle tweaks won't fix the planet. Capitalism (obviously) won't fix the planet. Socialism won't fix the planet (it didn't even try in the 20th century). Democracy won't fix the planet. Nothing short of fundamentally altering human nature, which we can't do, will fix the planet. The planet is doomed to endure a tremendous beating and it's our fault, no getting around it. Sorry to be all pessimistic and depressing, but this is way I see it. Just thought I'd offer the explanation as to why I don't bother with these topics as much as some would think I should.

You left out one solution, working with human nature as it is.

[Agravan]

What if we become a more minimalist society that is also more self sufficient.

We could also use population control measures. The Family Planning Policy that China uses is a good place to start.

Ashley Judd has flirted with politics and I noticed she said something about wanting to prevent low socio economic families from having children. I think it is an idea worth consideration. No child should have to grow up in poverty and many poor people do not have the resources or skills to give a child every advantage in life.

I do not think it should be a right to reproduce. So if people can agree on that ( I wont hold my breath ) then that could be a starting point for population control/regulation.
So, only rich people should have children, right?
Many of the children of those poor peasants you dislike so much grow up to do great things. Many don't. But who are you, or the government, to say to me that I don't earn enough to be a parent, or I'm not in the correct social class to be a parent?
It's all about control with you leftist parasites, isn't it? If you love China so much, why don't you go live there? As a regular peasant, not a member of the elite. Let's see if you still sing the same tune in a couple of years.

[Chloe]

So, only rich people should have children, right?
Many of the children of those poor peasants you dislike so much grow up to do great things. Many don't. But who are you, or the government, to say to me that I don't earn enough to be a parent, or I'm not in the correct social class to be a parent?
It's all about control with you leftist parasites, isn't it? If you love China so much, why don't you go live there? As a regular peasant, not a member of the elite. Let's see if you still sing the same tune in a couple of years.

In all fairness an adult should be responsible enough to know whether or not they can afford to bring a new life into the world. If you are in poverty it's probably not appropriate or responsible to increase the amount of people living off of your income or lack of income in my opinion. Not saying to ban a person from having a kid if they are poor obviously but I can understand the argument for trying to convince people not to go through with it until their own life improves.

[roadmaster]

So, only rich people should have children, right?
Many of the children of those poor peasants you dislike so much grow up to do great things. Many don't. But who are you, or the government, to say to me that I don't earn enough to be a parent, or I'm not in the correct social class to be a parent?
It's all about control with you leftist parasites, isn't it? If you love China so much, why don't you go live there? As a regular peasant, not a member of the elite. Let's see if you still sing the same tune in a couple of years.
If everyone waited until they could afford children most would have never had them. Children are a blessing.

[TheInternet]

In all fairness an adult should be responsible enough to know whether or not they can afford to bring a new life into the world. If you are in poverty it's probably not appropriate or responsible to increase the amount of people living off of your income or lack of income in my opinion. Not saying to ban a person from having a kid if they are poor obviously but I can understand the argument for trying to convince people not to go through with it until their own life improves.

I agree with this. Seems almost like an argument against WIC/Welfare/Foodstamps to me though.


To the OP, I qusetion whether it's a huge issue or not. I could make a case either way. There's evidence population is leveling off, or possibly beginning to decline. If I find the study, I'll post it, but I probably won't be able to. Technology is going to solve many of the issues of waste and feeding people, and I also agree with what Peter said about space.

[Private Pickle]

In all fairness an adult should be responsible enough to know whether or not they can afford to bring a new life into the world. If you are in poverty it's probably not appropriate or responsible to increase the amount of people living off of your income or lack of income in my opinion. Not saying to ban a person from having a kid if they are poor obviously but I can understand the argument for trying to convince people not to go through with it until their own life improves.

I gotta disagree.... The idea that one has to "afford" their right to procreate is simply against nature. People were procreating long before the concept of money even existed.

[Guerilla]

As developed nations advance, they urbanize and women get education; women wait longer to have children and populations levels begin to stabilize.


This is happening in Europe. They're below replacement rate now. Here's an article that explains why they aren't having a lot of kids, and why places like Norway are the exception. http://wunrn.com/news/2008/07_08/06_30_08/063008_europe.htm They are losing so many people Germany is even planning on downsizing some cities.

[IMPress Polly]

Germanicus wrote:
What if we become a more minimalist society that is also more self sufficient.

We could also use population control measures. The Family Planning Policy that China uses is a good place to start.

China's policy isn't a bad place to start, I agree, but the impact of it isn't as fundamental as one might hope. The current family planning policy in China so far has simply had the effect of lowering the rate of population growth. It has not stopped population growth. I'll add that it would mean little here in the practical because most Americans only have one or two children anyway as things are.


Germanicus wrote:
Ashley Judd has flirted with politics and I noticed she said something about wanting to prevent low socio economic families from having children. I think it is an idea worth consideration. No child should have to grow up in poverty and many poor people do not have the resources or skills to give a child every advantage in life.

I do not think it should be a right to reproduce. So if people can agree on that ( I wont hold my breath ) then that could be a starting point for population control/regulation.


Chloe wrote:
In all fairness an adult should be responsible enough to know whether or not they can afford to bring a new life into the world. If you are in poverty it's probably not appropriate or responsible to increase the amount of people living off of your income or lack of income in my opinion. Not saying to ban a person from having a kid if they are poor obviously but I can understand the argument for trying to convince people not to go through with it until their own life improves.

I've not heard such an argument from Ashley Judd and would request a source for that info. If she actually has said that though, I have to disagree with her position because now we're right back to specifically punishing the poor for our socio-economic/ecological problems. You shouldn't get fewer rights just because you're poor. If we are to employ eugenic solutions to our ecological problems (and, again, I argue that we should), they should be employed in a class-blind, all-encompassing way wherein whole populations are restricted either culturally or officially to having a set maximum number of children and no more. Historically the eugenics movement has been infamous for its racism and elitism and it has been influential on our politics in this country. Too influential. Many U.S. states, for example, used to have forced sterilization policies in place for women on welfare, and I mean within the living memory of many people here. The eugenics movement and its elitist supporters considered poverty to be in the genes, and therefore opted to erase it from history by banning poor people from reproducing. The original Black Panther Party (the real one, that is) had a term for these policies: slow genocide. I agree.

One will notice that Ashley Judd is a wealthy individual: not someone who would lose any rights under her own policy proposal she allegedly made. People usually tend to line up with the interests of their class.

[count markovalley]

There are too many of the wrong kind of people and not enough Good people. The bigger the problems we face , that many more minds it takes to find a solution. all problems can be solved.

[Chris]

There are too many of the wrong kind of people and not enough Good people. The bigger the problems we face , that many more minds it takes to find a solution. all problems can be solved.

Spoken like a true believer in the religion of statism.

[IMPress Polly]

That the essential problem is overpopulation is spoken to in recent data on carbon emissions, for example. Overall the planet reached a record temperature last year. Our rate of carbon emissions actually fell by 1% here in the U.S., but China's rose by 3.5% as a result of so many new vehicles on the road, which more than canceled out our drop, obviously. Just another set of factoids that illustrate my point.

[Common]

That the essential problem is overpopulation is spoken to in recent data on carbon emissions, for example. Overall the planet reached a record temperature last year. Our rate of carbon emissions actually fell by 1% here in the U.S., but China's rose by 3.5% as a result of so many new vehicles on the road, which more than canceled out our drop, obviously. Just another set of factoids that illustrate my point.

Our corporations sent our polution to china along with middle class american jobs. :)

[Peter1469]

And carbon emissions don't seem to have a direct relation to temperature. Global temps have been flat the last decade.

[The Sage of Main Street]

And we will have to look to space for resources and soon living space.There is plenty of space on this planet. For one thing, we could drain the oceans, which would open up vast resources of water and soil. The other huge undeveloped territory is Antarctica and the frozen northern latitudes. We can also move vertically in high rises, which for no reason at all, are criticized as a symbol of overpopulation rather than a solution to it. Nature is a pretty sight only to those sitting pretty; the domination over opinions exercised by the worthless hereditary classes is a cancer on progress.

The main problem is the lack of development of creative High IQs, who should be treated the way superior athletes are today, from childhood on, including social popularity. The ruling class depends on humiliating these Cash Cows all their lives, which demoralizes most of them and turns our desperately needed talent pool into a puddle.

[Chloe]

There is plenty of space on this planet. For one thing, we could drain the oceans, which would open up vast resources of water and soil. The other huge undeveloped territory is Antarctica and the frozen northern latitudes. We can also move vertically in high rises, which for no reason at all, are criticized as a symbol of overpopulation rather than a solution to it. Nature is a pretty sight only to those sitting pretty; the domination over opinions exercised by the worthless hereditary classes is a cancer on progress.

The main problem is the lack of development of creative High IQs, who should be treated the way superior athletes are today, from childhood on, including social popularity. The ruling class depends on humiliating these Cash Cows all their lives, which demoralizes most of them and turns our desperately needed talent pool into a puddle.

Drain the oceans? To where? You can't drain the Pacific Ocean into the Indian Ocean or the Atlantic into the southern or pull a plug and have it go into the core of the earth. Where would you drain a material that makes up over 70% of this planets surface? Also nature is pretty but it's also necessary. It's not just to look at it keeps us alive.

[The Sage of Main Street]

And carbon emissions don't seem to have a direct relation to temperature. Global temps have been flat the last decade.



Our ruling class's thought control extends to begging the question. Whether we agree about the extent of pollution and the cost/benefit of stopping it, we are all fooled into believing the idea that it is essentially harmful. On the contrary, it is antiseptic.

Notice how modern epidemics die out once they reach the "polluted" cities. Notice that the last great one, the 1918 influenza, which killed 50 to 100 million people, happened just before "pollution" from automobiles became widespread. Natural air, the touchy-feely "clean" air, is actually the most toxic of all. It is the difference in harm between driving on a rocky road (pollution) and having people standing by the side of the road throwing rocks at you (bacteria and viruses thriving in "clean" air). These microbes are far weaker than us in dealing with particulates. The balance of Nature is not in man's favor, so we must manipulate it radically for our own survival. The degenerate Zero-Growth academic gurus take the opposite view, a dangerous superstition reflecting their own jealous inferiority. They have a Death Wish and seek to drag us down into their bottomless pit. They should be treated as enemies, rather than, at worse, harmless cranks. Nature is not supernatural and deserves no reverence at all. It is a deformity that requires cosmetic surgery.

[Cigar]

There is plenty of space on this planet. For one thing, we could drain the oceans, which would open up vast resources of water and soil. The other huge undeveloped territory is Antarctica and the frozen northern latitudes. We can also move vertically in high rises, which for no reason at all, are criticized as a symbol of overpopulation rather than a solution to it. Nature is a pretty sight only to those sitting pretty; the domination over opinions exercised by the worthless hereditary classes is a cancer on progress.

The main problem is the lack of development of creative High IQs, who should be treated the way superior athletes are today, from childhood on, including social popularity. The ruling class depends on humiliating these Cash Cows all their lives, which demoralizes most of them and turns our desperately needed talent pool into a puddle.

Couple things ... Water displacement is far more difficult than you think ... just ask a veteran plumber. :laugh:

Second ... moving vertically has it's logistical limits also ... try pumping water to the top of The Burj Khalifa in The UAE ... they found it a challenge to go much higher.

Third ... this country treats Teachers like shit and academics of higher learning even worse; besides, look who we have in Congress in Forward thinking Committees.:rollseyes:

Finally, there are those who are in dept to the fossil fuel industry and only after these old fossils die off ... will new and dependable resources be considered.

Good Luck ... but The Old Dinosaurs are the ones holding progress back.

[Chris]

Drain the oceans? To where? You can't drain the Pacific Ocean into the Indian Ocean or the Atlantic into the southern or pull a plug and have it go into the core of the earth. Where would you drain a material that makes up over 70% of this planets surface? Also nature is pretty but it's also necessary. It's not just to look at it keeps us alive.



Magic, chloe, pure magic! I think you will find this is not unlike a lot of liberal progressive thinking. Just make a law to change things--except nothing ever changes.

[Cigar]

Magic, chloe, pure magic! I think you will find this is not unlike a lot of liberal progressive thinking. Just make a law to change things--except nothing ever changes.

Wait ... you mean this week change is good?

But last week it wasn't. :rollseyes:

[Chris]

Wait ... you mean this week change is good?

But last week it wasn't. :rollseyes:

"except nothing ever changes"

[zelmo1234]

I think that it is something that we will not have to worry about, if resources become very scarce, there will be enough people killing other people to get the population under control!

For example what if we had someone like Mao in China, if the populations was starting to show signs of unrest? you just wipe out say 60 million or so and go from there!

[nic34]

You all could come to Arizona, lots of room here outside the big cities..... probably the same in other western states.... gotta bring your own air conditioning and water tho.....:grin:

[Cigar]

You all could come to Arizona, lots of room here outside the big cities..... probably the same in other western states.... gotta bring your own air conditioning and water tho.....:grin:

Can't play that much Golf in the middle of the day either :sad:

[nic34]

But the summer rates are terrific...:laugh:

[Agravan]

You all could come to Arizona, lots of room here outside the big cities..... probably the same in other western states.... gotta bring your own air conditioning and water tho.....:grin:
Arizona sucks. Too much sand. Texas is a much better place to be in.

[Chris]

Especially West Texas. Love it out there.

[Mr Happy]

According to the latest Guiness Book of records if everybody in the world stood up straight and had one square foot to themselves the population of the world would fit into the Island of Skye off Scotland's coast. Before I read that I read the same in an English newspaper but they said it was the State of Texas that the world's population could fit into under the same circumstances. Either way, go look at Skye and Texas on a world map....there does seem plenty of room, even when taking out uninhabitable deserts and mountainous areas. In saying that, some countries obviously have population issues whereby there are too many people in one place.