7,000,000,000

[gnathaniel]

THAT is where the solar arrays SHOULD be.

Amen to that, Rick and Ray! We need to start doing things a lot smarter rather than just bigger.

 

[NYEric]

I see no technology that will be able to deal with the coming demand for resouces from China..

The Glorious People's Democratic Republic is generally dismayed at the comments mentioned here. We have already convinced our members to adopt a limited child per family resolution. Additionally we are working with our cousins to the south, west, and north to cooperatively utilize the natural resources available while researching technology which will limit our controlled population's impact on our environment!

 

[Rick]

Amen to that, Rick and Ray! We need to start doing things a lot smarter rather than just bigger.

Unfortunuately greed generally trumps smarts. Present day market capitalism is really designed to squash inovation and competition.

 

[biothanasis]

nathaniel, you talk about technology as synonym of culture / civilization or in the very end equal to ecology / biology / behaviour etc, but I do not know if it is true / valid...! But perhaps you could be right... Thanks for showing me another perspective...

Rick you said it all in the first sentence....

 

[Stone]

Well, the thing about technological evolution is that it potentially alters our abilities/modes of interaction in ways transcendent to our 'original' biology,

Yes, but it is our original biology that does not change and is subject to the vageries of the natural world. The planet can only sustain a finite number of beings, and that must include ALL species not just the human animal.

suggesting that letting people starve for want of this is somehow more 'natural' than continuing to feed them or helping to develop sustainability structures isn't entirely accurate IMHO.

I don't remember suggesting allowing people to starve in order to solve this particular problem and I don't claim to have a solution, but I think it's important to point out that the current order of things is not working and some effort should be made to arrive at a solution. It's all very well to illustrate the differences in geopolitical situations and say ''that's for the too hard basket'', the status quo remains decade after decade. The same images I saw when I was 12 are still there today. Surley another approach needs to be adopted and I believe strict population control should and will be a part of the solution.

I also take exception to the idea that Australian aborigines, or any indigenous people, lived in 'harmony' with their surroundings to any great extent. Any human population causes ecological change/disruption/destruction when it first enters an area, as does any other invasive terraformer or top predator. The best that can be said is that some societies live in relative equilibrium with their broader ecologies; these are typically not equilibria of choice but rather of necessity. Once techs are gained that allow transcendence or expansion of some of the basic ecological constraints eg local food availability, things almost always re-equilibriate unless there are sociocultural techs constraining this in some way.

Call it harmony or unity or what you will. My point is that they lived in a sustained manner over a huge expance of time compared with we modern people which with our ''tech'', have managed to arrive at this situation within a matter of a few hundred years. If you extrapolate this direction into the future, how much time before total catastrophy? another 50-100- 200 years? Not a very enviable record! We can no longer just sit back and hope that technology will save us from ruin. In the short term at least, it won't. We need a more immediate stop-gap until we can take stock.
The starting point is realizing that it was technology that allowed us to become way out of balance with the natural world and we cannot continue in the same manner. I also believe that religion had and continues to play a large part in our descent, but that's a whole other can of worms

and I think talking as if population control will solve everything (or even anything) is not only simplistic but also quickly gets into inhumane territory.

Taking that point to it's logical conclusion suggests NOT controlling population will lead to increasing prosperity and that more is better. So is there no limit? Should we keep multiplying?

 

[Stone]

The Glorious People's Democratic Republic is generally dismayed at the comments mentioned here. We have already convinced our members to adopt a limited child per family resolution. Additionally we are working with our cousins to the south, west, and north to cooperatively utilize the natural resources available while researching technology which will limit our controlled population's impact on our environment!

What are you doing in Africa??

 

[Eric Muehlbauer]

Population control is not a one size fits all solution. The technologically developed countries have limited population growth, in many cases negative population growth. The only thing keeping the US population sustained is immigration. Japan, on the other hand, without immigration, is facing a very real problem. Their population growth is so low that the population is skewed....lots of old folks, very few young folks. On the other hand, Africa is a total disaster, and India is also very problematical. Oh....and lets put an end to the myth that I see popping up everywhere: Viagra is not covered by insurance. I have friends who have good coverage, but are diabetic. The only way that they can have any resemblance of a decent sex life with their spouses is with that little blue pill....at $20 a pop!

 

[Lanmark]

Oh....and lets put an end to the myth that I see popping up everywhere: Viagra is not covered by insurance. I have friends who have good coverage, but are diabetic. The only way that they can have any resemblance of a decent sex life with their spouses is with that little blue pill....at $20 a pop!

My insurance covers my Viagra almost in full. I'd pay less than $5 for a one month supply if I needed it.

 

[gnathaniel]

Yes, but it is our original biology that does not change and is subject to the vageries of the natural world. The planet can only sustain a finite number of beings, and that must include ALL species not just the human animal.

Actually, there's a large and growing amount of scientific evidence that technology/culture/behavior DO change fundamentals of our biology. Easy example: sexual selection modifies genetic inheritance in populations, obviously in pretty enormous ways over time. Since in humans culture plays a role in mate selection, culture is clearly a force in human genetic evolution. Straying further into territory of Things I Barely (Or Maybe Don't) Understand, new advances in epigenetics seem to indicate that environmental factors like what we eat play a role in gene expression and inheritance. And this doesn't even get into symbiosis or genetic manipulation...

I don't remember suggesting allowing people to starve in order to solve this particular problem and I don't claim to have a solution, but I think it's important to point out that the current order of things is not working and some effort should be made to arrive at a solution. It's all very well to illustrate the differences in geopolitical situations and say ''that's for the too hard basket'', the status quo remains decade after decade. The same images I saw when I was 12 are still there today. Surley another approach needs to be adopted and I believe strict population control should and will be a part of the solution.

Well, I think you said that food aid in Africa upsets the 'natural order' of things, which to me implies that you might think people starving to death is more natural than feeding them (which, as you rightly pointed out, often perpetuates nasty boom-bust cycles). Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you said... I certainly don't think we should throw up our hands and accept the status quo. My point about geopolitical situation was that there's very little 'natural' these days about people starving in one place and thriving elsewhere, it's all pretty much due to human (mis)management in one way or another. I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing about, I suspect we'd actually agree substantially on what to do about perpetual famine...

Call it harmony or unity or what you will. My point is that they lived in a sustained manner over a huge expance of time compared with we modern people which with our ''tech'', have managed to arrive at this situation within a matter of a few hundred years. If you extrapolate this direction into the future, how much time before total catastrophy? another 50-100- 200 years? Not a very enviable record! We can no longer just sit back and hope that technology will save us from ruin. In the short term at least, it won't. We need a more immediate stop-gap until we can take stock.
The starting point is realizing that it was technology that allowed us to become way out of balance with the natural world and we cannot continue in the same manner. I also believe that religion had and continues to play a large part in our descent, but that's a whole other can of worms

I won't call it harmony or unity at all, I prefer 'equilibrium' or 'disequilibrium' as they're more precise and value neutral. Many people over-romanticize aboriginal peoples for the dubious virtue of not totally wiping themselves out. There are plenty of examples of radical ecological change when people come into new areas; in some cases this leads to human population collapse and in some not. You're right that technology won't save us if we sit back and do nothing, though, technology's value is in the rapidity with which it allows us to evolve. Use of technology can lead to imbalance but not all imbalance is harmful.

And I'd be interested in discussing religion but I'm afraid I might offend some folks. :evil:

Taking that point to it's logical conclusion suggests NOT controlling population will lead to increasing prosperity and that more is better. So is there no limit? Should we keep multiplying?

I don't agree that what you quoted implies that. What I meant is that population control is an over-simplistic and ethically problematic way to address current ecological problems. I DO happen to think that a certain amount of population density is useful and probably necessary for many cultural achievements including scientific advances. I also agree that unchecked population growth leads to ecological problems if all else stays constant within the ecosystem in question. Isn't that last bit pretty much what you were saying in your original post?

 

[NYEric]

What are you doing in Africa??

The Glorius People's Democratic Republic is extending the hand of peaceful cooperation and population control to our allies in the Southern Continent. Cooperatively, we will help with the distribution of the mineral wealth of our allies in the Southern Continent.

 

[Stone]

Actually, there's a large and growing amount of scientific evidence that technology/culture/behavior DO change fundamentals of our biology. Easy example: sexual selection modifies genetic inheritance in populations, obviously in pretty enormous ways over time. Since in humans culture plays a role in mate selection, culture is clearly a force in human genetic evolution. Straying further into territory of Things I Barely (Or Maybe Don't) Understand, new advances in epigenetics seem to indicate that environmental factors like what we eat play a role in gene expression and inheritance. And this doesn't even get into symbiosis or genetic manipulation...

Interesting Nathaniel, I didn't expect to start a tennis match with this topic and please exuse if I struggle to keep up with your level of articulation but although the above may be all true, I still maintain the view that humans have not fundamentally changed a great deal in a biological sense during the short time they have been around. Where is the evidence that we are all that different biologically to humans of 50,000 years ago? Also I believe that there is growing scientific evidence that mate selection is more a product of biology than we may like to admit. Man has always sought to place himself above and seperate himself from (for reasons that I'm sure we both agree on)the rest of the natural world and with that has seen himself as being superior in every way. And therein lies the problem. Looking from ''above'' so to speak, I see humans as just another albeit more evolved life form that have become ''weeds'' directly because of their technology. And although we can't unscramble the egg we certainly can not continue on the present path. (well actually we can and probably will) It depends on your point of view, but surley you can agree that human achievement has been solely directed inwardly (at least until fairly recently) with scant regard for the rest of the Earths inhabitants, and so far there is little sign of improvement. I think talk of genetic manipulation as a possible solution in the short term is still rather dubious and still in the embryonic stage. I see a time in the not too distant future where a more direct and drastic approach will be needed to avoid much misery, but humans have the habit of waiting until 1 minute to midnight before doing something.
Back to the orchids!

Mike

 

[NYEric]

My insurance covers my Viagra almost in full. I'd pay less than $5 for a one month supply if I needed it.

Funny, my Viagra comes with an insurance policy! :evil:

 

[Rick]

Funny, my Viagra comes with an insurance policy! :evil:

Is that funny or SCARY you beast??!!

 

[cnycharles]

there were words posted here about technology advance equaling society/civilization, but that's a fallacy. most likely, from what little hasn't been destroyed in former libraries, people of much older times in many places were much more civilized and had much more knowledge of the world and our surroundings than today. the only problem is that we have the periodic megalomaniac here and there that wants everything for themselves, and sticks their foot into everything. it appears that there generally can be equanimity in population with food supply, and there always have been ups and downs with food supplies and populations, but again we have warlords who want nothing but to stir up and destroy any slight competition, which always destroys an established society and often the food supply/distribution. it is viewed in many circles that it wasn't the neanderthals who were the 'cavemen' who went around clubbing their neighbors, it was the ones who supposedly are the master race we are today who can't keep themselves still a moment to realize they are driving themselves towards a cliff. the neanderthals were likely much more peaceful and thoughtful. progress and scientific discovery aren't the end all to meet all; until someone comes up with a 'breakthrough' that teaches people how to use new tech peacefully and productively, it will always be used against somebody in a negative way. the asian emperor years ago whose scientists discovered dynamite, and 'put them away' sort of had the right idea (except for causing the terminal condition of the scientists), because he knew it would be used for destruction

religion isn't the cause of present and past/future problems. individuals with evil in their heart, seeing the potential to use some societal system for their own gain, are the problem. human's hearts are found wanting

 

[SlipperFan]

Yea? What about religions that forbid any birth control except the "rhythm" method? I see that as big problem of the past present and future.

Then there's the religion-based rhetoric of the current Republlican candidates in the US.

 

[Stone]

Yea? What about religions that forbid any birth control except the "rhythm" method? I see that as big problem of the past present and future.

Then there's the religion-based rhetoric of the current Republlican candidates in the US.

You and I should be running the world Dot, not the riff raff currently doing it :rollhappy::rollhappy:
There was an English comedy where a militant green seized power and said ''The first order of business--I will be banning the motor car. From now on we can look farward to the toot toot toot of the steam engine'':rollhappy:

 

[cnycharles]

Yea? What about religions that forbid any birth control except the "rhythm" method? I see that as big problem of the past present and future.

so how long has the above been part of the human situation, in terms of our total existence? probably a very short period of time. also I highly doubt that many religions support this, or many individual cells in the religion that this view comes from. again, a very small part from a much larger whole in the greater terms of our whole human existence. who cares what this or that party has to say on the news? neither side has any real answers and they only speak to raise ratings. it's more important to deal with issues in your own neighborhood and effect positive change than to follow the stats quo and blame this or that party, which is generally a waste of time. blaming/being negative only suits those who want strife, not being positive/working towards a workable solution.

 

[Lanmark]

so how long has the above been part of the human situation, in terms of our total existence? probably a very short period of time. also I highly doubt that many religions support this, or many individual cells in the religion that this view comes from. again, a very small part from a much larger whole in the greater terms of our whole human existence. who cares what this or that party has to say on the news? neither side has any real answers and they only speak to raise ratings. it's more important to deal with issues in your own neighborhood and effect positive change than to follow the stats quo and blame this or that party, which is generally a waste of time. blaming/being negative only suits those who want strife, not being positive/working towards a workable solution.

The Catholic Church supports only the "rhythm" method of birth control. I'd say the Catholic Church is a rather big church with rather strong worldwide influences at play.

This is not about blame or wasting time. It's about demanding some truth for a change. It's about setting a high standard of social responsibility for everyone. It's about not being a submissive lamb while the big hungry lion waltzes in to rape and then devour everyone in its path. It takes real courage to stand up and cry foul in the face of the lion. It takes real courage to call a lie a lie. There's absolutely nothing about doing any of these things which precludes a person's abilities to be a positive influence in the community and work toward practicable solutions. Positive changes can only be achieved when pacifism and activism are tempered with truth, knowledge, and justice and are backed by a lot of hands-on hard work. It takes a balanced approach to achieve balance and success in the world.

It's also important to realize that simply writing off all politics and all discussion and debate of politics -- by saying, "Who cares?" and by implying that dissension is "generally a waste of time" -- is, in effect, encouraging people to give up their hard-won freedoms of voting, publicly expressing their opinions, and having representation within the government, which in the USA, by the way, is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. I, for one, refuse to give up my voice, my freedoms and my privileges. Too many places on this planet do not afford these freedoms and privileges to its citizens. These are not gifts to be taken lightly nor ignored. These are tools which, when wisely implemented, can bring about true and lasting change for the better.

 

[SlipperFan]

You and I should be running the world Dot, not the riff raff currently doing it :rollhappy::rollhappy:
There was an English comedy where a militant green seized power and said ''The first order of business--I will be banning the motor car. From now on we can look farward to the toot toot toot of the steam engine'':rollhappy:

Very English! :rollhappy:

so how long has the above been part of the human situation, in terms of our total existence? probably a very short period of time. also I highly doubt that many religions support this, or many individual cells in the religion that this view comes from. again, a very small part from a much larger whole in the greater terms of our whole human existence. who cares what this or that party has to say on the news? neither side has any real answers and they only speak to raise ratings. it's more important to deal with issues in your own neighborhood and effect positive change than to follow the stats quo and blame this or that party, which is generally a waste of time. blaming/being negative only suits those who want strife, not being positive/working towards a workable solution.

I'd say 2000 years is quite a long time, seeing the amount of influence that religion has had on human history.

People should care about what the candidates are saying. Our democracy depends on an informed electorate. Ignorance is the underlying cause of why we are where we are, in terms of the governmental stalemate of the last two years. If we don't know what the candidates are saying, then who do we get our information from? Rush Limbaugh? Fox News?

Thanks, Mark.

 

[Eric Muehlbauer]

While religion is an easy target, its not the religion, but the actions of its believers. While much is made (in the US) of the official stance of the Catholic Church against birth control, the reality is that most (US) Catholics do not share their church's stance. They may support their church, but they also support access to birth control, the practice of birth control, and, yes, they use it themselves. The Catholic countries of Europe are experiencing low population increases, frequently negative population growth. Other Catholic countries vary in their use of birth control...but one thing quickly becomes clear, and it overrides all religion: Education!!!!!!! An educated populace practices birth control, regardless of its religion. Education enables the full exercise of free will! Ensure a good education, and people will figure out how to reconcile their religion with their conscience, and act accordingly.