The little lost angel wrote:
>>Well, were far far away from the limit.
>
> If we must hit the absolute limit before we stop, it will be too late.
The absolute limit is about 100 cubic meters per person. It's like like
living in prison, but it far far far away -- as it takes about 2 trillion
people to use up 70% of land area (rest ommited as hardly habilatbe, like
Himalaya, lakes and stuff).
> Everyday there are news about natural resources being overused and not
> replenished, do we all have to live on a limited variety of
> artificially cultivated food before it's considered the limit?
You're ignoring economic pressure. And this one works best. If resources
are
scarce they are expensive. And in hard situation people do not like to
reproduce if that reproduction is not going to be beneficial.
>>>Nobody can deny that reducing/limiting human population on earth is
>>>the only true long term solution to ecological damage.
>>
>>It happens naturally for all species, including humans. Look at those
>>developed countries -- the population there is generally stagnant.
>
>
> As they should be as people get more education, they realized the long
> term benefits of large families are not the same as countries that
> rely heavily on manual labour for subsistence.
You're right. In countries where manual labor is not so im****tant to
sustain
the family the families are smaller. And in more troubled times people
reproduce much less. Look at Russia (and Ukraine) as prime exaple. Those
are
industrially developed countries, and manual labour is not needed to keep
families up. As situation is not perceived as good enough though, their
population is (rapidly) decreasing. Natural laws and laws of economy do
work.
> But yet we have well
> developed countries pu****ng reproduction policies trying to increase
> population growth.
And rightly so. This is simply better for economy.
>>>But it's also
>>>one that least raised because of the controversial nature.
>>
>>And because the premise if false.
>
> How so?
Simply. The laws of nature do not exclude humans. All species reduce
reproduction if conditions are not good enough.
>>This is a bad proposition from really many different reasons. First of
all
>>those living in developed countries do have less kids, and having even
less
>>has much more negative effects for them and their communities than
positive
>>ones. Those who "mass produce" kids are from those poorly developed
regions.
>>Those DINK and DIOK movements in developed countries make no sense at
all
>>and in fact are harmful.
>
> Harmful in what sense?
Harmful to society and to economy.
> Perhaps currently the "mass produced" kids are
> from poorly developed region but it doesn't change the fact that
> having less people in the long run means better quality of living for
> everybody, no matter where you are. Poorer countries do eventually
> become developed.
And stop kid "mass production".
>>Second, growing number of old, unproductive people without "new
>>replacements" poses significant economical and sociological problems.
>
> In the short run yes for a few generations it causes problems due to
> top heavy population distribution and such. But it's a small price to
> pay for a future.
We're way too supid to know anything exact about the future. Wasting
energy
on blind moves is a stupid idea. First we have to understand how things
work, the we can make an educated decission. Now we can't.
> There isn't much point forcing population growth in
> order to maintain an allegedly healthy population tree when doing so
> means a non-sustainable ecology.
Noone has proven tha ecology is non-sustainable. It rather looks like it's
much more sustainable that we think. Fossil fuels are only like using
value
stored in a bank savings given us by the ecosystem. Fossil fuels have
mainly
biological origin, they're (by)product of the ecosystem of past epochs. We
can't use more than it has been produced earlier. As they're more and more
depleted they become more and more expensive. Thus economic pressure is
what
will force us to find other means to extract energy from. And it happens
just now. As barrel of oil cost's more than 75-85$ it's already
economically
viable to produce fuel from crops containig a lot of oligosaccharides and
starch (apolysaccharide), at about 90-100$ per barrel it becomes viable to
produce fuel from cellulose which is abundant in plants, and in parts of
plants now thrown away. And even better there are fuel usable platns which
are not crops but which grow much faster and in areas not suitable for
crops
(like willows). There are in fact countries (for example Brasil) where
significant part of trans****t is based on such fuels).
> None of us alive today will benefit from a population reduction
> policy. But 10 generations down, those living would be cursing us for
> being short sighted and passing to them an unsustainable planet as our
> legacy.
We're now neither shortsighted nor longsighetd -- we're allmost blind.
>>>For those who want kids, please adopt one.
>>
>>Do you know, that big percentage of those adopted kids are ending back
>>without parents (as "parents" are unable to accept them in the long
run).
>>People are only people and all attepts to create heaven on earth fail
>>miserably and typically with great suffering to the millions.
>
>
> Any hard facts to back up that claim?
It's a significant percentage (AFAIR it's in the teens percents).
> What are the reasons the
> "parents" are unable to accept them?
They're unable to create psychic links with them? Things don't go like
those
parent thought they would (they are often waiting long for their own, then
they look for a child to adopt, and they have idealised image of how it is
to have a child. Such image is rarely even close to being adequate)? And
last but not least, genes (and our animal instincts associated with them)
do
work.
In general people do not know how would they behave in a particular
situation until there are put in such situation for a first time.
Children are something incredible. It's incredible to see the moment of
birth, to see the first breath (I felt being struck by a shockwave when I
saw my daughter taking her first breath), it's incredible to the cild
growing, smiling, etc. But one must accept few hundred watts of sound
power
at 3 a.m., one must accept that child is not allways behaving nicely, one
must accept the time is being eaten up by a child, etc...
> Lastly, ultimately, it doesn't
> really matter if the adults leave their adopted parents in the end,
It's not about adults it's about small children.
> the ecological benefits have been realized since the parents are
> unlikely at that point to have their own children.
I don't se here any ecological benefits. But I see children whoich got
their
family and then lost is again. Imagine their suffering.
rgds
\SK
|
