Renewable Resources - Fact or Fantasy?

[bobm]

Anyone notice the drastic increase of the gay and lesbian in the human population, and now they whant to legally marry with their own sex. Since they each are of their own sex, Mother Nature edicts that they can't reproduce an offspring. Therefore, the human population will decrease in numbers.

 

[OldGuy43]

Wow Oldguy.

"We need to quit saving the starving people..."
Who gets to decide who stays and who goes?

Survival of the fittest. Nature is brutal isn't she?


..."let nature take it's course..."
Does this mean that you will stop going to the Dr. to allow "nature" to take it's course? Will you be volunteering to be the beginning of this reduction?

Already have. Haven't been to a doctor in years.

I wonder if you have children.

No! The reasons are my own.

I believe the worldview one holds will determine how a person would approach your question.
If we are the result of a cosmic accident and nothing more than a collection of carbon, here today and gone tomorrow, than what difference does it really make?

In the long term view, none. The Earth has survived 5 mass extinction events. Perhaps man will be the next.

But if we are created by God, who demands something from us, including a wise stewardship of our home then our solutions do matter.

Won't touch that one.

I know I didn't address your specific examples, I was stunned by your "solution".

 

[so lucky]

Any population, whether it be a petri dish of bacteria, or a planet of humans, will continue to increase until its environment can no longer support it. Without intervention, the human population would have met with small but meaningful "die-offs" along the way. Now, with our life-saving medicines and other inventions, humans are about to outgrow our environment. I agree that we are overpopulated. We will keep on trying to save our neighbor untill a large disaster kills the race completely. Which is worse? Allowing nature to take its course slowly, or the human race ending all at once because we have poisoned the earth?

 

[digitS']

A few years ago, I read a couple books by geneticist Bryan Sykes. The one that was the most fun was mostly about the population genetics of the British Isles but looked at the whole of Europe and just a little on the remainder of the planet. It was an explanation of the genetic relationships of the British to each other and what could be determined about where the groups came from. As I say, it was fun.

I believe that Sykes is working on something for North America. That seems a little frightening - given some of our problems over the more recent centuries.

Anyway, Sykes talks a little about population "bottlenecks" and how much more common these were in Europe, than elsewhere. Now and then, the Europeans had some tough times. The small number of ancestors - well, their genes - show up in the genetics of today's populations.

A percent of a whole might just be pulled from a hat, perhaps 5%. That percent could be associated with a fairly large resource share. Let's say 25% of the world's resources. Then, if a 5% of the human population could be found using 25% of the world's resources perhaps that would indicate an natural efficiency that warrants the 5% controlling a larger percentage of the world's resources. The earth might return to a pristine state if, say an even smaller slice of humanity controlled more resources.

I once read a sci-fi book where the entire population of the planet was something like 9. Not surprisingly, 1 of these people often tried to kill himself out of some sense of despair but the other 8 were highly resourceful so they would revive him. They probably just appreciated the drama that he brought to their existence.

If we use World Bank numbers: about 80% of the world's population lives on less than $10/day. World population of nearly 7 billion. That is 5.6 billion people. The 2008 Farm Bill sets US food aid at $450 million/year. The UN's World Food Program provides $1.25 billion/year. If all that food aid is distributed to those 5.6 billion people - they are getting about 31 cents . . . per year in food. Let's say it only goes to 10% of those people living on $10 a day. Then, each of those "poorest of the poor" would have $3 of food from the US & UN each year.

Obviously, some other means than cutting off food aid would have to be arranged for a depopulation of the world's poor.

Steve

 

[OldGuy43]

Steve, what you seem to have missed is that I'm not saying we need to depopulate just the world's poor. What I said was,

We need a negative population growth, worldwide now!

Rich or poor, what we need to do is quit encouraging large families. Have enough children and you pay no taxes, get welfare, food stamps, free health care etc. etc.

Many years ago a friend suggested that the income tax be replaced with a flat head tax. Have a child, pay the yearly tax. No exceptions. No loop holes. The more I think about it, the more I believe he had an idea there. At least it would be a start.

 

[digitS']

. . . US fertility rate dropped with lowering rates of infant mortality and broadening support for the elderly. . .

. . .Longer answer; We have overpopulated spaceship Earth. We need a negative population growth, worldwide now! We need to quit saving the starving people in (insert name of country or continent) and let nature take its course . . .

I am not sure if I should be holding up the US as a model, thinking globally or just walling in/out my neighbors so that there is no chance of them getting my bok choy . . .

Steve

 

[Smart Red]

Just my 2 cents . . . Nature will win out. Whenever an area becomes too populated with a species something happens to cull the weakest from that area. I'm not about to compare the human population with that of lemmings, but lemmings are a good example of nature's way.

A few paltry years into the past, one farmer could feed little more than his large family. Today's farmers can feed far more people than ever imagined. As long as food is available the populating will grow. Nature's way.

In the past wars were waged in an effort to gain more land. More land meant more resources and power. Past wars have always resulted in a culling of the weakest from an area resulting in decreased populations.

Crowded conditions will cause stress and manifest itself in aberrant behavior. It happens with other animals (such as rats) and it happens with Man. Not just aberrant behavior but disease, too, it intensified by stressful living conditions. Both factors contribute to a decrease in populations.

For the present, Americans are blessed. However, I believe there will come a time when world need will cause many of the same problems other nations face - famine, war, pestilence, etc. It is just a matter of time that Man (I hesitate to say 'we' since we'll be long gone) will go the way of the lemmings unless Mankind finds new worlds to settle.

For man to cull the world's population by sitting back, noshing on Cheetos, and watching large numbers of people die is NOT the answer. The BIBLE states the poor will always be among us, but never suggests an uncaring attitude as a solution. Neither does it require regression of the believer into starvation with excessive 'redistribution" efforts.

Nope, Man will learn to live with Nature or Nature will win. There is your period.

I suspect the process will be fraught with despair, destruction and death long before the result is final. Sounds a bit Apocalyptic doesn't it? God will return? Some humans will survive? Our extra-terrestrial ancestors will send assistance? The whole Universe and its systems will collapse? Or it will all be academic to future life.

I prefer to live, caring for me and mine and helping others - where I can, when I can, and while I can - and then be returned to my gardens as fertilizer for the future.

Love, (feeling not so) Smart Red

 

[catjac1975]

China's push for 1 child families resulted in millions of female babies being aborted, abandoned, hidden, and murdered. In a culture where the male child is valued above all else they have villages where many men will have no chance of finding a wife in their lifetime. I know they had to do something to curb their population. I don't know the most moral answer. I know starvation of the poor is not one of them.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree with Journey we need to tread lightly, but I learned long ago that if you dont speak up, people will assume you agree with them.

I could argue that you should not see pine plantations as a replacement for mixed old growth forest but instead look on them as one of Seedcorns soybean fields. Its just agriculture. But I doubt that's really what you wanted to discuss.

I could argue that the Renaissance caused the Black Plague, not the other way around. The rats would never have been able to cover all that distance if it were not due to the increased trade due to the start of the Renaissance. But thats just details and maybe opinion.

In your We need to quit saving the starving people in (insert name of country or continent) and let nature take its course, I propose we insert the name Des Moines. Ive never been to Des Moines and dont know anyone living there so it is as remote and isolated as any other place on Earth to me.

Ive worked a lot of places overseas. Guljhan had the thickest coke bottle glasses Ive ever seen. She wasnt really coming on to you by getting that close. She was just trying to see your face. Natasha was extremely bright but she was worried she had not really considered enough before she names her son. In her culture, the name she chose might cause problems. Gulnaz wondered how I knew she and her boyfriend got drunk and had a fight the night before where their furniture got smashed before she even showed up to work. Then there was Square. His mother considered the square the perfect shape. What better name for the perfect child? Ramsey had the problem of being an honest man working for a company where honesty was not highly prized, but he had the advantage that his dad was a principle owner.

When you talk about purposely starving people to death, I dont see nameless strangers. I see people that have a joy of living and often a good sense of humor even if times for them are hard. They are simply people doing the best they can.

At some time a SHTF scenario could occur. If it is in my lifetime Ill take care of my family and friends as best I can. Until then Ill remain a member of humanity.

 

[hoodat]

A few years ago, I read a couple books by geneticist Bryan Sykes. The one that was the most fun was mostly about the population genetics of the British Isles but looked at the whole of Europe and just a little on the remainder of the planet. It was an explanation of the genetic relationships of the British to each other and what could be determined about where the groups came from. As I say, it was fun.

I believe that Sykes is working on something for North America. That seems a little frightening - given some of our problems over the more recent centuries.

Anyway, Sykes talks a little about population "bottlenecks" and how much more common these were in Europe, than elsewhere. Now and then, the Europeans had some tough times. The small number of ancestors - well, their genes - show up in the genetics of today's populations.

A percent of a whole might just be pulled from a hat, perhaps 5%. That percent could be associated with a fairly large resource share. Let's say 25% of the world's resources. Then, if a 5% of the human population could be found using 25% of the world's resources perhaps that would indicate an natural efficiency that warrants the 5% controlling a larger percentage of the world's resources. The earth might return to a pristine state if, say an even smaller slice of humanity controlled more resources.

I once read a sci-fi book where the entire population of the planet was something like 9. Not surprisingly, 1 of these people often tried to kill himself out of some sense of despair but the other 8 were highly resourceful so they would revive him. They probably just appreciated the drama that he brought to their existence.

If we use World Bank numbers: about 80% of the world's population lives on less than $10/day. World population of nearly 7 billion. That is 5.6 billion people. The 2008 Farm Bill sets US food aid at $450 million/year. The UN's World Food Program provides $1.25 billion/year. If all that food aid is distributed to those 5.6 billion people - they are getting about 31 cents . . . per year in food. Let's say it only goes to 10% of those people living on $10 a day. Then, each of those "poorest of the poor" would have $3 of food from the US & UN each year.

Obviously, some other means than cutting off food aid would have to be arranged for a depopulation of the world's poor.

Steve

National Geographic has a series called The Scientific Adam. Adam may have actually been located in Africa; at least an ancestor has been found who's DNA has a peculiarity which matches every male human on earth with no exceptions so far. Fascinating series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GegZmWO1Cr8