The Problem is Simple

[LC EFA]

The Problem is Simple.

DUmmies discuss overpopulation, and wonder as to the solutions.

marmar  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)    Fri Aug-08-08 08:12 AM
Original message
The Problem Is Simple: Too Many People, Too Much Stuff   Updated at 4:04 PM
   
via AlterNet:

The Problem Is Simple: Too Many People, Too Much Stuff

By Paul & Anne Ehrlich, Yale Environment 360. Posted August 7, 2008.

An equitable and humane solution to overpopulation and overconsumption may actually be possible.

-[Snipped out linked article]-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x166456

I didn't bother to read the linked document but have a fair idea of what it would say, based on the fact it's posted at the DUmp.

DangerDave921  (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. so are we taking volunteers for euthanasia?

You don't expect a DUmmie to actually put their words into action do you. That would mean them getting off their bum, putting on clothes , and .... ah who cares lets eat some more cheetos.

GliderGuider  Donating Member Fri Aug-08-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. What the hell is it with "euthanasia"?
   
Edited on Fri Aug-08-08 11:02 AM by GliderGuider
The instant anyone starts talking about human population levels perhaps being too high, someone drags out this contemptible red herring.

I have yet to read a single population analyst who favoured euthanasia. The term seems to be used like the accusation "conspiracy theory" is used in other arguments, as an attempt to stifle an uncomfortable debate by using an emotionally-loaded misdirection.

It's a shoddy debating tactic, and deserves to be roundly dismissed every time it appears.

DangerDave921 (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Chill, my friend
   
I was kidding. I thought the notion of volunteering for euthanasia was silly enough that it would be recognized as humor. Because who would actually volunteer for such a thing?

Clearly, none of the overpopulation nutjobs.

SheilaT  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. I've been saying for thirty years or so
   
that there are too many people on the planet. And have been for at least that long. If we don't somehow reduce our numbers voluntarily, a mass die-off will eventually happen in some way. It always does, when a species exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment.

If you need some volunteers for population reduction, you'd best volunteer yourself post haste then, unless it's everyone else you want to "reduce".

DangerDave921 (1000+ posts)    Fri Aug-08-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. What is the ideal number?
   
How many is too many?

GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. About 1 billion
   
The same number that the planet supported before the fossil fuel craze got rolling.

Just so we're clear here, you are advocating that circa 5 BILLION lives are terminated. That's pretty f***ed up.

GliderGuider  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. We can't
   
Edited on Fri Aug-08-08 11:16 AM by GliderGuider
We might be able to reduce our growth rate, but voluntarily reducing our total numbers has so far proved to be beyond the reach of mortal man. There are simply too many cultural and genetic imperatives arrayed against such action.

In any event, the degree of population reduction we would need to come back into balance with the planet's carrying capacity within the next hundred years vastly exceeds human capabilities. The example I always use is WWII. That all-out global war killed about 10 million people per year for six years. To bring our population down from 6.7 billion to 1 billion by the year 2100 would require about 100 million excess deaths per year, every year. It would be like having 10 simultaneous world wars raging on the planet continuously for the next hundred years. We are simply not capable of bringing (or even wishing) that degree of misery on ourselves.

That's why I say that if it happens, Mother Nature will do it. She has no scruples and far greater power than we do.

Quit waiting for "mother nature" to take care of the problem, be proactive and put your err "money" where your mouth is.

Gregorian  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
27. There's a lone voice in the wilderfness.
   
I just don't know why there is such ignorance and silence over this issue. Zero Population Growth all but disappeared. Population Connection is busy watching Congress, but doing nothing essentially.

I've posted nearly identical words as what are found in Ehrlich's article, on DU, and often receive rebuttals from those who deny the truth.

This is the single most important subject there is. All others neccisarily follow. War, consumption, politics. War is debatable. We've always fought. But the situation is aggrivated by larger numbers.

We may have become an unchallenged specie,but we don't rule the planet. It's infuriating for those of us who are aware to watch.

Just 'cause you believe that, doesn't make it true.

[Lord Undies]

They could start by tying John Edward's tetterboy in a knot.

[BannedFromDU]

There is always the chance that they're talking about an overpopulation of liberals, in which case I agree and am eagerly anticipating the voluntary decline in their numbers.

[Chris_]

Paul Ehrlich is a debunked jackass.  Here's a sample of his "predictions".  This guy is about as reliable as Jim Cramer is on money.

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, ... The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." Paul Ehrlich in an interview with Peter Collier in the April 1970 of the magazine Mademoiselle.

By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." Paul Ehrlich in special Earth Day (1970) issue of the magazine Ramparts.

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death." (Population Bomb 1968)

"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969)

"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." (1976)

"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." (1969)

"By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million." (1969)

"Actually, the problem in the world is that there is much too many rich people..." - Quoted by the Associated Press, April 6, 1990

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Quoted by R. Emmett Tyrrell in The American Spectator, September 6, 1992

"We've already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure." - Quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in her book Trashing the Planet (1990)

[delilahmused]

GliderGuider  Donating Member  (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-08-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. We can't
   
Edited on Fri Aug-08-08 11:16 AM by GliderGuider
We might be able to reduce our growth rate, but voluntarily reducing our total numbers has so far proved to be beyond the reach of mortal man. There are simply too many cultural and genetic imperatives arrayed against such action.

In any event, the degree of population reduction we would need to come back into balance with the planet's carrying capacity within the next hundred years vastly exceeds human capabilities. The example I always use is WWII. That all-out global war killed about 10 million people per year for six years. To bring our population down from 6.7 billion to 1 billion by the year 2100 would require about 100 million excess deaths per year, every year. It would be like having 10 simultaneous world wars raging on the planet continuously for the next hundred years. We are simply not capable of bringing (or even wishing) that degree of misery on ourselves.

That's why I say that if it happens, Mother Nature will do it. She has no scruples and far greater power than we do.

Well the next time one of those imbeciles is ranting and raving about how many millions of people Bush has killed this month we can just remind them of this thread and explain that the president is just doing his part to bring the population of the planet to more sustainable levels. Every time a DUmmie shirks its responsibility to self-euthanize, an Iraqi dies.

Cindie

[BlueStateSaint]

Every time a DUmmie shirks its responsibility to self-euthanize, an Iraqi dies.

Cindie

 

H5!

[franksolich]

[DixieBelle]

H5 cindie!

[BlueStateSaint]

H5 for that shot, Coach!