rigorousintuition.ca

I can see that people are very passionate about this. I'd really like to see some proof that there is a population problem though. The EU regularly destroys hundreds of tonnes of food supposedly to keep prices high. This is a crime against humanity as long as there are people starving a thousand miles away in Africa. The destruction of the planet's enviroment is being caused by the same industrialists that are in this 'Good' group, not by the poor people they keep as chattal. Paul Ehrlich was trotted out on an Irish documentary the other night as being an expert on the subject. The guy's a fucking butterfly doctor. He's been harping on about the same shit for 40 years. In the '60's he was claiming that India would suffer mass starvation if the population grew from 450 to 650 million. There's nearly a billion there now and they have loads of food. Ehrlich and his ilk either don't know their arses from their elbows or they are lying eugenicist scumbags. The top guys at the WWF and it's sister organisation the 1,001 Club are evil oligarchs and their cronies. They made their fortunes destroying the enviroment and now they want everyone else to pay for the damage they've done. One thing you never hear from these shitebags are solutions that don't involve a massive cull of the human population. He's one solution off the top of my head: set up solar powered pumps and flood the shit out of the Sahara desert and grow saline-loving food crops there. Bingo, millions of hectares of agricultural land. Oil running out? Just drill a bit deeper, there's shedloads of it down there ffs.

I've been to some desperately poor countries. What they need is to have the crippling debts that their corrupt leaders signed them on for forgiven. Maybe then they won't have to incinerate every tree in sight because charcaol is the only thing they can sell. And they need the effing WWF and Bill Gates and his missus to stay the fuck away from them with their "Good" "Help". CO2 is not a toxic gas, Jesus. *sigh*

My point about Haiti wasn't that poor people caused their own situation, I know better than that, I was simply using that one example of how desperately poor people can be just as destructive on an environment as rich ones.

I don't think I'd want to live on a planet where there were 1,000 billion of us. Count me out.

The rain forests will be long gone before that happens, which will sorta negate any possibility of there being that many people on the planet at all.

Nature will run its course on the human population, which is not exactly something we should be welcoming. If anything, we should avoid nature's response to overpopulation. When it happens with other animals, it ain't pretty.

Let all who believe that population reduction is the solution to the world's problems fall on their swords. Any takers?
Seriously, since the seventies, we have been sold the overpopulation theme which carries in it the germ of anti humanism, and a casualness about the taking of human life. The poor already get a drastically increased mortality rate, by virtue of their poverty. I suppose that's ok because they ought never to have been born.

Nah, its a good idea if it is targeted right ( ) -
starting at those segments who currently are the richest and most influential people. Like the posse with Bill. And their riches used to improve education, health care, family planning and contraceptive use (think the bloody catholic church, f. ex.) and vegetarian diet, as well as advancing farming methods that are not dependant on chemical fertilizers and heavy machinery that together cause also erosion and soil depletion together with spoilage of rivers, lakes and sea areas, ie. permaculture etc, forestation and other ecological projects.

Im not holding my breath for them to suggest this obvious solution. They are the ones that are doing the most harm with their greed.
Cue Isaac Asimovs "The Winnowing".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Winnowing

"The Winnowing" is a science fiction short story by Isaac Asimov. The story was written at the request of William Levinson, editor of the US publication Physician's World, but when the latter ceased publication, the story was returned to the author, who then sold it to Analog. It appeared in the February 1976 edition.

In the year 2005, the world's population of six billion is suffering from acute famine. The World Food Organisation decides on desperate measures to decrease the population by a process of triage. They propose to do this by adding selective poisons to certain food shipments to grossly over-populated areas.

They blackmail biochemist Dr Aaron Rodman into cooperating with their scheme, proposing to utilise his development of LP - a lipoprotein which when incorporated into foods will cause random deaths.

The scheme is planned but Rodman is finally unable to go along with it. At a meeting between himself and senior government officials and members of the World Food Council, he feeds them with sandwiches laced at random with the LP, so that they too will die at random. He carefully matches the LP in the sandwiches he eats to his own metabolism, so that he will die quickly and not be guilty of involvement in the scheme.

The problem is greed, growth ("economic Ponzi") and competition. Solve those and we are well on the way to solving other problems.
A friend said of money - if you accumulate it, you are using it all wrong. It is supposed to only be a means of exchange, not something to be hoarded

Hairball - I would suggest you take a look at this book -
http://www.rainbowbody.net/Finalempire/ by WIlliam Kötke
We really are abusing and overusing the resources this planet offers. And we have been doing so for maybe around 10 000 years. That is a fact, never mind CO2 or what you think it is about.

1,000 billion? what a miserable ball of shit it would be then ...

vast numbers of the worlds population live in urban jungles made up of huge tower blocks row on row,
yeah sure, we could somehow magically come up with limitless amounts of steel and build 200 storey apartment blocks everywhere to house billions more but what the fuck is the point,

it would be horrible, who wants t end up with a globe that looks like a giant prison colony,

and as for schemes like flooding the deserts to creat more food hasnt anybody learnt yet, all these kinds of schemes come with massive negative unforseen consequences,
huge numbers of people currently starve all the time, and that is set to get worse,
the low hanging fruit gains we made in the seventies in agriculture are done,

food production will be reduced over the next twenty years, not increased,
cheap available energy is running out and has unleashed major problems,
the forests and the oceans that are left are under immense pressure

the only way forward is a pull back from humans and a limiting of modes of life,
and the record shows that people dont volunteer for that shit

I should also add that this crisis is nothing new - it has been repeated with every empire in history in cycles, ours just happens to be a planetary empire now.

The problem is - empires use resources to grow and produce stuff, from food to warships. This energy and materials are taken from the surrounding life, ie. ecosystems. When the carrying capacity, in other words, ability of the ecosystems to replenish themselves is exceeded, they are irreparably damaged. When this is done for long enough, collapse follows. All empires in the past have followed this same route, and ours is well on its way too. It has nothing to do with CO2 alone - it is true for any and every area of actual life on this planet.

Currently the human population has already overshot the carrying capacity of the planet in every major area, and that is what we need to fix. The problem is our whole culture, so called civilization, down to its foundations and the ways we think and experience. Language too.

We need to learn to play by the rules of life itself. Give as much as you take, replenish what you use up, humans are not special compared to other life, we do not exist in a vacuum outside all other life - we cannot exist except as a part of the whole wheel of life. Our current troubles all stem from this huge error we have somehow made at some point in history when we embarked upon this civilization power trip.

barracuda wrote:The Easter Islanders could easily have prevented the catastrophe which overcame them. They were destroyed by their religious practises and by effects of climate change uncaused by man.

I love you too, man.

This is true for us as well. Just replace "religious" with cultural, traditional etc. or, most of all, economic.

Good points everyone.

Carbon nanotubes may have saved us all though:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 115016.htm

Nanotube-exposed seeds sprouted up to two times faster than control seeds and the seedlings weighed more than twice as much as the untreated plants. Those effects may occur because nanotubes penetrate the seed coat and boost water uptake, the researchers state. "This observed positive effect of CNTs on the seed germination could have significant economic importance for agriculture, horticulture, and the energy sector, such as for production of biofuels," they add.

We seem to treat reality as one big collection of objects. Having this static view of the world is to declare that there is essentially no benefit in using ones imagination.

After all, the cake has already been baked.

Sounder wrote:We seem to treat reality as one big collection of objects. Having this static view of the world is to declare that there is essentially no benefit in using ones imagination.

After all, the cake has already been baked.

That is the basis of authority?

Pengu wrote...

That is the basis of authority?

I don't quite get the drift of your question Pengu.

At any rate I'm sure that the 'powers that make belief' like it when the use of imagination is left to them.

smiths wrote:1,000 billion? what a miserable ball of shit it would be then ...

Well, smiths, you have to like people. Humans are the only species that despise themselves, which I find ridiculous, and the bottom of much grief. If you don't like people, then no wonder depopulation seems like a good idea. I happen to like people, myself. Lots of them might be a lot of fun - if they all liked each other.

vast numbers of the worlds population live in urban jungles made up of huge tower blocks row on row,
yeah sure, we could somehow magically come up with limitless amounts of steel and build 200 storey apartment blocks everywhere to house billions more but what the fuck is the point,

Your dystopian vision of communist worker hive housing, though, is not the only straight line future approximation possible. The surface area of the earth is about 127,500,000,000 acres, not counting peaks and valleys, so it's not as if we're out of room.

it would be horrible, who wants t end up with a globe that looks like a giant prison colony,

You speak as if there is no such thing as beautiful architecture, or organic methods of integrating humans within their environment.

and as for schemes like flooding the deserts to creat more food hasnt anybody learnt yet, all these kinds of schemes come with massive negative unforseen consequences,
huge numbers of people currently starve all the time, and that is set to get worse,
the low hanging fruit gains we made in the seventies in agriculture are done,

food production will be reduced over the next twenty years, not increased,
cheap available energy is running out and has unleashed major problems,
the forests and the oceans that are left are under immense pressure

the only way forward is a pull back from humans and a limiting of modes of life,
and the record shows that people dont volunteer for that shit

I think even you'd agree that is not the only way forward. There are many directions to consider.

Sounder wrote:We seem to treat reality as one big collection of objects. Having this static view of the world is to declare that there is essentially no benefit in using ones imagination.

Exactly. I would say that imagination is the correct way forward.

Pengu wrote…

The problem is greed, growth ("economic Ponzi") and competition.

Agreed, and these are matters of consciousness rather than one of rearranging deck chairs.

Also, ‘carrying capacity’ is not much more than another thought stopper.

Cuda wrote…

Well, smiths, you have to like people. Humans are the only species that despise themselves, which I find ridiculous, and the bottom of much grief. If you don't like people, then no wonder depopulation seems like a good idea. I happen to like people, myself. Lots of them might be a lot of fun - if they all liked each other.

We have been goaded on by psychopathic leaders for so long that killing other humans is accepted as a solution to a whole slew of problems. Formalizing Dualism finalized the divorce of the heart and the intellect. I think it was done consciously because the participatory consciousness, that held sway till the Middle Ages, did not validate an exploitive ethic.

Nothing of fundamental relevance to the human condition can happen until this beast is slain.

Sounder wrote:

We seem to treat reality as one big collection of objects. Having this static view of the world is to declare that there is essentially no benefit in using ones imagination.

cuda wrote...
Exactly. I would say that imagination is the correct way forward.

(Second time around)
We do need to recognize however that imagination has pitfalls the same way that intellect does. Especially considering that so far the function of artistry is to fill the ‘basic fault’ created by the splitting of the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘material’. Those are in quotes because they are no more than artifacts of incorrect assumptions within dualism. When we get past dualism we will collapse the ‘basic fault’ rather than continuing to fill the gap with the garbage of unconscious longing.

(1st attempt)
Thanks cuda, I’m reminded here of the late 19th century poobah of physics that opined that all essential elements of our physical model were already known and all that was left was to add decimal points of accuracy. That may be laughable now but the point remains that any relative truth framework may look complete if one is looking from within said system. Even now, how many possibilities of science are missed because of the anthropomorphic conceit and bias that accepts that if something cannot be measured, or established to have extension in space, can then be said to not exist. Science is as much a social construct as is religion.

We use imagination to soften the hard edges of rationality, but we also need the rational to contain flighty elements within imagination.

Sorry for the thoughtstopper.

We have been goaded on by psychopathic leaders for so long that killing other humans is accepted as a solution to a whole slew of problems. Formalizing Dualism finalized the divorce of the heart and the intellect. I think it was done consciously because the participatory consciousness, that held sway till the Middle Ages, did not validate an exploitive ethic.

Nothing of fundamental relevance to the human condition can happen until this beast is slain.

...

That may be laughable now but the point remains that any relative truth framework may look complete if one is looking from within said system. Even now, how many possibilities of science are missed because of the anthropomorphic conceit and bias that accepts that if something cannot be measured, or established to have extension in space, can then be said to not exist. Science is as much a social construct as is religion.

We use imagination to soften the hard edges of rationality, but we also need the rational to contain flighty elements within imagination.

Yes.

No problem Pengu, we are all victimized from time to time. I just thank C2W? for bringing the phrase to us.

Did I ever tell you how much I love you? Well I do. Lots and lots of love.

barracuda wrote:

smiths wrote:1,000 billion? what a miserable ball of shit it would be then ...

Well, smiths, you have to like people. Humans are the only species that despise themselves, which I find ridiculous, and the bottom of much grief. If you don't like people, then no wonder depopulation seems like a good idea. I happen to like people, myself. Lots of them might be a lot of fun - if they all liked each other.

vast numbers of the worlds population live in urban jungles made up of huge tower blocks row on row,
yeah sure, we could somehow magically come up with limitless amounts of steel and build 200 storey apartment blocks everywhere to house billions more but what the fuck is the point,

Your dystopian vision of communist worker hive housing, though, is not the only straight line future approximation possible. The surface area of the earth is about 127,500,000,000 acres, not counting peaks and valleys, so it's not as if we're out of room.

it would be horrible, who wants t end up with a globe that looks like a giant prison colony,

You speak as if there is no such thing as beautiful architecture, or organic methods of integrating humans within their environment.

and as for schemes like flooding the deserts to creat more food hasnt anybody learnt yet, all these kinds of schemes come with massive negative unforseen consequences,
huge numbers of people currently starve all the time, and that is set to get worse,
the low hanging fruit gains we made in the seventies in agriculture are done,

food production will be reduced over the next twenty years, not increased,
cheap available energy is running out and has unleashed major problems,
the forests and the oceans that are left are under immense pressure

the only way forward is a pull back from humans and a limiting of modes of life,
and the record shows that people dont volunteer for that shit

I think even you'd agree that is not the only way forward. There are many directions to consider.

Sounder wrote:We seem to treat reality as one big collection of objects. Having this static view of the world is to declare that there is essentially no benefit in using ones imagination.

Exactly. I would say that imagination is the correct way forward.

Barracuda, I have enormous respect for you, but this post of yours is just plain daft in its entirety. (Maybe you were joking?)