Asylum seekers - what should be done?

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Yorick: Why is this such a terrible solution? There was once water in Lake Eyre, why should there not be again? Have you even been out there? Were you aware for example that the Sahara desert for one, GROWS EACH YEAR. The Mauritanian govt have programs that reclaim roads taken by the desert, and grows food from salt water. Israel have irrigated parts of their deserts. Heck, we have denuded much of the environment and created virtual deserts where concrete exists. Why not give something back? Also I strongly disagree with any sentiment about world population being above sustainable levels. First of all because it admits defeat and that the only solution is human death, and secondly because it is mismanagement, the automobile, and human greed, not human numbers that has caused the problem. There is more than enough food to go around. Farmers in the west are paid not to grow crops. Wheat has been dumped in the ocean to maintain market value before now. We grow millions of cows that produce methane (poo) and consume more than their share of grain, so that we can eat meat each night. (One cows grain diet is supposed to feed an entire african village) Look at all the problems and the various solutions before blaming overpopulation. That is avoidist nonsense in my opinion.

The sentiment that population is unsustainable does not refer to whether we can feed the population as it is now, but whether we can continue to do so in the future if current trends in population growth continue. The point is that while human population continues to increase other species die because of it. By growing 'more than enough food to go around' forests are cleared are countless species of plants, animals and insects are destroyed. The solution isn't human death, but to slow down the rate of human population growth so that we can sustain the WHOLE planet, not just the human part of it. And we are not 'giving something back' by irrigating deserts created by man so as to grow more crops and make new places for humans to live. The only way to give back to an ecosystem where the balance has been changed by human's development is to change it back to the way it was, not so it is more convenient for humans who believe nature is only a resource to be used for their own purposes.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: The sentiment that population is unsustainable does not refer to whether we can feed the population as it is now, but whether we can continue to do so in the future if current trends in population growth continue. The point is that while human population continues to increase other species die because of it. By growing 'more than enough food to go around' forests are cleared are countless species of plants, animals and insects are destroyed. The solution isn't human death, but to slow down the rate of human population growth so that we can sustain the WHOLE planet, not just the human part of it. And we are not 'giving something back' by irrigating deserts created by man so as to grow more crops and make new places for humans to live. The only way to give back to an ecosystem where the balance has been changed by human's development is to change it back to the way it was, not so it is more convenient for humans who believe nature is only a resource to be used for their own purposes.

Aelia, how can you sit there and write that human numbers and not human actions are responsible? Do you really mean to tell me that Human mismanagement and greed are not responsible for the mess?

Again I ask, have you been to the interior of Australia? You did not answer. The desert areas, or even semi desert areas are HUGE.

Take away the car, and we have to live - and are able to live - in a smaller space. The way of the future in terms of living is high rises. An entire block of houses can fit in a high rise.

Man you are so wrong I don't know where to start. Where did you get the figures that we don't have enough food, or won't have enough food? Let me tell you that northern China is running out of water. Rivers are drying up, village wells are running at all time lows. Why? I suppose you'd presume because overpopulation has meant rain shortages.

Wrong.

The govt. dammed rivers up north to eneable greater water supply to Beijing, whose residents waste water by putting on half full washing machine loads for example. Meanwhile the villagers struggle with their near empty wells. The cause of this problem is human management error, not overpopulation.

Regarding forests being cleared do you really think numbers of humans has anything to do with it? You don't think that the car - which has to have a space at source, a space at destination, and room to get there - has anything to do with the "need" for greater expansion? Again, this is a management not numbers issue.

I can't be bothered writing more at this stage, the mindset flabbergasts me. You haven't answered my questions and seem intent on ignoring my points. You ignored the fact that deserts have not always been as they are, and that uninhabitable regions are huge, and that huge cities don't have to cover large spaces.

By all means criticise what we have done to the planet. I'm with you on that. But acknowledge that it is decisions which we can change, not overpopulation which can only be controled by supressing the fundamental thing that makes a family. Children. Have you investigated the one child policy in China? Are you aware that parents would kill baby girls because they wanted a boy, and now there is a huge population of "Little Emperors" or spoilt young males who vastly outnumber their female counterparts?

Yours is a dangerous and avoidist ideology Aelia. Avoidist in that it fails to address the key reasons why we have plundered and raped the planet. It is a copout and actually hinders progress towards a solution IMO.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: And we are not 'giving something back' by irrigating deserts created by man so as to grow more crops and make new places for humans to live.

Would you care to elaborate on the deserts created by man? Where are they? The concrete deserts I referred to are treeless cities. (Not all cities are treeless BTW. Plenty are almost near forests)

The Sahara, The Kalahari, The Great Sandy, The Gibson and The Gobi, plus the deserts in western China, western North America and Antarctica weren't man made! The Aussie deserts did have water in them. There are ancient dry riverbeds and giant salt lakes. We didn't create that!

Human cultures have never even lived in Antarctica let alone created the vast snowless lifeless tracts of land down there.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Fljotsdale]

Yorick, you and Aelia Jusa are BOTH making VERY GOOD points!

Aelia is correct in saying “while human population continues to increase other species die because of it.”

You are correct in saying “Human mismanagement and greed are .. responsible for the mess.”

There is nothing contradictory in those statements. Human mismanagement would not matter nearly as much if there were less of us calling on the available resources.
Of COURSE forest clearing has to do with population growth! How could it not? They are being logged for wood for human use and to clear land for human use! In China, yes, water is being used up by industry and the more affluent city dwellers – but IF THERE WERE NOT SUCH A LARGE POPULATION there would not BE such problems from the flagrant misuse of resources – there would be enough for all.
Human greed IS a huge factor in mismanagement, but that does not mean there is no overpopulation problem. Human beings have nearly ALWAYS exploited resources – but with low levels of population it did not matter – we just moved to different areas and the exploited area recovered. That is no longer the case. We are no longer nomadic. We just have the same mind-set as nomads, only with nowhere else to move to.

Yes, we have enough food to feed us all, yes we waste it, as we waste everything. The motor car, as you point out, is one of the major wasters of resources we have invented. (But if all motorists had horses instead – think of the manure in the streets! Hardly environmentally friendly, either! At least as much greenhouse gas production as cars, plus the cleaning costs and the smell and the mess!)

But population is increasing to the extent that, as Aelia said:
“The sentiment that population is unsustainable does not refer to whether we can feed the population as it is now, but whether we can continue to do so in the future if current trends in population growth continue.”

What the dickens is there in that to make you blow a gasket? She is right.

We NEED to manage things better – I am with you all the way on that. We can do little to control population growth – and anyway, I think nature or pollution is already doing something about that, at least in the Western nations. (Sperm count and motility is apparently going down, as is the birth rate. But it has not affected ‘third world’ populations yet).

About the killing of China’s girl-babies. It sickens me too, as it would anyone. But they are going to have a dramatic short-term decrease in population aren’t they, as the boy-babies find no partners? Which is what the government was aiming for. Not a solution most of us would opt for, but when you see your population growing out of control and you have cut yourself off from outside aid and advice, a powerful, draconian government will take measures that seem insane to the observer, and justify it by the fact that it works – if it DOES work, of course.

Oh – human-made deserts: what about the dust-bowl in America’s corn belt? Man-made, so far as I am aware. Though I have to confess I do not have recent info on it. However, I found this:
‘The World Resources 1992-1993 documents the types and causes of soil degradation. The types include water and wind erosion and physical and chemical deterioration; the causes include deforestation, overexploitation, overgrazing, and other agricultural activities.’
Soil erosion leads ultimately to desertification. I read somewhere that whole past civilisations were destroyed by overexploitation of land and its subsequent erosion/desertification.
Yes, lots of deserts are natural. As such, they sustain wildlife adapted to live in deserts, and to irrigate such natural habitats is to destroy the indigenous wildlife simply so that human population can grow unchecked. Unwise. Saying that it used to be covered in water is no excuse to destroy the current thousands of years-old environment by irrigation. Humans did not put the water there in the first place, nor did they take it away.
To restore desert or soil-eroded areas that WE have created, however, is simply to restore what was there formerly.
You and Aelia Jusa are not so far apart in your thinking as you believe!


------------------

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Yorick, you and Aelia Jusa are BOTH making VERY GOOD points! Aelia is correct in saying “while human population continues to increase other species die because of it.” You are correct in saying “Human mismanagement and greed are .. responsible for the mess.” There is nothing contradictory in those statements. Human mismanagement would not matter nearly as much if there were less of us calling on the available resources. Of COURSE forest clearing has to do with population growth! How could it not? They are being logged for wood for human use and to clear land for human use! In China, yes, water is being used up by industry and the more affluent city dwellers – but IF THERE WERE NOT SUCH A LARGE POPULATION there would not BE such problems from the flagrant misuse of resources – there would be enough for all. Human greed IS a huge factor in mismanagement, but that does not mean there is no overpopulation problem. Human beings have nearly ALWAYS exploited resources – but with low levels of population it did not matter – we just moved to different areas and the exploited area recovered. That is no longer the case. We are no longer nomadic. We just have the same mind-set as nomads, only with nowhere else to move to. Yes, we have enough food to feed us all, yes we waste it, as we waste everything. The motor car, as you point out, is one of the major wasters of resources we have invented. (But if all motorists had horses instead – think of the manure in the streets! Hardly environmentally friendly, either! At least as much greenhouse gas production as cars, plus the cleaning costs and the smell and the mess!) But population is increasing to the extent that, as Aelia said: “The sentiment that population is unsustainable does not refer to whether we can feed the population as it is now, but whether we can continue to do so in the future if current trends in population growth continue.” What the dickens is there in that to make you blow a gasket? She is right. We NEED to manage things better – I am with you all the way on that. We can do little to control population growth – and anyway, I think nature or pollution is already doing something about that, at least in the Western nations. (Sperm count and motility is apparently going down, as is the birth rate. But it has not affected ‘third world’ populations yet). About the killing of China’s girl-babies. It sickens me too, as it would anyone. But they are going to have a dramatic short-term decrease in population aren’t they, as the boy-babies find no partners? Which is what the government was aiming for. Not a solution most of us would opt for, but when you see your population growing out of control and you have cut yourself off from outside aid and advice, a powerful, draconian government will take measures that seem insane to the observer, and justify it by the fact that it works – if it DOES work, of course. Oh – human-made deserts: what about the dust-bowl in America’s corn belt? Man-made, so far as I am aware. Though I have to confess I do not have recent info on it. However, I found this: ‘The World Resources 1992-1993 documents the types and causes of soil degradation. The types include water and wind erosion and physical and chemical deterioration; the causes include deforestation, overexploitation, overgrazing, and other agricultural activities.’ Soil erosion leads ultimately to desertification. I read somewhere that whole past civilisations were destroyed by overexploitation of land and its subsequent erosion/desertification. Yes, lots of deserts are natural. As such, they sustain wildlife adapted to live in deserts, and to irrigate such natural habitats is to destroy the indigenous wildlife simply so that human population can grow unchecked. Unwise. Saying that it used to be covered in water is no excuse to destroy the current thousands of years-old environment by irrigation. Humans did not put the water there in the first place, nor did they take it away. To restore desert or soil-eroded areas that WE have created, however, is simply to restore what was there formerly. You and Aelia Jusa are not so far apart in your thinking as you believe!

Fjlotadsale there is so much desert and so little life in them that one could irrigate sections for rice or crops and not impact wildlfe in the same way that cutting down forests does. We are cutting them down even now? What is wrong with counterbalancing?

Also I disgree that human growth has wiped out species. Human actions have wiped out species. The extinctions of the Dodo, the Tasmanian Tiger (Thyacaline) the Moa, are because of human actions, not spread. The whale hunting that has disasterously affected whale numbers to critical levels had nothing to do with numbers but desires for soap and whale products. Even now, there is so much fish, how can someone justify buying and eating SWORDFISH - an endangered fish! This is callousness, ignorance, selfishness, ambivalence, and greed not numbers. The numbers game has a solution so impossible, so out of the control of an ordinary person it is as useless as it is wrong. People give up. "Oh well I can't do anything about it, it's natural" "All I can do is not have any children to contribute to the solution"



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Aelia Jusa]

Oh dear, we are getting nowhere, Yorick. Aelia Jusa's first rule of debating: quit while you still can. I can see I'm not convincing you, and you are certainly not convincing me, so let's agree to disagree, shall we?

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: Fjlotadsale there is so much desert and so little life in them that one could irrigate sections for rice or crops and not impact wildlfe in the same way that cutting down forests does. We are cutting them down even now? What is wrong with counterbalancing? Also I disgree that human growth has wiped out species. Human actions have wiped out species. The extinctions of the Dodo, the Tasmanian Tiger (Thyacaline) the Moa, are because of human actions, not spread. The whale hunting that has disasterously affected whale numbers to critical levels had nothing to do with numbers but desires for soap and whale products. Even now, there is so much fish, how can someone justify buying and eating SWORDFISH - an endangered fish! This is callousness, ignorance, selfishness, ambivalence, and greed not numbers. The numbers game has a solution so impossible, so out of the control of an ordinary person it is as useless as it is wrong. People give up. "Oh well I can't do anything about it, it's natural" "All I can do is not have any children to contribute to the solution"

I remember watching a TV nature programme some time ago about the Austalian desert. The quantity and variety of the wildlife was amazing. Of course, most of it was small. So it doesn't count, does it?
Obviously, you are correct to point out that the wildlife in the rainforests (and other forest types) is much greater in both size and quantity - but it is not justifiable to destroy either type of environment so that we can continue expanding relentlessly, like a plague.
And, Yorick, how CAN you say that human population growth has not wiped out wildlife species? The human actions have FOLLOWED human expansion into other areas as populations increased.
And fish ARE decreasing! At least the types we use extensively as food - we are even catching and eating immature fish, thus reducing their numbers even more because they have no chance to breed. The reason is because there are MORE MOUTHS TO FEED. Yes, "callousness, ignorance, selfishness, ambivalence, and greed" but ALSO NUMBERS!
You can't shut out the population increase factor! THAT is avoidance of the issue. You don't seem to like the idea that we need to reduce the birth rate, but it NEEDS to be reduced. Look round New York while you are there. Look at the 'haves'. Then look in the backstreets and the shop doorways at night and see the 'have-nots'. We have them in British cities, I imagine they are in Australian cities. Then look at the REAL poor in the third world...
Tell me we wouldn't be better with a reduced population and a more even distribution of wealth.
Yeah, I know I want Utopia. Who doesn't?

------------------

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: I remember watching a TV nature programme some time ago about the Austalian desert. The quantity and variety of the wildlife was amazing. Of course, most of it was small. So it doesn't count, does it? Obviously, you are correct to point out that the wildlife in the rainforests (and other forest types) is much greater in both size and quantity - but it is not justifiable to destroy either type of environment so that we can continue expanding relentlessly, like a plague. And, Yorick, how CAN you say that human population growth has not wiped out wildlife species? The human actions have FOLLOWED human expansion into other areas as populations increased. And fish ARE decreasing! At least the types we use extensively as food - we are even catching and eating immature fish, thus reducing their numbers even more because they have no chance to breed. The reason is because there are MORE MOUTHS TO FEED. Yes, "callousness, ignorance, selfishness, ambivalence, and greed" but ALSO NUMBERS! You can't shut out the population increase factor! THAT is avoidance of the issue. You don't seem to like the idea that we need to reduce the birth rate, but it NEEDS to be reduced. Look round New York while you are there. Look at the 'haves'. Then look in the backstreets and the shop doorways at night and see the 'have-nots'. We have them in British cities, I imagine they are in Australian cities. Then look at the REAL poor in the third world... Tell me we wouldn't be better with a reduced population and a more even distribution of wealth. Yeah, I know I want Utopia. Who doesn't?

Fjlotsdale, you are wrong and I can prove it. With a vastly smaller population on the planet, there were still haves and have nots. Rome circa 1AD.



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Memnoch]

Guys, do you want to move this (new) discussion to a new thread? I have no problem at all with it staying here, but you might not get as many people visiting this thread and so you might miss out on other perspectives. Just a thought.

------------------

[Moridin]

Just wanted to throw in my view.

With the current mismanagement of land, resources, food, wealth, etc...we cannot continue to increase the population at the current rates. No matter what you blame for our problems (mismanagement or population) we have to slow one and change the other. These things go hand in hand. If we continue to increase the population, AND continue to mismanage, the problem will just be increased tenfold! However, if we can change our management of our surroundings then I think the population increase can continue (although not indefinately).

I have a far fetched idea that I would like to throw out there. Yorick, you mentioned bringing irrigation to the deserts to allow food growth and settlement in these areas. This has been done in the past, Egypt's irrigation from the Nile perhaps the most successful...well anyway, 2/3 of this world is water, what about using the oceans as a source of food growth (and no not just fishing). Does anybody see this as a possibility? Technology does not exist (at least not that I know of) but could we 'engineer' a plant that could grow in the salty confines of the ocean, I don't know what kind, but not all plants need soil to grow...I don't know just wanted to toss it out there!

------------------


Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig
I've got to admit it's getting better, it's getting better all the time
Bossman of Better Funny Stuff.....of the Laughing Hyenas!