Population vs Mismanagement continued...

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: True, Yorick. But I really DON'T understand anyone actually WANTING to in in central city areas. Mainly, they do so because it is handy for their jobs, I suspect. I personally cannot imagine a worse place to live!

Well said. Neither can I! I know that some people find cities exciting, but not me. A small "burg" will do just fine thank you! The prime reason I choose to live in the city is the school that my children attend and economics.

Yorick, I guess I didn't really make myself totally clear either. Unfortuately, one of these days we will begin to run out of fossil fuel. And I think we will take a step back for a while. That will, perhaps be our version of the dark age. Hopefully it will be short and not near as bad as what happened after the fall of the Roman empire.

------------------
Sir Taliesin



If they take my gun can I still use my Axe?

[This message has been edited by Sir Taliesin (edited 09-07-2001).]

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Moridin: Actually I can't imagine a more exhilirating place to live Living downtown provides me with so many more opportunities that I would not have in the suburbs. I am within walking distance of dozens of resteraunts, pubs, clubs, theatres, art galleries and museums. The diversity is so vast...the local coffee shops brim with people from artists to stockbrokers, students to musicians. The city is alive with culture, ever changing. When I go to the suburbs I get a severe case of depression. Things are so drab...all the houses are the same, the same resteraunts, the same shopping centers...minivans and children...no diversity, no culture.

To each his own. I'll take the quite of the country any time over the noise of the city. I also don't find anything wrong with children and minivans. I use to call minivans GOOBER VANS until I had two children of my own. Now I call them a necessity!!! Moridin, if you have children one of these days, you'll regret those words! I also find nothing drab or depressing about mountains, valleys, trees, flowers, lakes and streams and the rest that goes with it. Well one thing I could do without, is the closed mindedness (is that a word) that goes with being raised in some small communities.

One other thing. While we're talking about children here, I can't wait for you all to grow up and start having kids (you see, I personally don't think your a grown up until you do!). All these nefty ideas you all have will go right out the window!!! The "evil" minivan, just being one of them!!! once you start hauling around all that junk you need these days, as a parent, you'll be begging for one. And that, Grasshopper is the lesson of the day.

------------------
Sir Taliesin



If they take my gun can I still use my Axe?

[This message has been edited by Sir Taliesin (edited 09-07-2001).]

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: The problems have always been there. The technology has not. Humans in our type of culture have always had problems living with their environment. Rome during the Empire couldn't feed itself, and had to import mountains of grain from north Africa. During the rise and rise of Rome, the soils of Italy became comparitively barren. The English chopped down forest after forest in Ireland for defensive purposes. (Against the Irish) The changes in lifestyle have nothing to do with population size and everything to do with the extremity of the journey. Humans could keep expanding, hacking into the Amazon, the Daintree and huge Aussie forests and keep on with the same processes. Sooner or later the attitude will destroy what's left. There is much unspoiled land throughout the world. Thankfully we are becomeing alert to our excesses.

*Takes hammer to Yorick's head to pound some sense in*

Yorick I agree one thousand percent with everything quoted above. I am not claiming anything different.

However, you are failing to acknowledge the significance of the way all those other cultures survived, which was to expand into other territories, expanding more and more into the still untapped places left on the planet for resources in the form of food, minerals, etc. as well as sheer physical room for expanding populations.

Now, the simple problem we are facing today is that we are fast running out of those untapped places left on the earth. Our strategy of rapine and slaughter of the environment worked fine -- it was a winning strategy -- until we became so successful at it that we now threaten to consume the whole world.

The signs of human caused serious ecological distress are everywhere, on a world wide scale. It makes no sense to say that this is all the fault of our approach and not take the much greater population into account.

That same approach of rapine and slaughter of the environment was a successful and winning strategy for humans for millenia. The difference between then and now was that the human population was MUCH smaller. (And of course greater technology today) We could live comfortably with that lifestyle. The world ecosystems could support it.

All that changes when the population increases to a level which the world ecosystems cannot support.

"Overpopulate" is defined in my dictionary as follows: to fill (an area, for example) with excessive population to the detriment of the inhabitants, resources, or environment.

"Overpopulation" is defined as: Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.

The proposition is simple: a given ecosystem (including a planetary ecosytem as a whole) can only support so much taxing of its resources. It is finite. It reproduces those resources usually very slowly over long periods of time. If the rate of consumption is greater than the rate of replacement, then eventually the resource will run out.

The rate of consumption of resources that humanity has today is remarkable indeed, and is a combination of 3 things: technological ability, attitude, and TOTAL POPULATION SIZE.

Don't tell me that India has more population but consumes fewer resources than the US. That is comparing apples and oranges.

The relevant comparison is to population growth within a country. Picture the US today, and imagine what it would be like if the population doubled. A massive increase in drain on natural resources. The same will hold true for India when their huge population doubles again. The same holds true the world over!!!!!!!!!

Yes, it is true that the US could consume fewer resources if it changed its approach. It is equally true that the US would consume fewer resources, with the exact same attitude, if its population decreased. BOTH attitude and population size are factors. I fail to understand why you continue to deny the relevance of one of them.




[This message has been edited by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown (edited 09-08-2001).]

[Moridin]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: To each his own. I'll take the quite of the country any time over the noise of the city. I also don't find anything wrong with children and minivans. I use to call minivans GOOBER VANS until I had two children of my own. Now I call them a necessity!!! Moridin, if you have children one of these days, you'll regret those words! I also find nothing drab or depressing about mountains, valleys, trees, flowers, lakes and streams and the rest that goes with it. Well one thing I could do without, is the closed mindedness (is that a word) that goes with being raised in some small communities. One other thing. While we're talking about children here, I can't wait for you all to grow up and start having kids (you see, I personally don't think your a grown up until you do!). All these nefty ideas you all have will go right out the window!!! The "evil" minivan, just being one of them!!! once you start hauling around all that junk you need these days, as a parent, you'll be begging for one. And that, Grasshopper is the lesson of the day.

Well first of all your suburbs are a hell of a lot different than mine And I am not talking about a small community in the middle of nowhere I am talking about suburbs you know those that are basically indistinguishable from the main city...here in the Twin Cities, I literally could drive you from suburb to suburb to suburb and you would think I was just driving you in circles....almost every single suburb has a mall that contains a Cub Foods/Rainbow Foods, Best Buy, Target/Wal-Mart, A couple of chain resteraunts (TGIFridays/Applebees), JoAnn Fabrics/Linens&Things, and a Barnes & Noble...and each one is in this dreary brown stucco exterior....I am not kidding this is every suburb! It is like an eerie dream...no matter where you run the same horror is there staring you in the face!

Second of all...I resent not being called a grown-up until I have a child having children does not make you any more grown-up than me...it changes your attitude on things, but it DOES NOT make you more grown up!!!!!


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


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!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: ...you are failing to acknowledge the significance of the way all those other cultures survived, which was to expand into other territories, expanding more and more into the still untapped places left on the planet for resources in the form of food, minerals, etc. as well as sheer physical room for expanding populations. Now, the simple problem we are facing today is that we are fast running out of those untapped places left on the earth. Our strategy of rapine and slaughter of the environment worked fine -- it was a winning strategy -- until we became so successful at it that we now threaten to consume the whole world. The signs of human caused serious ecological distress are everywhere, on a world wide scale. It makes no sense to say that this is all the fault of our approach and not take the much greater population into account. That same approach of rapine and slaughter of the environment was a successful and winning strategy for humans for millenia. The difference between then and now was that the human population was MUCH smaller. (And of course greater technology today) We could live comfortably with that lifestyle. The world ecosystems could support it. All that changes when the population increases to a level which the world ecosystems cannot support. "Overpopulate" is defined in my dictionary as follows: to fill (an area, for example) with excessive population to the detriment of the inhabitants, resources, or environment. "Overpopulation" is defined as: Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration. The proposition is simple: a given ecosystem (including a planetary ecosytem as a whole) can only support so much taxing of its resources. It is finite. It reproduces those resources usually very slowly over long periods of time. If the rate of consumption is greater than the rate of replacement, then eventually the resource will run out. The rate of consumption of resources that humanity has today is remarkable indeed, and is a combination of 3 things: technological ability, attitude, and TOTAL POPULATION SIZE. Don't tell me that India has more population but consumes fewer resources than the US. That is comparing apples and oranges. The relevant comparison is to population growth within a country. Picture the US today, and imagine what it would be like if the population doubled. A massive increase in drain on natural resources. The same will hold true for India when their huge population doubles again. The same holds true the world over!!!!!!!!! Yes, it is true that the US could consume fewer resources if it changed its approach. It is equally true that the US would consume fewer resources, with the exact same attitude, if its population decreased. BOTH attitude and population size are factors. I fail to understand why you continue to deny the relevance of one of them.

Dio, the arguments you Fjlotsdale and Aelia are making seem to be based on the assumption that our western cultures methods are the only ones. The Amerindian, Australian Aboriginie, Ancient Celt and Finn, Lapp and other indiginous peoples were/are subsistence cultures. In their expanse and rapine methods the city cultures also destroyed/destroy the ecofriendly subsistance cultures who do not harm the environment. The Arnhemland Aboriginies even today live in balance with nature with a respect for the land. Thousands of them leave no "mess" at all.

We have comparisons available. I am not conjecturing on thin air.


I'm glad you posted your definition of Overpopulation.

"Overpopulation" is defined as: Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.

Epona has pointed out that all humanity could fit on the Isle of Wight. We are not running out of space. She also pointed out we have too much food. We are not running out of food. The Amazon and other huge forests are pumping plenty of oxygen into the atmosphere. Air is not on short supply. Water covers more of the globe than land, and we have storehouses of water on both poles, so we are not short on H2O. Wood is replenishable, solar energy is replenishable. If we planned sufficiently to use replenishable rather than fossil fuels, we'd have more than enough raw materials for housing, heat and electricity.

By your definition what we possibly could see is overpopulation of particular areas. But this is as city cultures have always been. Destroying the surrounding environ. The areas we could possibly include in that definition are comparitively small. Hong Kong for example is overcrowded, but then so was Rome. Northern China is running out of water, but then Rome ran out of wheat. I will not accept that the earth is overpopulated when there is plenty of space, plenty of food and plenty of areas undamaged by human mistakes.

Regarding apples and oranges India vs USA that is the whole point. Why should we not compare? THe USA is the land of waste and massive consumption. Huge, huge pickups that eat up gasoline and spew it's fumes back into the air, are driven around by one person each. Chaotic India is a bike nation. America has masses of fast food of enourmous proportions. Beef is everywhere in America while India lives on rice. The USA consumes/damages far more than India despite India having well over three times the population and a big pollution problem. How can we not compare?

Your use of the USA doubling in size and causing horrendous strain is reliant of the US living as it does now. Were the population to double, yet be without the car and the space demanded by roads/parking spaces, the living area needed would shrink.

Fjlotsdale's statement "There are too many damn people" is one I reject totally out of hand.

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

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Diogenes Of Pumpkintown: Yes, it is true that the US could consume fewer resources if it changed its approach. It is equally true that the US would consume fewer resources, with the exact same attitude, if its population decreased. BOTH attitude and population size are factors. I fail to understand why you continue to deny the relevance of one of them

Dio, I should have added, that all that changes with numbers is the speed at which fossil fuels run out. They would have run out at some point, but then one has to ask... was burning them the only use for fossil fuels?

If we are talking about replenishables, water, air, wood, sunlight, then only mismanagement or a huge error would make it run out.

So much in the cycle of consumption is just that. Cyclic. Does not water ultimately pass through us? Do we burn up any of the water in the process? How about air? We create carbon dioxide, trees create oxygen. Balance. We won't run out of air, just adversly affect the balance to heavily one way or the other.

I certainly hope that that new jet which was supposed to run on oxygen, doesn't burn it up. That'd have to give the "biggest moron of human history award" to the inventor if that's the case.

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

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: When you point a finger, five point back at you Fjlotsdale

LOL! True, Yorick!

I think we must agree to disagree?

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

[Fljotsdale]

Diogenes of Pumpkintown: I think I begin to love you! I'm gonna leave this one to you! You do it SO much better than I do!

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

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Diogenes of Pumpkintown: I think I begin to love you! I'm gonna leave this one to you! You do it SO much better than I do!

LOL, he's a great addition to the forum, we all missed him in Serious Discussions on the Mithril Hall.

Originally posted by Moridin: Second of all...I resent not being called a grown-up until I have a child having children does not make you any more grown-up than me...it changes your attitude on things, but it DOES NOT make you more grown up!!!!!

Moridin, I'm with you on this one!!
Sir Taliensin, I think (hope) you meant something different from what you said in that post. If not, then maybe you should consider how incredibly hurtful that statement is to someone who cannot have children. Do you mean to say they will never be grown up? What about people who conciously make a decision not to have children?
Again, I don't think you meant to say that, but if so, naturally I strongly disagree.



------------------
Melusine, High Queen of Fluffies, Archbabe of the OHF, the LH
and the HADB &
Sultry Elflet

Your voice is ambrosia
Amy Brown Fantasy Art

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Melusine: Moridin, I'm with you on this one!! Sir Taliensin, I think (hope) you meant something different from what you said in that post. If not, then maybe you should consider how incredibly hurtful that statement is to someone who cannot have children. Do you mean to say they will never be grown up? What about people who conciously make a decision not to have children? Again, I don't think you meant to say that, but if so, naturally I strongly disagree.

Me too! My 40yr old daugher made a conscious choice not to have children many, many years ago, and has never seen reason to regret that choice. She is, however, adult!

Nonetheless, the childless do NOT really appreciate, imo, the responsibilities, pleasures and burdens of parenthood - it is a part of their potential they have not experienced or developed. It does not make them less adult, but it does make them less able to participate in/empathise with the concerns of parents. And I feel this is true whether a person has CHOSEN not to have children, or whether a person is UNABLE to have children. Forgive me if I am wrong in this assumption.
I hope Sir Taliesin only meant that - but even if not, I suspect his comments were more thoughless and lighthearted than serious in intent.

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