Population vs Mismanagement continued...

[Yorick]

This topic was birthed inthis womb.


Moridin, Mauritania has been experimenting with Salt water crops as well as fighting the expansion of the Sahara. It's a great idea. What get's me is when we look at Australia, by far one of the least exploited lands (which is good) but whose most fertile forested areas are along the eastern coast - which now has cities. We historicaly have felt no problem in building cities and destroying forests, yet now when the possiblility or evening the forest/desert ratio back towards forests or grasslands people have a problem.

The witchetty grub is not under exinction. Desert dwelling animals are very small in number (I did not mean size). The Eastern Quokka is, probably totally extinct if not close.

Also, city dwellers have always freaked out their environment. London was a rat infested, plague ridden mess. The answer is not human reduction, but human/environment harmony. The poor have always supported the rich, country to country and within a society. What makes Fjlotsdale et al assume that lesser numbers will make any difference when the same mistakes are being made that city cultures have always made?

The other side of the coin is that it is the poorer nations that capitalism rests on that have the largest population growth problems. Brazil, India. Wealth has generally brought smaller family sizes, less infant mortality and higher life expectancy.

The thing is, I look at Singapore. It has a tiny amount of land, but uses it very wisely. "If you can't live on it, work on it or drive on it, you can bet it looks good." So the saying goes. I come over to America and there are huge, huge tracts of land left unused and ugly. Same in Australia. Cities don't need to take up the room that they do. Remove the car and create the polis and you have greater amounts of people in smaller areas, reliance on mass transit (cheaper, cleaner, cost effective) and walking (fitter humans). More areas of land left for food and restoration to original habitat. (I can't wait for us to run out of oil, and have to rely on solar and wind energy.) With a greater even distribution of wealth, there is less need for a large family to "work the farm" or "take care of the aged".

However this is a substancial mental shift for most western cultures, bred on isolated suburban living seperated from necessities and societies by the car. One cannot live in some areas without one. The shift towards this is more possible than enforced population reduction which removes from humans one of the most completing, circular parts of live. Having a child.

It is the ultimate act of creation. The child becomes a parent. Families are mini societies. We have seen the breakdown of the extended family and the role of grandparents involved in the rearing of children. The industrial revolution removed fathers from the home and child rearing, and has led to the breakdown of the nuclear family. Now we are talking no families at all. Perhaps one child for who? The rich? Remove an eternal source of joy from the poor? The oppressed?

To my knowledge no one has presented a viable humanitarian plan for population reduction. Plenty have put forward plans for greater resource management. I believe the over-population "problem" to be the line in the sand. The line we must draw between staring reality in the face, realising our collective greed and learning to live in harmony with the environment instead of plundering it; and the other side blaming others - mysterious numbers that will take years and a harsh government to regulate so that we don't have to change anything in our own lives. We can stay in the comfort zone safe in the knowledge that short of a bomb, ebola virus or comet, human number reduction won't occur in our lifetime, so we may as well live as we ever have.

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

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Memnoch]

Very well said. I couldn't have said it better myself. The reality is that our population will continue to grow, it is up to us to ensure that we have the infrastructure to support that without adversely affecting the planet.

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

[Moridin]

Yorick,

I did not know that about Mauritania, will have to do a little research!

As for the destruction of forest but ignoring of the desert. I think it is the simple fact that the 'climate' that allows for the growth of forest and grasslands is also is best suited for human comfort. Who would really choose to live in the desert? Humans look first for comfort and then worry about what that comfort costs at a much later date.

I understand the desire to reproduce...that really is the basic fundamental underlying every species. But, why do we have to increase? I agree that wealth does bring smaller family size. The basic reason behind it is the fact that a) families do not need 6,7,8 children to work the farm...and b) wealth brings better living conditions (i.e. health care, water purification) and this pretty much gaurentees that all of your children will reach adulthood, so you do not have to have 6 children with the hopes that 2 or 3 will reach adulthood.

My question is, why do couples feel the need to have more than 2 children. What is wrong with simply replenishing the species rather than increasing it? I know we cannot remove the right to have children, but couldn't there be a cap on it? This does not discriminate against the poor any more than the rich!

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


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!

[skywalker]

My wife and I have 0 children. Since I haven't grown up yet, I guess she doesn't need one!

Mark

[Sazerac]

Originally posted by skywalker: My wife and I have 0 children. Since I haven't grown up yet, I guess she doesn't need one! Mark

Same here, Mark! Actually, I think my wife and I are "kids together."



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

[Fljotsdale]

This lot didn't get transferred, and I refuse to be left out, lol!

Originally posted by Yorick: 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.

Sigh. Yorick, there have ALWAYS been haves and have-nots. Even among cave-men. Why? Various factors: intellignece, physical fitness, injury; selfishness, greed, kindness, compassion. Nothing new.
What IS new is the scale of the problem - BECAUSE WE HAVE TOO DAMN MUCH POPULATION!!
What's wrong with acknowledging that, Yorick? Is it a religious thing with you?Look. Your own god said 'fill the earth'. OK. What do you do with a container when it is full? YOU STOP PUTTING MORE IN!!
And do you fill a cup of water RIGHT TO THE TOP so that it is slopping out everywhere? NO! You fill it COMFORTABLY full, not BRIM FULL.
Our planet is not yet overpopulated. We CAN feed everyone - we just DON'T. But if we go ON filling the 'cup' we will reach a time when we can't. Who wants to live in an overcrowded, underfed and desperate world with all the resouces used up, just because we don't want to do anything to curb population growth?
Shutting your eyes to something won't make it go away. I've tried it, lol!


Yorick, you know quite well that I agree with all of your above post to Moridin. (First one in this thread)
What I don’t understand is your failure to see the need for population control. As for effective ways to curb population – what is wrong with sex education and the condom? Not overly expensive, unharmful, and highly effective!
The major problem to be overcome is the attitude of some bodies (usually religious). It is seen as preferable for a family to try to raise children they can’t afford to feed and do not want, condemning such children, their siblings and their parents to relentless poverty. The alternative – allowing the parents a CHOICE – is seen as inherently bad. Yet parents who have choice, and who limit their family size, are better off. The children are better fed, the mother’s health is better and they have less mouths to feed with their limited income, thus producing happier, healthier families. Ultimately, that leads to a happier, healthier, and more environmentally balanced HUMAN FAMILY.


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

Originally posted by Moridin: My question is, why do couples feel the need to have more than 2 children. [/B]

Moridin, I am flip flopping on this subject myself. I would like to tell you that there are people who are having babies just for the support from the government and fathers. As one child becomes of age to leave home it seems another is born. Having kids out of wedlock pays. Child credits, untaxable income from fathers, government aid in houseing, transportation, medical benefits.... until law makers modify or amend such things the benefits are to great for those who take this course in life.

------------------
*\Conan/* Waterman of the LH

[Avatar]

No doubt you are all aware of the problems China faces..otherwise you won't be reading this.
You hear that girl babies are being abandoned in thousands. It is true but not as horrifing as if you think about it. Babies are abandoned in Britain. Britain has pop of 56m. China has over 1200m. Scale Factor. The thing is the one child policy in reality has no effect on the future. The educated Chines in the city which numbers only a very small % or the entire po, are having 1 if no children. Whereas the uneducated shop owners and farmers are having 7 to 10 children because they feel insecure. The government can NOT stop this. It can take away benefits and introduce tax, but the problem is food is no longer a problem in China. The farmer thinks his children doesn't need to go to school because he can feed them. This creates more uneducated children. Whereas the skilled educated % are falling relatively. Not good!
China stands 1/4 of the world pop. I wish it would fall to just a few hundred million, but then I wouldn't be here by probability.
One Hebre Old saying went something like this: Please correct me:

Economics are for nations, Education is for the future of the race.

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

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Conan: Moridin, I am flip flopping on this subject myself. I would like to tell you that there are people who are having babies just for the support from the government and fathers. As one child becomes of age to leave home it seems another is born. Having kids out of wedlock pays. Child credits, untaxable income from fathers, government aid in houseing, transportation, medical benefits.... until law makers modify or amend such things the benefits are to great for those who take this course in life.

I would have thought that education would be more of a key in resolving this issue. It's the same in third-world countries like the Philippines, where there is NO social security net in place for the impoverished. Families increase the number of children because of lack of education, and in the hope that one of these children will be able to take care of them in their old age.

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

[Kaz]

The last time I went to America we arrived by plane during the night. I saw the lights of Seattle going from horizon to horizon (at least thats what it looked like) and I thought: My god that city is SPREAD OUT. In Europe (I'm not sure if this is Europe in general or just Germany and bordering countries) cities are a lot more COMPRESSED. Germany is somewhat on the crowded side (Germany is about the size of Montana, which has 700000 inhabitants. Germany has ~89 million inhabitants, more or less.) I have never been to Signapore or Australia, but I agree that the US seems like a waste of space to me and many Europeans that I know, because we are used to living in crowded countries.

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


I am the great Kazara