Big Issue

[Yokel]

Putting the world to right when drunk with other drunkards has now started to wear a bit thin, and instead of getting all animated and excited arguing my ideas I now try to take a step back.  You can only have the same argument so many times, and the more time goes on the more I realize how ignorant I am and have little to say that's worthy on such matters.

but...

My latest rant (which is addressed to you sober) is about overpopulation.  At the moment I see it as being the main issue behind global problems, whether its the health service, the environment, employment, education, crime, the economy, or cultural affairs, I can see no solution to the puzzle excluding anything disastrous to mankind.  I'm usually quite the optimist but I can't imagine a resolve for this problem.

Apologies if I am stating the obvious, but I am interested to hear anyone’s ideas or thoughts on the matter.  

Supposedly, there are more people alive today than all the people put together who have died in the history of mankind.      
     

[Dillon]

Supposedly, there are more people alive today than all the people put together who have died in the history of mankind.

Yes, and non-supposedly, that is, as a sensible inferrence, all the people who have died in the history of mankind have not done so with the amount of mental and emotional clutter in them; clutter that constitutes a drastically more superficial kind of opinion and sense of place. Because of the news media, we are increasingly more aware of universal crises and circumstances than ever before in the history of mankind. And what happens when someone's perception is mostly comprised of trifles, amoral statements, and statistics (all of which are systematically spoonfed to you minute after minute)? The declining of faiths and philosophies that develop the optimism and sense of self that produce options, perspectives and solutions that hinder such disasters that seem imminent now.

But, of course, it would be so easy to blame solely the news media and advanced forms of communication. Surely something else has contributed to this. There is never "a greater capacity" for overpopulation, as this is kind of a contradiction if you read into it, but maybe there are more instigating factors of large human populations, such as the progression of governments and economies--which, of course, are substantiated by wars, which begat famines, plagues, and all sorts of schisms.

[Yokel]

I understand the media trivia spoon feeding going on, and I'd be the first to admit that even though I don't swallow everything, some is to my tasting because I like trivia and believe I still would have done so whatever age I lived in, which is all another matter entirely.  

With the media aside there are still great numbers of people on a planet which cannot sustain their growth.  I don't entirely understand what you are saying in your last statement?    

but maybe there are more instigating factors of large human populations, such as the progression of governments and economies--which, of course, are substantiated by wars, which begat famines, plagues, and all sorts of schisms.

       
I'd agree that living in the extremities that we do today makes governments and their politics evolve and progress at a faster rate, is that what you are saying?  

One last piece of prime trivia not to be taken too seriously(shooting myself in the foot here I think).

Japan is experiencing the opposite.  Their population has started to plummet due to their economic bubble.  The daughters stay with dad who can afford to support their material needs, and they numb the need for children by having tiny dogs that live in their handbags.  

                 


   

[MikeK]

There are countless books/articles I could recommend to help calm your fears of overpopulation - the same fears that have been around since at least the eighteenth century, but the best that I've read that comes immediately to mind is:

"All the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred, Plague, and Poverty" ; by P.J. O'Rourke

As you can guess from the subtitle, he doesn't give much credence to the overpopulation arguments.  And you don't have to read the whole book (although I'd strongly advise everyone to), but can just read the chapter on overpopulation.

[Dillon]

There are countless books/articles I could recommend to help calm your fears of overpopulation - the same fears that have been around since at least the eighteenth century

I'm sure fears/concerns of overpopulation have existed for quite some time, and have had a positive correlation with man's awareness of the number of his fellows in the world....you could say that these fears are the expansion of such awareness, though there are some arguments that are quite valid, concerning the detrimental effects. I think that maybe the settlement of America(s) were a primary factor in causing this concern. However, overpopulation has been cited as a contributing cause in a great many disasters, and although far from all of them are plausible, there certainly seems to be a connection in certain areas. Such as......

1. The deterioration of the polar ice caps
2. Sustained warfare (To an extent; there are more impeortant facilitators here)
3. Sustained pestilience
4. Sustained famine
Among others that I can't recall at this exact moment.

I'd agree that living in the extremities that we do today makes governments and their politics evolve and progress at a faster rate, is that what you are saying?

I was sort of implying that natural and man-made disasters created the need for hightened, more numerous populations that can brave these sorts of happenings for either their government or for common humanity. Just take a gander at the twentieth century's amount of warfare alone, you'll see.

[Radio Saturday]

Just take a gander at the twentieth century's amount of warfare alone, you'll see.

I have to say Dillon, I agree with you here. I think the twentieth century has seen violence on an almost unprecedented scale and, honestly, this century's not looking too hot either.

...media trivia spoon feeding going on...

Douglas Coupland has a great name for this -- Cultural Overdosing. It's when there isn't actually that much going on in the world, but it feels like anything could be important. For example, today on Fox News -- "A small grassfire has broken out in Miami-Dade county in Florida." On national news? For God's sake!

[Yokel]

I was sort of implying that natural and man-made disasters created the need for heightened more numerous populations that can brave these sorts of happenings for either their government or for common humanity. Just take a gander at the twentieth century's amount of warfare alone, you'll see.

So some of us are potential fodder then.  Understandable but sounds a bit drastic.  

The last century was a bloody century by no mistake, but with all things in perspective I was under the impression the previous two centuries were just as bad if not worse.  

I know that violence in this day and age can affect the world/humanity on a much more devastating scale, but being where we are we have a lot of atrocities behind us to keep us in check and remind us of a few things.  

Cliche I know, but I think we’re still very young and we’ve come a long way.            

[underworld men]

Putting the world to right when drunk with other drunkards has now started to wear a bit thin, and instead of getting all animated and excited arguing my ideas I now try to take a step back.  You can only have the same argument so many times, and the more time goes on the more I realize how ignorant I am and have little to say that's worthy on such matters.

but...

My latest rant (which is addressed to you sober) is about overpopulation.  At the moment I see it as being the main issue behind global problems, whether its the health service, the environment, employment, education, crime, the economy, or cultural affairs, I can see no solution to the puzzle excluding anything disastrous to mankind.  I'm usually quite the optimist but I can't imagine a resolve for this problem.

Apologies if I am stating the obvious, but I am interested to hear anyone’s ideas or thoughts on the matter.  

Supposedly, there are more people alive today than all the people put together who have died in the history of mankind.      
     

Yokel. Do not fret. I must say something first if you get a desire to really make yourself feel bad about the potential for overpopulation you should read Norm Borlaug. Google him HE WILL BLOW YOUR MIND. He has saved more peoples lives then any other human being in history. Yes he is an America (oh evil America oooohhhh).

Now to state the obvious...

More people means GOOD. GOOD GOOD

"Everything is good and nothingness is dead"....
Dostoevsky.

Good in the most excellent way.

Love your brothers and sisters Yokel.

Because of over population.

God's work can be done.

Orthodoxy stated that each person has the potential to be
a god (one with a small "g" - homie).

Think of all the potential gods. Thats very beautiful...

Yes yes.

So what is the one thing one does as a "god"?

Why they deify!

The end of the world will only happen in orthodoxy once man has conquered the universe!

Look up at the stars and the sky. THINK! How barren even our own solar system is.

What animal do you know that could "deify" that barren frontier?

Only one.

Why do you think Russia was the first in space (Yuri Gagarin)?

Overpopulation will just like global warming- cause people to get it together.

Both will cause man to do the most important thing he could ever do.....

Travel to the stars..

[MikeK]

Thanks UnderworldMen.  I can't say that I've ever thought about this as theologically, or let's say astrologically, as you have, but it's still nice to see that there is somebody else here not trembling at the thought that there are actually too many people around.


By the way, just out of curiosity, has anyone here read that P.J. O'Rourke book that I referred to earlier?  Do people here like P.J.?

[underworld men]

 Do people here like P.J.?

??

MikeK, you are in the company of libertarians......

[MikeK]

Oh, no I'm not.  But that still doesn't stop me from enjoying P.J. O'Rourke.  Just because he's libertarian doesn't mean that he can't be particularly insightful on a whole range of topics.  And his humor alone justifies his work.  He's possibly the best humorist going right now.

Anyway, I don't know if the libertarians would have me in their company.

[underworld men]

Oh, no I'm not.  But that still doesn't stop me from enjoying P.J. O'Rourke.  Just because he's libertarian doesn't mean that he can't be particularly insightful on a whole range of topics.  And his humor alone justifies his work.  He's possibly the best humorist going right now.

Anyway, I don't know if the libertarians would have me in their company.

So you don't believe in freewill?

[MikeK]

I wasn't aware that the libertarians had a monopoly on the exercise of free will.  Well, that's certainly interesting to know and uselful information to have (if, by your last question, you were suggesting that only the libertarians endorse free will).

If you meant that I should exercise my free will by joining the libertarian camp, aren't I exercising my free will by staying away?

And most importantly, I greatly enjoy exercising my free will as it's really the only exercise that I get.

Now my head hurts from trying to disentangle your seemingly simple but actually confusing question, and I'm going to lie down.  Or do I not really want to lie down?  Is it my damned physiology telling me to lie down?  Please stop confusing me.


Joking aside, I'm certainly not a libertarian.  I daresay I know that you're not either.  But P.J.'s books hit right on the money on a whole range of political topics.  I wouldn't quite consult him when it comes to spiritual matters however.

[underworld men]

MikeK

Got to www.dictionary.com

Look up the word.

And shame on you.

SHAME SHAME SHAME.

AKA
Arthur Schopenhauer.

[Dillon]

So some of us are potential fodder then.  Understandable but sounds a bit drastic.

We're only fodder if you see war, famine, pestilence, and death as absolute, incontestable forces. You shouldn't accept those things in such a way. Ever. And what I meant was that as human beings, we are naturally inclined to reproduce, to propogate the species, and so the more of it that is destroyed, the higher perceived need there is for reproduction to sustain humanity--and it just so happens that humanity, for many, is defined by objective principles such as government (look at China).

The last century was a bloody century by no mistake, but with all things in perspective I was under the impression the previous two centuries were just as bad if not worse.  

I know that violence in this day and age can affect the world/humanity on a much more devastating scale, but being where we are we have a lot of atrocities behind us to keep us in check and remind us of a few things.

The last century saw more progression and masochism expressed in the human heart than the 17th and 18th centuries combined. Yes; WWII pretty much took care of The Ages Of Faith and Reason, and Stalin alone did away with everything Baroque. Teddy Roosevelt and Alfred Mahan put an end to everything America had stood for and tried to promote since its conception.