3/23/2006 5:26:07 PM

Save the Earth: Improve Food Distribution!

3/23/2006 5:27:49 PM

3/23/2006 5:31:29 PM

Save the Earth: Kill a Baby!
(no)

Save the Earth: Improve Food Distribution!
(not necessary; creates as many problems as it solves, at least, until we invent teleportation….)

Save the Earth: Improve self-sufficiency
(the secret enemy of fascist capitalism)

Save the Earth: End g0vt hand-outs
(gradually, if necessary; a hungry man is an angry man)

Save the Earth: Eat less red meat. [pork included]
(it's the least efficient source of protein; bacon tastes better if you only eat it once a week)

Save the Earth: Legalize hemp globally [now]
(most nutritious and resourceful plant on Earth; grows well in nearly every climate)




It's no secret that over-population may ultimately be our undoing……

I know it's a touchy subject, but there shouldn't be a "right" to have as many kids as you want.

Resources are finite.


…flame away

3/23/2006 7:57:25 PM

how the hell is eating less red meat going to save the world

i mean i hesitate to ask, because i know you have smoked yourself retarded, but i'm that curious

3/23/2006 8:05:57 PM

Do I really need to spell it out?

3/23/2006 8:21:02 PM

yes

is it like the 200 foot tidal wave?

3/23/2006 8:21:52 PM

for the same amount of land that it takes to grow cattle, you can grow like 20 times the amount of plants and soy and shit.

but i don't care. i still want steak.

3/23/2006 8:25:55 PM

you know... for when we have a land shortage and everything

3/23/2006 8:28:08 PM

20 44 times

Quote :

"is it like the 200 foot tidal wave?"

Ya'll just won't let that go will you?
The ironic thing is that I almost posted "2000 foot", but thought, "Nah, if I put that, they'll flame me....I'll just put 200....."
I even put the rolly eyes there, but still.....*sigh* ......whatever, trolls.....

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 8:36 PM. Reason : yeah, let's just cut down the rain forests so cattle can graze ]

3/23/2006 8:30:29 PM

riiight

3/23/2006 8:58:03 PM

^^ The only reason so much of the rainforest is being cut dow is crappy government programs. The Brazilian government directly subsidizes the production of cattle for export. You see, there is a limited amount of permanent grazing land in Brazil, which is owned by the countries elites. Well, they want government subsidies to get richer. Well, the subsidies are so high that it makes a previously uncompetitive process (clearing government owned rainforrest to raise cattle for a few years) competitive, so they do it. Meanwhile, many other nations have perfect climates for cattle grazing (the land is naturally grass, no need to clear-cut, and it grows back year after year) but they can't compete against Brazil's subsized exports.

So, Brazil, a relatively poor country, spends mountains of its own money so you and I can have cheaper steaks and less rainforest. Brilliant.

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 9:24 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/23/2006 9:23:59 PM

Save the Earth: Eat less red meat. [pork included]no meat, if you're serious about it

3/23/2006 10:33:33 PM

right now it isn't an issue. there is plenty of food for everyone. in the future, however, things may change.

3/23/2006 10:46:57 PM

Overpopulation is a joke. If we all lived as densely as NYC, we could all live in former Yugoslavia with a little bit of spillover into Romania. Nobody wants to live that densely, of course, but even if you cut it down to one tenth of that (a comfortable enough figure), we could all live in Europe. You get the idea.

And notice how whenever people yell about overpopulation, they only seem to complain about brown people...hmm...

3/23/2006 10:50:56 PM

Where does the world population line intersect the x-axis?

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 10:55 PM. Reason : d]

3/23/2006 10:54:52 PM

Quote :

"Overpopulation is a joke. If we all lived as densely as NYC, we could all live in former Yugoslavia with a little bit of spillover into Romania. Nobody wants to live that densely, of course, but even if you cut it down to one tenth of that (a comfortable enough figure), we could all live in Europe. You get the idea. And notice how whenever people yell about overpopulation, they only seem to complain about brown people...hmm..."

you do realize that the problem isn't physical space to put people... it's the resources to sustain people that matter.


now if we had replicators like on star trek, it wouldn't be a problem.

3/23/2006 11:01:29 PM

Still bullshit. We've got plenty of room for food. We don't have any lethal famines that aren't caused by government fuckups. We have plenty of space for timber. The only thing we can't necessarily support is expanding technology, but at this very moment we know enough to keep every human being born on this planet alive to a tolerably old age.

3/23/2006 11:09:48 PM

NOW we can, BUT THAT ISN'T THE GOD DAMNED POINT. we are adding a billion people almost every decade to this planet. IN THE FUTURE we WILL NOT have enough resources.

3/23/2006 11:11:34 PM

There is a point where our maximum population capacity will be reached, but do you have any evidence to suggest that such a point is coming up so soon that we should start curtailing our reproduction right now?

3/23/2006 11:12:33 PM

well, I guess that "not soon = never"

3/23/2006 11:18:47 PM

I guess we differ on one main point:

I tend to think that the right to reproduce is pretty fucking basic and important, and that limiting it should not be taken lightly, whereas you guys think that we should assume that no major advances in technology will happen in the next hundred years and we should start tying tubes after kid #2.

All I'm asking for is a compelling and imminent reason that we should start depriving people of the ability to carry out their basic biological function.

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 11:21 PM. Reason : ]

3/23/2006 11:20:23 PM

I don't think there is a magic number that anyone can definitively say the earth can support, but the quality of life will decrease as that number (whatever it is) is approached, as fewer and fewer resources will be available per person.

now chances are, people in places like the US and the wealthy parts of europe won't be hit as hard, since the majority of the world's population is expanding in Asia. in fact, the civilized world has pretty curtailed our out of control population growth. it's places that are poor and uneducated (and without access to birth control) that are driving up the population at it's current rate. Hell, those areas are already feeling the effects with disease, famine, war, etc, and they need to quit having kids if they want things to be better for them in, say, 50 years.

3/23/2006 11:21:51 PM

See, there you go, right there.

Brown people.

3/23/2006 11:22:47 PM

and yellow people.

3/23/2006 11:23:49 PM

Listen to Hempster.

Back in the pile, men!

3/23/2006 11:25:56 PM

Quote :

"Overpopulation is a joke. If we all lived as densely as NYC, we could all live in former Yugoslavia with a little bit of spillover into Romania. Nobody wants to live that densely, of course, but even if you cut it down to one tenth of that (a comfortable enough figure), we could all live in Europe. You get the idea."

Well, by my calculations (which I will admit are crude), in 150 years we would occupy all land on Earth with the same density as your second example. Comfortable enough, sure, but it's ridiculous to think we would all be spread out evenly or could live on all the land. Using the NYC density, we'd be covering the entire planet in 300 years. That is... with the same growth rate, which there apparently isn't any reason to monitor, right? It's not a problem this instant, so why fix it? I guess the growth rate could be solved instantaneously as well.

3/23/2006 11:46:06 PM

I didn't say we shouldn't keep an eye on things. I said we shouldn't be shrieking like a bunch of schoolgirls who just saw a mouse.

Western Europe and the United States used to have fairly rapidly growing populations, and we levelled out and, indeed, started to breed at a less-than-replacement rate. I see no reason to assume that the same will not happen in other areas as they improve. Not that it matters, of course, because as little business as we have telling people in our own country not to have kids, we have non whatsoever telling the same to people in other countries..

3/23/2006 11:52:47 PM

i'm not debating on what we have a right to do or not. i'm just stating the fact that over crowding (and by overcrowding, i mean a strain on the earth's resources that is not sustainable) is going to happen soon (and by soon, i mean in the decades to come), and it is going to alter many people's way of life.

it will probably happen with resources other than food first, such as medicines, oil, pet monkeys, etc.

3/24/2006 12:01:38 AM

this thread is hilarious

3/24/2006 12:05:31 AM

Quote :

"but the quality of life will decrease as that number (whatever it is) is approached, as fewer and fewer resources will be available per person."

Good, so we have a scientific guage that we can read to proclaim "we are getting there, captain."

So, keep an eye on it, get back to us when the quality of life begins decreasing due to over-population. Trust me, have that info in hand and we'll all join you at the rally. But like grumpy said, asking us to violate our principles before it even matters to do so is just silly.

As for you suggestion that this point is going to be reached in as little as 10 years, bollocks. If it is so soon then you should have amble evidence. Futures markets would already be freaking out, the poor would already be unable to acquire even the most basic of resources due to the higher prices.

People complain that capitalism doesn't plan for the long term. But 10 years from now is not the long term, that is the medium term and the markets have already decided on the price at that point (most mercantile exchanges offer 10 year contracts) and they are often lower than todays inflated prices.

If you think they've made a mistake, then you should contant a commodities broker and buy up as many 10 year constracts as you can afford. Don't worry, you shouldn't have to keep them the entire time. As armagedon approaches, the price of the contracts should double and tripple long before the maturity date so you can sell at any time.

3/24/2006 12:57:43 AM

/run populus.exe

population 6 billion
volcano
volcano
earthquake
volcano
volcano
volcano
volcano
volcano
earthquakevolcano
volcano
earthquake
volcano
volcano
volcano
volcano
volcano
earthquakevolcano
volcano
earthquake
volcano
volcano
volcano
volcano
volcano
earthquake
volcano
earthquake
volcano
volcano
volcano
volcano
volcano
earthquake
Population 42

3/24/2006 1:13:02 AM

by decades i didn't mean 10 years.

regardless, the earth IS already starting to strain from increasing population. famine, disease, etc in highly populated poor regions.

seafood stocks in the ocean diminishing due to increased levels of fishing

increased CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions... the problem is only getting worse and worse since china/asia has rapidly industrialized and continues to do so.

the loss of more and more tropical rainforest area so that human civilization and farming can expand in those areas.

3/24/2006 1:15:58 AM

Quote :

"famine, disease, etc in highly populated poor regions. "

This has considerably less to do with population than it does with the trappings of poverty.

Hong Kong is straight up packed full of people and it's not rife with disease or starvation.

Quote :

"increased CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions... the problem is only getting worse and worse since china/asia has rapidly industrialized and continues to do so."

Again, no population issue, but rather a technological one: you can't start having eco-friendly industry until you've fully industrialized. China's population growth has slowed immensely, but it's pollution has increased dramatically. You could have a country as populated as Idaho, and its pollution would shoot up in the years of its industrialization.

Quote :

"seafood stocks in the ocean diminishing due to increased levels of fishing"

I would say the stocks have diminished more because of incompetent fishing where certain areas are overexploited and various cultures rely excessively on fishing for traditional reasons.

Quote :

"the loss of more and more tropical rainforest area so that human civilization and farming can expand in those areas."

What do you know -- still no population connection. It isn't as though the people who live in countries with rainforests are running out of room, either for habitation or timber or farming; they're running out of usable land because they're using the most inefficient, backwards, and harmful harvesting techniques still used by humanity. The number of people doesn't enter into it, but the stupidity of them does. Impress the idea of crop rotation, modern fertilization, and renewable timber to them, make such actions profitable for them, and the problem goes away.

Of course, that won't happen because it would take money out of our pockets. We like money, so fuck all that. Let's tell them to have fewer babies instead. Doesn't cost us a dime.

3/24/2006 2:55:15 AM

well, i don't have time to type out a lengthy retort, but suffice it to say, you are DEAD wrong about them not having to do with population.

3/24/2006 6:22:15 AM

Quote :

"right now it isn't an issue. there is plenty of food for everyone. in the future, however, things may change."

Spoken like a true republican.

3/24/2006 6:55:59 AM

well, right now there IS enough food for everyone. that's been true for at least 50 years. they just don't get that food; it ends up in the trash cans and landfills of the rich or hoarded by the governments of the people who are starving.

3/24/2006 7:16:40 AM

^^haha what the fuck are you talking about? more like "spoken like a true scientist". There IS enough food for everyone, it's just that it isn't getting where it needs to get because we don't have a good distribution system (from a physical and economical standpoint)


for the record, i am NOT a republican.

3/24/2006 11:05:12 AM

^ I think he was referring to the common Republican trait of shortsightedness…..

3/24/2006 11:44:28 AM

Quote :

"in the future, however, things may change."

GOD DAMN SHORTSIGHTEDNESS

3/24/2006 11:46:42 AM

Quote :

"hempster: (not necessary; creates as many problems as it solves, at least, until we invent teleportation….)"

Ok, I'll bite. What are the problems caused by improving food distribution?

3/24/2006 12:06:57 PM

one I can think of is even more population explosion

3/24/2006 12:11:25 PM

Which has yet to be a problem.

3/24/2006 12:27:45 PM

Quote :

"well, i don't have time to type out a lengthy retort, but suffice it to say, you are DEAD wrong about them not having to do with population."

I guess the overly-dramatic capitalization of "dead" makes up for the lack of any sort of argument there.

3/24/2006 12:32:28 PM

Quote :

"it's just that it isn't getting where it needs to get because we don't have a good distribution system"

Be careful what you mean. You obviously mean "we" as in the human race. But if you divide it up a little more, "we" the industrialized world have a very efficient food production and distribution system. The problem is, "other" segments of the human race have horrible systems. In some cases, the problem is not a bad system, but the lack of a system at all.

Every time civil-war breaks out in Ethiopia, the few people with the capability of moving food from places of plenty to places of shortage get scared/murdered and stop doing so, instant famine.

3/24/2006 12:40:41 PM

chicken/egg...overpopulation in poor countries contributes to more poverty/disease/famine etc....which in turn leads to more overpopulation. one of the reasons people have so many kids is because they know the likelihood of their kids surviving to adulthood is low. but the low life expectancy is partially caused by them having so many kids. it's a downward spiral.

excessive reproduction does need to be addressed - it wouldn't hurt to loosen the outdated and unjust social traditions that prevent birth control in many places - but improving education, food supply, sanitation, etc. will also help achieve that end. mandated limits on reproduction are probably not necessary at this point...and they won't do the job alone.

3/24/2006 2:34:54 PM

a solution, of course, would be to get everyone to the level of technological sophistication of the US. people in wealthy and technological societies have less need for many children, as children aren't needed as a source of labor. that is one of the reasons that the US and europe have curbed their population explosions.

how one would do that is a different story

3/24/2006 3:09:09 PM

"a solution," nothing. That's the only viable solution, and it should be a goal for plenty of other and more pressing reasons than overpopulation.

3/24/2006 3:38:59 PM

3/24/2006 3:39:37 PM

Quote :

"a solution, of course, would be to get everyone to the level of technological sophistication of the US. people in wealthy and technological societies have less need for many children, as children aren't needed as a source of labor. that is one of the reasons that the US and europe have curbed their population explosions."

Agreed, this direct correlation has been demonstrated time and time again. Not just in the United States and Western Europe but also in heavily industrialized Asian nations such as Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. In fact, these nations have been too "successful", shrinking their populations and making them "top heavy" with too many old people. The United States has mitigated the situation with immigration, but we'll eventually face the problem as well.

Quote :

""a solution," nothing. That's the only viable solution, and it should be a goal for plenty of other and more pressing reasons than overpopulation."

Not necessarily. North Korea managed to shrink their population from about 22 million to 20 million (about 10%) during the latter half of the 1990s. A combination of purges, gulags, and mass starvation can also achieve the same goal at a rapid rate.

To a lesser extreme, China has done a suprisingly good job at curbing their population growth through tight family planning, financial penalties, and the occasional human rights violation.

There are other viable solutions, but I don't think that the "free" world would find them acceptable.

3/24/2006 4:30:44 PM