|
Quote:
http://www.susps.org/images/worldpopgr.gif "Exponential" is a mathematical way of saying "out of control", and as this graph goes right off the scale I think it's irresponsible to promote the unfounded idea that there's plenty more pie for everyone if we only share it out differently. Take a look at this thread to see some of the probs now arising:- https://www.musicbanter.com/current-...terthread.html |
Quote:
It’s a litmus test issue with me. Once someone tries to argue that overpopulation isn’t a critical global concern I can no longer take that person seriously about anything. It’s probably the most in your face blatant reality there is. It’s up there with evolution and death and global warming. If you’re not on board yet, you’re retarded. I’ll throw a frisbee with a retarded person but I won’t argue with one. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
|
|
Quote:
6 Futuristic Movie Scenarios Already Disproven By Science | Cracked.com |
Quote:
Everything in that is wrong. And yes, everyone still living is part of the problem. I guess this retard contingent is pretty solidified. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Caveat #1: the fertility rate may be decreasing, but as the infant mortality rate is also decreasing, this reduces the significance of the reduction in fertility. Caveat #2: (Using the figures in Anteater's article and reading off my graph): If, in 1 A.D., 0.5 billion people had 6 children each = 3 billion new babies If in 2018, 7.5 billion people have 2.5 babies each = 18.75 billion new babies. Of course those birth totals aren't real statistics: I've made no adjustment for the number of fertile women per capita because I didn't want to get bogged down in math, but the trend of the figures is clear enough, I think. Quote:
Sorry, Anteater. I find your article very unconvincing but I'm too tired to refute its other points right now. |
Quote:
|
I think there is an in between here that makes both of you kind of correct. IF we don't change things we are probably approaching capacity, but technology has a lot to offer so I don't think we have a good grasp of potential capacity with the use of technology not yet discovered, developed, or implemented.
Quote:
|
Quote:
https://www.wired.com/story/lab-grown-meat/ Everything you think you know about food production is going to be a thing of the past as early as the next decade. There's also hundreds of thousands of miles of land out there that will become habitable as biotech and our grasp on agricultural tech advances continue to evolve. These aren't pipe dreams, but an inevitable place we will arrive at based on where we are right now. And Lisna, I'm not disagreeing with your overall analysis (taken on its own with all other variables ignored), but beyond women who are infertile I don't see any info on mortality rates, statistics related to deaths caused by disease, etc. etc. You have to factor those things in, along with paradigm shifts in biotech and whatever else is going on out there that you haven't factored in. |
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5...b00310edf5b1b2
Quote:
Run some math by you: 7 billion people eat more fish than 5 billion 5 billion people eat more fish than 1 billion 1 billion people eat more fish than 50 million 1 person = 1 consumer of resources 7 billion people = 7 billion consumers of resources 7,000,000,000 > 1 Quote:
5 Billion people use more plastic than 1 Billion The reason there’s so much plastic in the ocean is because billions of people use plastic products. Bears and elephants don’t use plastic. It simply must be the people. How hard do you have to ****ing think about it to get that more people use more ****? Is this really something that people have to be taught? |
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...lastic-bottles
Game changer boi, game changer. We're only a few years away from some variant of the enzyme discussed here being used by governments and corporations with gusto. And it'll be profitable, which means it will be used in earnest on those dastardly plastics. |
Quote:
|
Lab grown meat isn’t just matter grown out of nothingness. It still will ALWAYS take resources and energy to grow.
And uninhabited land isn’t being wasted. The more we invade it the less biodiversity there will be. Period. Technology will never change the laws of physics. Food MUST come from resources. Transforming matter into something edible MUST use energy. Used energy MUST create waste. In a billion years these laws will still apply. |
Reproduction generates resources that can be used for energy.
|
Quote:
|
Yeah, and what does that have to do with the population capacity? We out number other large mammals therefore we are reaching maximum capacity?
|
Quote:
|
What resources are we depleting that will hinder reproduction of the things we need to sustain human life?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The entire living ecosystems in jungles, mountains, rivers, and lakes. |
Uhh no? We only need plants and water.
|
Quote:
I’ll just let that one sit on its own. Study some biology in the meantime. |
Oh, you thought I was serious.. that's funny.
I have a degree in environmental science with a focus in hydrology and forestry. Youre being hyperbolic and it's pretty apparent you don't really have a good grasp on how things work. Stick to history homie. |
Quote:
|
Yeah, **** me.. I only worked with a professor for 3 years on the campus's forest management plan to bring back biodiversity, did habitat analysis for endangered bird species(which got presented twice at academic events), went to Kentucky and West Virginia to study sustainable agriculture and do research at Robinson Experimental Forest... I'm such a dolt. I could keep bragging about credentials if you'd like, but I don't think that would convince you that I'm more qualified to make environmental assessments than some disgruntled landscaper who has hardly read any studies or got his hands dirty in the field.
|
Quote:
|
Crazy right.. Not only did my college fail me, but so did the other educational institutions that I was involved with.
Curious where you get all your environmental information, and if all you do is read about the bad things and none of the things we are restoring thanks to hardworking scientists and environmental protection agencies. Also, curious if you understand that invasive species and diseases play a role in environmental destruction or if you just chalk it all up to "bad humans". Go do some reading: https://neobiota.pensoft.net/ |
Invasive species are transported by people.
Less people less invasive species Plus that’s a stupid bait and switch People rely on agriculture Agriculture is monoculture Monoculture is death |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
But he forgot porn.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Spoiler for The UN agrees with OH and Lisna:
Quote:
In the USA the EPA is being gutted by a meglomanic taking backhanders from the oil industries. They are reducing National Parks and approving oil pipelines. You mention the hardworking scientists, and I'm sure that there are many - what a pity then that in Trump's EPA they can't post their data on-line and are not even allowed to use the term "Global Warming." |
That kind of reference to one’s education reminds me of Ben Carson who earned his MD and became a neurosurgeon all while being retarded. Ben Carson doesn’t believe in evolution. Evolution is the backbone of biology. It’s literally impossible to understand biology without evolution. By the same token, it’s impossible to understand ecosystems without a clear understanding of the devastation caused by human overpopulation. I don’t give a **** what degrees you have, it’s an indefensible position and if you can’t see that you’re retarded. Literally retarded in the sense that you’re intellectually stunted. It’s that clear.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.co...61ba34fd68.jpg |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:06 AM. |
© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.