Thread: Stop Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth

I really don't see where it is we have a population problem. We have poverty problems, and food distribution problems and we may have a population problem in the future if we don't address the poverty problem, but where's the fire at the moment?

Originally Posted by Parihaka

I really don't see where it is we have a population problem. We have poverty problems, and food distribution problems and we may have a population problem in the future if we don't address the poverty problem, but where's the fire at the moment?

Local overpopulation is at the root of poverty, which prolongues the problem in a vicious circle.

Many countries simply cannot afford to provide a minimum of education or health to the huge numbers of children they have to deal with.

Which creates more poverty.

Which creates more overpopulation.


.....

So perhaps the best intervention might be to provide employment in the worst areas?

Originally Posted by Castellano

No.

I want to end the viral mentality.

I want to end the viral mentality.

I want to end the viral mentality.

Those aprox. figures are all over the place, ie. UN's "The World at six billion" or US Census bureau.

You are trying to end the viral mentality from the wrong end.

Poor people breed more not because they are stupid. Poor people breed more because they are poor. Poor means high attrition rate. To ensure a species survival, we combat high attrition rate with extra offsprings.

Rich people don't breed more even though they can afford it. They don't because attrition rate is low. There's simply no need to split up the wealth and opportunities to increase survival rate when that rate is already near 100%.

You still have the Malthusian mentality. It is false. It assumes zero scientific progress, or any other progress at all. It's the same mentality behind Gore's global warming hysteria.

It's a very simple concept to teach a broad subject. I can demonstrate such a technique in my own field, economics.

In econ 101, we always assume the market is at equilibrium to simplify our variables. But the market is NEVER at equilibrium. Equilibrium means no one is making money and all transactions might as well stop.

Malthus assumed the earth was stagnant. It was for thousands of years, until the age of enlightenment and the industrial revolution. Now we learned how to manipulate our environment to extract ever more products to support more people. This advance will not stop unless something drastic happens. Personally I don't want it to stop. Ever noticed human population really started to take off in the 19th century? There were famine, just like before. But we have more people now than ever yet fewer die from famine (as a percentage). How is it that the earth was able to support 10, 20 times the population than just a few hundred years ago?

Education.

That is where the aid should focus.

Then they will figure out themselves ways to improve their economies.

Originally Posted by Castellano

Education.

That is where the aid should focus.

Then they will figure out themselves ways to improve their economies.

I agree with that. However, there needs to be at least some sort of social stability including adequate food in place.

The case of "overpopulation" is wrong in itself, why? Because we see that populations were stagant for centuries due to diseases, shortage of food etc...The reason behind the tripling of population in certain countries is because the health system has been making progress food is much more available, not because they do more children, now these people tend to survive. Theres a quadrupling because the economy can afford it. Malthusianism looks like Marxism for economics: nothing is creared, theres no progress.....

Originally Posted by Oscar

The case of "overpopulation" is wrong in itself, why? Because we see that populations were stagant for centuries due to diseases, shortage of food etc...The reason behind the tripling of population in certain countries is because the health system has been making progress food is much more available, not because they do more children, now these people tend to survive. Theres a quadrupling because the economy can afford it. Malthusianism looks like Marxism for economics: nothing is creared, theres no progress.....

Well flu could solve that one..??

Originally Posted by Castellano

Local overpopulation is at the root of poverty, which prolongues the problem in a vicious circle.

Many countries simply cannot afford to provide a minimum of education or health to the huge numbers of children they have to deal with.

Which creates more poverty.

Which creates more overpopulation.


.....

Only problem is whenever the USA/Western Nations try to do something about it, it's perceived by the native population as imperialism.

Originally Posted by Castellano

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here.

It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not.

You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area.

There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is?

A virus."

Agent Smith
The Matrix

Funny thing, is that this behaviour is just not exclusive to Humans and Virus's. But of ALL life on earth.

Bacteria will flourish at prodiginous rates untill sources of food or space run out than they will die.

Flocking birds will shit all over where they nest, there feces contains uric acid, which decomposes into ammonia, and eventually will kill trees/vegetation in its habitat, and they will have to relocate.

Cattle and other large herding herbivores will eat so much plant food that they will clear an area of food, and have to move to another.

Then you have algae blooms, algae bloom due to an abundance of nutrients..only to crash when that nutrient sources runs out.

Fish such as sunfish will reproduce at such incredible rates that you will have a year of abundant large fish, only to be followed by years of stunted growth, and eventually a crash in populations due to a drop in food available to sustain such a large population of sunfish.

This goes for every type of life on earth.

Humans are no exception, the earth will force human populations to correct itself when our population is no longer sustainable. However, are we at that point right now? No