The survey

[Future]

http://dcssi.istm.cnr.it/Sironi/images/Peace.1.jpg

 

http://dcssi.istm.cnr.it/Sironi/images/Peace.2.gif

 

The survey

 

Last month the UN conducted a worldwide survey with one question:

 

"Would you please give your honest opinion about solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"

 

The survey was a huge failure.

 

In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant

 

In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant

 

In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant

 

In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant

 

In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant

 

In South America they didn't know what "please" meant

 

In the US they didn't know what "rest of the world" meant.

[xjohanx]

hahahaha

[DaN]

Classic.

 

My opinion - population control.There are just far too many people!

[dontxhide]

Im gonna take the devils advocate here because someone taught me long ago to question my own beliefs about population control.

 

But being vegan, which concerns itself with compassion for ALL living things, how can you condone population control? Are you talking about killing any child after the 1st born like China? Wiping out countries to make room for new people? Limiting food supply for a population so the population will go down to survive under the new food supply?

 

Im not saying I have the answers to these questions, but it made me think more about what were up against, ethically.

 

But I have also been in arguments people calling me a hypocrit because I would love populations just to disappear to heal mother earth, no matter how mnay people died ~shrugs~

[beforewisdom]

Funny post Future!

[DaN]

There is a fantastic story which describes perfectly our situation - Easter Island.

 

The population of Easter Island totally over exploited their resources & overpopulated at the same time.They chopped down all the trees to make statues & because they chopped down all the trees their soil eroded stopping agriculture.Also they had nothing to build any more shelter.Also the birds that used to land on the island stopped.Eventually the tribe split into warring factions & it is likely that they killed eachother in a battle for dwindling resources.As they were on an island there was no escape other than leap of faith journeys by boat.There are no known survivors from their island society.

 

Our 'tribe' is also over populating & over exploiting.We too have begun fighting over resources.Planet earth is indeed an 'island' which cannot be escaped, apart from leap of faith journeys by spacecraft.

 

The only way we can stop this from happening on a vast scale is by exercising some form of population control, & by being alot more careful about the way we use resources.

 

[veganmaster]

Each baby is accusing the other of being at fault for overpopulation, lol. Trying to deal with climate change, biosphere destruction, Peak Oil, Peak Everything, without tackling the prime cause of overpopulation is like trying to mop up a spill with the faucet running. Humanity is in gross overshoot, and nature is about to pull the carpet of cheap fossil fuels out from underneath us. Sometimes "reproductive rights" of women seems to be placed above the health of the biosphere - by refusing to address overpopulation we ignore the fact that about 70 million net humans are dumped on this planet EACH YEAR. How can one notice the problems in the world and not see that adding millions of resource-exploiting humans to a finite globe is the ultimate environmental problem (rhetorical question, I know the answer is our DNA). Also it is a geological fact that cheap oil is over; oil imports are drying up faster a raisin in the sun (and the US imports over 2/3). It will become geometrically more expensive as time passes and infrastructures built on the silly premise of infinite growth on a finite planet begin to crumble. Permaculture is the future, but transitioning would sure entail a lot less human suffering if we would control population. IMO, the longer the balloon of population inflates, the greater the suffering when it pops - and physics and science tells us, in no uncertain terms, that it will pop. Food riots and other various protests are occuring daily around the world, is it so bad to say that we're stocked up on people, let's stop ordering inventory? The stakes could not be higher - if we do not curb our numbers, nature will soon do it old-G style: dieoff. When an organism's population explodes exponentially, it inevitably comes crashing down, simply because of physics. In my opinion (and I've done a ton of research in these areas) if you can't tackle overpopulation, let alone Peak Energy, massive dieoff is inevitable. Yes, dealing with it isn't going to be pretty, but you have to choose the lesser of evils, and unless one wants a global dieoff, that means educating people that baby-making is actually the #1 cause of human problems (certainly a vegan baby in 3rd world country uses a lot less resources than a vegan baby raised in the U.S., for example, but it is still a net strain on the web of life). But honestly, this means the clever monkey must get around its DNA, and clearly that is the greatest challenge because ALL life by definition excels at producing offspring - that's what allowed us survive. So maybe I can understand why overpopulation is so ignored - the truth is just too damn ugly, and the solution is anything but clear. But ethically speaking, the path of least suffering appears to lead through some scary territory - but isn't that what ethics is all about - making difficult choices? We must choose the path of LEAST suffering even when it causes significant suffering, right? Or do we do nothing and simply await the reaper? I would love to be proven wrong, but I have near-zero hope that we can outsmart our DNA and repair the damage done to the biosphere... I'd love to be shown the error of my ways: I've spent too much time reading http://www.theoildrum.com obviously - steer clear of that site if you want to keep your sanity - knowledge is an abusive bitch, I tell you! I've got the pessimistic black-eyes to prove it!

[Marcina]

Lol one of the things I blamed my depression on was the fact that I think too much.

I think about stuff like this all the time, about humanity has shot itself in the foot.

We really need to do something about this overpopulation thing. If people don't start being more responsible, we're gonna have to end up doing something extreme.. Like the government deciding who gets to reproduce and who doesn't.. Introducing parenting licenses.. Or the involuntary sterilization of people.

 

I personally don't want to have kids. There is no need for me to. People give me flak about this a lot, but I'm not gonna be a baby factory when there might not even be enough food in the future for them to eat.

 

P.S: I really like that post about the survey... I think I'm gonna repost it on Facebook or something

[beforewisdom]

The World Replacement Fertility Rate is 2.* kids. That means people don't have to give up having children to reduce the population. They just have to limit themselves to two kids ( of their own ) tops.

[Marcina]

well with food prices, gas prices, and everything else going up people won't be able to afford to have more than that anyways.

 

But some people are dumb and pump out kids and expect the government to take care of them.

I understand that accidents happen, but some people do this on purpose. I know one..

[xjohanx]

But some people are dumb and pump out kids and expect the government to take care of them.

I understand that accidents happen, but some people do this on purpose. I know one..

 

i don't intend to offend anyone, but i know mormons...

[inteja]

It doesn't help that the Catholic church actively discourages the use of condoms in AIDS afflicted Africa and Latin America. More (rather sick and increasingly malnourished) Catholics for the church.

 

(And yes, I know there are cultural reasons why condoms aren't used in some societies - it's not all the church's doing, but as a very lapsed Catholic myself, it's nice to abuse the church now and then )

[DaN]

Vegan Master wrote:

Each baby is accusing the other of being at fault for overpopulation, lol. Trying to deal with climate change, biosphere destruction, Peak Oil, Peak Everything, without tackling the prime cause of overpopulation is like trying to mop up a spill with the faucet running. Humanity is in gross overshoot, and nature is about to pull the carpet of cheap fossil fuels out from underneath us. Sometimes "reproductive rights" of women seems to be placed above the health of the biosphere - by refusing to address overpopulation we ignore the fact that about 70 million net humans are dumped on this planet EACH YEAR. How can one notice the problems in the world and not see that adding millions of resource-exploiting humans to a finite globe is the ultimate environmental problem (rhetorical question, I know the answer is our DNA). Also it is a geological fact that cheap oil is over; oil imports are drying up faster a raisin in the sun (and the US imports over 2/3). It will become geometrically more expensive as time passes and infrastructures built on the silly premise of infinite growth on a finite planet begin to crumble. Permaculture is the future, but transitioning would sure entail a lot less human suffering if we would control population. IMO, the longer the balloon of population inflates, the greater the suffering when it pops - and physics and science tells us, in no uncertain terms, that it will pop. Food riots and other various protests are occuring daily around the world, is it so bad to say that we're stocked up on people, let's stop ordering inventory? The stakes could not be higher - if we do not curb our numbers, nature will soon do it old-G style: dieoff. When an organism's population explodes exponentially, it inevitably comes crashing down, simply because of physics. In my opinion (and I've done a ton of research in these areas) if you can't tackle overpopulation, let alone Peak Energy, massive dieoff is inevitable. Yes, dealing with it isn't going to be pretty, but you have to choose the lesser of evils, and unless one wants a global dieoff, that means educating people that baby-making is actually the #1 cause of human problems (certainly a vegan baby in 3rd world country uses a lot less resources than a vegan baby raised in the U.S., for example, but it is still a net strain on the web of life). But honestly, this means the clever monkey must get around its DNA, and clearly that is the greatest challenge because ALL life by definition excels at producing offspring - that's what allowed us survive. So maybe I can understand why overpopulation is so ignored - the truth is just too damn ugly, and the solution is anything but clear. But ethically speaking, the path of least suffering appears to lead through some scary territory - but isn't that what ethics is all about - making difficult choices? We must choose the path of LEAST suffering even when it causes significant suffering, right? Or do we do nothing and simply await the reaper? I would love to be proven wrong, but I have near-zero hope that we can outsmart our DNA and repair the damage done to the biosphere... I'd love to be shown the error of my ways: I've spent too much time reading http://www.theoildrum.com obviously - steer clear of that site if you want to keep your sanity - knowledge is an abusive bitch, I tell you! I've got the pessimistic black-eyes to prove it!

 

Basically my thoughts exactly but you could be arsed to write em down

 

Marcina you wrote that some people pump out kids & just expect the government to look after them.I agree with that too.The sad thing is alot of the time these are the kids wo grow up to be criminals too, as they were not raised properly & get born into poverty.Their crime makes our bills higher too.

 

Before wisdom wrote:

 

The World Replacement Fertility Rate is 2.* kids. That means people don't have to give up having children to reduce the population. They just have to limit themselves to two kids ( of their own ) tops.

 

Mate spot on.2 kids is enough & sounds ideal to me.It is however extremely unlikely I will have kids as I dont really want to bring anything into this world.

 

What an in depth thread!

 

We need a party to lighten it up!

[inteja]

Regarding overpopulation, economists would argue that more people equals more potential Einsteins, Edisons, Gandhis and Mandelas we have to solve the world's problems. Optimists would also argue that, on the whole, things are getting better for more people year by year.

 

I can't say I fall into the above category. I'm more of a short-term pessimist, long-term optimist. The Earth will survive humanity. We may survive as a species, but there's bound to be some sort of natural or manmade correction that restores human population and consumption to more sustainable levels. Sadly, if this is the case, it will be the world's poorest who are likely to suffer the most, unless it gets to the point where we who are lucky enough to have been born into wealthy, stable societies are forced to be more self-reliant and then realise we no longer have the skills to look after ourselves. It reminds me of the analogy of the petree dish - bacteria will thrive and multiply exponentially until all the food is exhausted, then they all die out rapidly. This might be the way it is with humanity, if we don't kill each other first over the competition for dwindling resources.

 

I say I'm a long-term optimist because if we do manage to survive through this century then we will have had to have changed a great deal politically, culturally, emotionally and spiritually. These looming challenges, despite great pain, could be the catalyst for a profound change that ushers in a new era of cooperation, tolerance, discovery, growth and meaning - a new global renaissance or golden age.

 

Lol one of the things I blamed my depression on was the fact that I think too much.

 

Marcina, I used to think too much about this "big picture" stuff too and it did contribute to depression, but now I realise that there's little I can do about such problems. Like many on this forum, all I can do is try to improve myself day by day and hopefully be a decent example for others to follow. It helps not to watch the TV news too. I can't help anyone if I'm mired in depression about the hopelessness of it all, so I just try to get on with improving myself so I'll be in a better position to contribute positively.

 

FYI: I highly recommend The Mindful Way Through Depression - see this Wikipedia link also.

Edited June 25, 2008 by inteja

[DaN]

Inteja wrote:

 

I say I'm a long-term optimist because if we do manage to survive through this century then we will have had to have changed a great deal politically, culturally, emotionally and spiritually. These looming challenges, despite great pain, could be the catalyst for a profound change that ushers in a new era of cooperation, tolerance, discovery, growth and meaning - a new global renaissance or golden age.

 

This is a distinct possibility - there is hope for the survivors, I agree

 

[Endy]

It doesn't help that the Catholic church actively discourages the use of condoms in AIDS afflicted Africa and Latin America. More (rather sick and increasingly malnourished) Catholics for the church.

 

 

Totally tangent.

 

Funny thing? Meningitis massacres many people in Africa, yet gets little attention. HIV gets all the funding and attention. Meningitis is much more treatable.

 

http://www.afro.who.int/hib/

Edited June 25, 2008 by Endy

[Endy]

Haha! LOVE the post, Future!!!

[Marcina]

Regarding overpopulation, economists would argue that more people equals more potential Einsteins, Edisons, Gandhis and Mandelas we have to solve the world's problems. Optimists would also argue that, on the whole, things are getting better for more people year by year.

 

I can't say I fall into the above category. I'm more of a short-term pessimist, long-term optimist. The Earth will survive humanity. We may survive as a species, but there's bound to be some sort of natural or manmade correction that restores human population and consumption to more sustainable levels. Sadly, if this is the case, it will be the world's poorest who are likely to suffer the most, unless it gets to the point where we who are lucky enough to have been born into wealthy, stable societies are forced to be more self-reliant and then realise we no longer have the skills to look after ourselves. It reminds me of the analogy of the petree dish - bacteria will thrive and multiply exponentially until all the food is exhausted, then they all die out rapidly. This might be the way it is with humanity, if we don't kill each other first over the competition for dwindling resources.

 

I say I'm a long-term optimist because if we do manage to survive through this century then we will have had to have changed a great deal politically, culturally, emotionally and spiritually. These looming challenges, despite great pain, could be the catalyst for a profound change that ushers in a new era of cooperation, tolerance, discovery, growth and meaning - a new global renaissance or golden age.

 

Lol one of the things I blamed my depression on was the fact that I think too much.

 

Marcina, I used to think too much about this "big picture" stuff too and it did contribute to depression, but now I realise that there's little I can do about such problems. Like many on this forum, all I can do is try to improve myself day by day and hopefully be a decent example for others to follow. It helps not to watch the TV news too. I can't help anyone if I'm mired in depression about the hopelessness of it all, so I just try to get on with improving myself so I'll be in a better position to contribute positively.

 

FYI: I highly recommend The Mindful Way Through Depression - see this Wikipedia link also.

 

 

I'm learning positivity through Robertism

Oh and I don't have cable either. No news for me!