Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Is population as big of a problem as we think

dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 1:47:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it is. What say thou?
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
AndrewB686
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 5:20:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, the world is quickly becoming grossly overpopulated. I see three possible solutions:

1. Increase in homosexual partnerships in order to stabilize the population
2. Sterilize certain individuals, but not ethnicities in order to maintain a symmetrical balance between races
3. Eugenics, enough said
There would be more good marriages if the marriage partners didn't live together."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

"In Heaven, all the interesting people are missing."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2013 11:45:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I say, the best solution:

Get rid of warning labels, and all the stupid people will kill themselves on accident.

Thus, we have a smaller population, and a smarter one as well:)
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 3:30:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 5:20:03 PM, AndrewB686 wrote:
Yes, the world is quickly becoming grossly overpopulated. I see three possible solutions:

1. Increase in homosexual partnerships in order to stabilize the population
2. Sterilize certain individuals, but not ethnicities in order to maintain a symmetrical balance between races
3. Eugenics, enough said

You're an evil b*stard.

Overpopulation is our biggest problem. It's not so much the fact that there are too many people so there's no room for all of us (you'd be surprised how often I hear this as an argument against overpopulation), but that there aren't enough resources.

There are a number of things we can and should do, and the list doesn't include eugenics -_-.

1) Nuclear fusion (it's underway)
2) Cost-effective de-salinisation to meet water demands (this is a tough one but is necessary)
3) Population caps for fastest growing nations like Africa, India and the Middle-East (it's also a cultural thing for them to have large families so this is also a tough one).

I'd say that finding a sustainable food source that is nutrient dense and can be made in a lab, like some kind of algae, is important, too. The amount of land it takes to rear animals for food and crops is too much for the amount of humans there are.

Also hey, colonizing Mars or some other planet would help.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 3:33:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is a huge mistake that we don't rely on nuclear power more because of a few big meltdowns. Nuclear power is clean and sustainable. F*cking humans are so dumb.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 10:50:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago

You're an evil b*stard.
A dumb bastard screwing up everything is worse than an evil one, as a dumb bastard doesn't even know while an evil one does know what he/she's doing. With a dumb one what can you do? There at least is the possibility of educating the poor bastard, while with the evil one there's only one possibility.
You're lucky to be dumb... as is the one you replied to, but not as much as you.
Overpopulation is our biggest problem. It's not so much the fact that there are too many people so there's no room for all of us (you'd be surprised how often I hear this as an argument against overpopulation), but that there aren't enough resources.
There are enough resources even now but there is not enough room. It seems you aren't aware that we, humans, are not the only living organisms on this planet. You think it is okay to kill other species simply to make room for such an unnecessary amount of just one species - humans? No, it is not okay.
There is not enough room because we aren't the only ones on this planet.
If resources become scarce then it means the population is far too big.
There are a number of things we can and should do, and the list doesn't include eugenics -_-.
It does include eugenics. I'm wondering, do you even know what eugenics means?
2) Cost-effective de-salinisation to meet water demands (this is a tough one but is necessary)
There is enough water. There is too much people. The water supply in areas with huge populations is contaminated with toxins. It is contaminated primarily because of food industry, but not only, the byproducts that go into air, soil, everywhere, even "food" itself they produce. These "edible" things that are pumped full of sugars and so many toxic chemicals, and in addition essential nutrients are removed to some extent - all of which is completely unnecessary and downright idiotic. Did humans evolve, over millions of years, just to now produce such crap called "food"? No, it is literal poison to us, but instead of killing immediately you will notice the effects after decades of consumption, and then it's too late to change much anything.
3) Population caps for fastest growing nations like Africa, India and the Middle-East (it's also a cultural thing for them to have large families so this is also a tough one).
Population caps? And what? You would force it upon them, without them even understanding why?
I can see you have thought things through so well... missing everything truly relevant.
To know what must be done you have to first see why things are the way they are and how they came to be this way, every smallest relevant detail, otherwise don't bother 'cause you'll mess it up or make it even worse.
I'd say that finding a sustainable food source that is nutrient dense and can be made in a lab, like some kind of algae, is important, too. The amount of land it takes to rear animals for food and crops is too much for the amount of humans there are.
Nutrient dense foods? That is so incredibly easy to produce. The food sources - animals and plants - must be grown as close to "wild" as possible, meaning no chemicals, no synthesized crap, no poisons labeled by morons as food.
For millions, tens and hundreds of millions of years, what have animals and plants fed on? And that is what they have evolved to use, not this chemical crap you can see in almost every shop, labeled as food and safe to eat, nor the chemical fertilizers given to plants.
There's a saying "you are what you eat". You have no idea how true it is. If you eat crap, you are crap.
Also hey, colonizing Mars or some other planet would help.
That is centuries if not millenniums in the future, assuming humanity survives itself first.
This as well involves problems - how to make it habitable to us - a very broad topic. If it is a planet with its own life, then there must be strict rules over its colonization, as we have no right to just go and take what is not ours.

To fix population problem is to fix so many other issues:
1)Bad and negative values most people hold so dear and follow so adamantly, without realizing how wrong they are, how bad those values are.
2)Better education.
Then there's the what values and what better education?

3)With those alone done should go capitalism and religion (two primary evils), and many others. Once those are gone, everything'll be fine, not that there wouldn't be problems now and then but nothing like presently.

4)Then there's the how could you do those two first things in the first place... That's the problem. Power is needed, lots of it, it would involve killing, probably even a world war at one point, goal being throwing out the trash and there's a lot of it.

They all include so many relevant details depending on so much else. And, in honest truth, if it won't be done eventually, somehow, humanity will die of itself, taking along probably all life on this planet. I personally don't wan' it, I want humanity to survive, but for that to happen it must first be cured.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 12:00:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 10:50:28 AM, nummi wrote:
You're lucky to be dumb... as is the one you replied to, but not as much as you.

What a ball of sunshine you are.

There are enough resources even now but there is not enough room. It seems you aren't aware that we, humans, are not the only living organisms on this planet. You think it is okay to kill other species simply to make room for such an unnecessary amount of just one species - humans? No, it is not okay.
There is not enough room because we aren't the only ones on this planet.
If resources become scarce then it means the population is far too big.

lol, and I am dumb. You could fit the entire human population in a state the size of Texas. There is plenty of room on the planet. The problem, like I said, is allocating resources.

I'm not aware that other organisms live on the planet? Sounds legit.

And no sh*t, Sherlock. I agree that there are too many humans for the Earth to sustain. I just addressed the fallacy that overpopulation =/= not enough space. There is enough space, considering that the majority of humans live in densely populated cities and we can build homes vertically,

It does include eugenics. I'm wondering, do you even know what eugenics means?

You believe that only certain people should breed while others with undesirable genetic traits should not? And this will solve the overpopulation problem, how? Don't attempt to lecture me on the meaning of words, you condescending ray of sunshine, when eugenics does not address curbing population numbers, only traits.

There is enough water. There is too much people.

There is not enough water for the amount of people living on the planet, you dumb*ss.

The water supply in areas with huge populations is contaminated with toxins. It is contaminated primarily because of food industry, but not only, the byproducts that go into air, soil, everywhere, even "food" itself they produce. These "edible" things that are pumped full of sugars and so many toxic chemicals, and in addition essential nutrients are removed to some extent - all of which is completely unnecessary and downright idiotic. Did humans evolve, over millions of years, just to now produce such crap called "food"? No, it is literal poison to us, but instead of killing immediately you will notice the effects after decades of consumption, and then it's too late to change much anything.

Oh god, you're one of those types.

Population caps? And what? You would force it upon them, without them even understanding why?
I can see you have thought things through so well... missing everything truly relevant.
To know what must be done you have to first see why things are the way they are and how they came to be this way, every smallest relevant detail, otherwise don't bother 'cause you'll mess it up or make it even worse.

Yes, population caps. China's one child policy now means that they are not contributing as much to overpopulation as they would without the cap. I am a libertarian, which means I do not endorse any government using force against citizens but given that governments are not going anywhere soon and overpopulation is a real threat then I make concessions where I deem them to be moral and for good reason.

What makes you think people don't understand why a population cap would be necessary? Are you serious?

Nutrient dense foods? That is so incredibly easy to produce. The food sources - animals and plants - must be grown as close to "wild" as possible, meaning no chemicals, no synthesized crap, no poisons labeled by morons as food.
For millions, tens and hundreds of millions of years, what have animals and plants fed on? And that is what they have evolved to use, not this chemical crap you can see in almost every shop, labeled as food and safe to eat, nor the chemical fertilizers given to plants.
There's a saying "you are what you eat". You have no idea how true it is. If you eat crap, you are crap.

Humans (particular those in Japan, China and Korea) have been eating algae as a food source for decades already, and suffer no adverse effects. What you are campaigning for - a total reverse of the food industry and the lessening of human populations as a result - is unfeasible. We won't be going back to living as hunter-gatherers, I'm sorry. It's sad but true. At least I am offering workable solutions. You're just sticking your head in the sand and wishing for things to be the way they were thousands of years ago. Have fun with that.

That is centuries if not millenniums in the future, assuming humanity survives itself first.
This as well involves problems - how to make it habitable to us - a very broad topic. If it is a planet with its own life, then there must be strict rules over its colonization, as we have no right to just go and take what is not ours.

My statement about colonizing other planets was flippant. If you're assuming I don't know what it would take to colonize other planets then you doth assume too much, little ball of sunshine.

To fix population problem is to fix so many other issues:
1)Bad and negative values most people hold so dear and follow so adamantly, without realizing how wrong they are, how bad those values are.

Be realistic, or we have no hope.

2)Better education.

Considering Western populations do not produce as many children as those in developing countries, you are right with this, but it's a broad statement in itself.

3)With those alone done should go capitalism and religion (two primary evils), and many others. Once those are gone, everything'll be fine, not that there wouldn't be problems now and then but nothing like presently.

Your solutions for solving the overpopulation crisis are so workable, oh enlightened one.

4)Then there's the how could you do those two first things in the first place... That's the problem. Power is needed, lots of it, it would involve killing, probably even a world war at one point, goal being throwing out the trash and there's a lot of it.

Or just nuclear fusion, for f*ck sake.

They all include so many relevant details depending on so much else. And, in honest truth, if it won't be done eventually, somehow, humanity will die of itself, taking along probably all life on this planet. I personally don't wan' it, I want humanity to survive, but for that to happen it must first be cured.

May you lead us into a new age with your regurgitated wisdom and unrealistic solutions.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 1:45:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What a ball of sunshine you are.
I know right. I once tried to be a cube of sunshine, didn't turn out well...
lol, and I am dumb. You could fit the entire human population in a state the size of Texas. There is plenty of room on the planet. The problem, like I said, is allocating resources.
This is exactly what I mean by dumb, you state something like "you could fit the entire human population in a state the size of Texas" without realizing that no one could actually live that way. People need personal space, for one, they need clean air for another. How would you manage sewer system? Where would you put all the garbage? Into another area the size of texas? Would you recycle, somehow, all the crap back into usable? Doubtful, based on present values. So a massive depository, right? What if the massive depository leaks some nasty crap out into the "clean" area? Oh shjt... as well literally.
How massive areas around that state would be farms? How would people get to work? Heck, how could people move around in the first place?
This is what I mean by dumb, you (and so many others) state this and that without any real intelligence behind any of it.
Allocating resources? There's no problem with that. If it becomes a problem somewhere then, again, population is too high. And in that case the problem is not resource allocation but population.
I'm not aware that other organisms live on the planet? Sounds legit.
Apparently being aware is not enough, as you say things that leave them out of the picture, as if they are nothing and no one. As if we have the right to simply kill them if we should deem it okay.
You believe that only certain people should breed while others with undesirable genetic traits should not?
"Believe"... Care to elaborate what exactly you mean by that word? As you use it so lightly, seen it used lightly before, using it with a wrong definition in mind.
Quite right. Survival in general is about the strongest and most efficient carrying on, while the weaker and less efficient die. Or you are okay with those who are unable to care for themselves to breed and spread their weak traits? Those who are born with such weaknesses that render them unable to care for themselves, that they absolutely need help from others to stay alive after reaching maturity, while giving little to nothing back and in no way compensating effort wasted on them, should be allowed to continue their weak traits? Think realistically.
And this will solve the overpopulation problem, how?
Exactly what I mean by dumb. You state something small, give a "solution" without seeing the entire picture, and so rendering your "solution" instead into yet another problem.
Excessive population has many causes, many factors influence it. To fix it you need to concentrate not only on the number of population and reducing it but everything that contributes to it in the first place.
Don't attempt to lecture me on the meaning of words, you condescending ray of sunshine, when eugenics does not address curbing population numbers, only traits.
It is apparent that lecturing you do need, as you are unable to see things clearly on your own.
You might not be aware but those weak of mind and of genetic traits tend to breed more than those that are strong of both. Makes sense, the stronger the higher chances of survival. Something we've inherited from our primal times.
Weak need to breed more and faster, to ensure they don't die before having offspring. Now, if you look at less developed countries, the minds of the people there and their overall living conditions, you will notice that the conditions are bad in every way. They have poor food, they are weak of mind and dumb, and overpopulated.
There is not enough water for the amount of people living on the planet, you dumb*ss.
Oh really? There are whole oceans full of water and there are water cleaning systems that can render that water drinkable. You do realize nature recycles organic matter, and water as well. How much of you has at one point been true shjt? Who's the dumb*ss now?
Oh god, you're one of those types.
Glad to know you're biased as well.
Yes, population caps. China's one child policy now means that they are not contributing as much to overpopulation as they would without the cap. I am a libertarian, which means I do not endorse any government using force against citizens but given that governments are not going anywhere soon and overpopulation is a real threat then I make concessions where I deem them to be moral and for good reason.
The reason they have population problems in the first place is not because they didn't at one point have population caps. They did not solve the problem, they added another one on top of it. Solution to the problem is to have people control themselves, through being aware enough, and not have some morons called "leaders" force something on them. Did they try the alternative? Changing the people and their minds? No.
Oh, and hello, libertarian. I am a human. That you label yourself as a "libertarian" shows you are in truth biased, seen it every time someone has claimed to be libertarian, communist, what not, accompanied by the inability to comprehend all parts that need addressing, or even seeing enough to talk about a subject at least adequately, not to mention the bias and its influence.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 1:53:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What makes you think people don't understand why a population cap would be necessary? Are you serious?
If they understood the problem, truly understood, there would be no "need" for it. They haven't tried changing the people because that would require changing values, which would require changing education and the raising of people since birth onward. Now which is easier? A simple population cap, or the changing of the minds of a people? Now which one is more beneficial, for the entire humanity, in the long run?
Humans (particular those in Japan, China and Korea) have been eating algae as a food source for decades already, and suffer no adverse effects.
Algae is natural... What's your point?
What you are campaigning for - a total reverse of the food industry and the lessening of human populations as a result - is unfeasible.
It is very much feasible, if it were to be reached for. You say it cannot be done, but have you even considered what need be done if it were at least tried? You have not.
We won't be going back to living as hunter-gatherers, I'm sorry.
When did I suggest that?
Damn how biased and stuck in a certain mentality you are...
At least I am offering workable solutions.
In what you suggested there is absolutely nothing workable in relation to humanity's survival.
You're just sticking your head in the sand and wishing for things to be the way they were thousands of years ago. Have fun with that.
Never had fun with that as I've never said I want things to be as they were long ago. Why would you even think that if I have never suggested it? I know the answer - bias, prejudice.
The short version, very short. There is that which humans' bodies have evolved to use over millions of years. Then, suddenly, came all this produced and processed stuff, stuff our bodies have not evolved to use. That new stuff, nutritionally speaking is not living up to the old food, too little nutrition and so much toxins. And so we suffer. If we were to have that kind of crap food for hundreds of thousands of years we would degenerate, evolutionarily speaking. How can we evolve onward positively if the body has less nutrition than before? It has to cut something down, the only way, and so we would suffer even more. Is it possible to have, right now, as nutritious foods as before? Yes, very much so. Then why is it not made reality? Because of greed, capitalism, even religion, propaganda, brainwashing, intentional lying, poor nutrition rendering brain not working optimally, etc.
My statement about colonizing other planets was flippant. If you're assuming I don't know what it would take to colonize other planets then you doth assume too much, little ball of sunshine.
Considering what you've said so far I wouldn't put it past you if you did not know. And thank you.
To fix population problem is to fix so many other issues:
1)Bad and negative values most people hold so dear and follow so adamantly, without realizing how wrong they are, how bad those values are.
Be realistic, or we have no hope.
I am being realistic. You're being incomprehensive.
You do realize the problem is not on the surface? It is deeper. You need to cure the cause, not the symptoms, to fix the problem.

3)With those alone done should go capitalism and religion (two primary evils), and many others. Once those are gone, everything'll be fine, not that there wouldn't be problems now and then but nothing like presently.
Your solutions for solving the overpopulation crisis are so workable, oh enlightened one.
I spoke in general, not in detail. And even as that smarter than your suggestions.
4)Then there's the how could you do those two first things in the first place... That's the problem. Power is needed, lots of it, it would involve killing, probably even a world war at one point, goal being throwing out the trash and there's a lot of it.
Or just nuclear fusion, for f*ck sake.
How the fvck would you manage that with nuclear fusion? Do you even think before you write?
In case... There is no energy crisis!!! It's made up!
They all include so many relevant details depending on so much else. And, in honest truth, if it won't be done eventually, somehow, humanity will die of itself, taking along probably all life on this planet. I personally don't wan' it, I want humanity to survive, but for that to happen it must first be cured.
May you lead us into a new age with your regurgitated wisdom and unrealistic solutions.
If mine are unrealistic I have no idea what yours are, as compared to actual reality yours are nothing but delusional fantasies, and cliched at that.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/17/2013 3:15:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 1:47:01 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
I think it is. What say thou?

I had I debate on this once...
http://www.debate.org...
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 12:33:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 1:45:28 PM, nummi wrote:
This is exactly what I mean by dumb, you state something like "you could fit the entire human population in a state the size of Texas" without realizing that no one could actually live that way.

I never purported that humans would or could live this way. You're really not good at this, nummi.

This is what I mean by dumb, you (and so many others) state this and that without any real intelligence behind any of it.

What I state is a simple fact; I did not state all humans living in a single confined area as a possibility. Learn to comprehension skills.

Allocating resources? There's no problem with that. If it becomes a problem somewhere then, again, population is too high. And in that case the problem is not resource allocation but population.

Once again nummi, we are both in agreement that there are too many humans. You do not need to keep barking this over and over again.

Apparently being aware is not enough, as you say things that leave them out of the picture, as if they are nothing and no one. As if we have the right to simply kill them if we should deem it okay.

Prioritizing humans as being the most important organism, as a human, is such an absurd notion, right? Also, in my workable solutions (speaking of which I only listed a few in this thread for the sake of brevity), animal cruelty would be kept to an absolute minimum as humans would transition from predominantly meat based diets to a form of vegetarianism/veganism as this is more sustainable in the long term.

But, you don't care about that, because you seem to care more about poking holes in arguments that I haven't even made to make me seem dumb. Keep at it, though. It's cute.

"Believe"... Care to elaborate what exactly you mean by that word? As you use it so lightly, seen it used lightly before, using it with a wrong definition in mind.
Quite right. Survival in general is about the strongest and most efficient carrying on, while the weaker and less efficient die.

"You don't care about other animals, and this is important".

"I don't care about certain humans who are considered weaker".

PETA would love you.

Or you are okay with those who are unable to care for themselves to breed and spread their weak traits?

What do you define as a weak trait? Who are you to decide what humans should be entitled to breeding rights while others should not be? There's placing restrictions on the number of children any couple can have, and placing restrictions on what kind of people should have children. The former is sound and without bias; the latter is monstrosity.

Those who are born with such weaknesses that render them unable to care for themselves, that they absolutely need help from others to stay alive after reaching maturity, while giving little to nothing back and in no way compensating effort wasted on them, should be allowed to continue their weak traits? Think realistically.

If two people decide to have a child, and this child will be born with some condition that renders them entirely dependent on the care of others to sustain themselves in life, then the parents should accept responsibility for their child out of love and compassion. I do not agree with eugenics on a moral basis. I do not agree with people who abort fetuses because they test positive for downs syndrome. I think that this form of eugenics is downright evil in its very nature, and if you do not agree then you're no better than Hitler.

Excessive population has many causes, many factors influence it. To fix it you need to concentrate not only on the number of population and reducing it but everything that contributes to it in the first place.

I don't disagree, but there simply isn't enough time to treat the root cause without also treating the symptom. Like I said, you're poking holes in arguments that haven't been made. Stay focused.

It is apparent that lecturing you do need, as you are unable to see things clearly on your own.

Do what you feel you must to maintain your sense of self-righteousness but as I did not need your help in defining eugenics as you would have hoped, my grasp on the English language is more than proficient enough, thank you.

You might not be aware but those weak of mind and of genetic traits tend to breed more than those that are strong of both. Makes sense, the stronger the higher chances of survival. Something we've inherited from our primal times.

If you're suggesting you can breed out stupidity, you are wholly misguided. Also, stupidity is not an inheritable trait. But perhaps it should be, so you could at least take solace in that fact when you display your own ignorance.

Weak need to breed more and faster, to ensure they don't die before having offspring. Now, if you look at less developed countries, the minds of the people there and their overall living conditions, you will notice that the conditions are bad in every way. They have poor food, they are weak of mind and dumb, and overpopulated.

"Let's cull the population of stupid people! It is our only hope!"

"Let's cull the population of Jews! It is our only hope!"

Oh really? There are whole oceans full of water and there are water cleaning systems that can render that water drinkable.

Do you have any clue how difficult a process de-salinisation is? Perhaps you should educate yourself on this subject before posting stupid sh*t that you don't understand.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 12:33:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 1:53:58 PM, nummi wrote:
If they understood the problem, truly understood, there would be no "need" for it. They haven't tried changing the people because that would require changing values, which would require changing education and the raising of people since birth onward. Now which is easier? A simple population cap, or the changing of the minds of a people?

A population cap is much easier, and a more immediate solution to an immediate problem should be the primary focus if humans are to have a hope at survival.

Now which one is more beneficial, for the entire humanity, in the long run?

I do not disagree that education is important and will help in the long-run, but I disagree that we have the luxury of time to ignore temporary measures.

Algae is natural... What's your point?

My point is that this algae that I speak of is not in your definition of 'natural' (as in, humans did not evolve eating it). Yet they are not all diseased and dying off. My point therefore being that humans do not need to eat any particular diet based on evolutionary principle to be healthy, which is what you are advocating.

It is very much feasible, if it were to be reached for. You say it cannot be done, but have you even considered what need be done if it were at least tried? You have not.

It is not feasible to expect to provide enough food for 7+ billion people using land-reared livestock and agriculture to grow crops when 1 pound of beef takes 7 pounds of feed to produce and harvesting crops requires more fertile land than what is available.

When did I suggest that?

When you shot down the Western diet as a deviation from what humans are evolutionary geared to eat, and how this deviation is (one of) the root causes of overpopulation.

In what you suggested there is absolutely nothing workable in relation to humanity's survival.

No, you just refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't agree with your worldview.

The short version, very short. There is that which humans' bodies have evolved to use over millions of years. Then, suddenly, came all this produced and processed stuff, stuff our bodies have not evolved to use. That new stuff, nutritionally speaking is not living up to the old food, too little nutrition and so much toxins. And so we suffer. If we were to have that kind of crap food for hundreds of thousands of years we would degenerate, evolutionarily speaking. How can we evolve onward positively if the body has less nutrition than before?

Humans aren't really evolving as we used to as we have removed environmental pressures, so this entire paragraph is kind of pointless in relation to the discussion at hand.

It has to cut something down, the only way, and so we would suffer even more. Is it possible to have, right now, as nutritious foods as before? Yes, very much so. Then why is it not made reality? Because of greed, capitalism, even religion, propaganda, brainwashing, intentional lying, poor nutrition rendering brain not working optimally, etc.

No, it is not impossible to having nutritious food, but it is near enough impossible to have enough of this nutritious localized food for the number of people that are and will be alive in the near future. So like I said, being able to mass produce a nutrient dense food that has a complete amino acid profile and that can be created in a lab is a good, workable solution to this problem.

http://www.theguardian.com...

If mine are unrealistic I have no idea what yours are, as compared to actual reality yours are nothing but delusional fantasies, and cliched at that.

Because a realistic solution to overpopulation is by eliminating religion and capitalism and this can definitely be done with the next 100 years. Get over yourself, to be honest. It's always the ones who start with the name calling who have the least justifiable arguments available, because you wouldn't need insults if your case to be made were solid. Food for thought.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 1:16:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 5:20:03 PM, AndrewB686 wrote:
Yes, the world is quickly becoming grossly overpopulated. I see three possible solutions:

1. Increase in homosexual partnerships in order to stabilize the population

How do you plan to sell that idea lol

2. Sterilize certain individuals, but not ethnicities in order to maintain a symmetrical balance between races

Can we start with you?

3. Eugenics, enough said

But you didn't say anything.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 8:51:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I never purported that humans would or could live this way. You're really not good at this, nummi.
So you know humans never would nor could live that way? Then why did you even introduce something so idiotic?
It is impossible in reality, and thus it is completely irrelevant in this "debate".
It is apparent that you are not good at this.
This is what I mean by dumb, you (and so many others) state this and that without any real intelligence behind any of it.
What I state is a simple fact; I did not state all humans living in a single confined area as a possibility. Learn to comprehension skills.
A fact of no relevance.
If not stated as a possibility then why state it at all?
You fail at comprehending so much, and you tell me to learn comprehension skills? Wow...
Once again nummi, we are both in agreement that there are too many humans. You do not need to keep barking this over and over again.
I well understand we both agree that the population is far too high.
What you don't seem to realize is that your "solutions" to the problem are no true solutions at all, they would only create more problems.
Prioritizing humans as being the most important organism, as a human, is such an absurd notion, right? Also, in my workable solutions (speaking of which I only listed a few in this thread for the sake of brevity), animal cruelty would be kept to an absolute minimum as humans would transition from predominantly meat based diets to a form of vegetarianism/veganism as this is more sustainable in the long term.

It is absurd if it is very much possible to leave them in safety from us, while we, humanity, still excel at furthering ourselves.

From meat based diets to plant based diets? Are you insane? This proves you know nothing of our digestive systems, what our bodies have evolved to use over millions of years. Do you really think switching from what should be mostly an animal based diet, to completely plant diet, is so easy as to just turn over like that? This proves your superior capability of miscomprehension.

You do understand that with this notion you are denying millions of years of evolution in one direction? Have you any idea, in the slightest, how long it would take for humanity to evolve to plant only diet, without severe consequence to our advances in society, science, heck, everything?

It is apparent that you have not the smallest clue how much diet affects us all, individually. To put it short, everything that is wrong with our society right this moment, can be lead back to wrong diet.
Animal cruelty??? That animals have to be killed and consumed by others is not animal cruelty, it is part of life, it is necessity dictated by survival, has been for hundreds of millions of years, even longer. If you deny this, you deny part of who you yourself are. Fact of reality, deal with it.

You are absolutely clueless about dieting in general to have stated something so stupid. You have no idea how detrimental your suggestion would be to humanity.

But, you don't care about that, because you seem to care more about poking holes in arguments that I haven't even made to make me seem dumb. Keep at it, though. It's cute.
I poke holes in arguments when I see, well, stupidity present in them. This is my way of informing individuals that there's something wrong with what they said.
Are you truly so naive? Stupid to ask really...
"You don't care about other animals, and this is important".

"I don't care about certain humans who are considered weaker".
First fact. If I would think this way, I would say it. I have never said any of these.
Second fact. I care about animals and people far more than you could ever manage.
Third fact. What you think is positive at a given moment can turn so very negative at a later moment. You need to consider everything, what was, what is, and conclude what will be, before making, before even suggesting, any big changes. You lack this ability at a sufficient level, as you have demonstrated repeatedly.

PETA would love you.
Good I'm not American.
They are a bunch of hypocrites from what I know. Clueless just like you.

What do you define as a weak trait?
Reread what I've written, it's in there.
Who are you to decide what humans should be entitled to breeding rights while others should not be?
Not me. Survival and positive progress, and what those demand. Basically life in general.
It's like arguing with a religious person, all the same characteristics, simply different direction of focus.
There's placing restrictions on the number of children any couple can have, and placing restrictions on what kind of people should have children. The former is sound and without bias; the latter is monstrosity.

There's no placing a number on children, people need to be smart and aware enough on their own, fact.

And yes, if the person can not take care of him/herself after reaching maturity, because of genetics, then that person may not be allowed to have offspring.
If you put that "weak" person into primal conditions, that person would die.
If two people decide to have a child, and this child will be born with some condition that renders them entirely dependent on the care of others to sustain themselves in life, then the parents should accept responsibility for their child out of love and compassion.
Should??? "Who are you to decide what humans should be entitled to or not?" Sound familiar? Hypocrite.
I do not agree with eugenics on a moral basis.
And what would be that "morality"?
Morality "what's right and what's wrong". You have yet to figure them out, and the reasons behind them.
I do not agree with people who abort fetuses because they test positive for downs syndrome.
That's a fault, not virtue. Not with the parents... with you.
There is still the could the child, once matured, care for him/herself? If could then why not let it live? Otherwise, the right decision.
I think that this form of eugenics is downright evil in its very nature, and if you do not agree then you're no better than Hitler.
Then you have absolutely no idea what evil means.
Comparing to Hitler? Thank you for showing bias.
I don't disagree, but there simply isn't enough time to treat the root cause without also treating the symptom. Like I said, you're poking holes in arguments that haven't been made. Stay focused.
They have been made, you haven't noticed them. The "wrong" tone you exhibit. The ideas with a lack of necessary factors. Addressing problems right on the surface without touching the root itself. Perhaps others. These qualities I notice and dislike, and so I argue.
I am focused. My focus is simply broader than yours.

It is apparent that lecturing you do need, as you are unable to see things clearly on your own.
Do what you feel you must to maintain your sense of self-righteousness but as I did not need your help in defining eugenics as you would have hoped, my grasp on the English language is more than proficient enough, thank you.
Self-righteousness? Look at yourself first.
Not eugenics as an English word, but eugenics as the notion itself.
If you're suggesting you can breed out stupidity, you are wholly misguided.
Some qualities that contribute to "stupidity" can be bred out. But stupidity is more caused by wrong diet than much else.
Also, stupidity is not an inheritable trait.
I've never said it was. But still, I have little doubt there can't be brought some examples, but best not to ask as stupid people aren't exactly noteworthy...
But perhaps it should be, so you could at least take solace in that fact when you display your own ignorance.
You still call me ignorant in the face of your own out-leavings? Hypocrite.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2013 9:07:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Let's cull the population of stupid people! It is our only hope!"

"Let's cull the population of Jews! It is our only hope!"
Yes, yes, you are biased on top of other significant flaws, you don't need to indicate it more than once.
Do you have any clue how difficult a process de-salinisation is? Perhaps you should educate yourself on this subject before posting stupid sh*t that you don't understand.
Stupid shjt I don't understand? Like in your case dieting/what our bodies have evolved to use, morality, realistic solutions to problems we have; bias and what it is, being hypocritical (these your own qualities)? Yeah... gotcha...

A population cap is much easier, and a more immediate solution to an immediate problem should be the primary focus if humans are to have a hope at survival.
If humans are to have even a small speck of hope at survival then going for the easiest is not the answer. Are you considering future generations at all? I mean hundreds and thousands of years in the future? Are you suggesting those people to still be as stupid as now, people who would require some stupid rules to tell them how to live their lives? Or would you rather those people know good enough on their own?
I do not disagree that education is important and will help in the long-run, but I disagree that we have the luxury of time to ignore temporary measures.
That would be no temporary measure. That change would oppress people even more, people would be taught even more to listen to their superiors, without question, ending over the generations with a race of slaves, basically. If the people themselves are not changed then nothing will get better.
If it is not done right right in the beginning then it will never be done.

Everything needed to get it done already exist, it would be easy, as easy as it would ever be. It's just those bumps in the way keeping us from going onward, and there's many, and they won't go anywhere without someone physically removing those who keep those bumps strong (referring to certain kind of people, I bet you will think of the wrong kind here, your bias doing its job...).
Algae is natural... What's your point?
My point is that this algae that I speak of is not in your definition of 'natural' (as in, humans did not evolve eating it). Yet they are not all diseased and dying off. My point therefore being that humans do not need to eat any particular diet based on evolutionary principle to be healthy, which is what you are advocating.
I suggest you begin educating yourself on dieting and what humans' bodies have evolved to use over millions of years, and about natural ways of life in general.
As well I would suggest learning about health problems and actual cures for them, like cancer, autism, eczema, etc. The nasty ones that are caused directly from wrong diet and lifestyle.
Algae is in every sense of the word natural.

I know what I am advocating. You don't know what I am advocating. You don't know what you yourself are exactly advocating, as you claim one then you claim something else, but that something else suggests something different from that of the first claim.
There is no particular diet. There is that which we have evolved to use, and then there's our modern interpretations of different "ways". In truth there is us and just one way of eating.

Our bodies and minds are poisoned by so much that we cannot listen to our bodies' true needs nor can they even give us a sign of what's needed, to know what must be eaten. To get to that point you need to rid your body of all the modern crap labeled as "food". If you get that done your body will start working properly, can and will take months, even years.

It is not feasible to expect to provide enough food for 7+ billion people using land-reared livestock and agriculture to grow crops when 1 pound of beef takes 7 pounds of feed to produce and harvesting crops requires more fertile land than what is available.
I have never said anything about feeding 7 billion.
You reduce the population to what can be fed. You think nature with all its aspects must suffer because of our idiocy? No. We should be smart enough to do something about ourselves - we have that capability. And it should get done without delay. The longer the wait the worse the effect, both ways, for us and nature.

When you shot down the Western diet as a deviation from what humans are evolutionary geared to eat, and how this deviation is (one of) the root causes of overpopulation.
With that in no way did I suggest we should go back to being hunter-gatherers.
Every living organism is geared to feed, to eat. We are geared to survive, and survival dictates more than just eating, in our case, with our minds, more than that of primal times, of animal instincts.

No, you just refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn't agree with your worldview.
Why would I acknowledge something not thought through, something that's not realistic when it comes to solving the problems?

Humans aren't really evolving as we used to as we have removed environmental pressures, so this entire paragraph is kind of pointless in relation to the discussion at hand.
Pointless? Statement from ignorance.
How do you know we aren't evolving? Do you know what we will be like a hundred thousand years from now? A million? No, you don't. We do evolve, I'd say faster than ever before. There are so many different conditions and factors a person is subjected to than compared to our primal times. It's rather we don't evolve fast enough.
No, it is not impossible to having nutritious food, but it is near enough impossible to have enough of this nutritious localized food for the number of people that are and will be alive in the near future. So like I said, being able to mass produce a nutrient dense food that has a complete amino acid profile and that can be created in a lab is a good, workable solution to this problem.
Yes, it is possible to have nutritious food. Do you even know what nutritious food is? I get the impression you don't. And it's not just about nutrients, it is also about bacteria in the food, and other micro-organisms that we need.

The lab-produced stuff you are talking about would perhaps be possible a thousand years, probably much more, from now, as that would require us to know everything about our bodies.
Producing in the lab, where would the raw materials come from? How far future do you have in mind?

http://www.theguardian.com...
2,5 billion extra humans by 2050? Yeah... that proves drastic measures are necessary.

I noticed something "70% grains and cereals are fed to farmed animals"... oh shjt what is not wrong with that... I don't suppose you know how bad grains are not just to humans but as well to cattle, to eat a little now and then sure, but to have that as staple feed. Those animals should not be butchered and fed to people, they should first be let out, let them eat actual grass and leaves for years, to heal from all the damage, and then eaten. Grains in such quantities are poison even to plant-eating animals.

Because a realistic solution to overpopulation is by eliminating religion and capitalism and this can definitely be done with the next 100 years. Get over yourself, to be honest. It's always the ones who start with the name calling who have the least justifiable arguments available, because you wouldn't need insults if your case to be made were solid. Food for thought.
You started with name calling...
Anyway, I'm not name calling you, simply describing you. If there was no sufficient reason I would not use those words.
kiryasjoelvillage
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 2:37:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/16/2013 1:47:01 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
I think it is. What say thou?

Yes it is, until the population is well handled! As the population grows, the problems grow. And why not, how easy would it be to make resources available to all. But there is a solution to every problem. If well thought, control on population can help.
Pronatalist
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 4:10:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/17/2013 3:30:21 AM, InvictusManeo wrote:
At 12/16/2013 5:20:03 PM, AndrewB686 wrote:
Yes, the world is quickly becoming grossly overpopulated. I see three possible solutions:

1. Increase in homosexual partnerships in order to stabilize the population

Why not let and encourage huge human populations to soar? More and more people would be glad to live. Each and every human life is of immense value and sacred.

There is no need to "stabilize" human population. Humans are supposed to multiply, so that more and more people can experience life. A denser planet is the obvious way that parents can go on enjoying having their precious darling babies.

People have very powerful reproductive urges. In plumbing, pipes are connected by "opposite sex." You can't have 2 male fittings, because they won't hold together. There must be a male into a female pipe holes, or at least a female coupling or "union" connection. Similarly, we should be encouraging, as the population grows, more and more people to get married, encourage more people to marry younger if they are ready, and welcome babies to push out freely without ever any means of "birth control" to be used.

2. Sterilize certain individuals, but not ethnicities in order to maintain a symmetrical balance between races
3. Eugenics, enough said

Didn't Adolf Hitler discredit eugenics? How is it fair for a few elitists to pick and choose who gets to live and reproduce, and who doesn't? Why do you suggest to make excuses for needless government violence? The alternative to evil eugenics is obviously, we have to let EVERYBODY reproduce. If people still love to reproduce a lot, then you can forget about any way to "control" the ever-growing human population.

Adolf Hitler promoted the idea that Germany needs lebensraum (living space or more room to grow). Well that is fine, if empty frontiers/lands to colonize are still available. Sure, follow the example of Abraham and Lot's growing tribes and spread farther apart, to make more room for their natural increase. But all the land of the earth is already claimed by all the countries. Only 7% of people live in countries in which the population is not growing - an old statistic I heard somewhere. That means that most people live in countries that are steadily growing denser and denser with people. Gaining more lebensraum is impossible without stealing or war against neighboring countries. There is a far better solution, which the world was forced to choose. Allow global population density to rise freely. By allowing the human race to populate up denser and denser, countless billions more can be made to fit, and there is no need for awkward, unnatural "birth control." Indeed, world population tripled since WW2, yet the planet did not get any bigger. Africa had only 230 million people in 1950. Now it is over a billion people. Far more people benefit from such a large population.


You're an evil b*stard.

Overpopulation is our biggest problem. It's not so much the fact that there are too many people so there's no room for all of us (you'd be surprised how often I hear this as an argument against overpopulation), but that there aren't enough resources.

There are plenty of resources, if they were properly developed to favor the natural expansion of human populations, rather than hindered by corrupt governments and the economic problems and poverty and unemployment that corrupt governments bring.


There are a number of things we can and should do, and the list doesn't include eugenics -_-.

1) Nuclear fusion (it's underway)

I think the NWO criminal elitists are suppressing free energy technology, which would go a long way towards reducing poverty, and better accommodate massive human populations without pollution from the growing need for cheap energy to run growing megacities.

2) Cost-effective de-salinisation to meet water demands (this is a tough one but is necessary)

Free energy allows for ocean water to become cheap enough to desalinate, that it could even be used for agriculture, thus greening up deserts, and encouraging us to let the planet grow fuller and fuller of hungry human mouths, that actually CAN BE fed.

3) Population caps for fastest growing nations like Africa, India and the Middle-East (it's also a cultural thing for them to have large families so this is also a tough one).

There is nothing wrong with the rapid speed some "emerging population giants" are growing at, such as Nigeria and Pakistan. I very much agree with them marrying young, and letting families grow naturally without birth control, as I do not believe humans should use any birth control.

Human life is sacred in all its forms: old person, child, toddler, baby, fetus, or the natural spurting of baby batter during marital relations, and so we should not hinder the natural spread of human life. As a pro-lifer, I very much welcome a greater spread of human life, and a much stronger flow of babies into the world. I agree with liberals on a few things, such as, as human populations grow, more people should be encouraged to become sexually-active, and the huge number of humans multiplying worldwide, should steadily increase. Human multiplication is a vital and natural function, much the same as breathing or the heart beating. What I can't agree with liberals on, is their dissing of human life, nor their RAMPANT CONTRACEPTIVE PUSHING. Sex should not be perverted away from God's reproductive purpose, and we should welcome the urgently-eager sperm to find the egg, if it naturally can.

I very much agree with people enjoying having "traditionally very large" families, and allowing families and world population to grow naturally, freely, and that "unplanned" family growth is quite natural and okay. Sure, plan for families to grow, what I mean is that the natural spread of humanity ought to be completely unrestrained. Freely booming population growth allows more and more people to benefit from becoming alive. Population accommodation only, no scheming to needlessly "control" and enslave other people.

Imposing population "caps" is a stupid idea. What happens then when arbitrary caps or quotas are understandably surpassed? Do you really favor government violence, or perhaps government trickery/deceit to rob people of the blessings of their children?

But such such a huge and growing human population that the world now has, something has to give? Well then, give up the ridiculously low global population density of the past. It is just not possible anymore with this "burgeoning billions" amount of people.


I'd say that finding a sustainable food source that is nutrient dense and can be made in a lab, like some kind of algae, is important, too. The amount of land it takes to rear animals for food and crops is too much for the amount of humans there are.

Also hey, colonizing Mars or some other planet would help.

But the manned moon landings were probably faked. Even if the evil NWO Babylon America government is hiding flying saucers from us (a possible explanation of UFOs?), I doubt they have a fleet anywhere near large enough to transport the 211,000 net increase in population that the world grow by, each and every day. We now add nearly a billion people, per decade

They say what populates the planet, is extremely pleasurable. Who in their right mind, could want for sex to be less pleasurable? If I was to find the magic population growth dial of the planet, or could dial up even stronger human reproductive drive, would I not crank it up a few more notches, to make things interesting? The world is so obsessed with sex. We hear it in our songs and movies: "I Wanna Sex You Up," "Erotic City," "Have [sex]!" (Nothing is Going to Break my Stride 1980s song), a 1970s song where the guy wants a house full of kids, etc.

So grow planet dense
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 12:54:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Population is a much bigger problem than most people realize, in terms of the damage it will do to us, but the saving grace is that we will start dying as we pass the carrying capacity of the land and the resulting population crash will kill enough of us to fix the problem.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.