Page 25 of 29 FirstFirst ...
15
23
24
25
26
27
... LastLast
  1. #481
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Every single problem you listed is caused by our industrial complex, not number of people.

    Deforestation is due to clearing land for farming. More people will require more land for farming and more cleared forest. Ocean acidification is due partially to increasing temperatures (from whatever source), and the increase in deadzones is due to agricultural runoff. More people means more farming and more agricultural runoff. Wildlife habitat loss happens when people consume more of the land surface area, which is bound to happen with an increasing population.

    Surely there are ways to increase farming productivity, prevent run-off and ocean pollution, better management of fish stocks, etc., but do you really think countries outside of North America and Western Europe will ever bother with such measures until the land is irreversibly damaged? I'd say you are delusional if you think the human population can continue to grow without destroying what is left of the natural world.

  2. #482
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,206
    Again, that's inefficient consumption, not overpopulation.

  3. #483
    The Unstoppable Force Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    21,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    Deforestation is due to clearing land for farming. More people will require more land for farming and more cleared forest.
    We already produce enough food (and then quite some) per population.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    Ocean acidification is due partially to increasing temperatures (from whatever source), and the increase in deadzones is due to agricultural runoff. More people means more farming and more agricultural runoff. Wildlife habitat loss happens when people consume more of the land surface area, which is bound to happen with an increasing population.
    Oceans are the result of more CO2, see aforementioned industrial complex. As per farming, see above efficiency statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    Surely there are ways to increase farming productivity, prevent run-off and ocean pollution, better management of fish stocks, etc., but do you really think countries outside of North America and Western Europe will ever bother with such measures until the land is irreversibly damaged? I'd say you are delusional if you think the human population can continue to grow without destroying what is left of the natural world.
    I'd say people that think human population is to blame without taking into account the massive strains we put on the planet to accommodate our way of life need to reexamine some key facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.

  4. #484
    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly Willy View Post
    Again, that's inefficient consumption, not overpopulation.
    And I am saying there is no way that we can continue to increase our numbers without making each and every one of these problems worse. Inefficiency or overpopulation, it doesn't matter. More people will equate to more environmental damage. Our species may have the means to prevent this, but it sure as hell doesn't have the will.

  5. #485
    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    Deforestation is due to clearing land for farming. More people will require more land for farming and more cleared forest. Ocean acidification is due partially to increasing temperatures (from whatever source), and the increase in deadzones is due to agricultural runoff. More people means more farming and more agricultural runoff. Wildlife habitat loss happens when people consume more of the land surface area, which is bound to happen with an increasing population.

    Surely there are ways to increase farming productivity, prevent run-off and ocean pollution, better management of fish stocks, etc., but do you really think countries outside of North America and Western Europe will ever bother with such measures until the land is irreversibly damaged? I'd say you are delusional if you think the human population can continue to grow without destroying what is left of the natural world.
    Sorry mate but you need to look into it a bit. We waste so much more than what we produce.

  6. #486
    Elemental Lord Hyve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    8,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Every single problem you listed is caused by our industrial complex, not number of people.
    And the Industrial Complex has been put together to meet the demands of the people who seem to need a new phone every year, who leave their lights on when they go out of the room and all other selfish and foolish attitudes.

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-25 at 02:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Grizzly Willy View Post
    Again, that's inefficient consumption, not overpopulation.
    And you think that inefficient consumption with even more people is going to be a good thing?

  7. #487
    The Unstoppable Force Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    21,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    And I am saying there is no way that we can continue to increase our numbers without making each and every one of these problems worse. Inefficiency or overpopulation, it doesn't matter. More people will equate to more environmental damage. Our species may have the means to prevent this, but it sure as hell doesn't have the will.
    Scientists have derived that our planet could hold 60B people before overpopulation comes into play. Of course the environmental damage caused by our waste would destroy the biosphere long before then.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.

  8. #488
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    I'd say people that think human population is to blame without taking into account the massive strains we put on the planet to accommodate our way of life need to reexamine some key facts.
    Sure if we reverted to a pre-industrial, agrarian society many of the problems wouldn't exist; but do you think that is likely? It doesn't matter than the issue is our current lifestyle, because that will never change, will never revert to the way things were pre-1800's. More people will put a greater strain on the planets ecology than we already do. It will take a major turning point in human history for this to change.

  9. #489
    The Unstoppable Force Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    21,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    Sure if we reverted to a pre-industrial, agrarian society many of the problems wouldn't exist; but do you think that is likely? It doesn't matter than the issue is our current lifestyle, because that will never change, will never revert to the way things were pre-1800's. More people will put a greater strain on the planets ecology than we already do. It will take a major turning point in human history for this to change.
    Or we could just delve into high-tech efficiency; mass transit, bio-engineered crops, etc. This is already being done.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.

  10. #490
    Scarab Lord StayTuned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Germany & Croatia & Netherlands
    Posts
    4,318
    And how about you start minding your own business and stop forcing your weird ideas onto people who have nothing to do with you?

    Your Jose Ramirez comment also makes you look totally like someone I'd like to listen to.

    I am sure all the "4th child of a family" people would like to have a talk with you. Wonder what they would say if you come up with your abortion idea....

  11. #491
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Hyve View Post
    And you think that inefficient consumption with even more people is going to be a good thing?
    Who said anything about continuing that kind of consumption? We're only going to be getting more efficient as the need arises, and hopefully before the need arises.

  12. #492
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    Or we could just delve into high-tech efficiency; mass transit, bio-engineered crops, etc. This is already being done.
    Measures are being taken in wealthy countries that don't have huge population problems. I am well aware that we COULD stop much of the environmental degradation, but only wealthy countries have the ability to do so, and even then most people are only agreeable when it doesn't hurt their pocketbook or inconvenience them. Do you think such steps will happen in Africa before it is too late? India? China(they may get their shit together before some of the others)? Southeast Asia?

    As someone above stated, we already have a massive problem with the way to treat our ecosystems. More people will only make this worse.

  13. #493
    The Unstoppable Force Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    21,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Skarssen View Post
    Measures are being taken in wealthy countries that don't have huge population problems. I am well aware that we COULD stop much of the environmental degradation, but only wealthy countries have the ability to do so, and even then most people are only agreeable when it doesn't hurt their pocketbook or inconvenience them. Do you think such steps will happen in Africa before it is too late? India? China(they may get their shit together before some of the others)? Southeast Asia?

    As someone above stated, we already have a massive problem with the way to treat our ecosystems. More people will only make this worse.
    And how exactly does population cause these already existing environmental issues? It's the industry in developed / developing nations that is causing this environmental crisis, not the fact there are 7 billion people on the Earth.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.

  14. #494
    Liberal fascism, ladies and gentlemen.

    If China doesn't serve as an example of why population control is a terrible idea, I don't think anything will.

    Furthermore, the whole idea is predicated off the notion that we have overpopulation, which is a total lie. It runs completely opposite to forecasts which show a declining population due to birthrate. Not even the turd-world boom will last forever.

  15. #495
    Bloodsail Admiral Zygersaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    England :D
    Posts
    1,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    Yes, people on welfare should be limited to one child paid for. Do that and they wont have so many babies. They should be able to have as amny kids as they want, but I dont want to pay for their lack of planning.
    People on welfare shouldn't even be allowed 1. If you can't afford it, you can't have it.

    Personally I think people should be limited to 2, that way you are only replacing yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Drakhar View Post
    Honestly though I'd be amazed if the xpac took that long, even taking Blizzard's soon(tm) into consideration. If it doesn't come out before October it means there are some serious issues behind the scenes and it's time to abandon ship like an Italian cruiseliner captain.

  16. #496
    Scarab Lord Jevlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Where the Monocles live.
    Posts
    4,496
    No absolutely not. There should however be a limit to economic benefits from having multiple children. One should not be able to make a career out of child birth. Let's call it...diminishing returns
    Something, Something, Something, Dark Side.

  17. #497
    High Overlord JoeTheHoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Mansfield England
    Posts
    120
    Education is often the best way to stop people having babies, not just in sex education but giving them wider horizons for careers. They are more often than not less inclined to have a baby before they have made a life for themselves.

    Unlike fat spongers who pop out sproggs to keep the money coming in because they have got fuck all else to do.

  18. #498
    Quote Originally Posted by Jevlin View Post
    No absolutely not. There should however be a limit to economic benefits from having multiple children. One should not be able to make a career out of child birth. Let's call it...diminishing returns
    That would involve cutting welfare which means cries of "DATS WACIST" from liberals.

  19. #499
    Yes, absolutely.

    The earth cannot possibly sustain this kind of population growth.

    World-wide: 2 children per household.

    "There are two types of guys in this world. Guys who sniff their fingers after scratching their balls, and dirty fucking liars." -StylesClashv3
    "Elo Hell is where the Ego is greater than the Elo." -Bystekhilcar

  20. #500
    Pandaren Monk docterfreeze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Finding a stranger in the alps.
    Posts
    1,835
    Not a limit, a license. People should need to get a parenting license before having kids.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •