Mott: "Those numbers are extremely conservative and probably far off the mark."
Jack: The Scientists came up with the number. They must have had a reason for the calculation.
Mott: "The planets human carrying capacity of the planet far exceeds the numbers the article quotes by 3 to 4 times those numbers."
Jack: Wow! Are you sure it's not 10 or 20 times the number the Article quotes? (I'm taking their word on this over yours)
Mott: "As for the ecological effects of course those areas seeing large population growth are profoundly impacted."
Jack: Yes. Scarcity of Fresh Water would be one thing.
Mott: "As to why more, that’s a question with no real answer."
Jack: The Answer would be LESS Humans. NOT MORE. Is there ANY benefit for MORE Humans on the Planet?
Mott: "Ultimately humanity is governed by the laws of biology and if human populations exceed the capacity to support life then large numbers of the excessive populations will die."
Jack: Yes. Or Humans have the capacity to see what could happen and Plan for the Future.
Mott: "... until a balance with carrying capacity is reached."
Jack: OR ... the Humans degrade the Planet, the Water, and the Atmosphere, to the point no Humans can exist on Earth, the Home Planet.
It's funny (not funny haha, but funny odd) that the same people that claim 'Climate Change' is caused by 'Human Activity', don't support a Program of Population Control.
USFREEDOM911 (07-15-2019)
In about 1800 Malthus came up with the problem being a linear food supply and exponential population growth eventually crossing.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism He was fighting for population control. This is not new. Malthus was a reverend.It was not an affront to religious people then.
Jack (07-14-2019)
well If the females are culled and their sex parts smoked or pressed for oil
then the males may prefer to be culled at onset of sex parts
USFREEDOM911 (07-15-2019)
on the serious side
you can pay every female alive ( men too if they have some way of proving it ...say temporary or permanent sterilization) a stipend for not being pregnant that year.
its a world problem and would require a world wide solution
USFREEDOM911 (07-15-2019)
Jack (07-14-2019)
Hi Jack,
I like to put it this way.
Ask 100 people what they think the biggest problem in the world is. Don't prompt them with any context. Just straight up question, right out of the blue.
My contention is that NONE would answer thus:
"The biggest problem the world faces is we just don't have enough humans on the planet."
I think we already exceeded the most comfortable level of human population a long time ago. We could all have so much more if there were far fewer humans.
There would be more of everything to go around. Land, natural resources, etc.
And there would be far less pollution.
The world would be great with about a billion, I think.
Seems all to much like we are in the process of extracting natural resources and converting them into pollutants and landfill material.
Question comes to mind: How long can we do that?
The answer is: A lot longer if there were fewer of us.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Jack (07-14-2019)
What you say sounds like common sense to me.
There seems to be a lack of consensus on what 'facts' we are using.
If one person claims 'Climate Change' is our Greatest Threat and is caused by 'Human Activity'. And the next person claims 'Climate Change' is a Chinese Hoax and there's more than enough Land for doubling of the World Population, then you're not going to resolve anything.
PoliTalker (07-14-2019)
Bookmarks