There Is No Overpopulation

[LeeLemonoil]

Yup, I noticed that and the discrepancy to it too. It’s likely some sort of schizophrenia, overcompensation or what not. It’s certainly ridiculous.

Have you also noticed in recent years that any profane commodity like some crisps, liquor and so forth are now packaged and advertised as „crafted“ or styled as coming from handmade labour of some 19th century manufactury. Everything is manufactured despite it being packed and produced by machinery only maybe in much smaller numbers. People are disaffected and estranged, like Marx put it, even the well-paid white-collar condo-dwellers in the cities. And that’s their answer: consume „consciously“ overpriced fake-goods. But this Gin features more botanicals than the one from the supermarket. I feel connected to nature drinking it.

 

[Kunstruct]

Lol. In New York they also wear Carharrt and Patagonia clothing to imbue a life of hard physical labor and outdoorsmenship even though many are white collar workers. Interesting to see outerwear brand sales skyrocket with the concern for environmentalism and mass consumption of material goods.

Absolutely.

 

[soul_rebel]

Lol. In New York they also wear Carharrt and Patagonia clothing to imbue a life of hard physical labor and outdoorsmenship even though many are white collar workers. Interesting to see outerwear brand sales skyrocket with the concern for environmentalism and mass consumption of material goods.

I have noticed that as well. To look like a craftsman with their casual clothing, but the people work in tech or finance.....pretty funny.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

@Rafael Lao Wai

I know these numbers are correct because I do the required research. Those are official figures from different state-agencies for statistics.
And you might reconsider you defamatory tone when addressing my comments. I don’t hate humans as a species, but there are a lot of despicable individuals, imo at least. Thing is, I still respect their individual rights set by the state and society I live in fully. Quite to the contrary what so many self-styled world-savers do when they face political or ideological opposition. Take your Greta as example.

And yes, I think killing Elephants in 2019 is not justified when the cause is population-surplus of failed african states.
Your arguments come full circle and you don’t see it. If you say it’s peoples right to have as much children as they like because it’s a natural desire, you can justify virtually anything by that and you already do justify killing big mammals other than Homo sapiens by it. Humans are animals too, as you said. Do killing one animal is fine, killing the other isn’t? I find that disgusting.

I‘ve not defended the killings of European colonialism with a single word here, but pervert crimes from the past don’t mitigate the responsibility not to do similar things today.

So you didn't come up with these numbers yourself. Official doesn't necessarily mean much, when the "official" treatment for diabetes is metformin and sugar avoidance. If these big agencies are the ones doing the math, then do you not think they may have changed it to suit their own interests?

I only used a "defamatory" tone because you used it first. Saying that people who aren't worried about climate change are "beyong rationality" isn't defamatory?

Yes, I agree, there are many sick people in society. It's just that you used those ill people as a reason to say that humans aren't that good, even though most people( that I've known) do seem to care about others. It does come off as disregarding for humanity.

Well, African states are as corrupt( or way more corrupt, in many cases) as any other government: it has the potential to help its population a lot, but all it does is take advantage of them, and leave them in terrible conditions. Elephants, as well as other wild animals, can be very dangerous and easily kill a person. What are they supposed to do? Remove the corruption from the government and perhaps these problems will go away.

How do my arguments come in full circle?

Do you kill mosquitoes? What about wasps? Cockroaches? If so, then you are being speciesist. So it's only big mammals that we cannot kill? If the animal is ugly and tiny, can we kill it?

No, you can't justify everything by saying that it's natural. Knowing what's natural can point you in the correct direction, but not everything that is unnatural is bad.

You didn't defend the murders during colonialism, but you failed to mention the killings, while showing concern for elephants. If the consequences of colonialism can be "overcompensated" with money, then let's give money to the elephants then. Let's build a city for them, even though we already killed a bunch. Just like with colonialism, it will have benefits, even though many of the elephants' relatives were murdered.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

I'll also add that I think the overcrowding bit is more of a structural issue.

People in some areas live so close together in many ways that it can be what appears as overcrowding or even overpopulation. If everything/everyone feels scrunched up more, the natural tendency is likely that there "isn't enough space" or such. Also, location availably matters too. Some only perceive the living, residential or housing areas as a metric in how much space and resources we have.

What about all of that other space that is either abandoned or unused or used by businesses or government or etc.? What about forests, mountains, deserts; seemingly endless fields, grasslands, deadlines, marshes? If you asked someone who lived in a mountain or mountain range about overpopulation or crowding, what do you think they'll say?

Limits are more down to structure or method of implementation than actual inevitability.

When you really analyze it all you realize that there is no real concerns for "running out of space" or such. The real things to focus on and improve would be the economy, environment, technology, EMF/radiation, pollutions, chemical poisons, modified weather, heavy metals, contaminations, automation, and access to more items of necessity than over regulating and restricting certain things that can benefit everyone better. Clean energy, better diet/health, better environments, better means (financially) and less excess modification and/or restriction of some things would be great changes that further accommodate more and more people if necessary.

By the time we truly do see overpopulating as a soon to be coming thing it likely wouldn't be an issue by that point.

Often, when I catch a bus, there is a lot of people inside. If the population was more spread out through the country, instead of accumulating in cities, then there would probably be much less crowding, including in public transport. I can see why many people think there is an overpopulation, since they experience crowding almost every single day.

For sure, just because climate change may be overblown, it doesn't mean pollution and wastage of food are. Near my house, there is a bay which is so dirty and polluted that we can sometimes smell it from quite a few kilometers. It's a shame really. There are even gators living in there. They can't be enjoying all that crap in their water. Also, most butcher's shops in my region have a terrible smell of rotten meat, mixed with bleach. I only buy meat from one butcher currently. People likely won't buy all that meat that is already bad (unless they are extremely poor), so it will go to waste.

And yeah, if people were as concerned about EMFs and their impact on human health as many are regarding the climate, we would have experienced actual health increases from lowered radiation in the environment.

When I used to travel from Rio de Janeiro to São Paulo, I would always see the sheer amount of space. Lots of small mountains and pasture land. In many areas, there were cows grazing. One of the few times that I went to a farm( it was a small one), I could see that they had plenty of space there too. I don't think they would say we have too many people. Running out of space does seem far-fetched, I agree.

 

[akgrrrl]

Our perception defines what constitutes overpopulation. Me, I like that the rhino's and lions and tigers and wolves can roam freely without human settlements and cities encroaching on their turf. Not only that, that the demand for rhino horns or elephants tusks are so miniscule that there won't be so many poachers making rhinos extinct and needing protection.

Why is poaching even a livelihood? Probably because the poacher has to feed his family, and between saving his family and making rhinos extinct, he chooses the former. If he has another livelihood, he may not be a poacher. In an overpopulated world, having a good livelihood gets scarce.

Seems like humans can't stop themselves from polluting. More humans, more harm to the environment. It's never going to change. Is there any question that the more populated earth is with humans, the more unliveable it gets for all God's creatures?

Look at all the seashore beside major cities. Try swimming in the Baltic, for example. Go to major rivers where civilization flourishes. How fares the water quality. The more sparse the population, the cleaner water gets. You can enjoy paddling down a river or stream and see the flora and fauna it supports.

Why are we even living in pigeon-holes called condos? Why aren't people waking up to birds chirping or cicadas humming?

Why do people make life on earth so devoid of bliss that they long for an eternal life in paradise? Why can't earth be paradise? Isn't it time reconsider the exhortation of Jesus to go forth and multiply? I mean, you don't have to multiply like rabbits anymore. Perhaps when we go back to an agrarian age, we could.

I admit I hate seeing my city go from my childhood to a traffic-congested sprawling metro where the commute robs people of the full expression of community. This is where you have more time to be with family and friends, and still have time left over for yourself - to read, to tinker, to explore, to learn, to meditate. Without quality time, we easily become creatures of programming - from mass media.

We as humans think too highly of ourselves. Many would use the Bible to interpret humans as having dominion over other creatures as a license to crowd them out instead of acting as stewards to protect them. Overpopulation forces us to choose between helping humans on the brink of starvation over other creatures as we encroach on their natural habitat.

While we argue over what's right and what's wrong, we keep growing--out of bounds. But the earth has its own ways to re-establish balance. Or we can simply push ourselves to mutual attrition, as our collective mood will bring about the equivalent of species apoptosis.

Lovely contribution yerrag, thoughtful and complete per your usual here Thankyou.

 

[Luann]

I have two thoughts here.
One is rather vague but ties in to cultural teachings of guilt. White guilt comes to mind as does this ---> on how we are taught that "Rich People Are Greedy". Real basic article, but true nonetheless. (edit to clarify) the idea is that functional, smart, able people are taught to think badly about themselves for wanting to make their world a better place.
The other is that a common belief now is that 'there's more resources to go around now that there's gonna be less people!'
When I hear something to that effect I just have no words. People seem to think a "resource" is like an Amazon Prime package that just shows up at your door. It's taken the world's smartest people thousands of years to get to where we are now: cars, highways, clean water, computers, all the stuff we rely on. NONE of that just shows up at your door. Not your clothes, not your food, not any of it. Resources must be actively mined and maintained for human use. We are not catfish, we don't just eat whatever happens to be in front of us. So 'less people' just turns into a smaller, shoddier workforce and resources will rot happily away.

 

[yerrag]

The other is that a common belief now is that 'there's more resources to go around now that there's gonna be less people!'
When I hear something to that effect I just have no words. People seem to think a "resource" is like an Amazon Prime package that just shows up at your door. It's taken the world's smartest people thousands of years to get to where we are now: cars, highways, clean water, computers, all the stuff we rely on. NONE of that just shows up at your door. Not your clothes, not your food, not any of it. Resources must be actively mined and maintained for human use. We are not catfish, we don't just eat whatever happens to be in front of us. So 'less people' just turns into a smaller, shoddier workforce and resources will rot happily away.

I can't dispute that we're not catfish, but I can't understand what you are implying, that a modern man-made ecosystem, would require more and more humans to sustain it. And that more and more people will improve the quality of the workforce. You seem to imply that quantity begets quality, and that more and more people is needed to make the world a better place, as if there's a direct correlation that does not take into account other factors.

 

[yerrag]

I like reading your long and thoughtful posts sometimes yerrag - this one was really beautifully put.

I read a passage in a book once that effectively said "when it comes to science and human progress, often our minds race ahead while our hearts lag behind."

I hate the way everything becomes a commodity in modern discourse - you cannot put a productivity value on a beautiful area of trees and green space because it's an abstract notion. These things are too easily disregarded but in reality they're priceless.

Thanks sunraiser. It's hard to quantify many things. It's like something that's slways with us. It's only when it goes away that we realize how valuable it is.

Lovely contribution yerrag, thoughtful and complete per your usual here Thankyou.

Thanks akgrrrl! I can see how well you've been exposed to nature in your various stops. It adds a perspective that has to be imagined in an urban-centric life.

 

[MetabolicTrash]

I think the idea of overpopulation can be rendered to anhedonic/misanthropic-like thinking from some.

The very idea that one might suppose a sort of "purging" or "cleanse" as a follow up for "overpopulation" suggests low regard for humanity -- or even in some fewer cases possible serotonergic power craze. Even if we were overpopulated, who and what position would one have to be in to feel in any place to eradicate said population and on what terms?

I state this because those who think overpopulation is a serious issue might be more apt to support restrictive methods as birth control/birth limits, population control tactics and so on, which touches on the subject of free will/choices/etc.

 

[Luann]

Quantity over quality? I think by raising the concern of manufacturing resources, I imply that I am not just speaking of any persons.
Although it's true that quantity of people a.k.a birthrate equates to young/middle aged persons who do wind up being some of the more able workers in a society.
Forgive if this answer seems testy, just trying to clarify my words.

 

[yerrag]

Quantity over quality? I think by raising the concern of manufacturing resources, I imply that I am not just speaking of any persons.
Although it's true that quantity of people a.k.a birthrate equates to young/middle aged persons who do wind up being some of the more able workers in a society.
Forgive if this answer seems testy, just trying to clarify my words.

It doesn't have to be that young people be more able. Our forum understands the value of health, and with that, longevity. Along with that, the date of expiry, or best by date, doesn't have to be a certain defined age range considered 'productive' by what we normally accept.

If we are to find the best meaning and use of our lives, we may find living longer and useful lives to be one that nurtures a quality development in children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Away from the state's interference and predeliction to propagandize and destroy strong social structures.

This is an alternative to early dying and prodigious childbirth which for me is wrongly associated with being conservative and pro-family.

You have a well-connected social structure, and in a country building on the strength of the germ of a strong family unit, it will follow that we can think and act wisely with regard to how we face population pressures and not be subject to the guilt that ideologies and religions and politicians force upon us.

 

[Luann]

I appreciate your hopes and blueprint for a healthier world and I echo them.
From where I am standing it seems that, for now, trends are going the other way. It has been said that older people are taking more out of social security than they were putting in. Now, the health issues that people are facing in their thirties and forties may mean that this will be true of younger 'seniors'. Of course, SS and medical treatment have and will yet undergo changes to their relationship to people's incomes so it's hard to measure.
If the healthspan of people could be elongated by, say, five or ten years, it still seems unlikely that this trend would apply to the majority of working people. I think it will apply to the kinds of people in articles like this and this.
"Away from the state's interference and predeliction to propagandize and destroy strong social structures". I agree very much.

 

[Peatness]

India's Negative Birth Rate: Globalist 'Overpopulation' Myth Falters Again - 21st Century Wire

21WIRE | Malthusian predictions of over-population have been repeatedly over-exaggerated, as evidenced by this latest news out of Asia.

21stcenturywire.com

 

[Michael Mohn]

Some parts of the World produce more people than food. Africa is importing 25% of it's food. A lot is send there for free by Western nations. There's enough medication sent to insure the survival of every African child beyond reproductive age and reproduce they do. Arabia and China are food net importers too. This population growth is financed by subsidies like EU subsidies, US farm bill and foreign aid, exporting cheap grains and seeds. If we're going to have a little ice age, like some predict (see Ice Age Farmer) and harvests collapse then we will see a famine of glorious proportion. The consequence would be a population movement that would wipe out the West too. We don't have overpopulation in terms of land vs people but we certainly have overpopulation in terms of food production vs people in large parts of the world.

 

[Peatness]

View: https://medium.com/illumination/neocolonialism-how-western-corporations-are-exploiting-africa-d0e197af1950


Richard Drayton: The wealth of the west was built on Africa's exploitation

World is plundering Africa's wealth of 'billions of dollars a year'

The scale of the UK's involvement in Africa's resources is staggering. So too is its disregard for the rights of those affected | African Arguments

STEALING AFRICA: Why is Africa so rich in resources yet so poor?

Multinational corporations: The new colonisers in Africa | Pambazuka News

The New Colonialism: Britain's scramble for Africa's energy and mineral resources

 

[Michael Mohn]

View: https://medium.com/illumination/neocolonialism-how-western-corporations-are-exploiting-africa-d0e197af1950


Richard Drayton: The wealth of the west was built on Africa's exploitation

World is plundering Africa's wealth of 'billions of dollars a year'

The scale of the UK's involvement in Africa's resources is staggering. So too is its disregard for the rights of those affected | African Arguments

STEALING AFRICA: Why is Africa so rich in resources yet so poor?

Multinational corporations: The new colonisers in Africa | Pambazuka News

The New Colonialism: Britain's scramble for Africa's energy and mineral resources

If you're unable to find your resources,
If you're unable to access/mine your resources,
If you're unable to transport your resources,
If you're unable to refine your resources,
If you're unable to manufacture useful goods from your resources like machines, infrastructure, industrial and consumer goods then it's not your resources.

I'm not denying that the incompetence of Africans is exploited to the max by cooperations but Africans can't even farm the land and produce enough food. Other countries have similar problems, I don't want to single out Africans but their overall ineptitude is at the extreme end.

 

[Peatness]

If you're unable to find your resources,
If you're unable to access/mine your resources,
If you're unable to transport your resources,
If you're unable to refine your resources,
If you're unable to manufacture useful goods from your resources like machines, infrastructure, industrial and consumer goods then it's not your resources.

I'm not denying that the incompetence of Africans is exploited to the max by cooperations but Africans can't even farm the land and produce enough food. Other countries have similar problems, I don't want to single out Africans but their overall ineptitude is at the extreme end.

Your understanding of geopolitics is so limited I don’t blame you for these comments. However, If I were you I would be embarrassed to make them publically. I don’t have the energy or the desire to furnish you with evidence that the so called African incompetence is fictitious and part of the problem.

 

[Michael Mohn]

Your understanding of geopolitics is so limited I don’t blame you for these comments. However, If I were you I would be embarrassed to make them publically. I don’t have the energy or the desire to furnish you with evidence that the so called African incompetence is fictitious and part of the problem.

An enlightened student of geopolitics!
What's next, some moral grandstanding of (((Noah Chomsky))) ??
I happily forgo your lectures, in your case a flood of links to the Guardian or other whiney paper mills. You can't even voice your opinion in a few sentences but I don't blame you just your lack of energy.

P.S. LOL, I just wrote the Guardian on a hunch and then I checked the first 2 links. You're such a sad stereotype.

 

[Peatness]

An enlightened student of geopolitics!
What's next, some moral grandstanding of (((Noah Chomsky))) ??
I happily forgo your lectures, in your case a flood of links to the Guardian or other whiney paper mills. You can't even voice your opinion in a few sentences but I don't blame you just your lack of energy.

P.S. LOL, I just wrote the Guardian on a hunch and then I checked the first 2 links. You're such a sad stereotype.

Sterotype is a word you cannot pin on me. You bore me which is why I lack energy to engage with you.