World Population Clock - disturbing

[Alex123]

The universe doesn't give a f**k how much we reproduce. When it's ready to explode again, we're ALL stardust.

Right. An asteroid smashing into earth can really put in check any excessive growth. To live is hard, to die is easy.

Since we have no control over indifferent nature, the escape from samsara and not "population growth" should be our primary concern. Humans will never breed at a fast enough rate to outpace the will of nature and the reality of samsara.

You are absolutely right.

[tiltbillings]

[Dan74]

Would it be better if assertions in all posts here were actually supported by facts referenced from reputable sources?

I mean we can all shout our opinions passionately past each other 'till the cows come home, but what are we actually trying to achieve with this?

Hi Dan,
I do not mean to be facetious, slippery, sophistical, cute or mischievous, but it depends on what you mean by "facts" and "reputable sources."

I've cited what I believe is a reputable geologist (James Hutton), a reputable (living) paleontologist (Greg Graffin, Ph.D), and a reputable physicist (Albert A. Bartlett, Ph.D).

Best,
Daniel

Daniel

You seem to argue that we are not draining the planets resources, that overpopulation is not a legitimate concern and anyway when the Universe explodes again, we are all startdust, so why be concerned at all.

Alex seems to argue that Global Warming is a global conspiracy.

The former position is entirely a matter of perspective and I think a very self-centred and short-sighted perspective in this instance. What Alex asserts is a fringe opinion supported neither by the bulk of evidence nor by the most serious experts in the field. It is similar to the argument that smoking does not cause cancer that held sway among some people mostly supported by tobacco companies, and even a few who should've known better like the great statistician, RA Fisher. Oh, how quickly we forget!

So what I am trying to ask for is to separate opinions from evidence, personal perspectives from facts. You may not care about the planet and you are in good company there - from Louis XIV to Exxon Valdez, there have been plenty of people like that. If you are a rare contemplative, a recluse who shuns modern comforts and massive energy usage bought at a dear expense to this ecosystem - fine. If you are a modern Westerner who is happy to use but not to think where it is coming from and at what cost - this is sheer hypocrisy.

As for what Alex maintains, again this is an emotionally-laden bias that the corporate lobbies and growth-wallah have nurtured successfully in the great US of A and a little less here. There is nothing anyone can say to convince people like this because they are not interested in the facts - the mind's made up. Probably the same with you too, on this topic.

There is so much crap floating around all these topics, I don't know where to start - even this population "calculation" above...

[daverupa]

Well-said.

[Kim O'Hara]

There is so much crap floating around all these topics, I don't know where to start - even this population "calculation" above...

Indeed.
Here is one possible starting point, however: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_basics_overview/


Kim

[Ytrog]

There is so much crap floating around all these topics, I don't know where to start - even this population "calculation" above...

You can make the calculations yourself to check it. It is simple arithmetic and my intention of posting the video where the calculation was quoted from was simply so that people here would at least have the skills necessary to interpret and check the facts in various articles posted. What is crap about it?

[Kim O'Hara]

There is so much crap floating around all these topics, I don't know where to start - even this population "calculation" above...

You can make the calculations yourself to check it. It is simple arithmetic and my intention of posting the video where the calculation was quoted from was simply so that people here would at least have the skills necessary to interpret and check the facts in various articles posted. What is crap about it?

Ytrog,
I wasn't thinking of your post when I responded to Dan. I haven't watched the video but I know (and I'm sure he does) that, as you say, "there is no such thing as sustainable growth" in the long term.
However, we do see people presenting irrelevant, misleading or poorly understood science all the time, and quite often we see people presenting lies as truth - sometimes in good faith, sometimes not. In a word, crap.
As I said earlier in this thread, I don't believe overpopulation is going to be a critical problem for the world - partly because we are learning to control our population growth, partly because other problems are likely to strike first. Just for that reason, 'exponential growth' as such is not necessarily a problem for humanity.


Kim

[danieLion]

Daniel
You seem to argue that we are not draining the planets resources, that overpopulation is not a legitimate concern and anyway when the Universe explodes again, we are all startdust, so why be concerned at all.

"Seems" is a good way to put it. My posts go to the limits of our knowledge.

What do you mean by "argue"?

Alex seems to argue that Global Warming is a global conspiracy.

Don't conflate what I'm saying with Alex's posts. I'm not his spokesman.

So what I am trying to ask for is to separate opinions....

Now you want opinions? What happened to "facts" and "reputable sources"?

You may not care about the planet....

I have no idea where you get that from and it borders on slander.

There is so much crap floating around all these topics, I don't know where to start - even this population "calculation" above...

Did you watch the video? If you put the population computation in the context of the whole video, you might get a little closer to understanding how I'm proceeding (Hint: the physicists in the video AGREES WITH YOU ABOUT RESOURCES AND POPULATION). It SEEMS you've also got pretty emotional over all
this.

Here's another, but more general, hint. How do you know the earth moves?
Best,
Daniel

[danieLion]

There is so much crap floating around all these topics, I don't know where to start - even this population "calculation" above...

You can make the calculations yourself to check it. It is simple arithmetic and my intention of posting the video where the calculation was quoted from was simply so that people here would at least have the skills necessary to interpret and check the facts in various articles posted. What is crap about it?

Ytrog,
I wasn't thinking of your post when I responded to Dan. I haven't watched the video but I know (and I'm sure he does) that, as you say, "there is no such thing as sustainable growth" in the long term.
However, we do see people presenting irrelevant, misleading or poorly understood science all the time, and quite often we see people presenting lies as truth - sometimes in good faith, sometimes not. In a word, crap.
As I said earlier in this thread, I don't believe overpopulation is going to be a critical problem for the world - partly because we are learning to control our population growth, partly because other problems are likely to strike first. Just for that reason, 'exponential growth' as such is not necessarily a problem for humanity.


Kim

Kim,
You (and Dan) should watch the WHOLE video before you put your feet in your mouths again.
Best,
Daniel

[Kim O'Hara]

Kim,
You (and Dan) should watch the WHOLE video before you put your feet in your mouths again.
Best,
Daniel

Daniel,
I am not muddled and I haven't put my foot in my mouth at all (in this thread, anyway ) but I suspect you are and have.
If you have a sensible question, I will try to answer it.
If you clearly say something which I know to be wrong, I may try to set you straight.
Other than that, I can't see much point in continuing the discussion.


Kim

[danieLion]

Kim,
You (and Dan) should watch the WHOLE video before you put your feet in your mouths again.
Best,
Daniel

Daniel...,

If you have a sensible question, I will try to answer it....


Kim

Hi Kim,
I'm probably wrong about this, but it seems to me like you're trying to relegate the discussion to a mere Q&A where you moderate and we discuss only your "facts" backed by your "evidence" so you can, as you put it, set us straight?

Did you watch the whole video yet?
Best,
Daniel

[danieLion]

There is so much crap floating around all these topics, I don't know where to start - even this population "calculation" above...

Indeed.
Here is one possible starting point, however: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_basics_overview/


Kim

From the link.

The Ecological Footprint has emerged as the world’s premier measure of humanity’s demand on nature.

Kim,
Is this a joke?
To make such a "standard" work would at minimum require another planet similar enough to this one to compare it to.

The Ecological Footprint is scientificated political correctness.
Best,
Daniel

[Kim O'Hara]

Hi Kim,
I'm probably wrong about this, but it seems to me like you're trying to relegate the discussion to a mere Q&A where you moderate and we discuss only your "facts" backed by your "evidence" so you can, as you put it, set us straight?

Daniel,
I don't want to be a referee or moderator.
My facts and evidence don't have snarky quotation marks around them.
Other than that, pretty close.
That's the best I can offer, since I haven't the time or inclination to wade through junk or watch long videos.


Kim

[Ben]

I am closing this thread temporarily so that all concerned can get some sunshine and fresh air.