Are we really overpopulated?

Discuss anything here

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by zaseo »

shugo_lover wrote:
Kuukai wrote:
zaseo wrote:Well as far people go people shall still stick close to their race. That shall never changed.
This will totally change. Race is an outdated concept. Like caste, or nobility, circumstances of birth, or other things that used to be so important to people.
shugo_lover wrote:Humans defy everything that is considered 'natural'.
Really? What is life? A cell is just dirt that's been rearranged and ordered with help from another cell. Anything "artificial" that humans do is just an extension of this rule of life to assimilate chaos and create structure. What's sad is actually how inescapable this is. Even when we're blowing stuff up, we're trying to do that.

Global warming, for example, isn't a case of "artificial=bad" per se, just a case of us being too stupid to realize what we're doing is counterproductive to our goals. We're an imperfect system, like al llife. One could imagine a scenario when unintelligent, monocellular life on some other planet ends up facing the same problem and burning itself out due to its own carbon exhaust. So these aren't human problems, they're #lifeproblems

That said, we possess the power to screw up more rapidly than other life on this planet.
I meant it as a natural instinct kind of thing. It just seems like humans don't really think along the lines of things like we would if we were living in the wild and that's what sets us apart from other animals because we don't do things based on instinct. However, maybe it's because of our higher thinking that has made us evolve and not need to think that way. Alright, I'm just getting off topic now.
(Phantom) Thief wrote:My default answer is no. I think If our actions were more effective then more of us would live. However since most of us are pro life, we might as well state yes to deal with a change or ten.. Heck someone's already planning a colonization project for Mars in 2022
I think the number of pro life and pro choice is pretty split down the middle. That's just my opinion though, I'm not about to try and look up any statistics for it. Also, the whole mars thing was supposed to be in 2023. We have no business to be in space when we can't even fix things on our own planet. I don't think we're over populated but from a money and economical stand point, I think we are. I was reading an article the other day about how by 2020 I think it was, that all the welfare money will run out along with another system that's government related. However, I don't think this issue really has a lot to do with population and more of the government just giving it out to everyone even druggies and people who don't need it..
I truly wonder if the birth rates are actually falling. Hypothetically think of birth rates if birth control/abortion(after birth included) didn't exist.

A nation is only as strong as the people that hyper produce(whoever earns the most money/breadwinners) for it. With no reason for the hyper producers to exploit their full production a nation is going to be in a lot of trouble financially.
User avatar
shugo_lover
The Oath Keeper
The Oath Keeper
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:43 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by shugo_lover »

zaseo wrote:
shugo_lover wrote:
Kuukai wrote:
zaseo wrote:Well as far people go people shall still stick close to their race. That shall never changed.
This will totally change. Race is an outdated concept. Like caste, or nobility, circumstances of birth, or other things that used to be so important to people.
shugo_lover wrote:Humans defy everything that is considered 'natural'.
Really? What is life? A cell is just dirt that's been rearranged and ordered with help from another cell. Anything "artificial" that humans do is just an extension of this rule of life to assimilate chaos and create structure. What's sad is actually how inescapable this is. Even when we're blowing stuff up, we're trying to do that.

Global warming, for example, isn't a case of "artificial=bad" per se, just a case of us being too stupid to realize what we're doing is counterproductive to our goals. We're an imperfect system, like al llife. One could imagine a scenario when unintelligent, monocellular life on some other planet ends up facing the same problem and burning itself out due to its own carbon exhaust. So these aren't human problems, they're #lifeproblems

That said, we possess the power to screw up more rapidly than other life on this planet.
I meant it as a natural instinct kind of thing. It just seems like humans don't really think along the lines of things like we would if we were living in the wild and that's what sets us apart from other animals because we don't do things based on instinct. However, maybe it's because of our higher thinking that has made us evolve and not need to think that way. Alright, I'm just getting off topic now.
(Phantom) Thief wrote:My default answer is no. I think If our actions were more effective then more of us would live. However since most of us are pro life, we might as well state yes to deal with a change or ten.. Heck someone's already planning a colonization project for Mars in 2022
I think the number of pro life and pro choice is pretty split down the middle. That's just my opinion though, I'm not about to try and look up any statistics for it. Also, the whole mars thing was supposed to be in 2023. We have no business to be in space when we can't even fix things on our own planet. I don't think we're over populated but from a money and economical stand point, I think we are. I was reading an article the other day about how by 2020 I think it was, that all the welfare money will run out along with another system that's government related. However, I don't think this issue really has a lot to do with population and more of the government just giving it out to everyone even druggies and people who don't need it..
I truly wonder if the birth rates are actually falling. Hypothetically think of birth rates if birth control/abortion(after birth included) didn't exist.

A nation is only as strong as the people that hyper produce(whoever earns the most money/breadwinners) for it. With no reason for the hyper producers to exploit their full production a nation is going to be in a lot of trouble financially.

It is. I've actually read several articles about how birth rates are dropping. I think birth control and abortion is a pretty logical reason as to why but apparently half the internet doesn't agree with that idea as I've read from the comments on each article.
User avatar
Kuukai
The Prophet
The Prophet
Posts: 5278
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:02 am

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by Kuukai »

Wait, are you guys trying to say population is going to stop going up in the near future? Because the numbers aren't anything like that.
zaseo wrote:A nation is only as strong as the people that hyper produce(whoever earns the most money/breadwinners) for it. With no reason for the hyper producers to exploit their full production a nation is going to be in a lot of trouble financially.
That makes zero sense. If they're the ones producing everything, why do they need any employees? They should form single-person enterprises where they crank out magical value out of their eliteness. Or if everything they "produce" depends on millions of other people working full weeks, here's an idea: they're not very special. A coconut could do that.
User avatar
shugo_lover
The Oath Keeper
The Oath Keeper
Posts: 2925
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:43 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by shugo_lover »

Kuukai wrote:Wait, are you guys trying to say population is going to stop going up in the near future? Because the numbers aren't anything like that.
No, they'll never stop but they are lowering. I also agree that what zaseo said makes no sense.
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by zaseo »

shugo_lover wrote:
Kuukai wrote:Wait, are you guys trying to say population is going to stop going up in the near future? Because the numbers aren't anything like that.
No, they'll never stop but they are lowering. I also agree that what zaseo said makes no sense.
How doesn't it make sense. If what ever demographic(the people who builds, makes the most money, produce the majority of goods,etc) slowed down for what ever reason things would get hard to manage. The Roman empire bachelor tax would be an example of this.

Roman empire where most males population married and had offspring would result in this.
Because a married male had to work more for the sake of spouse and offspring he would have to do more production in some area.
A male that is a bachelor only has to work produce for himself. He would overall work less/produce for society.

Places like Germany and Japan are having low population problems. In Japan's case its affecting their economy. The soshoku-kei danshi works but doesn't produce as much as the family man.

I do think we might just go back to a system were 80% of women reproduce with and share 40% of the male(mostly alpha).
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/200 ... ions/?_r=0
User avatar
Kuukai
The Prophet
The Prophet
Posts: 5278
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:02 am

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by Kuukai »

zaseo wrote:A male that is a bachelor only has to work produce for himself. He would overall work less/produce for society.
In that framing this is an example of the broken window fallacy and they teach why it's wrong in Econ 101. The dependents impose an economic loss on society that isn't being taken into account in that thinking. It's also kinda out-dated and male-centric, it's hard to apply it to the modern world, which is funny because greater equality in the workforce would absolutely help GDP.
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by zaseo »

Kuukai wrote:
zaseo wrote:A male that is a bachelor only has to work produce for himself. He would overall work less/produce for society.
In that framing this is an example of the broken window fallacy and they teach why it's wrong in Econ 101. The dependents impose an economic loss on society that isn't being taken into account in that thinking. It's also kinda out-dated and male-centric, it's hard to apply it to the modern world, which is funny because greater equality in the workforce would absolutely help GDP.
Well greater equality would increase the GDP but brings more competition now that everyone for the most part is going to be fighting for jobs in the workforce. We aren't really different than we were 1000s/1,000,000s years ago depending on beliefs. We just have technology and stuff now. Equality of opportunity doesn't equal equality of outcome. We would literally have to all be the exact same with no variation.

The role of the breadwinner is flipping but there needs to be final push to help reverse things how they were decades ago.

To see a grass eater movement go worldwide might actually decrease population.
User avatar
Kuukai
The Prophet
The Prophet
Posts: 5278
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:02 am

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by Kuukai »

zaseo wrote:Well greater equality would increase the GDP but brings more competition now that everyone for the most part is going to be fighting for jobs in the workforce.
How's that any different from more population, which you're saying is a good thing?

Beliefs are crazy-different from 1,000 years ago. People no longer believe in the porous self. People don't fully trust their sensations. I mean, things aren't great now in terms of group discrimination, but they're way better than they were 1,000 years ago. Read The Expanding Circle.
User avatar
zaseo
Posts: 1583
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by zaseo »

Well higher population would mean more competition but think about it like this. With so many people in the job market its difficult in many cases to get jobs. Its not impossible but in certain ways things are worse off. When you have equity should there be status quotas to keep? With equity the advantages any group should have should be lost and any disadvantages oppress people had should be lost. Social obligations should also not be here.
User avatar
Erranty
The Widower
The Widower
Posts: 2541
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 8:25 pm
Location: Somewhere outside Detroit.

Re: Are we really overpopulated?

Post by Erranty »

zaseo wrote:Well higher population would mean more competition but think about it like this. With so many people in the job market its difficult in many cases to get jobs. Its not impossible but in certain ways things are worse off. When you have equity should there be status quotas to keep? With equity the advantages any group should have should be lost and any disadvantages oppress people had should be lost. Social obligations should also not be here.
In truth, the real problem with the Job market is Online Applications. They allow companies to acquire WAY too many options to choose from, instead of local people that're desperate for a job, and they'll even hold out until they find someone who's perfectly qualified that'll take **** for pay.

Now, I do realize that Digital applications have their merits, save the rain forest and stuff, and that they help with organization. But ultimately you don't find out who the person is, what they look like, and what their personality is without a face to face interaction.

In short, when businesses only had about 100-200 people to pick from that had to get there in person, compared to the THOUSANDS they can get from online apps today, there were more people actually getting hired when they needed a job.
Post Reply