• UN warns world must produce 60% more food by 2050 to avoid mass unrest
    135 replies, posted
[QUOTE=noh_mercy;44207019]we should allow starvation to trim the fat off the planet, death is the only way to cut down on over population and its more humane to let 'nature' pick out who survives and who doesn't. imo. Its gonna happen some day.[/QUOTE] God I hope you didn't just say that seriously. You were being sarcastic, right? ...... right?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44203302]What about Japan? They have over a hundred million people living on a tiny rocky island.[/QUOTE] Their tiny rocky island is fifty-one thousand miles larger than your tiny rocky island.
[QUOTE=noh_mercy;44207019]we should allow starvation to trim the fat off the planet, death is the only way to cut down on over population and its more humane to let 'nature' pick out who survives and who doesn't. imo. Its gonna happen some day.[/QUOTE] you first.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;44190523]I don't think you understand how poverty works. Third world families generally NEED the children so they can work and sustain the family[/QUOTE] Yup. It's a super well-studied thing how birth rates drop as quality of life increases.
[QUOTE=noh_mercy;44207019]we should allow starvation to trim the fat off the planet, death is the only way to cut down on over population and its more humane to let 'nature' pick out who survives and who doesn't. imo. Its gonna happen some day.[/QUOTE] We won't have to 'allow' anything, it's going to happen. Even if food production was increased, that would only sustain a further increase in population...which will require a new increase in food production, rinse, repeat. No one wants to be the bad guy and say we have to limit population growth, so we kick the can down the road. Someone in the future will either have to be the bad guy, or nature will be the bad guy.
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;44207396]We won't have to 'allow' anything, it's going to happen. Even if food production was increased, that would only sustain a further increase in population...which will require a new increase in food production, rinse, repeat. No one wants to be the bad guy and say we have to limit population growth, so we kick the can down the road. Someone in the future will either have to be the bad guy, or nature will be the bad guy.[/QUOTE] You know, I get the feeling that it's a common thing in wealthy circles to say things like this. The whole *500,000,000* population thing. We are human beings, we advance, we conquer and solve problems. There does not need to be a big die-off. Our technology will increase to solve these problems, but they way in which that is done is yet to be seen. Genetically modified crops, way more advanced than the current ones which are realistically only interested in maximizing profits, and not necessarily reducing hunger, will be developed. Artificially grown meat will be developed. Space habitation will be a thing, and with these technologies come the answers to these problems. We are not at a dead end, just the end of a page and as the next one turns we have to make the choices that will determine the tone of the story from here on out. There is no reason why we need to kill off the majority of our race, as it is there's already enough resources to go around they just aren't being distributed that way, and as our natural progression towards excess continues these problems will ease. If we are not astute about how the progress is made, however, many people will suffer in the meantime.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;44207421]We are human beings, we advance, we conquer and solve problems. There does not need to be a big die-off. Our technology will increase to solve these problems, but they way in which that is done is yet to be seen.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gctext/Inquiries/Inquiries_by_Unit/Exploring_G_Change/Biodiversity_files/image009.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://guymcpherson.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/ExtinctionAndPopulation_102609.jpg[/IMG] There already has been a big die-off. It's just not been measured in [I]human[/I] terms. I'm sure we can come up with ways to pack a few more people on the planet for a few more years, but what's possible isn't exactly the same as what's ideal.
Most of the extinctions have been due to homogenization. People have been carrying plants, animals, and microbes by accident or on purpose everywhere. When you introduce earthworms and honeybees to North America, smallpox to Mexico, Himalayan Basalm to Britain, or rabbits to Australia, the buggers multiply and outcompete much of the local wildlife. The's worlds shrinking, and a lot of tiny niches don't really survive that. You had similar things happen when Pangaea formed or the Panama gap was closed between North and South America. Species move around and kill off the local ones.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44207919]Most of the extinctions have been due to homogenization. People have been carrying plants, animals, and microbes by accident or on purpose everywhere. When you introduce earthworms and honeybees to North America, smallpox to Mexico, Himalayan Basalm to Britain, or rabbits to Australia, the buggers multiply and outcompete much of the local wildlife. The's worlds shrinking, and a lot of tiny niches don't really survive that. You had similar things happen when Pangaea formed or the Panama gap was closed between North and South America. Species move around and kill off the local ones.[/QUOTE] True, greatly exacerbated by habitat loss and climate change. Our current great extinction is almost wholly a side effect of the expansion of a single species, which is historically unique. I'd be interested to see where we are in a century, especially in regards to agriculture and oil, which we rely on to make fertilizer bombs for mass agriculture.
[QUOTE=frozensoda;44207421]You know, I get the feeling that it's a common thing in wealthy circles to say things like this. The whole *500,000,000* population thing. We are human beings, we advance, we conquer and solve problems...[/QUOTE] You miss the point. The 'problem' is not that we can't generate more food. That IS something we can solve one way or another. Whether it's changing diets or genetically tinkering with food, yeah we can make more. The problem is we can't count on infinite growth in supply. At some point fresh water and food will plateau, we'll hit a point where at least for a few generations this is it, this is all we'll have. Meanwhile, people will still be multiplying like crazy. That's really the only thing you can count on increasing- the amount of people. The thing you can't count on, the thing that's a huge gamble, is if we can increase the supply of food and water to keep pace. More food being generated doesn't necessarily mean [i]enough[/i] food is being generated.
[QUOTE=Leestons;44189677]It is, you would think with all the money and food were sending to third world countries we would send some birth control too. If you can't afford to feed the mouths you already have, stop making more.[/QUOTE] You really have no idea why people in poor countries have so many children do you? Let me just list them off: - They are apart of an agrarian system which requires massive amounts of labor, and as such they have children to fulfill the number of laborers they need. - They need large families in order to ensure their family bloodline survives. In most of these places, theirs like a 20% to 40% chance that all of their children will die, and with that... So does their family line. [I]Ex. I am the last male of my family, I need to have male children in order to continue my family line.[/I] - They have several children in the hopes that one of them will get lucky, and succeed in life. - They hope to have several daughters so that they can force them to marry rich men from other places in the world, or to marry well-off and influential members of their communities. The last thing by the way is the entire reason forced-marriage exists. The idea is that one of your daughters will land a spot with a rich male, and be able to support their family with a little bit of money, and therefore just make things easier on the family. That or they will raise a family within a rich family and secure the future generations of that family into a line of nobility and happiness. Even if the daughter is not happy with this marriage, one person, can make that family never live in poverty again. It's a very depressing concept, but it does work most of the time.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44207193]you first.[/QUOTE] lol I love those "you first" responses, but allow me to explain how "you first" doesnt work in this case. When I said "we should allow...blah blah blah" I meant that we should allow it through inaction, by not intervening. Therefore no one is really to blame for the starvation of a bunch of people, this is different from saying "I'm gonna take away your food so you can be part of the starving population" (in which the "you first" response would work). The whole "you first" response only works in cases where (for example) someone says "hey, I vote we kill 1 billion people for wat-ever-reason", and right after that there are people that throw around the "you first" response to make a statement questioning what right would this individual have to express his/her judgement over another human life(life/death). The reason why "you first" does not work in my statement is that there is no single person that is held responsible for the deaths of a starving population if approached through [U]inaction[/U]. It is clearly 'nature' to be blamed in this case which is pretty fair, and who can question that? certainly you would never hear anyone saying "hey nature, you first", that would sound hilarious.
I don't know what to say about that at all. You're basically suggesting we allow billions of people to die despite the fact that we have the resources to feed them because of some arbitrary reason. If we are able to save them, but we don't act, then we are still to blame - you can't absolve yourself of blame through inaction, that's basically the worst thing you can do. You're allowing your privilege to blind you. You have access to food so that makes you better than people who don't? What the hell does that even mean? Besides what problem does this solve? You let billions of people starve... and then what? Your first comment sounded a lot like "lets let 1 billion people starve" because that's exactly what it was.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;44189607]Or let less food go to waste. Seriously. Working last night at a grocery store, I had to throw out several hundred dollars of strawberries because we received a poor quality order. Maybe around 96 1 lb boxes or so[/QUOTE] Wow. And this place has no problems with counting inventory?
[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;44208555]You miss the point. The 'problem' is not that we can't generate more food. That IS something we can solve one way or another. Whether it's changing diets or genetically tinkering with food, yeah we can make more. The problem is we can't count on infinite growth in supply. At some point fresh water and food will plateau, we'll hit a point where at least for a few generations this is it, this is all we'll have. Meanwhile, people will still be multiplying like crazy. That's really the only thing you can count on increasing- the amount of people. The thing you can't count on, the thing that's a huge gamble, is if we can increase the supply of food and water to keep pace. More food being generated doesn't necessarily mean [i]enough[/i] food is being generated.[/QUOTE] There absolutely is near-infinite space and I think that we are right on track to start living in space and on other planets/moons before whatever it is you think will happen that is gonna starve over 6 billion people to death. We will adapt, grow, and expand like we always have whenever we have been faced with a challenge.
[QUOTE=noh_mercy;44209589]lol I love those "you first" responses, but allow me to explain how "you first" doesnt work in this case. When I said "we should allow...blah blah blah" I meant that we should allow it through inaction, by not intervening. Therefore no one is really to blame for the starvation of a bunch of people, this is different from saying "I'm gonna take away your food so you can be part of the starving population" (in which the "you first" response would work). The whole "you first" response only works in cases where (for example) someone says "hey, I vote we kill 1 billion people for wat-ever-reason", and right after that there are people that throw around the "you first" response to make a statement questioning what right would this individual have to express his/her judgement over another human life(life/death). The reason why "you first" does not work in my statement is that there is no single person that is held responsible for the deaths of a starving population if approached through [U]inaction[/U]. It is clearly 'nature' to be blamed in this case which is pretty fair, and who can question that? certainly you would never hear anyone saying "hey nature, you first", that would sound hilarious.[/QUOTE] Inaction is just a dereliction of moral responsibility. Would you let a child in a swimming pool drown? [QUOTE]There absolutely is near-infinite space and I think that we are right on track to start living in space and on other planets/moons before whatever it is you think will happen that is gonna starve over 6 billion people to death. We will adapt, grow, and expand like we always have whenever we have been faced with a challenge.[/QUOTE] What's this obsession with growth?
Hi. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;44207919]Most of the extinctions have been due to homogenization. People have been carrying plants, animals, and microbes by accident or on purpose everywhere. When you introduce earthworms and honeybees to North America, smallpox to Mexico, Himalayan Basalm to Britain, or rabbits to Australia, the buggers multiply and outcompete much of the local wildlife. The's worlds shrinking, and a lot of tiny niches don't really survive that. You had similar things happen when Pangaea formed or the Panama gap was closed between North and South America. Species move around and kill off the local ones.[/QUOTE] Oversimplification. Doesn't explain current extinction event. Homogenization not the prime mover, nor the driver behind the current trend. Causes are many, but mainly ocean acidification, deforestation, and overfishing.
[QUOTE=Benderbot;44210215]Hi. Oversimplification. Doesn't explain current extinction event. Homogenization not the prime mover, nor the driver behind the current trend. Causes are many, but mainly ocean acidification, deforestation, and overfishing.[/QUOTE] Well at any rate killing/letting 6 billion people die is unacceptable as an answer, so technological progress is the only thing I think will get us out of this hole. Sorry, but i don't care if other species die off as long as it was necessary or unforeseen or unavoidable.
[QUOTE=noh_mercy;44207019]we should allow starvation to trim the fat off the planet, death is the only way to cut down on over population and its more humane to let 'nature' pick out who survives and who doesn't. imo. Its gonna happen some day.[/QUOTE]Something tells me you'd probably starve to death if not for your parents, anyway.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44206698]So how do you propose on getting rid of 6.7 billion people?[/QUOTE] lets see: [img]http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/24/terminators.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44203302]What about Japan? They have over a hundred million people living on a tiny rocky island.[/QUOTE] Well, they are on their way of being extinct :v:
[QUOTE=ThreePennyJim;44209814]Inaction is just a dereliction of moral responsibility. Would you let a child in a swimming pool drown? What's this obsession with growth?[/QUOTE] If I had no incentive to help out this drowning child, I would just walk away. At the end of the day, I am not the cause of the child drowning, so to me, I have no reason to help him/her unless I have some incentive, and my conscience is at peace. [editline]12th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;44210554]Something tells me you'd probably starve to death if not for your parents, anyway.[/QUOTE] If I am one of those who starve to death, so be it. Its irrelevant and my opinion is unchanged. [editline]12th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;44209661]I don't know what to say about that at all. You're basically suggesting we allow billions of people to die despite the fact that we have the resources to feed them because of some arbitrary reason. If we are able to save them, but we don't act, then we are still to blame - you can't absolve yourself of blame through inaction, that's basically the worst thing you can do. You're allowing your privilege to blind you. You have access to food so that makes you better than people who don't? What the hell does that even mean? Besides what problem does this solve? You let billions of people starve... and then what? Your first comment sounded a lot like "lets let 1 billion people starve" because that's exactly what it was.[/QUOTE] People are only going to continue to grow and expand and use up more and more resources. So save 1 billion today, feed a billion more tomorrow, and the next day, and so on. To me, having too many people is just as irresponsible as having too little. So all I really care about is a balanced point, and btw all I said was let death trim the fat off the planet, don't quantify that. I'm saying let death rate rise above birth rate for a bit. (and know that I am applying this statement the extreme, where overpopulation becomes so problematic that it demands more than what is available) This is not the case where my privilege is blinding me, if I was one of the people to die of starvation, so be it, my opinions are unchanged. If I knew for a fact I was going to die of starvation, I'd just ask someone to take my life cause dying of starvation is painful.
[QUOTE=Xombi;44206564]*Keep the world population under 500 million[/QUOTE] Soon my friend. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones[/url] The time of change draws near. The tower of babel will be rebuilt.
[QUOTE=noh_mercy;44212348]If I had no incentive to help out this drowning child, I would just walk away. At the end of the day, I am not the cause of the child drowning, so to me, I have no reason to help him/her unless I have some incentive, and my conscience is at peace. [/QUOTE] Haha, holy shit, wow.
[QUOTE=noh_mercy;44212348]If I had no incentive to help out this drowning child, I would just walk away. At the end of the day, I am not the cause of the child drowning, so to me, I have no reason to help him/her unless I have some incentive, and my conscience is at peace.[/QUOTE] To say that you have to either be morally bankrupt and an absolutely vile human being, or a liar. Your duty as a human being is to help others in distress.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;44213084]To say that you have to either be morally bankrupt and an absolutely vile human being, or a liar. Your duty as a human being is to help others in distress.[/QUOTE] I don't agree that it's his duty to help others because that makes it sound like a plight, but having someone die when you [I]could[/I] have done something is not right in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;44213084]To say that you have to either be morally bankrupt and an absolutely vile human being, or a liar. Your duty as a human being is to help others in distress.[/QUOTE] I don't have to be anything. My 'duty' as a human being is whatever I declare it to be, well last time I checked at least (and i declare that 'duty' as a human being does not exist, to me). However, I will say that you can derive exact opposite interpretations of me depending on how closely you analyze my response. I think my response applies to anyone in that scenario, it all depends on what you define as incentive. lol
[QUOTE=darunner;44205557]GMOs are the only way the human race can survive.[/QUOTE] In current numbers
[QUOTE=Terminutter;44213084]To say that you have to either be morally bankrupt and an absolutely vile human being, or a liar. Your duty as a human being is to help others in distress.[/QUOTE] Who says it's his duty?
[QUOTE=frozensoda;44209700]There absolutely is near-infinite space and I think that we are right on track to start living in space and on other planets/moons before whatever it is you think will happen that is gonna starve over 6 billion people to death. We will adapt, grow, and expand like we always have whenever we have been faced with a challenge.[/QUOTE] You are counting on something that may not even happen. There could be a trillion planets out there that humans can live on as well as Earth, maybe even better than Earth, yet if we can't reach them then the number might as well be zero planets. I would not encourage population growth on Earth because we expect to be colonizing outer space. You might as well live your life as if you expect to win the lotto in the next few years if that's the kind of thinking you form plans around.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.