John John posted without thinking:
And this contributes to overpopulation, how?
“There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”
~P.J. O’Rourke~
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
Well, group, the simple truth evades you all still - more people, more pollution, [show me how that is avoided], more people less food, less resources, more strain on the environment, more strain on energy sources???
OVERPOPULATION IS BAD.
Manhattan
Uh,too much information. I shudder to think of how you got that “rash”
Excuse me, but would the last one out please turn out the lights?
Still wrong, John John.
More people do not necessarily equal more pollution. This is a favorite watermelon fallacy: the assumption that there is no progress. It is rther reminiscent of the apocryphal story of the patent examiner who quit his job because “everything has been invented”. We need only contemplate the days when London was heated with soft coal, or when the principal means of transit in New York was the horse, and perform one of the simple extrapolations of which you are so fond, to see how technical progress has reduced the expected level of pollution.
The “more people == less food” argument has already been shown to be wrong. Your watermelon masters spend considerable energies trying to make it true, of course, by blocking everything from GMOs and irradiation, down to lining food storage pits with mylar, but so far they have failed. Indeed, there seems to be a strong correlation between their level of success and the amount of wealth that their intended victims have to waste.
The “more people == less resources” argument, of course, fails on the same grounds that the first two fail. Petroleum was once largely unobtainable, and useful when it could be gotten almost exclusively as a camel salve. No doubt you yearn for those days to come again.
Likewise, the “more people == more strain on the environment” argument also fails. When there is less pollution, when food is more easily obtainable, when resources are less intensively used because there is a greater choice, how can there be a greater strain on the environment? That there is a greater emotional strain in the watermelon conclaves may be true, of course, but I do not think that the increased dissatisfaction of those who would control (in every sense of the word) people are of significance here.
Preventing people from using energy is the one area in which watermelons have had some success. They have successively blocked the use of nuclear energy, coal, and hydropower by crying up the pretended environmental and safety hazards, whilst assuring the populace at large that there is a replacement. This game seems to be drawing to a close, however, as their last stewp backwards is poverty and lack of insutrial energy. Whilst the elites that they represent and are members of, may be able to restrict the masses a little more, it is doubtful if they will tolerated in impoverishing nation much longer. Indeed, their success has been spotty internationally, as it has depended largely on attacking the margin of energy usage.
**Overpopulation is largely nonexistant. People controllers are bad. **
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
Two things.
First, Akatsukami, I really like your “watermelon” label. Appetizing and juicy, but in the end no substance and all that. Where did you hear it?
Second, I have concluded that the title of this thread is not a reference to the human population of our little orb. I have narrowed the real reference down to two possibilities. It is either the OP’s goal for the total number of posts in the thread (which total I’m assisting now), or it is the OP’s goal for the number of errors he desires to make in the thread. Any help resolving this question would be appreciated.
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
The use of ‘watermelon’ first came up in the 80’s, when the accusation was that the environmental movement was populated with socialists. See, a watermelon is ‘green on the outside, red on the inside’. Ha Ha.
Akats
You are wrong in soooooo many areas that it’s hard to know where to start. I’ll start with the most obvious. We went from horses to subways, trains, cars, planes with a much larger world population, AND YOU DO NOT SEE THAT AS ADDING TO POLLUTION? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
We went from coal, bad, to fosils fuel, bad and running out, to nuclear power, good, but STILL have not found a way to properly dispose of the waste, WHICH STAYS ACTIVE FOR 6 THOUSAND YEARS.
Gentlemen, get a grip!
Y2K, BFD
Thanks, dhanson.
(only 5,999,999,681 to go)
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
Manhattan, you need to become a bit more conversant with overpopulation and the resultant pollution problems facing the planet.
World Population (Estimate)
6,016,963,414
U.S. Population (Estimate)
274,055,214
.
Y2K, BFD
John John, I know you have it stuck in your mind that the world is over-populated, but if you want to read a couple articles with an opposing viewpoint, try these.
http://www.overpopulation.com/limits_to_growth.html
http://www.overpopulation.com/carrying_capacity.html
It’s not as simple a problem as you are trying to make it out to be.
You need to factor in pollution control technology growth, falling fertility rates, advances in farming methods, better farm product distribution methods, return of land to farming, increases in forestation and a host of others.
These are all things Paul Erlichman failed to calculate properly, and as should be clear, even to the most naive alarmist, his prophecies have failed to come true.
“There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.”
~P.J. O’Rourke~
Oops!
How 'bout Paul Erlich. I musta had water(gate) on the brain. I’ll blame it on the pollution.
I feel confident that tracer has learned a great deal he didn’t know about overpopulation and has seen the error of his thinking. It would not surprise me if tracer joined the Sierra Club in the future to help us with our struggle to make the planet a better place. Stablizing population is a start.
Y2K, BFD
Well, I can see this is completely pointless.
See ya.
“A zebra does not change its spots.”
~Al Gore, 1992~
The staggering death toll in Venezuela, 25,000 plus, was partly due to that countries population building flimsy dwellings in unsafe areas, along flood plains, along rivers, at the bottom of unstable mountains, on unsafe hills. It is just one example of how dangerous overpopulation is and how it contributes to mass disasters.
How many more tragedies do we need before people see the wisdom keeping World population to manageable levels?
Y2K, BFD
John John wrote:
Yeah, sure, just keep telling yourself that.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
Good links UncaBeer. I hope JohnJohn reads 'em. They provide an idea of some of the more complex issues involving population.
They certainly didn’t convince me that operpopulation isn’t bad, but then I simply don’t like people and want fewer of them about.
-andros- www.zpg.org www.npg.org
TRACER WILL JOIN, TRACER WILL JOIN, TRACER WILL JOIN, TRACER WILL JOIN, TRACER WILL JOIN. By jove he’s got it!
Y2K, BFD
John John has the misfortune to write:
So, are you telling us that Pompeii is a figment of our collective imaginations, or that the leadership of the Sierra Club plans on slaughtering and forcibly sterilizing people until the population declines to less than it was in 79 CE?
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”