And, in case any of you missed it, Teelo (the OP) is 16!!!
By the way blake (sorry I’m late popping back in) thanks for the links.
carry on.
Well, I’d have to be some kind of half-wit to wander into a population-impact thread and start talking about how cute my kid is and how lovable I find him. LOL I’d have lots to say about him, given the right audience.
He’s too young for me to make credible claims/predictions about how he may one day save the world from ourselves.
My point is, even though something may require a great deal of sacrifice, it doesn’t follow that that act is inherently selfless.
A Buddhist monk may sacrifice all material goods and live in poverty for their entire lives, but they are doing it for inherently selfish reasons. Enlightenment.
I was only trying to point out the fact that if you ask any parent what parenting means to them, or a potential parent why they are planning to have kids, they will undoubtedly reel off a list of ways it will make their lives better. I have yet to see a single valid argument that creating new people is about anything other than the creators personal needs.
Priceguy, apologies. You never told anyone else what they should be doing. I withdraw the comment.
See Tastycorn, I told the OP this :
Then I went on to give the OP some things to think about, spoke about my experience and provided some links that he/she may find helpful. That’s offering advice, and opinions.
You said this "
That’s telling people what to do. And you do it very arrogantly.
YMMV, of course. 
But tastycorn, if nobody has children for the next 50 years, who would have them then? its very difficult for a woman over the age of 50 to conceive.
goo
In response to this question:
You wrote:
Not everyone is content to give touchy feely new age non-answers to requests for opinions. Like it or not, the decision to have or not have kids does effect the rest of the world, even though few parents think about it in those terms. I feel very strongly about this matter, and phrase my responses in an appropriate manner.
I hope I gave the OP some things to think about. I spoke about my experience (Finding Nemo was indeed too loud). I provided a link that she might find helpful. I also went one step further and gave an actual answer to the question she was asking.
jackalope
Alright, you got me there. If I can convince the whole world to stop having kids, after 25 years I will get a reversal of my future vasectomy and start repopulating the world, one lucky woman at a time. J
Well it’s a good thing I never said anything even remotely like that isn’t it?
True, and if you define a tail as a leg a dog has five legs. Oh hang, on, no it doesn’t.
Only if you accept that most life forms are unicellular. Most multicellular life forms construct some form of shelter for themselves or their offspring.
And again, the use of the word negative without defining what it is negative in comparison too. What is the basis? How is an organism behaving in the manner in which it evolved to behave possibly negative?
If by that you mean the fact that I am asking others to clarify what they mean by emotive and perjorative words like ‘negative’ ‘destruction’, sucking dry’ and so forth, then no. Those are all invalid arguments in a debate and must be challenged. You will notice that when I have challenged them they al seem to have vanished into the haze of simily. No longer are we “invaders sucking the planet dry”. We are now ‘like invaders acting in a manner which may seem to the writer like we are utilising resources without replenishing them.” Those are two very different positions and the differncees are far more than semantic.
In what way? We are acting exactly as we evolved to act. Our cities are as much a part of the ecosystem as a termite city. Our cities have their parasites and commensals just as termite cities do.
How can we not be acting as part of the ecosystem, since the ecosystem is by definition created by every organism within it, and you have conceded that humans are one organism within that system?
This still doesn’t make any sense.
Cite?
Can I have one reference that humans are in any way able to render this planet uninhabitable for all its indigent species? We know we can render it uninhabitable for some species, but we both agree that all species do that.
Well then you’re wrong by your own definition of ecosystem, which includes man as part of that system. Any species that is a part of an ecosystem can’t destroy that system. It can alter the nature of that system, but it can’t destroy it.
Elephants, termites and dung beetles all ‘drive species extinct directly and indirectly, poison the air, water and ground, and use up all resources for their exclusive purposes’. They aren’t destroying the ecosystem, they are creating it.
Humans, by acting as they have evolved to act are creating the ecosystem, not destroying it. By your own definition it impossible for them to do otherwise.
How exactly can humans use up all the solar energy, heat, all minerals in the entire mantle etc?
Unfortunately I suspect you are again resorting to hyperbole to exaggerate the situation and make it appear far different from the actual facts.
And again, you have failed to answer the question.
You have told us what you believe you standard of a cars to be, and what purpose it serves. We can agree on that because a car has a creator who can tell us why she created that vehicle.
But you have yet to tell us what your basis is for deciding what the {I] the raison d’etre* of an ecosystem should be.
An ecosystem has no purpose. It simply is. It’s a process, not a creation. It does what it does, and at the moment what the process does is create humans, just as in the past it created photosynthetic bacteria.
Oh I see.
Can you name one species on the planet that uses resources and DOES replenish them?
You did say that humans had stopped acting like other species in this respect. At what point in our evolutionary history did we uses resources and replenish them?
In fact with the use of agriculture we are arguably the only species that does replenish the resources we use.
But those were natural ecosystem processes.
You seem to be working on a double standard. You say that human should alow ourselves to die out so the system can function as it will without us, and then in the next breath say that you as a human would have interfered in processes within a system functioning without humans.
Why is condemning billions of species to non-existence by preserving dinosaurs acceptable, but condemning species to extinction abhorrent?
Care to explain this direct contradiction?
Umm, no.
What if that pollution comes form a factory that produces artificial fertiliser. That fertiliser means e don’t need to mine guano, which saves millions of fish from starvation.
That’s good.
What if the factory makes balloons for sick kiddies? That’s good.
So now you have to we9gh goo and bad.
How do you decide between the billions of weevils killed by an elephant knocking down their food tree, and the elephant itself? Is the elephant’s action bad? Do you propose we kill elephants as well?
I get the feeling you haven’t thought this through without a lot of subjective emotional weighting.
So your argument comes down to ‘Humans aren’t part of the ecosystem because we act on reason”. Is that what you are saying?
Actually you did say that. You said that we stole those resources, and that they belonged to other species and not to us.
Are you now saying that we have a legitimate right to those resources? If that’s the case, how can we be stealing them? I am still just as confused as to what you meant when you said that humans are stealing those resources. Who are we stealing them from?
This is a big problem. You are using dramatic hyperbole to support your position, and then when pressed you admit that you didn’t mean it like that
So now I ask, in what way are we acting like invaders? In what way are humans acting like we have entered the ecosystem forcefully? Haven’t you already admitted that we are a part of the ecosystem?
So that’s it is it? It’s based on what you feel?
You made an assertion that humans are no longer acting in harmony with nature, and it was based entirely on the fact that you feel that is so?
You suggested that others are being selfish based entirely on the fact that you feel that humans aren’t doing the right thing? And the right thing is what you feel it to be?
If that’s the case then that’s the end of the debate. You have no facts or logical argument to support you position.
Why should I do it? For what end, and at what cost?
In order to stop pollution tomorrow I would need to plunge humanity into a dark age with no medicine, electricity, libraries or even agriculture. I would need to cease all attempt at maintaining ecosytems or preserving endangered species or cleaniing up existing problems
If that’s what you are asking then no, I would not do it.
This I think is the point you haven’t quit grasped. We are not isolated on this planet. What we do affects other members of our own species and every other species. We can’t cease doing anything without consideration of the costs as well as the benefits.
Again, how should we do this? Why should we do this? At what cost? Based on what precept?
You ask simple questions, and that is often good. They lead us to asking the complex questions.
I always recommend to all of my friends that, unless they feel that life really would not be worth living without having a child, they shouldn’t do it. It’s just too hard. If you have any doubts at all, don’t do it.
However, I am very glad that some people do choose to have kids. We (in the Western world) are already facing problems because of the increasing number of elderly people drawing pensions, while there are ever fewer young people working and producing the kinds of funds that pensions draw from. If everyone stopped having kids, there would be no-one left to produce the funds. If all we’re left with is a society of geriatrics, who’s going to be out working, producing food, even - if this is your bug bear - researching ways of alleviating some of the harm we’ve done to the planet?
(FWIW, I have one child, who managed to break through a triple contraceptive defence. It can happen).
Not quite. By forcing restatement of a premise, you are also forcing use of simile. Indeed, if he is to stick to his fundamental premises, and ultimate conclusion, then he must reword his statement using different language. I forget what they call the technical term for this. : )
My point ultimately is that a conceptual debate is inherently more interesting than a semantic one. But never mind me, you kids carry on.
SciFiSam
Excellent point, however the problem you describe will not be fixed by even maintaining our current birth rate. You must agree that we will at some time run into the population cap for the earth. When we reach that point, we will be forced to deal with declining
Blake, I’ll skip much of your post since it comes down to the moral dichotomy I outlined in my own post. As I said, there’s no reasoning between the two stances.
I’ll also skip all the semantic arguments since frankly, I find them tiring.
I didn’t say all its indigent species, that’s your addition.
It’s a question of degree. The Earth existed with other animals for a long, long time without suffering the damage humans have caused in a very short time. I admit that all species cause some damage, but we both know that the damage elephants do is more easily repairable than the damage humans do. Right?
Not all resources, as I’ve already said. Also, as I’ve already said, some resources are of no use to other species. But humans can lay forests waste, poison clean water, and so on. Those things are resources too.
They don’t replenish them directly, but their natural processes replenish the resources they use. They don’t breathe and then cut down oxygen-giving trees. They don’t drink water and then poison it.
A herd of buffaloes could live off a piece of grassland indefinitely. As humans currently live, we cannot.
Hard for me to pinpoint the exact point, but let’s take our probably ratlike ancestors that survived the dinosaurs. Them.
Explain how agriculture replenishes resources, rather than using them.
Yep. It is not a double standard. I don’t want species to go extinct if I can help it, and humans are currently causing that at an enormous rate. If humans go extinct, many species will be saved.
Let me ask you a question: is not having children, thus condemning countless millions of potential humans to non-existence, as bad as murdering living humans? If your answer is no, then yours is the double standard.
Since when is the choice either “mine guano” or “pollute the water”? You’re acting from within a very human viewpoint.
What if one of the species of fish that died out due to the pollution had an organ that, when milked, could cure the sick kiddies?
Is the elephant even remotely close to driving weevils extinct?
It’s close, but note that I have said that we are a part of the ecosystem. A baby that finds a gun and accidentally kills its father is not a murderer. A man who takes a gun and shoots his baby is. The very fact that we are sentient means we can make intelligent decisions that other species are incapable of. That’s why a man shooting another man is bad, whereas a tiger killing a man isn’t.
I did use the word “steal”, but I didn’t say that the resources belong to other species and not to us. Kindly show me where I did.
Other species. If you and your brother co-own a computer but your brother spends the entire day playing games with it and never letting you use it, that’s stealing from you. Same deal.
Look at a virus. It enters a cell, takes it over, replicates into another cell, takes it over, and so on. Humans are basically doing the same on a global level. If an alien species landed, took over the Earth and started using up the resources leaving, poisoning the water and atmosphere while they were at it, it would be the same as what humans are doing now. In that way are we acting as an invader.
Feel free to leave believing that. I think you understand that despite my one-time use of the word “feel”, I’m not basing this entirely on emotions. Examine the following sentence:
“I feel gun-control is wrong, because law-abiding citizens need to be able to defend themselves.”
That’s a perfectly valid use of the word “feel”, as I’m sure you know. I think this discussion would go a lot smoother if you ceased concentrating on semantic matters.
“Maintaining” ecosystems, when everything happening within them is entirely according to the ecosystem and just and right, according to you? Preserving endangered species, when many of them are endangered exactly because of us? Cleaning up existing problems, when the existing problems are largely us?
You appear to be valuing human luxury over non-human survival.
Of course. That’s why we don’t blow everything up and commit mass suicide. Instead, we stop breeding and gently step back.
Start with the rainforests. Stop chopping them down, thus conserving many species in one fell blow. Would you do that if you had the power?
Hmmm, message cut off. Odd.
Continued from previous above
When we reach that point, we will be forced to deal with declining population anyway, so we might as well figure it out now.
If we (industrialized nations) are completely unable to find a viable deflationary economic model, we can always turn to the tried and true growth measure, immigration. Additional benefit of reducing the population of third world countries.
Plus, a slightly modified modest proposal could be introduced, although marinating time would likely be longer.
Hey someone finally got it.
You mean Johnny boy?
Your stance apparently has no basis in reasoning, being based solely on what you believe. I have no particular stance, instead simply pointing out the flaws in your assertion that humans are invading, thieving, planet destroying parasites. Of course no reasoning between stances is possible.
So I have to guess what you mean? IS that it? Or should I just assume that you are using OED definitions? It’s a little hard to engage in a debate when one’s opponent says ‘planet’ and means ‘ecosystem’, or says ‘steal’ and means ‘utilises what he has a right to’.
I notice that all the semantic arguments seem to come from your use of deliberately emotive language. If you don’t wish to have this pointed out and be asked to rephrase, then I would ask you not to use deliberately emotive language. Unfortunately it seems like most of your argument is built on emotive rhetoric. This is far more tiresome to me than it is to you.
So you object to the destruction of species perpetrated by any other species do you?
The problem is that you still haven’t defined in any meaningful way what you mean by ‘damage’. You are simply arguing form a position that this damage of the ecosystem is self-evident. It isn’t. As such this assertion remains baseless. An ecosystem is a system. A process. Humans are an integral and essential part of that process by your own admission. Humans are behaving within that system exactly as they evolved to behave within that system. How can an integral part of a process, working exactly as it was intended to behave, be damaging to the process? What is your standard of performance by which you conclude human activities to be damaging?
Now that you have stated that much of what you said was hyperbole, your entire position hinges on this point. And yet you have not shown that humans are damaging the system. You simply keep asserting that they are.
No, what you actually said is all. You very specifically said the utilisation of all resources is what you object to. You said that you see the utilisation of all resources as being destructive. You used that destruction to support your assertion that humans are not in harmony with nature. Are you now saying that you see the utilisation of any resources as being destructive? In that case do you believe that no species is at harmony with nature? I am having a hard time understanding what exactly you define as being destructive because you keep moving the posts.
Huh? How does an beaver’s natural processes replenish the trees the kill? How does a finch’s natural processes replenish the seeds they eat? This doesn’t make any sense.
Yes they do. Numerous aerobic species kill photosynthetic species. Numerous species drink water and at the same time contribute to the pollution of other waters. This point is just plain wrong.
Cite? Populations all go through boom and bust cycles to some degree. Mostly this is driven by overutilisation of resources.
Give us one reference in support of your assertion that as humans currently live, we cannot continue indefinitely as a species.
Cite.
How did this mammal replenish the waters that it drank. How did it replenish the insects that it ate? Again, this appears to be baseless assertion, but I will withhold judgement pending your reference for this fact.
Seed is s resource. With agriculture I harvest seed, and then replant some in order to replenish that supply. That’s pretty basic.
You haven’t clarified anything here. Your whole position is based on an assumption that the ecosystem could function better without people, and yet you now say that people should interfere to prevent extinctions, which would be better than a situation where humans don’t interfere. That’s a contradiction, and you have in no way resolved it. All you have done is restate that you think human interference to prevent extinction is an improvement.
In light of ecosystem function, which is what we are discussing remember, the answer is yes. If the interference either way leads to a loss of numbers and disrupts function then the end is the same and thus equally bad.
Now can you please answer my question, rathe than asking me a question in return?
It isn’t. Who said it was? I pointing out that you had failed to fill in all the required parameters necessary to make a judgment. You have avoided the direct question.
If a factory unavoidably pollutes 50’ of one small stream and kills 500 fish, and yet produces medicine that saves 5 million humans and 500 million other fish do you still consider that evil? You have implied that you do.
It would be a tragedy. Now can you answer my question?
Now we might be getting somewhere. Allow me to recap.
You said that human actions are bad. You said that your standard for bad is the causation of pain. You said that polluting a river that kills fish is inherently bad simply because it cause pain to fish. I pointed out that an elephant pushing down a tree causes pain to weevils and asked if that was bad. You are now asking whether the elephant might cause the extinction of the weevils.
Are you renouncing your previous stance that it is the causation of pain that defines bad? Are you saying that it is the causation of extinction that is your standard for bad? If not what is the relevance of asking about extinction?
So are you saying that humans aren’t a harmonic part of the system purely because we can make intelligent decisions?
With pleasure.
Bottom of the last page: “Finally, the stealing of resources is done from all other species that live on Earth”. If these resources belong to other species and are being stolen form them then they can’t belong to the party doing the stealing. If you believe otherwise then please answer the question I asked: How can humans steal something that belongs to them?
No it isn’t.
Steal
- To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
- To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully:
You say that you don’t like semantics, and yet you use emotive words like ‘steal’ that are totally inappropriate and wildly inaccurate. You have acknowledged tha humans have a right to these resources and that my brother has a right to the machine. Humans certainly don’t take these resources surreptitiously, nor does my brother use the machine surreptitiously. By no possible stretch is that theft.
You have simply misused a deliberately emotive word. If you wish to avoid these semantic argument then please don’t use deliberately incorrect and perjorative terms like ‘theft’ and ‘rape’.
And that in no way makes us invaders. It may make us virus like (although it doesn’t). Now can you please answer the question. How have humans forcibly entered the ecosystem?
I have yet to see anything else. Unless emotive language, factually incorrect statements about beavers replenishing trees and invalid analogies are what you are referring to.
Where did I say that? Seems like a strawman to me.
[quote]
You appear to be valuing human luxury over non-human survival. quote]
Thank you for that baseless ad hominem. If yo can provide one quote where I implied anything like that I’d love to see it.
You keep repeating these assertions, but you have yet to explain why we should do either. It’s a bit pointless in a debate repeating the very [proposition one is debating.
Whatever I did, would it validate you claim that humans are not in harmony with the ecosystem? If so then use any behaviour you would think possible to construct your case. If not then this is a red herring.
Cite!
Every single projection says that world population will peak at C9billion within a century. This will be well below the population cap for the Earth.
Please provide any evidence to support this assertion.
The theoretical population cap for the earth with current technology ranges between 2 and 40 billion, depending on average standard of living. See http://www.sunpath-designs.com/maxpop/ , section entitled Maximum Global Population Guesses.
They have a projected population cap of 20 billion if everyone in the world lived at Mexico’s current prosperity level. Now, I live less than an hour from Tijuana, and I can tell you from experience, it’s not a good average prosperity level to have. At 6 Billion things could stay pretty much the way they are. 2 Billion and everyone on earth could live like Americans (and wouldn’t that be nice.)
It appears that if we all intend to keep or improve our standard of living, we have already reached the population cap. At 9 billion we will probably have a slightly lower standard of living than we do currently. If we want to globally improve the standard of living, population gotta go down, mon.
Personally, I’m shooting for 1 Billion. Nice round number.
Hmmm, just caught this:
So, a bust cycle, which by definition must follow a peak (otherwise, it’s not a peak, it’s a plateau, right?) is caused by using too many resources?
Could we also agree that a cap would be defined as the maximum sustainable population given existing resources? And if a peak is over utilization of existing resources, then by your definitions and examples, the 9bil mark will be just over the population cap for the earth.
You wanna try to give me a logical explanation why population would peak below the cap without contradicting yourself?