Deer do not have the ability to plan or to intentionally adjust their environment to raise its carrying capacity. They lack technology. Humans have options that deer do not. Different survival strategies yield wildly varying carrying capacities. Yet it has way more resources than humans are ever likely to use. Remember; the population growth is going to fall off a very sharp cliff in 2080 or so.
The one worlders, those who don't treat an out-of-control multiculturalism as their religion or a crusade, and those who don't have this expectation to finance a big government and secure a high standard of living for themselves by beefing up a tax-contributing population, or those with power ambitions who electioneer elections and bring in ready vote, have done some history research and found out a lot of wars were due to population pressures where tribes inhabiting highly dense areas moved into the less dense areas perhaps with particular resources or which enjoyed a higher standard of living. Since there are such density imbalances today, the obvious solution to averting wars is to facilitate a slowed-down coordinated invasion as opposed to a violent immediate one. So that's a rational approach of dealing with the problem of smoothing out differences, rather than say, beefing up borders.
An example of this can be observed in how Australia reoriented towards pro-immigration policies. WW2 and the Japanese takeovers, invasions and annexations left Australians with a feeling or impression of vulnerability. They came to doubt whether a nation with a small population can effectively check the ambitions of a highly populated one capable of fielding big armies. On the other hand, you could seek protection by forging alliances for example which seemed to have worked quite well in WW2.
Which people decide which people should be sterilized? Many good folks have come from impoverished living conditions. Poverty does not mean stupidity or mental weakness. Who the heck are you or anyone else to decide who gets sterilized?
It's not about sterilization necessarily, but about not letting failure flood the U.S. via over-reproduction of unproductive people.
We shouldn't let overly financially destitute people, or otherwise people who can't afford (with their own money that they earned via a job) to raise kids, to keep kids. Give them up for adoption or force abortion on them, one or the other.
So we should have sterilized George Washington Carver's parents? Booker T. Washington's parents? Abraham Lincoln's parents were dirt poor, heck they lived in a log cabin and were actually poor during his Presidency..surely they would qualify for your sterility program.
And with all the concern about out of control population growth in the future, why are American policy makers not concerned about all the hispanics? http://www.politicalforum.com/united-states/224513-get-ready-out-control-population-growth.html Did you know that there are already so many people in America that there is not enough grazing pasture land available to satisfy all their demand for meat? So grain must be grown to feed cows in factory farms under overcrowded are cruel conditions. If all the cows were moved out to feed on grass, like they were naturally meant to, there would not be enough grazing land for them all. Should not this fact alone be a warning signal that there are too many people? Yet the liberal answer to this is that there is no worry, everyone can just eat less meat and switch to tofu! More people will mean declining standards of living and higher prices!
There's only a finite amount of copper, water, oil, etc. on Earth. There is not an infinite amount of anything in the universe. Let's start there. Do you deny what I just said? If so, you don't believe in reality. Earth is only so large physically.[/QUOTE] Did you see my earlier comment on hybrid foods, de-salination, and other advancements?
If you think I'm advocating the sterilization of anyone, you are simply trolling or applying ridiculous strawmen.
The problem is, the people who reproduce the most are the ones that are the most deprived economically (as a rough tendency). This results, immediately and rather obviously, in a flooding of failure, in ANY society. We need to, as is just and moral and true, refer to trying to raise a child in economically deprived settings, as "child abuse/endangerment".
Along with global warming, overpopulation is a politically incorrect subject. We are living in a Malthusian nightmare; but there seems little that the world can (or will) do about it. Charles Darwin held out hope that man would evolve into a more perfect species, but feared that he was already doomed to self-destruction before getting there. Certainly, we are no better for following the commandment to Be fruitful and multiply. . . . Genesis 1:28 (KJV). Ours has not been a history of good husbandry. Man may be master on this planet; but we are rapidly laying waste to the land and the sea upon which we depend for life's subsistence; for when this goes, then, surely as the earth turns, so shall we go also.
No society on earth suffered more famine or privation than did China for many centuries. Today, that society is prosperous and no longer has masses of humanity dying due to lack of food. Should the population grow too large it can fertilize its deserts and use this to feed the masses. Same thing in the USA ~ we have tens of thousands of unused farm lands in the Dakotas and Montana as well as in other areas. Let's spend our resources on proper land utilization rather than foreign wars (and desalination) and we'll not experience any Malthusian limitations.
Because it is an entirely discredited notion, that if it were accurate, would have resulted in massive famine and death 150 years ago!! The essay which spawned this idea, was published in 1798, and claimed that the effects of overpopulation would happen within decades!! Except of course IT DID NOT!! That is because productivity, seed yields, food production, etc have increased more quickly than population!! Eventually population will have to level off, or it will cause serious problems, but that point has not yet been reached!! And our ability to innovate and revolutionize production, means that anyone who IS Malthusian, has a fundamental misunderstanding how the world works!!
How freakin ridiculous. The rest of your post wasn't really worth reading after this, even though sadly, I did read it
China. India. Africa. Southeast Asia. ...... The we'd better not have any significant population booms. Thanks for at least acknowledging this. I think that point has really already been reached, considering the current paucity of JOBS. Sure, we can sustain the basic survival of everyone currently as far as meeting their food and water needs, but for everyone to prosper? We are probably over-populated for that right now. Of course, most people idiotically assume that my suggestion is to kill people off, but that is totally moronic. The solution is to not allow economically destitute, fairly non-productive people to have any kids, because that is child abuse/endangerment. Being raised in squalor is very arguably child abuse/endangerment.
Look at China and India and even Africa, and then say that the obvious mathematical certainty of Malthusian-ism isn't true. Go ahead.
The book Famine 1975 which I have previously linked to said famine was going to be universal by that year. Well, 37 years later we are still alive and well with production of food and potable water at the highest level in history.
China is not "prospering". Now granted, their government trampling on their workers' rights is largely the cause of this, but with their almost 2 billion population, if the average person in China were to ever consume a lot of resources, that would be entirely unsustainable. The rest of the world would have to take a massive economic hit as a result of 2 billion people becoming a lot wealthier.
Forbes business magazine says otherwise: ''The Chinese middle class is already larger than the entire population of the United States. In fifteen years, the Chinese middle class will reach 800 million. It has changed, and will continue to change'' http://www.forbes.com/sites/helenwa...-of-our-time-the-rise-of-chinas-middle-class/
Are you this (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dense? Not saying that you are this (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dense, just asking out of curiosity. The Chinese middle class is VERY impoverished BY COMPARISON to the American or Western European or Australian middle class. Do you (*)(*)(*)(*)ing think that the Chinese middle class is anywhere NEAR as prosperous as the American middle class? Did you somehow get that from your magazine article?
