90% of all humanity is superfluous?

Red Hand

Hello,

I guess this has been on my mind for a long time, at least a year or more since I read a brilliant sci-fi novel called Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood.

Seeing as the human population is swelling towards 6.5 billion, and species of animals and plants die every day, never to be replaced, do you think that it would be best if most humans were to die? Or at least, not allowed to procreate? In 50 years the population has doubled to 6 billion...soon in about 30 years or less, it will be 10 billion.

Do you care? Or do you think that each human soul is unique and special, and human life is higher up than the other creatures on this planet? Every inch of land should be cultivated if necessary so as to keep this burgeoning population fed and watered? I'm not so sure...

I read somewhere that about 70,000 to 100,000 years ago only less than 10000 homo sapiens were alive at that time. We passed throuugh a genetic bottleneck, which means that we are a very homogenuous species as a whole compared to other animals. So does it really matter if famine-struck people in Africa are given aid or not? There are plenty more of us around, no? Surely, famines and diseases are just population controls that nature uses to keep us in check?

Is it inhumane to think this way-that humans are just another species that need culling, or stringent birth control? Or is inhumane to leave a swelling population grow and grow until finally ecological systems collapse, pollution wreaks havok and billions starve, many of them children? Like a food source contaminated with one type of bacteria-the colony grows and grows until it declines due to a lack of food/water and a preponderance of wastes?

Should humanity be allowed to grow and grow, even if it be towards their own detriment?

Sorry for the rambling post...I guess I haven't explained what I want to discuss properly.

estebancambias

I asked a question like this in the Atheist forum a while back.

I would like to see some Atheist response to your questions. Like I mean I really would want to.

Isn't there that Finnish loon who promotes genocide?

Zombrex

estebancambias wrote: »

Isn't there that Finnish loon who promotes genocide?

Not exactly. He was some what miss quoted.

mike65

Markets, what about the markets?

As no-one outside the conspiracy theories forum is suggesting a mass extermination this is somewhat academic. The good news is that ultimately the population is self regulating. When enough die of drough, starvation and disease the population will level off.

Mike.

dr_manhattan

it all depends on what you mean with the passive verbs "allowed to" and "should be". The concept of "better" is also abstract.

Sure, trees and animals would be better off without humans. So cull us all - the vacuum created by us will be filled by some other problematic organism (in the event of us all dying, probably a disease or vermin that lives off our corpses or some aspect of our society)

Is that "better"? Better for who? Some notion of "nature"? Remember we're "nature" too. Who "allows" these things? Who is the authority here?

Cos you see, if we strip all the ozone off and nuke the planet till it glows, then we return earth to the unprotected, radioactive, uninhabitable environment that *originally* created all life in the first place.

So is human overcrowding or nuclear war "better"? After all, it certainly strips the place back to its "natural" state?

I notice you say "most"... the same as saying "some" must survive.

So no, I am not a fascist nor do I believe that anyone has the right to determine who lives or dies - especially not based on the vague alarmist predictions of scientists.

If 15% of the 6.5 billion stopped being so ****ing greedy, that could be a start... but no: cull the poor. Perfect.

Red Hand

dr_manhattan wrote: »

it all depends on what you mean with the passive verbs "allowed to" and "should be". The concept of "better" is also abstract.

Sure, trees and animals would be better off without humans. So cull us all - the vacuum created by us will be filled by some other problematic organism (in the event of us all dying, probably a disease or vermin that lives off our corpses or some aspect of our society)

Is that "better"? Better for who? Some notion of "nature"? Remember we're "nature" too. Who "allows" these things? Who is the authority here?

Better ultimately, for humanity. What happens if ecological collapse happens? You take out enough species from the ecological stack of organisms and the whole lot will fall, with only a few surviving. Which means that if our domesticated species ever fail due to viruses/genetic modification/whatever, then there is nothing to fall back on. Which means that the extra billions of humans in the future that are being produced now, will die...much more than die now.

Populations grew and declined years ago due to environmental strains. You eat all the food in an area-> you die. The Black Death was one such case. People were too ill to work in the fields and obviously couldn't grow as much food due to alot of people being ill/dying, and so died due to a combination of disease(s) and famine. Likewise, the Irish Famine. It was seen by our government at the time as a natural catastrophe, with little aid being given to the poor. The whole concept of aid wasn't even around back then, not like it is now.

Cos you see, if we strip all the ozone off and nuke the planet till it glows, then we return earth to the unprotected, radioactive, uninhabitable environment that *originally* created all life in the first place.

So is human overcrowding or nuclear war "better"? After all, it certainly strips the place back to its "natural" state?

Well, I guess I cannot really answer that as I don't know to define the word "nature". I know that I used it in original post.

I guess one way of looking at it is which is better: the needs of many billions of humans vs the needs of all organism + humans. Is it better to most organisms so that the maximum amount of humans will live?

I notice you say "most"... the same as saying "some" must survive.

Obviously some human must survive-they are organisms too. And maybe I should say widespread use of contraception instead of culling as a way of managing humanity's growth. ;)

So no, I am not a fascist nor do I believe that anyone has the right to determine who lives or dies - especially not based on the vague alarmist predictions of scientists.

The idea has been around for a long time. An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus was one of the first writings that dealt with human over-population.

By the way, I'm not a facist either. This is just an internet discussion forum.

If 15% of the 6.5 billion stopped being so ****ing greedy, that could be a start... but no: cull the poor. Perfect.

Yes...it is down to human greed.

Red Hand

mike65 wrote: »

Markets, what about the markets?

Yep, you are right about the markets. Ecomonies and money systems depend on more people buying more useless sh*te. If everybody used just what they needed to survive, life would be more harmonious...but that isn't going to happen, is it?

As no-one outside the conspiracy theories forum is suggesting a mass extermination this is somewhat academic. The good news is that ultimately the population is self regulating. When enough die of drough, starvation and disease the population will level off.

But is it better to let more people be produced if ultimately they are going to die of starvation? Again, the Irish Famine....a load of food could have been dumped on our shores for free (though at a great cost, for there was no Green Revolution back then), and it would have gotten the population through for the short term...only to have the blight again strike down the popilation the next few years. And there would have been no gurantee that free aid would be given again to help the Irish population, again all down to ecomonics.

Mike.

Jer.

johnnyskeleton

Experience has shown that poorer countries have higher rates of population increase, while rich countries have lower rates of increase and some even have population decreases. (obviously you have to factor in that countries experiencing a boom such as Ireland will have increasing populations due to immigration / re-migration.

This is generally explained as rich / middle class people only wanting / having time / able to afford to have 1 or 2 children, whereas in poorer countries they have more time to raise families, and the belief is that more kids = more people to support you in your old age.

So in a more equal world we wouldn't see such massive population increases, but that's not what we have.

Also, I believe that 6.5 billion is not nearly capacity for our planet, and we could support even more than this.

dr_manhattan

Obviously some human must survive-they are organisms too.

I don't see this as obvious at all: think about it.

1. We are the problem
2. we cannot control ourselves or our greed
3. the so-called 'poverty' in the world is easily fixed but we refuse to

So cut to the root of the problem and kill all humans, as Bender B Rodriguez would say. That I can deal with. Not killing anyone I can deal with. But picking who lives and who dies? Nah.

Besides which, if we're gonna cull, I say cull *us* in the west. We cause most of the problems, plus we've had out chance.

A world with a non-existent iPhone market is definitely a more sustainable world ;-)

And maybe I should say widespread use of contraception instead of culling as a way of managing humanity's growth

Oh come on now... elsewhere you say "as if that's gonna happen" about quite a few issues, and then you say "we can convince half the world to control itself?" ... in *any* regard, let alone reproduction.

I would also point out that consensual sex isn't something you can take for granted in those areas of the world with, well... less law and order. Last I read armed gangs don't tend to read HIV literature or attend relationship counselling sessions ;-)

;-)

it's a sad fact that the only effective means ofg population control we have is genocide. It's a very good thing that we try our best not to pursue it, IMHO.

But at the end of the day, all social decisions and ideals must stem from that simple principle: either you a) kill your neighbours, or b) you help them in any way you can. Anything else is a halfway measure which will lead you back to a) or b) every time.

my 2 cents

dr_manhattan

Oh and PS: I suspect you need to change your handle to "jeremiah 16".

Jeremiah 16:1 is just "Then the word of the LORD came to me:"

Bit nonspecific, no? If you just want to indicate that the word of the lord is upon you, why not just call yourself "Bible"?

;-)

Red Hand

dr_manhattan wrote: »

I don't see this as obvious at all: think about it.

1. We are the problem
2. we cannot control ourselves or our greed
3. the so-called 'poverty' in the world is easily fixed but we refuse to

So cut to the root of the problem and kill all humans, as Bender B Rodriguez would say. That I can deal with. Not killing anyone I can deal with. But picking who lives and who dies? Nah.

Have a lottery. Use a computor to randomly pick. Stick a tack randomly in the phonebook.;)

Besides which, if we're gonna cull, I say cull *us* in the west. We cause most of the problems, plus we've had out chance.

A world with a non-existent iPhone market is definitely a more sustainable world ;-)

True.

Oh come on now... elsewhere you say "as if that's gonna happen" about quite a few issues, and then you say "we can convince half the world to control itself?" ... in *any* regard, let alone reproduction.

I would also point out that consensual sex isn't something you can take for granted in those areas of the world with, well... less law and order. Last I read armed gangs don't tend to read HIV literature or attend relationship counselling sessions ;-)

;-)

Then, why should they be alive?

it's a sad fact that the only effective means ofg population control we have is genocide. It's a very good thing that we try our best not to pursue it, IMHO.

But at the end of the day, all social decisions and ideals must stem from that simple principle: either you a) kill your neighbours, or b) you help them in any way you can. Anything else is a halfway measure which will lead you back to a) or b) every time.

my 2 cents

Almost every human lies in between those two opposites and you're aware of that.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

Oh and PS: I suspect you need to change your handle to "jeremiah 16".

Whyso? Do I assume that you are a Doctor from Manhattan?

Jeremiah 16:1 is just "Then the word of the LORD came to me:"

Bit nonspecific, no? If you just want to indicate that the word of the lord is upon you, why not just call yourself "Bible"?

;-)

Doesn't mean I'm a practising Christian just cause I was named Jeremiah. So what if I stuck a random number at the end?

nacho libre

Raindrop hits the leaf changing it's position slightly on the street
next to polls of monotonous waters He walks Slipping feet from
steps at random He falls

In the space of between his body and the ground
comets cast off their names stellar neurones misfire

Witnesses
inhale the seed
and spit out a million branches

Buds abloom in all directions
frin which events occur
relations and virused meetings
catch fire and explode
In the margin of butterfly wings
entire cycles of evolution
outplayed and faded
sparked away and leaned back into
vacuum-filled nirvana

Between the two of my eyes
feverish fractal scar
Dance like were they on drugs
peyote labyrinth re-mapped exits
A hasty blink
and a million life-to-comes
will never be the same
as they never were

In the kinetic energy of a moving fist
lies a birth-machine for a parallel universe

With the first movement in organic scap
came a bouquet of alternative answers
all different multiplied and re-divided

Coded in the spinal cord of a trilobite
written between the legs on the Meganeura
suburban city maps and dormant dictator semen
marked their way through time

dr_manhattan

Then, why should they be alive?

Whether or not someone "should" be alive or not is moot: as can be seen from wasteful, greedy western dominance of the world's resources, it's pretty much as the people who cause mots problems are the hardest to get rid of.

I would not bat an eyelid if every ****bag mercenary on the planet dropped dead tomorrow: however that's not gonna happen is it? Plus, the worse situations get, chances are the nasty people survive.

that's why I don't see the point in debating human population: we know that every step towards improving things via population control will just be exploited by the sociopathic to oprtect their numbers ;-)

So what if I stuck a random number at the end?

So nothing necessarily: however people assuming that jeremiah 16:1 is a biblical reference is not the same thing as them assuming that dr_manhattan is a doctor or from manhattan.

Earthhorse

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Is it inhumane to think this way-that humans are just another species that need culling, or stringent birth control? Or is inhumane to leave a swelling population grow and grow until finally ecological systems collapse, pollution wreaks havok and billions starve, many of them children?

Both are inhumane.

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

The idea has been around for a long time. An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus was one of the first writings that dealt with human over-population.

It's a brilliant piece by Malthus no doubt and he was right in as much as population expands geometrically rather than arithmetically but he didn't have complete information at the time. That is, as someone else pointed out in this thread, lifestyles reach a certain level of quality in society where reduced family sizes or zero family sizes are more appealing to the existing population.

Before talking about ecological collapse we need to consider whether we can bring most populations to this point. My contention would be that we can but that it will probably be the start of the next century before we see significant shifts in this regard. Spreading wealth across the globe seems a glacial process but it is happening as far as I can tell.

nacho libre wrote: »

Buds abloom in all directions
frin which events occur
relations and virused meetings
catch fire and explode
In the margin of butterfly wings
entire cycles of evolution
outplayed and faded
sparked away and leaned back into
vacuum-filled nirvana

*clicks fingers*

dr_manhattan

Before talking about ecological collapse we need to consider whether we can bring most populations to this point.

But with the notions of "bringing" and the notion of a desirable "point" - that's just a PC cloak for imperialism, no?

Most countries which are "developed" got there through awful bloodshed. Only 60 years ago there were concentration camps all over europe. And even now that we're at our supposed nexus of "stability", we also know that our youth are often horribly violent.

So in short, we have no yardstick, no example of a stable, desirable society. So all we are doing - Iraq style - is forcing a system we know doesn't work on a bunch of people who don't want it... or at least, like us, only want it in so much as they can subvert and exploit it.

And meanwhile talking as loudly as we can about "freedom" and creating an equal society.

So in otherwords, Imperialism, yeah?

Jack Sheehan

Personally I am optimistic that the human population growth will taper off before it reaches critical mass.

djpbarry

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

And maybe I should say widespread use of contraception instead of culling as a way of managing humanity's growth.

And what would be the best way to implement that, do you think?

Earthhorse

dr_manhattan wrote: »

But with the notions of "bringing" and the notion of a desirable "point" - that's just a PC cloak for imperialism, no?

I just checked and my cloak is actually from the Marks and Spencer Autograph range.

When I said "we can bring" I really meant we'll have to wait and see whether countries will naturally find their way toward these points. If we take India as an example, the country is prospering economically and I would expect that over the next few generations, provided this prosperity continues, the birth rate will drop. That's just one example, I expect there are others.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

So in short, we have no yardstick, no example of a stable, desirable society. So all we are doing - Iraq style - is forcing a system we know doesn't work on a bunch of people who don't want it... or at least, like us, only want it in so much as they can subvert and exploit it.

And meanwhile talking as loudly as we can about "freedom" and creating an equal society.

Well, you've switched to talking about Iraq or Iraq like situations now which I definitely wasn't talking about. Forcing structures on societies that don't want them doesn't work. You have to let the countries develop largely of their own voliction (you can encourage this through investment, which some regard as just another form of imperialism, or trade pacts etc.) but if you try to impose it it just won't work.

dr_manhattan wrote: »

So in otherwords, Imperialism, yeah?

Nope. Marks and Spencers Autograph range.

dr_manhattan

Well, you've switched to talking about Iraq or Iraq like situations now which I definitely wasn't talking about.

While the timescale of so-called "direct" military involvement is slightly different to that of Africa, I fail to see the big difference?

Western puppet dictator, massive arms sales from both sides of the cold war, use of carrot-and-stick to ensure compliance, and big natural reserves...

How do you see them as "different"?

Just because mercenaries in africa don't wear their western rank stripes, and don't *officially* work for western governments (quick mention of mark thatcher, my name of the moment LOL)....?

Earthhorse

Okay, you've kinda lost me there Doc...you want me to compare Iraq with Africa? Why?

I'm aware the continent has huge problems and yes, one would be concern with it's growing population but right now, if we look at the most populous nations out there, China and India are way ahead of everyone else. Both countries have their own problems and, especially in the case of China, they are not trivial but both seem to be moving the right direction.

Asia is the next big success story in terms of what I'm talking about i.e. countries moving more toward political, economic and therefore population stability, and it still has a long way to go. Africa will probably be the last domino to topple in that regard.

A lot of African nations are up the swanny, for the reasons you've given and a whole lot more. But this thread is about global over population not regional over population.

Stabshauptmann

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

Better ultimately, for humanity. What happens if ecological collapse happens? You take out enough species from the ecological stack of organisms and the whole lot will fall, with only a few surviving. Which means that if our domesticated species ever fail due to viruses/genetic modification/whatever, then there is nothing to fall back on. Which means that the extra billions of humans in the future that are being produced now, will die...much more than die now.

Yes there are many endangered species, but the ones we rely on are not endangered. Cows will not beomce extinct due to human over population, that argument is flawed.

Populations grew and declined years ago due to environmental strains. You eat all the food in an area-> you die. The Black Death was one such case. People were too ill to work in the fields and obviously couldn't grow as much food due to alot of people being ill/dying, and so died due to a combination of disease(s) and famine.

Stetching it a bit

Likewise, the Irish Famine. It was seen by our government at the time as a natural catastrophe, with little aid being given to the poor. The whole concept of aid wasn't even around back then, not like it is now.

Actually the concept of aid was around back then, and aid was given by the government at the time - quite effectively actually. There was a change of government however and the Whigs saw it not as a natural catastrophe but as a market event and were interested to see how the market would rectify itself.

The idea has been around for a long time. An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus was one of the first writings that dealt with human over-population.

Ah I was wondering if you'd heard of him. The interesting thing is, that as our needs increase (and they have beyond Malthus' wildest imaginations) our efficiency and productivity increase likewise.

The reason that the human population is exploding is the fall off in our death rates due to technological advancements. However, in the developed world a new and scary trend has emerged. Population decline. People just dont want children in the modern age.

AngryBadger

The question is moot.

Superfluous by what system of measurement? You could effectively argue that the majority of the elements that make up human society are superfluous to some greater or lesser extent. And if you can't decide on a definition for what you consider to be "superfluous" then you can't really venture any opinion on this thread.

Anything else is just speculation with no basis in fact.

Red Hand

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Yes there are many endangered species, but the ones we rely on are not endangered. Cows will not beomce extinct due to human over population, that argument is flawed.

That's not what I was implying. Humans have shaped many domesticated species down through the years. Genetic manipulation, rather than selective breeding, is the next step...which could be one way a domesticated species could be vulnerable to collapse. New gm breeds could have a hitherto unknown flaw, that leaves them open to attack.

Actually the concept of aid was around back then, and aid was given by the government at the time - quite effectively actually. There was a change of government however and the Whigs saw it not as a natural catastrophe but as a market event and were interested to see how the market would rectify itself.

I guess you could say the same about many modern catastrophes today. It may be more profitable to treat malaria outbreaks (again and again due to the nature of the disease) rather than providing one-off vaccines?

Ah I was wondering if you'd heard of him. The interesting thing is, that as our needs increase (and they have beyond Malthus' wildest imaginations) our efficiency and productivity increase likewise.

But doesn't that mean that you need a continously expanding poplation so that new stuff can be made? More bodies, more markets?

The reason that the human population is exploding is the fall off in our death rates due to technological advancements. However, in the developed world a new and scary trend has emerged. Population decline. People just dont want children in the modern age.

Yes, I'm aware of countries in Europe that have declined and stagnated population wise.


Thanks for the responses, I can see that one cannot really be objective about such a matter as there is no real system of measurement as Angrybadger says.:)

AARRRGH

Is life about survival of the fittest, or is it about helping those who are weak?

There are too many greedy, selfish people in the world. They are everywhere. They care for nothing but themselves. They would without conscience eat every last fish in the lake if they were hungry.

I think humans, overall, are a fairly scummy bunch. We don't want to look an animal in the eye and tell it our appetite is more important than their life. We just look the other way and let someone else do the killing. We don't consider the consequences of our actions as its easier to ignore them.

We are rapidly destroying the world we live in. If there were less of us we'd be limited as to how much damage we could do.

Mother nature is an amazing thing though, so I suspect we're going to see a lot more fertility problems and natural disasters popping up in the near future.

/Moves to a mountain with loads of guns