Political Crossfire Forums

[bob.appleyard]

Demonic Spoon wrote: http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53510

We have 16,841.5 years worth of oil at our current consumption rate. While this would increase a lot if everyone on earth got a car, we'd still have MORE than enough oil for a loong, long time. Also note that this is just PROVED RESERVES. Think of how many oil reserves that we aren't tapping right now.

If you read the rest of that thread, you'll notice that that figure was calculated incorrectly. It was assumed that "global consumption" was in barrels per year, when it was actually in barrels per day.

1,349,000,000,000 / (365 * 80,100,000) ~= 45 years

[Demonic Spoon]

Meh, either way, that's still PROVEN RESERVES, we still have far more.

And by the time our oil runs out, we will have a new form of energy...hell, within 10 years I'm betting solar will be very viable.

[8810385]

Piotr wrote: 8810385 wrote: Piotr wrote: 8810385 wrote: this is a big problem that we need to deal with. i think right now there are way too many people around as is. they're ruining it for everyone. making each human life more and more worthless day by day.

but if from now on, everyone has only 1 kid, then the problem will be solved. and also the kid has a better life because more of the parents' resources will be available to them to thrive, like more money and attention.

if people want to have more than 1 kid, then they must pay a big tax.

Normally you'd think that, but then consider that that growing population is also key to providing a greater and greater pool of human resources: more scientists, more doctors, more musicians, more artists, more everything. It increases the chance of getting capable people, does it not? Which in turn increases the potential for discoveries that can benefit everyone, no?

I'd say two people per person would be enough. But I wouldn't force anyone to pay any related tax or punishment, and I'd probably be opposed to any such measure.

I'd also say it's too simplistic to think that bringing the population down that way will solve every problem at hand. There used to be less people in the past, but the same problems persisted, no? And, also, standard of living today has never been higher for the greatest amount of people (which doesn't mean there isn't work to be done to bring it up even more)- has it?

this is the classic case of quality vs. quantity. i believe having less kids who are better equipped is better than having lots of kids. we really don't need all these people. the standard of living will be higher if there are less people. there will be more land. there will be more resources and attention per individual. right now humans are a dime a dozen. and the quality of humans are low, because they don't get enough attention and resources. the more population grows, the more worthless human life becomes.

Not necessarily;did you skim over what I wrote, or do I need further clarification? Because you're just repeating what you said before. as far as I can see.

yes. i read what you wrote. i just didn't want to embarrass you by systematically rebutting all your weak arguments. but i guess you want me to teach you, so, let's start:

Quote: Normally you'd think that, but then consider that that growing population is also key to providing a greater and greater pool of human resources: more scientists, more doctors, more musicians, more artists, more everything. It increases the chance of getting capable people, does it not? Which in turn increases the potential for discoveries that can benefit everyone, no?

the answer is no. as i explained before, i belive it is better to have less population with quality rather than lots of population that is unnecessary and a waste of rerources, and less quality.

Quote: I'd also say it's too simplistic to think that bringing the population down that way will solve every problem at hand.

i agree.

Quote: There used to be less people in the past, but the same problems persisted, no?

much worse problems existed in the past. but that's mainly because we were backwards. we have learned from those mistakes and are more evolved now.

[Pebble]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Meh, either way, that's still PROVEN RESERVES, we still have far more.

What do you base that on?

Quote: And by the time our oil runs out, we will have a new form of energy...hell, within 10 years I'm betting solar will be very viable.

In order to make those options viable we have to invest heavily in them, which some governments won't do as they tend to put faith in your first point.

[Piotr]

8810385 wrote: Piotr wrote: 8810385 wrote: Piotr wrote: 8810385 wrote: this is a big problem that we need to deal with. i think right now there are way too many people around as is. they're ruining it for everyone. making each human life more and more worthless day by day.

but if from now on, everyone has only 1 kid, then the problem will be solved. and also the kid has a better life because more of the parents' resources will be available to them to thrive, like more money and attention.

if people want to have more than 1 kid, then they must pay a big tax.

Normally you'd think that, but then consider that that growing population is also key to providing a greater and greater pool of human resources: more scientists, more doctors, more musicians, more artists, more everything. It increases the chance of getting capable people, does it not? Which in turn increases the potential for discoveries that can benefit everyone, no?

I'd say two people per person would be enough. But I wouldn't force anyone to pay any related tax or punishment, and I'd probably be opposed to any such measure.

I'd also say it's too simplistic to think that bringing the population down that way will solve every problem at hand. There used to be less people in the past, but the same problems persisted, no? And, also, standard of living today has never been higher for the greatest amount of people (which doesn't mean there isn't work to be done to bring it up even more)- has it?

this is the classic case of quality vs. quantity. i believe having less kids who are better equipped is better than having lots of kids. we really don't need all these people. the standard of living will be higher if there are less people. there will be more land. there will be more resources and attention per individual. right now humans are a dime a dozen. and the quality of humans are low, because they don't get enough attention and resources. the more population grows, the more worthless human life becomes.

Not necessarily;did you skim over what I wrote, or do I need further clarification? Because you're just repeating what you said before. as far as I can see.

yes. i read what you wrote. i just didn't want to embarrass you by systematically rebutting all your weak arguments. but i guess you want me to teach you, so, let's start:

Quote: Normally you'd think that, but then consider that that growing population is also key to providing a greater and greater pool of human resources: more scientists, more doctors, more musicians, more artists, more everything. It increases the chance of getting capable people, does it not? Which in turn increases the potential for discoveries that can benefit everyone, no?

the answer is no. as i explained before, i belive it is better to have less population with quality rather than lots of population that is unnecessary and a waste of rerources, and less quality.

Quote: I'd also say it's too simplistic to think that bringing the population down that way will solve every problem at hand.

i agree.

Quote: There used to be less people in the past, but the same problems persisted, no?

much worse problems existed in the past. but that's mainly because we were backwards. we have learned from those mistakes and are more evolved now.

Well, what you argue is: less people = more resources for everone. But that isn't necessarily true, especially when you consider that everyone has different resource needs, determined by psychology and physionomy. Sometimes, more people = more resources, as these people can produce proportionately more resources, both physical and intellectual, than can fewer ones.

Material resources are't the only ones that there are: There are also human-made resources, and these are the some of the most valuable because of the positive changes that they can bring about: we would never have all the advantages of modern life had it not been for large, educated populations where scientists and others could pool their resources, or where a large absolute amount of talented individuals could arise and make discoveries. Technologies and ideas are resources, too.

If I have a village of ten, and one of them is a genius, then that genius will only be able to do so much by himself or herself for the benefit of everyone. They may live comfortably and well, and be happy; but there would only be so much they could do.

But if I had a larger village of 100 where there were ten geniuses that either cooperated or didn't fight against each other, then these ten could do greater things than that village with one genius. They may increase living standards faster, develop better technologies more quickly or discover more things collectively. The larger village could develop proportionally faster than that village of ten.

Society is always more than the sum of its parts. However, how high that sum is depends on how much these parts would be willing to consciously cooperate with each other.

I can bring it down to this: an average city can do a whole lot more than an average town, and its citizens will often have better living standards.

[Blinky]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Meh, either way, that's still PROVEN RESERVES, we still have far more.

And by the time our oil runs out, we will have a new form of energy...hell, within 10 years I'm betting solar will be very viable.

"Meh, 16000 years, 45 years, same thing. I juts know in my heart that there is more oil out there even though it hasn't and can't be proven."

I thought you were an atheist demonic spoon. :wink:

[Demonic Spoon]

Way to pick out parts of my post, out of context, and jab at them.

Of course I don't KNOW there's more oil, but the chances of what we know of being the only oil there are rediculously low.

Read my whole damn post before you respond.

Quote:
And by the time our oil runs out, we will have a new form of energy...hell, within 10 years I'm betting solar will be very viable.

[Kindred]

I think some of you may benefit by researching 'ecological footprints'.

The link below can't be taken too seriously (although it probably has as much integrity as that silly article Wolverine posted), but it gives you some idea of the concept and how it applies to you.

http://www.earthday.net/Footprint/index.asp

[Blinky]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Way to pick out parts of my post, out of context, and jab at them.

Of course I don't KNOW there's more oil, but the chances of what we know of being the only oil there are rediculously low.

Read my whole damn post before you respond.

Quote:
And by the time our oil runs out, we will have a new form of energy...hell, within 10 years I'm betting solar will be very viable.

Relax. I did read your whole post, and I'm not the only one who found it somewhat lacking - Pebble clearly did as well.
You betting that solar technology will be viable in ten years doesn't cut it for me and many others.
You are playing with the Earth's future based on your assesment of the probability of there being more oil. Besides, I would be surprised if substantial reserves were discovered considering the technology available to us currently.

No need to be so defensive btw.

[DarkMerlin]

Has anyone seen this website: http://www.vhemt.org/ ?

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. They are almost as bad as the Church of Euthenasia (tagline: "Save the world: Kill yourself!").

My favorite part of the whole website: "VHEMT Volunteers are realistic. We know we'll never see the day there are no human beings on the planet." Well...duh.

[eXploiTeD]

I agree that people should have less kids. Ideally, I'd like about 1 billion people in the world. Not sure why, but it seems about right...

[DarkMerlin]

eXploiTeD wrote: I agree that people should have less kids. Ideally, I'd like about 1 billion people in the world. Not sure why, but it seems about right...

So, let me get this straight. Your feelings the ideal population with regards to resources, social structure, etc...is based on a hunch?

[Wolverine]

I'm waiting for 8810385 to provide some evidence to back up his far fetched claim.

[geddy]

Since this disscusion about resources and what-not is a good one, I wouldn't want to end it. But Since this is my first post on this thread i figured i might as well toss in my 2 cents.

I read in a speech by Michael Crichton that the earths popluation will be fewer in the near future than today.

Here is a link I found to support what he said: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3444

I dont know how reliable the website is, but i did find many others like it stating the same idea:

By 2050 the population will begin to decrease. In 2050 the average mother will give birth to 1.85 children, far less than in the 20th century. And with the increase in aids and decrease in fetility rates and what not the worlds population will decline.

I find it kind of hard to believe, but hey... apparently this is near 100% proven...... so all those problems that were discussed befor may not even be problems in the future. I guess its best that way.

[perdidochas]

aLienaTeD wrote: perdidochas wrote: 8810385 wrote: this is a big problem that we need to deal with. i think right now there are way too many people around as is. they're ruining it for everyone. making each human life more and more worthless day by day.

but if from now on, everyone has only 1 kid, then the problem will be solved. and also the kid has a better life because more of the parents' resources will be available to them to thrive, like more money and attention.

if people want to have more than 1 kid, then they must pay a big tax.

They are doing that in Europe, i.e. having less kids than needed to replace the population. It's on the verge of causing major social collapse, as the number of retirees will soon be almost as large as the number of workers.

Some religious faiths require that they be free to reproduce. Taxing for having more than one kid would be against their First Amendment rights.
That doesn't make even a bit of sense.

I gotta admit that grammatically, it needed work.

Part of the Catholic faith involves a married couple being open to having children, and as many children as is necessary. Excessive taxes for someone that is practicing their religion, by having more than one child, is against their freedom of religion.

[perdidochas]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Go to the US. Or Europe. There is no food problem. It's not because we have less people, it's because we are simply making better use of the resources available to us.

Africa has NO SHORTAGE of food. It's just not being harvested as well as it could be. If the population decreases, then yes, you will have less people to feed, but there will be LESS PEOPLE TO HARVEST THE FOOD. Since the same amount will be wasted, it would make no difference.

Actually, Africa should have no shortage of food. The problem is that under corrupt dictatorships, nothing gets done, and the rebels make things worse by disrupting normal routines further. SOme of what we now hear of as starvation zones, like Ethiopia and Somalia, were once breadbaskets of Africa.

[Bathtub_Gin]

Why can't people just face reality, that there are soon to be too many people, we are growing faster then we can supply food, present estimates are that life forms on Earth are becoming extinct at the rate of one per hour that is 24 extinctions each and every day, 168 extinctions per week, 720 extinctions per month, and 8,760 extinctions per year. That’s an extinction rate equaled only by the demise of the dinosaurs. If people didn't have such a hang up on "passing on their genes" then there wouldnt be so many orphans, and maybe some kids would actully have a life other then at the orphan home, a real family. People give their kids up for adoption so the kids can have a better life (well some of them cause they flat out dont want a kid) but living with more like 12 other kids in one home with little to do or to eat thats not a better life, and I think us being humans, the most advanced life forms (on earth might i add) should be able to do something about it. So why not try adopting, you get a kid and make one kids life better then it already was.

[perdidochas]

eXploiTeD wrote: I agree that people should have less kids. Ideally, I'd like about 1 billion people in the world. Not sure why, but it seems about right...

It would be next to impossible to reduce the population to 1 billion by merely having less kids. The problem with that solution, is that, due to modern medical care, etc., we end up with a upside down population pyramid with a lot of old people, and very few young people. IMHO, this is a very unnatural scenario.

[perdidochas]

Bathtub_Gin wrote: Why can't people just face reality, that there are soon to be too many people, we are growing faster then we can supply food, present estimates are that life forms on Earth are becoming extinct at the rate of one per hour that is 24 extinctions each and every day, 168 extinctions per week, 720 extinctions per month, and 8,760 extinctions per year. That’s an extinction rate equaled only by the demise of the dinosaurs.

We can't equate the two. We don't really have accurate enough data about the extinction rate of species to know that current history is any faster than any other time. Many of the so-called extinctions, IMHO, are the extinctions of sub-species, rather than true species. If we had seen these same critters as fossils instead of as living organisms, we'd have no idea that they were extinct, as the fossil evidence isn't nearly as sensitive or accurate as the living critter's evidence.

Also, in the 1960s, they were saying the exact same thing--that with a human population of more than 4 billion, we'd have massive starvation worldwide. We're now at close to 6 billion, and believe it or not, starvation isn't as bad in most of the world as it was in the 1960s.



Bathtub_Gin wrote: If people didn't have such a hang up on "passing on their genes" then there wouldnt be so many orphans, and maybe some kids would actully have a life other then at the orphan home, a real family.

As a beleiver in evolution, wanting to "pass on your genes" is not just a "hangup" it's an evolutionary mandate. It is one of the most basic urges in existence. Our drive for sex is related to that.


Bathtub_Gin wrote: People give their kids up for adoption so the kids can have a better life (well some of them cause they flat out dont want a kid) but living with more like 12 other kids in one home with little to do or to eat thats not a better life, and I think us being humans, the most advanced life forms (on earth might i add) should be able to do something about it. So why not try adopting, you get a kid and make one kids life better then it already was.

Adopting is a good idea. However, few people, at least in America, give up their kids for adoption UNLESS the kids have special needs.

[Roy L]

8810385 wrote: they're ruining it for everyone. making each human life more and more worthless day by day. "It's so crowded, nobody goes there any more." -- Yogi Berra

10,000 years ago, there were only a few million people in the whole world, and they were mostly hungry. Today, there are three orders of magnitude more people, and they are mostly not hungry. Any problem you think is caused by too many people is in fact caused by too much greed and/or too little wisdom.