For a while I've thought that the overpopulation of the planet was one of the most disaterous issues facing the planet today, and I've probably stated this in some previous posts on totse. But after having an argument with some guy, I'm kinda at the half way point of changing my mind. I'm hoping a little debate here might clear things up for me.

Throughout the whole of history pretty much, populations have been relatively stable - with a slight, slight gradual increase. It's only in the recent century or 2 that the population has begun to grow exponentially (I think I'm using the term in the right context here - I never listened in maths).

Now if we compare the last 2 centuries to the rest of history, what's changed drastically? It's the level of technology we possess as a species. The industrial revolution and whatnot GREATLY advanced us a species technologically, allowing us to prolong life, make farming and shit more efficient so less people needed to work on the land; inject the global economy with lots of cash .etc .etc; it's no co-incidence that the industrial and technological revolution was met with a huge rise in population. However, if you look at the UK, Sweden, France, Germany - basically European countries which spearheaded this revolution, our populations are now stabilising (or even decreasing.) We've gone through the revolution and have came out as stable nations who don't need to grow anymore.

Compare this to China and India - developing countries. They are currently undergoing a revolution in terms of development. Their new found wealth has meant they are able to support a higher population and therefore that's what's happening. I bet in the next century, when China and India have stabilised their growth and are first world countries, there natural increase in population will be ~0.

The pre-industrial revolution population was slightly under 1 billion, and now it's at 7 billion or so and rising. Look at how our technology has improved since then; it only makes sense that our planet can now support more people.

Our next huge spike in population will probably be when we can colonise space.

Links you may find interesting:
Demographic Transition Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition)
World Population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population)

Our next huge spike in population will probably be when we can colonise space.

No, it's going to be when we start simulating virtual mini-universes on computers and populating them with simulated humans (who are just as human as us) at the click of a button.

Other than that, good post.

It's just another of The Man's ways of keeping us scared and obedient, as long as we don't ask too many questions.

It's just another of The Man's ways of keeping us scared and obedient, as long as we don't ask too many questions.

Good lord. Why does everything have to be tied to some overarching uber-authority keeping the 'little guy'/'lone individualist crusader in a world of sheep' down?

Throughout the whole of history pretty much, populations have been relatively stable - with a slight, slight gradual increase. It's only in the recent century or 2 that the population has begun to grow exponentially

Throughout the whole of *history*, population has doubled at an unprecedented rate. Whereas the total human population doubled merely 10 times in over 200,000 years (from the emergence of homo sapien to the end of the ice age, 10,000 years ago), it has doubled nearly as many times in the last 10,000 years. It is plain to see that sedentary/agricultural societies have intensified the rate of population growth.

In other words, it is inaccurate to say that populations have been stable with slight gradual increase throughout the whole of history. In fact, population has been going exponentially before history, since agriculture preceded writing.

Good lord. Why does everything have to be tied to some overarching uber-authority keeping the 'little guy'/'lone individualist crusader in a world of sheep' down?

It doesn't. I just took a class on mediated communication and it really opened my eyes to the media, its selection, and what it hopes to accomplish (control) by its selection. But I don't feel that oppressed.

It doesn't. I just took a class on mediated communication and it really opened my eyes to the media, its selection, and what it hopes to accomplish (control) by its selection. But I don't feel that oppressed.

Except media isn't controlled by any one thing. Media is a bunch of different viewpoints and is produced by a bunch of sources. It's nonsensical to say that 'Media' hopes to accomplish anything.

The Media is this (http://www.cnn.com/), this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/), this (http://rawstory.com/), and this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=3w_tOGgsGsU).

Good luck arguing that all four of those media sources are acting in concert to control the people or achieve some grand objective.

It's more complicated than you're making it out to be. We control "the media" who also controls us, so we control ourselves without control. All media outlets fail without ratings, and they don't get ratings unless people watch. People aren't interested unless their lives are directly affected. And that usually only happens by a threat. So anything that appears threatening is played up, so we'll watch. By watching only those threatening things, we are fed only a small selection of what they want us to see, which is suffering generally.
We only see what the government wants us to see.

I don't even remember what my original point is, but I do know that they're not just "reporting the news" for the hell of it.

It is refreshing to see someone challenge what someone says though.

It's more complicated than you're making it out to be. We control "the media" who also controls us, so we control ourselves without control. All media outlets fail without ratings, and they don't get ratings unless people watch. People aren't interested unless their lives are directly affected. And that usually only happens by a threat. So anything that appears threatening is played up, so we'll watch. By watching only those threatening things, we are fed only a small selection of what they want us to see, which is suffering generally.

----------

We only see what the government wants us to see.

The second part of your statement doesn't follow logically at all from your first. According to your first part if the government were to have some huge fuckup that posed a threat to people's lives, the media would report it. But that contradicts your second part, that we only see what the government wants us to see.

Not to mention both of these statements are contradicted by the internet media I posted, which are not dependent on ratings and are not dependent on any single government.

Well, I guess you got me.

I disagree. I think it is a very big problem and to keep it short I base this on something I have heard (sorry no sources) and believe which is that if all humans were equal there would not be enough food for all of us. Even if this is false I don't think the human population is sustainable, I think most if not all of the problems in the world stem from, or can be connected to, overpopulation e.g. Natural Resource depeletion (sp) to things like unemployment.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

I disagree. I think it is a very big problem and to keep it short I base this on something I have heard (sorry no sources) and believe which is that if all humans were equal there would not be enough food for all of us. Even if this is false I don't think the human population is sustainable, I think most if not all of the problems in the world stem from, or can be connected to, overpopulation e.g. Natural Resource depeletion (sp) to things like unemployment.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

I've also heard this, but I'm not sure if it's just propaganda to raise money for charities/give green movements more support.

The way I look at it is that at the moment, everybody living has enough food to survive :cool: therefore their must be enough food to cater for the current population.

I know, I know - some people are eating 1 bean a month, but at the same time the EU (and I think the US) is actually DESTROYING food and paying farmers NOT to produce to keep prices high.

What we need is for certain industries to STOP influencing government policy and disorting the market. There's enough land and farmers in the Americas and Europe to support much more people: it's just that in Africa, land is pretty scarce and therefore the population needs to be decreasing there if the land can't support it. Overpopulation isn't really much of a global problem; more of a local problem.

Except media isn't controlled by any one thing. Media is a bunch of different viewpoints and is produced by a bunch of sources. It's nonsensical to say that 'Media' hopes to accomplish anything.

The Media is this (http://www.cnn.com/), this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/), this (http://rawstory.com/), and this (http://youtube.com/watch?v=3w_tOGgsGsU).

Good luck arguing that all four of those media sources are acting in concert to control the people or achieve some grand objective.

Has it occurred to you that each of them might have their own individual agendas, and that "The Man" can refer to more than one group with authority or power?

Has it occurred to you that each of them might have their own individual agendas, and that "The Man" can refer to more than one group with authority or power?

That's what I was getting at, but I was tired of arguing.

Has it occurred to you that each of them might have their own individual agendas, and that "The Man" can refer to more than one group with authority or power?

Sure, but that's not exactly the message I got from Idiosyncrasy who claimed that "We only see what the government wants us to see."

Sure, but that's not exactly the message I got from Idiosyncrasy who claimed that "We only see what the government wants us to see."

It's not exactly hard to do when the media is an enabler. The media these days caters to the lowest common denominator of entertainment, and the parts of it that don't, tend not to be in the habit of conducting themselves in a fashion that presents the actions of the government objectively. See: media bias, whether it be for, against, or otherwise. Those that do conduct themselves with journalstic integrity are effectively buried beneath a shitheap of failure.

The pre-industrial revolution population was slightly under 1 billion, and now it's at 7 billion or so and rising. Look at how our technology has improved since then; it only makes sense that our planet can now support more people.

You haven't said anything about fished out polluted oceans and that wasn't done by India and China.

DT