ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



Remembering a mighty hunter who became one with the animal kingdom to honor us all

Discussion in 'Tony Ortega' started by RSS Feed, Mar 31, 2019.

View Users: View Users
  1. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    My view is that whether the world is CURRENTLY over-populated is a bit of a red herring. Suppose it's NOT over-populated. Well, then, how many more people can we fit in it? Let's suppose we can fit in another 20 billion, before we all start choking to death from pollution, and finding difficulties producing enough food to eat reasonably well, and all the other resource constraints that would start to bite at some point. Maybe it's not 20 billion. Maybe its 30 billion. But at some point, the world WOULD be overpopulated. At that point, we would have to start asking "is it worth allowing the population to grow, knowing that it lowers the quality of life of everybody on the planet?" Should it be the 27th billion person? the 27,000,000,001th person? It doesn't really matter. The point is that at some point we would have to start limiting the population, for everyone's benefit.

    If that is the case, then wouldn't it be sensible to limit the population at a point where we are still NOT over-populated? Wouldn't it be sensible to say "OK, we've got 7 billion now (or however many it is) and productivity considerations don't point to the need for more people, so why allow the population to balloon any further?" Those not yet born presumably don't care (unless you subscribe to the Hubbardian theory that there are all these newly-Cleared BTs waiting for bodies), but an increasing population doesn't appear to offer any benefits to the existing population, or their heirs and descendants (aside from the very temporary issue of having enough workers to feed the burgeoning elderly population, but that problem might be better solved by figuring out how to make the large numbers of totally unproductive EXISTING people a bit more able to produce). That latter point also points to limiting the population (more exactly, the population of people who are born into situations where they are unlikely to ever be productive). How productive is an alcoholic with tattoos all over his face likely to be? Just getting his foot in the door for a job would present the first problem to surmount.

    It seems to me that, with the technological advances we have made a given, a world of 1 billion people, each with a couple of acres of land to grow vegetables or do whatever they like (or whatever number makes that possible) would be a nicer world to live in than a world with cities crammed to the hilt, and everyone living in high-rise apartments. Or at least, the possibility of choosing which of those situations you want to live in.

    In order to justify increasing the population, one would have to have a reason why that is an improvement. Does God measure mankind's future reward in terms of bodies-in-the-shop? Is there a surfeit of bodyless beings waiting in abject misery for a body? If not, then by what metric does one justify increasing the population endlessly?

    Sorry, bit of a rambling post....
     
  2. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    I liked your 'rambling' post. I thought that since I've chucked in my tuppenceworth on this subject, the least I could do was to sit down and read what you had to say.

    The way I look at it is - the rain forests are disappearing at a frightening rate due to the need for agricultural land to feed the burgeoning population. The millions and millions of cars we are all driving around in is polluting the air we breathe in our congested cities and killing thousands of people unnecessarily every year, and we are turning the oceans into toxic rubbish depositories. That's just for starters. If there was only half the number of bodies on the planet, at least it would take a little longer before we made the place totally uninhabitable.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2019
    phenomanon, tesseract and Wilbur like this.
  3. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    Where's Thanos when you need him?



    The big question, a question which will, one way or another, define the future of civilization, is who gets discouraged from adding to the population, and how this is accomplished.
     
    strativarius likes this.
  4. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    [1] I have to admit I haven't a clue who Thanos is (don't bother).

    [2] How is it accomplished? Someone will have to invent something that's more pleasurable than bonking, that's how.
     
  5. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    There are other solutions, but people may find them unspeakably ugly.
     
  6. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    I think the adjectives were 'unthinkably horrible'. :biggrin:



    I've never seen this video before. The first thing that struck me was that he sounded completely coked out of his brain - lucky man!