quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:

quote:

Human beings are valuable resources, and the more we have of them the better.

Nonsense. They still have to eat, drink, douche, etc.
If you can't feed them or provide potable water, humans are worm food.

ETA - The greatest threat to mankind's prosperity is government
On this I agree with the author 100%.

But I believe humans have, and will continue to have, the ingenuity, capacity, incentive, and resources to take care of the basic needs; as long as government doesn't get in the way.

As sigcrazy implies above, future population growth is not at all a certainty.

I happen to believe those who warn of the threat of massive future population are of the same ilk as those who warn of the threat of man-made global warming -- their motivation is to gain power, not to save mankind (or mother earth)

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:

quote:

Originally posted by Jager:
Governments have killed more people in the last few hundred years than all other causes combined.

I'm thinking influenza might have government beat.

I'd venture you're wrong. WWII alone exceeded the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919 by 50% or so. Even more so, if you include starvation and disease as a result of governmental conflict. Then there have been so many wonderful purges. Mao was good for 50 million, easily. Stalin was no piker either. Someone compiled a list some years back - I was shocked myself.

Yes, people toss in 'religion', but I posit that WAS government. Who was running things? And the window of contention involves the last 200 years. 1817 to 2017?

Smallpox is a good contender.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jager,

Jager, you make a lot of sense re gov't using religion as a tool with which to dominate the masses.

quote:

I happen to believe those who warn of the threat of massive future population are of the same ilk as those who warn of the threat of man-made global warming -- their motivation is to gain power, not to save mankind (or mother earth)

Overpopulation is not something I would worry about.
But yes, like man-made global warming or climate-change, there's an effort to control people and limit freedom in the name "saving" mankind.

quote:

Originally posted by Jager:
Smallpox is a good contender.

How about bubonic plague? Maybe in terms of gross numbers it wasn't as high, but it's thought to have killed 1/3 (+50 million) of the entire human population in 1347. That is huge. 1/2 of the English population was killed, and the disease was a contributor to the labor shortages that eventually brought down the serf system and led to reforms of the relationship between labor and landowners. In terms of impact, it makes the flu pandemic of 1919 look like the sniffles.

well just thank your lucky stars that all of our prayers will be answered by sending billions of dollars space crap out to mars

it will solve all our problems

The sky isn't falling for me on overpopulation, but the problems with increasing population causes problems I don't like to see. More pollution, more congestion/traffic, more LEFTIES/socialists/communists, more urban decay, less wilderness, etc etc.

Again, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and not subsidizing people, especially their OFFSPRING, will slow the rate of increase. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in society is self regulating.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

How about bubonic plague?

I must have missed the Bubonic Plague outbreak that happened between 1817 and 2017.

1350 is just a tad outside of my contention.

quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:

quote:

Human beings are valuable resources, and the more we have of them the better.

Nonsense. They still have to eat, drink, douche, etc.
If you can't feed them or provide potable water, humans are worm food.

That is a short-sighted and shallow viewpoint.

Remember that, statistically, more humans provide more IDEAS, and it is IDEAS that have led to all the scientific advancements we have.

Example: If we could only produce the same amount of food-per-acre that we could in 1800, we would be "overpopulated". The the ability to produce food has actually outstripped the reproduction rate. So famine and hunger are less today than at any prior point in human history.

Same applies for any human need and the ability to meet that human need.

Of course we COULD hit some limiting factor....just like we might all die tomorrow of a comet strike.
But the factual record of history is that humans always solve problems faster than the rate of growth of the problem due to population.

Global Population Set To Fall For First Time In 700 Years

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A major study published in scientific journal The Lancet has found that the global population will start to fall within decades due to vastly reduced fertility rates and may never recover.

The study, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, found that by the year 2050, 155 of 204 countries are on course to have birth rates lower than required to sustain the population level.

It notes that as of 2021, the “total fertility rate” worldwide was 2.23, hovering only just above the 2.1 children per woman needed to maintain population growth.

That figure has fallen from 4.84 in 1950, with researchers predicting it will decrease to 1.83 in 2050 and go as low as 1.59 by 2100.

The study notes that by that time only 26 countries will have birth rates that outpace the number of people dying, with “most of the world transitioning into natural population decline”.

A fall in population would mark the first time in seven centuries such an occurrence has taken place.

The last time it happened was after the Black Death bubonic plague pandemic killed as many as 50 million people in the mid-1300s, reducing the global population from 400 million to 350 million.

Commenting on the study, it’s co-author Dr Natalia Bhattacharjee said declining fertility rates “will completely reconfigure the global economy and the international balance of power and will necessitate reorganising societies”.

Bhattacharjee, lead research scientist at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, also noted that a major consequence will be increased immigration from countries where there is still a “baby boom,” such as sub-Saharan Africa, in order to make up workforce shortages in nations with aging populations.

Professor Stein Emil Vollset, senior author from IHME, also noted that the world is “facing staggering social change through the 21st century” due to population decline.

The findings are exactly what the likes of Elon Musk have been warning of for years, describing population decline as a ‘civilisational threat’ and urging that humanity is literally going to disappear if something is not done to reverse the trend.

While Eco loons rage about ‘moral issues’ with having children, the potential causes of fertility decline, such as plastics and chemical shrinking penises and sperm counts, are relatively ignored.

The stark reality is that birth rates globally are collapsing and almost every country is on course to have shrinking populations by the end of the century.

In countries like South Korea and Japan, there are twice as many people are dying as there are being born. You don’t have to be a mathematic genius to do the calculations on what’s going to happen very soon.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geop...first-time-700-years

A) TMK malaria is the all-time top killer of man.

B) We are facing a tremendous shortage of people - especially civilized children.

Between the Socialists destroying the youth as fast as they can, and the collapsed birth rate, we are looking at an incredible challenge to keep society going.

I think, in part, it’s going to look similar to some other regions, with a very small labor supply, and a relatively high level of affluence.

(Maybe.).

Houses/yards/etc much smaller and easier to take care of - maids, yard services etc all become vastly more expensive/just don’t exist, unless injured etc.

Relatively higher price point restaurants moving to “bus your own plates” etc. (or, put them in the robot bus boy).

Now, I don’t understand why many restaurants still have wait staff. There are reasonable robot replacements. (And, many of the younger set have the personality and people skills of robots, so who’d notice the difference, other than the lower error rate?)

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:...

Now, I don’t understand why many restaurants still have wait staff. There are reasonable robot replacements. (And, many of the younger set have the personality and people skills of robots, so who’d notice the difference, other than the lower error rate?)

You just told the entire room, you've never slapped a robot's ass...

Now, what?

The probable spin on this is that climate change is the major factor behind the reproduction rate so something must be done about it.

ETA:

Wouldn't you know it:

How pollution is causing a male fertility crisis

The Connections Between Population and Climate Change Info Brief

600 tillable acres of very nice eastern Iowa farm ground disappeared in a two year period in a single county.

Four new corporations built giant manufacturing plants ,storage and fulfilment centers and offices .

Then parking lots ,streets and utilities to service them.

That was Scott county,
Johnson county had close to twice that eaten up and paved over.

Don't it always seem to go,
That you don't know what you got,
Till it's gone.

Humans are an invasive species that really should be busy working on space travel.

Nature is self-correcting. We've severely damaged our environment, and the processes take time to move the pendulum.

We've poisoned our food and depleted much of the soil it grows in. We've fouled the water with chemicals, plastics, and trash. We've seriously depleted supplies of drinking water. We continue to rapidly destroy the tropical forests.

Falling fertility rates might also be a reaction to harmful social constructs related to dense populations. As a group, humans do stupid things like reward unproductivity and punish behaviors which naturally promote success.

Reducing population need not be a bad thing as long as the survivors are the right kind.

I had a college professor that made some comments about how over history war was used for population control.

If you think about it, it makes sense. You have a small fiefdom, your population is growing but food and water supplies are limited. Attack your neighbor a few times and you wipe out a segment of the population that likely hasn't fostered offspring yet thus controlling population growth.

Since Vietnam the US hasn't seen a war that caused significant casualties. Korea and Vietnam didn't come close to the casualties in WWII or WWI. Population is increasing steadily.

I don't think overpopulation is a hoax. Especially if you look at the US and where and how population is growing.

Seeing a post by JALLEN, really took me back. I forgot how much I looked forward to his post.

quote:

Seeing a post by JALLEN, really took me back. I forgot how much I looked forward to his post.

redstone, I'm with you. I HAD to see how that had been resurrected.

God, I miss Jim. For one thing, he'd still be living in the Canyon Lake area, and he would have let me wash the eclipse from his place.
Miss ya, Jim.