search results matching tag: overpopulation

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (32)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (5)     Comments (190)   

Vicious Dog Pack Attack

transmorpher says...

I'm right with you on that one. My idea of hell is the overpopulated world we saw in that Matt Damon movie: Elysium.

newtboy said:

You joke, but if the planet is to survive, something similar is necessary....but I suggest a more pure IQ test than political or entertainment affiliation.

I'm all for one in one out, so much that I got fixed with no kids, but there's no need for test tubes.....why take the fun out? Just snip parents after their first baby. That takes out far more than 1/2 the population in one lifespan without culling anyone. If we had done that 30 years back, we might not be in the mess we're in. Now we do need a good culling.

Vicious Dog Pack Attack

newtboy says...

Can we please first either make the same request for humans or enact the same 1 in 1 out procedure?
If you're concerned about overpopulation, humans are far worse than puppies in every way.

transmorpher said:

Can we please stop breeding pets while there are so many dogs and cats that need homes?

Literally every time someone breeds a pet, another doggy or kitty who is perfectly healthy gets put down.

38 year old woman has 44 children

newtboy says...

You live on the same overpopulated planet they do, don't you?
So it IS your place to judge these crimes against humanity and the biosphere....you just don't want to.

C-note said:

I know a man who has 14 kids with the same wife. He says he is grateful for all the lords blessings. He is over 50 years old and is expecting number 15 soon.

I also know a 24 year old man who has 9 children by 4 different women.

In either case it is not my place to judge.

The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant | CGP Grey

ChaosEngine says...

*quality stuff from Grey as usual.

I’m starting to think that significantly extending human life span might be the only way we actually grow up as a species and stop thinking so short term. Problems like climate change, overpopulation and automation will be things that we actually have to deal with, instead of just letting the next generation worry about it.

#whydoyouhateyourkids

The diet that helps fight climate change

newtboy says...

As 1/2 of an intentionally childless couple, I'll take that as an unintentional compliment and say thanks, and I wholeheartedly agree.
What made me sad was, even in this day and age of overpopulation, I had to push to get myself fixed, being without kids, and from what I hear I got lucky because most doctors just won't do a vasectomy on a childless man under 40. (I was under 30).
I didn't do it just for the planet, I decided I didn't want to have kids when I still was one, but I'm still taking my "didn't screw the world farther with more people" credit.

ChaosEngine said:

Eating more vegetables and less meat is undoubtedly good for you.

But if people want to make a real difference to climate change, there's one really simple thing they can do and it will make more difference than any amount of dietary or transport decisions:

Have one less kid (preferably one less than one).

So Much CO2 That Trees Can't Save Us

newtboy says...

Granted, the earth will be fine....but people and other higher life forms probably won't.
Population thinning will come too late, because these effects of overpopulation will last far longer than one generation....unless you mean it will thin out to zero and self correct, which is likely.

What you don't seem to get is that when the ocean acidifies enough, the dead sea life sinks and bacteria causes massive levels of hydrogen sulfide which can then come out of solution and cover land in toxic gas clouds, leading to another "slime world" of slimes and bacteria like happened after the end-Permian extinction.
I wouldn't characterize that as "all is well" myself.

bobknight33 said:

Global climate evolution. The earth is fine. IF you think this is man made fine . From this fine propaganda film the population will thin out and self correct itself. all is well.

How to save 51B lives for 68 cents with simple Engineering

newtboy says...

Um...51 BILLION?!?!!! That's a good trick with a population of around 7 billion.
How does it save every person that's ever died of malaria...and why would you do that? We're overpopulated enough already.
*quality inventions. I'm glad these immigrants got to go to Stanford instead of Mumbai Tech.

US nuclear arsenal is a gigantic accident waiting to happen

Mordhaus says...

Here is the problem, Mr. Schlosser is a journalist, not a Nuclear Scientist. He does not understand, or has chosen to ignore for propaganda reasons, that an unarmed warhead is EXTREMELY unlikely to perform the exact sequence of events that need to take place to have a nuclear reaction happen.

Yes, he is fully correct in that we have had numerous 'butt-clenching' moments in which we could have started WW3 due to a malfunction or human error. But in the other cases he mentions, such as the bombs that landed on Spain, the lightning bolt on the tower, and the wrench on the rocket, the chance of the warhead going up while being unarmed is infinitesimal. They simply don't go 'boom' because of a collision or explosion. Now you could have a 'dirty bomb' type incident where the radioactive materials could be spread and come into contact with humans, but that is about it.

The cases that have been officially listed as Broken Arrows were because they involved an active bomb, like the one in Florida. Everything else he mentions in this video is his 'belief' and is conjecture.

Now, before I get unloaded on, I wish we didn't have nuclear weapons. I don't agree with Trump that we should renew the arms race, I think he is nuts since we have more than enough weapons to blanket the cities of the world more than a couple of times. If you add all the nukes from the Big 3 (USA/Russia/France...yes, France) there are enough to cover every single inch of the world.

The problem is, who bells the cat? If we give up all of our weapons, we are at risk. I wish we weren't, but we would be. If we bring down our numbers gradually, there are still other countries that may not, like North Korea. How do we trust the other country is actually following through? In a perfect world, we would all lay down our weapons and sing kumbaya, but as Heinlein wrote: "...Anyone who clings to the historically untrue and thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

PS...Yes, I know Starship Troopers is a controversial novel with overtones of Militarism and Fascism. However, there are quotes that ring true no matter what 'ism' people attach to the overall story. If you doubt that, look at the utter disbelief and depression that overcame liberals when Trump won. "He simply was supposed to, it was impossible, not like this, we have no hope, etc" were the feelings of the people who gave him no hope of winning. I, having lived and read enough to get a fair picture of how fucked up we are as a species, had little doubt he could pull it off. We elected a former Wrestler as governor, a former actor as governor, and a former actor as President. We overlook mass genocide in other countries. We ignore climate change. We spend hundreds of billions on defense and less than 10 on space exploration, all the while living on a planet that is already critically overpopulated (and is growing almost exponentially).

Overpopulation - The Human Explosion Explained

A-Winston says...

Ah. And climate change and pollution have nothing to do with population growth. And property values will always go up. Idiots. This was so obviously funded by individuals with more money than God who have no understanding of the impact of a species overpopulation on a fixed environment. As long as Billie Gates can buy his way to live far, far away from the starving, stinking masses, he will continue to spew out this nonsense. Don't buy into it.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

A two-year-old resolves a moral dilemma

7 Billion - Cyriak

Dear Future Generations: Sorry

newtboy says...

My point (I'll not speak for @Mordhaus ) was that all these terrible things people do could be 'absorbed' by the planet (with the possible exception of nuclear wastes) if there was only 1/10 of them.
Many would not be needed as they are today, that's not to say they would not be used. Today, many of those practices are the only way to produce the quantity needed to feed us, like heavy trawling, which now is almost a requirement in many cases since so many types of fish are scarce at best, and completely gone in most cases.
It's not likely that we'll manage to change the wasteful behavior of the average human enough to make a difference, but creating fewer of them could go a long way towards solving most problems we face....not all, but most.
I'm relieved when my family members decide to not have more children. I see the good in it for the planet when a family member dies, but I'm not 'relieved' as such. That's an ugly and disingenuous way to consider our point about overpopulation.

diego said:

you have people living in artificial environments that use tons of power because they want to, because they like it, not because they REQUIRE it. native americans lived in southwest USA for a thousand years just fine without the need of AC or diverting rivers.

go read up on the absurd agricultural subsidies tied to the colorado river- that isnt a problem created because farmers need to produce food to feed the world, its a problem created because politicians want money making businesses to tax, and because people are willing to spend money to eat what they like instead of what there is, a lot of money is made.

same with trawling- nothing to do with feeding all those people, everything to do with money. trawling has been going on for over a hundred years, well before the world population was even a 3rd of what it is currently- fishermen trawl because they want to be efficient because that makes them more money, not because they are concerned about how they are going to feed undernourished people.

the problem isnt getting people to eat insects. the problem is getting the developed world to stop eating so much, especially so much meat. there is an obesity epidemic around the world, over 3000 tons of food are discarded every day, and you want to tell me the problem is not enough food?

and lets not be disingenuous about nuclear waste, nuclear technology was invented as a weapon, not an energy source. you're telling me that if tomorrow a terrible plague wiped out 90% of the earths population, that nuclear armed states would give up their nuclear weapons? bs.

the video is on point. the environmental crisis is caused by greed, not because there are too many people on the planet. and if you feel so strongly that there are too many people on the planet, I assume you are relieved when your family members die? Unless you are willing to volunteer yourself and your family to die for the greater good, overpopulation is a facile bogey man to mask what you really want to say- lets get rid of all those "other" people so *I* dont have to change my own lifestyle.

Dear Future Generations: Sorry

diego says...

you have people living in artificial environments that use tons of power because they want to, because they like it, not because they REQUIRE it. native americans lived in southwest USA for a thousand years just fine without the need of AC or diverting rivers.

go read up on the absurd agricultural subsidies tied to the colorado river- that isnt a problem created because farmers need to produce food to feed the world, its a problem created because politicians want money making businesses to tax, and because people are willing to spend money to eat what they like instead of what there is, a lot of money is made.

same with trawling- nothing to do with feeding all those people, everything to do with money. trawling has been going on for over a hundred years, well before the world population was even a 3rd of what it is currently- fishermen trawl because they want to be efficient because that makes them more money, not because they are concerned about how they are going to feed undernourished people.

the problem isnt getting people to eat insects. the problem is getting the developed world to stop eating so much, especially so much meat. there is an obesity epidemic around the world, over 3000 tons of food are discarded every day, and you want to tell me the problem is not enough food?

and lets not be disingenuous about nuclear waste, nuclear technology was invented as a weapon, not an energy source. you're telling me that if tomorrow a terrible plague wiped out 90% of the earths population, that nuclear armed states would give up their nuclear weapons? bs.

the video is on point. the environmental crisis is caused by greed, not because there are too many people on the planet. and if you feel so strongly that there are too many people on the planet, I assume you are relieved when your family members die? Unless you are willing to volunteer yourself and your family to die for the greater good, overpopulation is a facile bogey man to mask what you really want to say- lets get rid of all those "other" people so *I* dont have to change my own lifestyle.

Mordhaus said:

Why is there so much nuclear waste? Because we have so many people living in artificial environments that require tons of power.

Why is the Colorado river becoming almost drained and getting worse each year? Because of climate change, yes, but primarily because we have millions of people living in desert regions and agricultural crops like almonds that require laughable tons of water. Most of those almonds are turned into flour and milk products because people refuse to eat other food, or can't because they should be dead due to allergies.

Why are we overfishing and using such harmful methods as trawling? Because we have too many people that want a specific kind of food or can't afford a different type of food.

Could we switch everyone to insect proteins or other radical foods like spirulina? Yes, if you want riots. The technology doesn't exist that can make sustainable foods taste the same and people would go apeshit.

So to sum up, yes, we could feed people without damaging the environment, if you could get people to agree to it. Think of trying to force vegans to chomp on insects. As far as habitats, not so much. We don't have the room for the sheer numbers of people without either doing away with food producing land, destroying existing ecosystems like the rainforest, or putting them in artificially sustained areas like large cities or hot/cold desert terrain.

Nature used to take care of these situations via epidemics or natural selection. We have adapted to the point where we can beat most epidemics (although soon we will be hit with something bad if we look at the super bacteria we are creating) and we protect the people who should be dead against their own stupidity.

Climate change isn't going to kill this planet first, the sheer population rise will wipe it out much sooner than that. By 2030 it is estimated we will have 8+ billion people, by 2050 close to 10 billion. Exponential growth is going to suck this planet dry as a bone. The day is coming when we will HAVE to start supplementing food with non-standard food types and soon after that we will wipe out most of the living food items on this planet like a horde of locusts.

Dear Future Generations: Sorry

newtboy says...

*promote some good points.
It's a bit sad to me that he doesn't seem to know or care that overpopulation is the root cause of all these 'problems', because the earth can survive through all the different damages people have done to it if there was only less damage done. We can cut forests without damage, if we only cut as much as we replant AND grow, we can burn fossil fuels if we only burn as much as the forests can filter, etc. If we had <1/10 the number of people doing <1/10 the amount of damage, the planet would likely be fine.
Also...*commercial (since it's an advertisement for standfortrees.org)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon