For some reason this number makes me despair.  Here I am thinking about biking to work again.  I use estate sales to buy some of the things I want, clothes, kitchen stuff, tools, partly because it's cheap and partly because it's true recycling.  I put in energy efficient bulbs.  I keep the heat turned down.

 

Meanwhile the human race is reproducing like bunny rabbits.  Is any individual effort even remotely meaningful?   Should I care about the next wave of floods and storms and droughts killing off a hundred thousand at a sweep?  Should i hold back on charitable giving for medical care to the destitute, and spend it on a trip to Vegas?

 

I don't know what's right, or what's humanistic.  The human race is pretty much like a bunch of pigs in a pig sty, and are rushing headlong to self destruction.  If we consume every thing in site, drown ourselves in our own shit, and continue pumping out litters of babies, why should I even try?  How do I know what's right and what's wrong?

 

My 2 cents.

Views: 833

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Those who do not understand genetics should probably not waste time using genetics as a argument, just shines an unfavourable light on all you write.

Somebody needs to take a break from their 420.  It's affecting their cognition.

ha, but there ARE plenty of us who are not breeding, and convincing others not to. Due to our high degree of techno savoir-faire, nature is no longer a natural controlling factor in humans. Our technological prowess continues to create more food and to ship our shit (literally and figuratively) off to third world countries with no economic alternatives but to accept our shit. Between Bill Gates "charitable" status and Monsanto, we can guarantee that food supply will continue to grow, thereby enabling the population to continue to grow. The likes of Monsanto and Cargill are not into food production for charitable reasons! They create food for profit, more food, more profit, more humans, more demands for food, more food availability, more necessity to breed more mouths to feed.

we are overpopulated according to who?

Pretty much any biologist who knows anything about population biology.

It's true. We may be in overshoot. Bottlenecks have occured in the past, and will happen in the future. If we contribute DNA that makes it through that next funnel, we have a temporary win.

Living lightly will help the non-human inhabitants of earth, even if we don't make it.

Developed countries which can cope with an increasing population tend to have static populations while many poor countries least able to cope have large increasing populations.

Future generations will be challenged with a need to manage the planets resources in an unprecedented way.

The planet has never been overpopulated with one species to this extent. Again, it's unprecedented.

History gives us an idea of what might happen in the future and we have seen circumstances which affect populations such as climate change, famine, plague, disease and war. Nonetheless, the experts say world population has continually increased since the 16th century and I'd say ever since leaving Africa 60,000 years ago with minor set-backs.

 

Canada, USA, Australia, we are all continuing to grow, we're just growing less fast. Our governments have compensated for this by moving all our jobs to cheap labour - high breeding - poor countries. It all comes down to economics.

Actually to be more specific it's Muslims, black Africans, Mormons, Catholics/Filipinos, and various other not so intelligent people that are reproducing like bunny rabbits.

Blaming "others" is easy, but any solution will have to be universal. That means a well off couple in Manhattan will have the same "rights" to reproduce as the poorest person in Somalia. Wealthy white folks with two children in developed countries are just as much a part of this problem as "Muslims, black Africans, Mormons, Catholics/Filipinos, and ...other... people that are reproducing like bunny rabbits." because we generate vastly more greenhouse gases and consume vastly more resources. The only solution that will work is a fair one in which poor people won't need ten children to assure they don't starve when they're too old to work, because eight of them will have died.
I think overpopulation will completely destroy our traditional conceptions of morality. The example of the Inuit who kill their children and elderly first in the event of a resource shortage is case in point. You cannot separate morality from utility and/or environmental realities.

That was true of pre-sedentarised, pre-technologised civilisations, but the more technological we become, the more vested interests the powers that be have in conserving enormous masses of cheap humans as means of production to preserve their wealth and power. I don't think that trend is anywhere near done yet. Today's golden rule is : thou shalt not kill the fucker who is ruining your life... :)

Wealth and power spares from the law, people in positions of power do not need to follow the golden rule, they simply buy their way out of shit.

RSS

About

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service