Housing shortage? Build more. That's what we've done so far and we've been fine.
Pollution? That can be solved in many other ways. Green technology is a better alternative to letting people die, especially when the people are starving are the ones who aren't polluting anyway.
Deforestation? Like pollution, deforestation is not a human necessity which means we can get rid of it without reducing the number of people.
Loss of species? I presume you mean extinction. Extinction is happening anyway and will continue to happen. Like pollution and deforestation, driving other animals to extinction is not a human necessity which means that all that is required to treat it is better social organisation.
Soil erosion? You're going to have to explain that one to me because I can't quite work out how it links to population size.
Poverty? That is an issue we can solve by better distributing wealth. No link to population whatsoever.
Crime? Why do you suppose that will increase?
Unemployment? More people means more consumers, and more consumers means more jobs.
Disease? Like crime, I don't see how this is anything to do with population. Medical technology is getting better all the time. Disease is reducing even while population is increasing.
I submit to you that every "problem" you believe is caused by growing population is actually a problem with the way society is organised, and the only role of population in the model is to multiply the problems caused by poor social organisation. Organise society correctly and there's no reason why population can't keep growing indefinitely. If you disagree, explain yourself.
Population reduction is in itself "symptom treatment", since the real cause of the problem is in social organisation.
I admit it's kinda weak of me but I won't address your points (although I disagree with them), because I frankly don't wanna waste too much precious time.
I will say this though:
In my eyes, overpopulation is the #1 problem in the world (closely followed by Islam BTW), but you don't even seem to regard it as a MINOR problem. This is incredibly absurd to me. I think you are burying your head in the sand.
Not acknowledging that overpopulation is a problem, to me is on the same level as defending Creationism, denying the Holocaust or believing that Elvis is still alive. In other words: batshit-insane.
You argue that there's no reason why population can't keep growing indefinitely, if society was to be organized correctly. Well, I think we can agree that society can (and should) indeed be organized much better, but even IF that was to happen, overpopulation would STILL be a problem. Why? Because humanity increases EXPONENTIALLY, while resources simply don't. That's the bottom line.
Is it normal to think there's no point in developmental food aid?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Housing shortage? Build more. That's what we've done so far and we've been fine.
Pollution? That can be solved in many other ways. Green technology is a better alternative to letting people die, especially when the people are starving are the ones who aren't polluting anyway.
Deforestation? Like pollution, deforestation is not a human necessity which means we can get rid of it without reducing the number of people.
Loss of species? I presume you mean extinction. Extinction is happening anyway and will continue to happen. Like pollution and deforestation, driving other animals to extinction is not a human necessity which means that all that is required to treat it is better social organisation.
Soil erosion? You're going to have to explain that one to me because I can't quite work out how it links to population size.
Poverty? That is an issue we can solve by better distributing wealth. No link to population whatsoever.
Crime? Why do you suppose that will increase?
Unemployment? More people means more consumers, and more consumers means more jobs.
Disease? Like crime, I don't see how this is anything to do with population. Medical technology is getting better all the time. Disease is reducing even while population is increasing.
I submit to you that every "problem" you believe is caused by growing population is actually a problem with the way society is organised, and the only role of population in the model is to multiply the problems caused by poor social organisation. Organise society correctly and there's no reason why population can't keep growing indefinitely. If you disagree, explain yourself.
Population reduction is in itself "symptom treatment", since the real cause of the problem is in social organisation.
--
BLAh81
9 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I admit it's kinda weak of me but I won't address your points (although I disagree with them), because I frankly don't wanna waste too much precious time.
I will say this though:
In my eyes, overpopulation is the #1 problem in the world (closely followed by Islam BTW), but you don't even seem to regard it as a MINOR problem. This is incredibly absurd to me. I think you are burying your head in the sand.
Not acknowledging that overpopulation is a problem, to me is on the same level as defending Creationism, denying the Holocaust or believing that Elvis is still alive. In other words: batshit-insane.
You argue that there's no reason why population can't keep growing indefinitely, if society was to be organized correctly. Well, I think we can agree that society can (and should) indeed be organized much better, but even IF that was to happen, overpopulation would STILL be a problem. Why? Because humanity increases EXPONENTIALLY, while resources simply don't. That's the bottom line.