OP/ED: The Final Solution

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Could you provide a link, Humpty? I know you heard it on the radio, but a link would be nice. This is the first I have heard of tha and I can't find a link....I think that is interesting news.....little time, right now......

Sorry, been a while since Ive been back to ATS. No, I cant provide a link at the time, but I see there is some related info above. Like I said, I just caught the radio on my way back to work. Im sure a search of NPR.org might provide something else.

Obviously, I dont think new orleans was directly related to this topic, but I think its a good example of the type of people that would be "removed" from the population first.

Odds are we won't ever make that kind of decision simply because nature will do it for us...populations become too dense and something, usually disease thins the herd, we are no different, and if it doesen't, then it will still happen one way or the other, or a a species we did. Its happened before, can't say even with all our knowledge, it won't happen again. At worst we drive ourselves mad and commit some sort of species suicide.

Soficrow you do good work in putting your threads together but I still think you reach mis-guided solutions some of the time. I agree that prion related illnesses are bad and growing worse and that serious research needs to be funded if we are to counter them, but I also think human over-population is a serious matter and needs even more funding to counter.

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Soficrow you do good work in putting your threads together

Thanks.

but I still think you reach mis-guided solutions some of the time.

Fair enough. I'm sure I do. Truth is, I find the process of understanding and framing the 'problem' so involving that I often do not spend much time considering solutions.

I do tend to think a) natural processes are phenomenally comprehensive; b) nobody really understands how things work and work together; and c) we should stay out of it because we're more likely to make things worse than to fix anything.

I agree that prion related illnesses are bad and growing worse and that serious research needs to be funded if we are to counter them,

I've come to believe we cannot "counter" them. IMO - the notion that we are all one is a literal description of a real phenomena. In that light, everything on earth shares the same and similar macromolecules - including proteins and prions. Microbes are the media that communicate between the planet's disparate parts, carry the macromolecules around, distribute them and bring everything into harmony. In this light, disease is less a problem than a process of harmonization.

I now see "disease" very differently than I did when I wrote this article.

but I also think human over-population is a serious matter and needs even more funding to counter.

You apparently have not heard of the "Sixth Mass Extinction." Overpopulation likely will not be a "problem" much longer.

Also IMO - if we "counter" pollution and poverty, then "overpopulation" will take care of itself.

And - the "problem of human overpopulation" was and is a red herring. The real problem is thoughtless industrialization and the raping of the earth.

Ie., "modern" agriculture uses more fresh water by far than do humans - it is unsustainable and downright stupid; Industrial processes create prions and other macromolecules never seen before on earth - and then releases them into the environment where they are integrated into the biosphere... Surprise, surprise.

I think we need to back up, take a deep breath and look around - before we jump in with the nukes and try to blow up all the "problems" we don't understand.


.

Originally posted by Soficrow
Should the human population be controlled to support the system or should the system be changed to support life?

How did the Nazis see disabled people?
The Nazis took Darwin's ideas of natural selection, in particular the idea of survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom, and applied them to the human world and society (Darwin's Origin of the Species had been published in 1859). It was argued that allowing disabled people to live and have children, led to the "unfit" reproducing more quickly than "the fit". It was said that this weakened society's ability to function efficiently, placing an unnecessary toll on non-disabled people.

The Nazis claimed that the social and economic problems that Germany experienced in the 1920s and early 1930s were due in part to the weakening of the population created by an unfair burden.

Nazi propaganda in the form of posters, news-reels and cinema films portrayed disabled people as "useless eaters" and people who had "lives unworthy of living". The propaganda stressed the high cost of supporting disabled people, and suggested that there was something unhealthy or even unnatural about society paying for this. One famous Nazi propaganda film, Ich Klage An (I Accuse), told the story of a doctor who killed his disabled wife. The film put forward an argument for "mercy killings". Other propaganda, including poster campaigns, portrayed disabled people as freaks.
Source

There’s the risk that controlling the population is a slippery slope evidenced by the Nazi regime in Germany. Personally I think we needed a mixture of the two but above all I believe everyone has the chance to live a life, and that no one can ever make a true assessment of whether that life has quality or not except for the person leading it.

What "struck" Darwin in Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) was Malthus's observation that in nature plants and animals produce far more offspring than can survive, and that Man too is capable of overproducing if left unchecked. Malthus concluded that unless family size was regulated, man's misery of famine would become globally epidemic and eventually consume Man. Malthus' view that poverty and famine were natural outcomes of population growth and food supply was not popular among social reformers who believed that with proper social structures, all ills of man could be eradicated.

Source

This was 150 years before we at ’56 mins’ (I think that metaphor is very good).

He told the world this was going to happen, in the words of Agent Smith “The human race is a virus because it has overpopulated its habitat”.

Originally posted by Submersible
… The ‘fault’ belongs with all of us.

By properly ascertaining blame we will see a path to a better world. Saying its everyone’s fault reminds me of trying to fix a small problem with a hammer. We need to get rid of the minor things that create the problems and have a better system, everybody doing there little bit to halt climate change is just there system again, and look what it has done so far.

Worldwatch Paper #143: Beyond Malthus: Sixteen Dimensions of the Population Problem
Lester R. Brown, Gary Gardner, Brian Halweil
ISBN: 1-878071-45-9
89 pages
September 1998
Many countries that have experienced rapid population growth for several decades are showing signs of demographic fatigue. Overwhelmed by the need to educate children, create jobs, and deal with the environmental effects of population growth, governments faced with a major new threat-such as AIDS or aquifer depletion-often cannot cope. In our demographically divided world, fertility has dropped and population has stabilized or is declining in some countries; but in others where fertility is still high, population is projected to double or even triple before stabilizing. As recent experi ence with AIDS in Africa shows, some of these high-fertility countries are simply overwhelmed when a new threat appears. While industrial countries have held HIV infection rates among their adult populations to 1 percent or less, infection rates are as hi gh as 26 percent of the adult population in some African countries. With their rising mortality trends, more reminiscent of the Dark Ages than the bright millennium so many had hoped for, these countries are falling back to an earlier demographic stage wi th high death rates and high birth rates, and no growth in population. In examining the stakes involved in potentially adding another 3.3 billion people over the next 50 years, the study calls for immediate expansion of international family planning assistance to the millions of couples who still lack access, and new investm ent in educating young people, especially women, in the Third World, to promote a shift to smaller families.

This can be downloaded for free here, it took two seconds to sign up and another two to download the file. It’s only 89 pages but here is a rundown of the main points they cover. It states in the introduction that the world population will definitely reach 7.7million people, minimum.

1. Grain production – “From 1950 to 1984 the harvest per person went from 247 to 342kg, a rise of 38%. From 1984 to 1998 the average fell to 317kg per person, a 7% decrease. However the interesting point is that a world grain harvest of 2 billion would feed 10 billion Indian diets or 2.5 billion American diets. Consequently, to know how many people the world can support, we must know the level of consumption we are expecting to live at.”
   
   
2. Fresh water – “Where ever population is growing, the supply of fresh water per person is declining”.
   
   A realistic idea of the future of our water supply could be the same fate as the rivers in Harbin, China, which will cost £1.2billion to clean.
   news.bbc.co.uk...
   
   
3. Biodiversity – “The biggest cause of extinction is through loss of habitat”. We need reminding that we are part of a ‘food chain’ and although we are at the top, we still depend on the other parts for our own survival.
   
   
   
4. Climate change – “15 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1979 and 1998.”
   
   These warmest years have been replaced with even warmer recordings post 2000.
   www.climatechallenge.gov.uk...
   
   
5. Oceanic fish catch – Over intensive farming has forced down the amount of marine life for man to catch. The current disputes over fishing rights are only a precursor to the food and water wars.
   
   
6. Jobs/Employment – Malnutrition used to be caused because populations didn’t have access to enough food, now its caused because people don’t have enough money to buy food. No jobs, no money. No money, no food.
   
   
7. Cropland – The area of land that is available for arable use is supposedly at maximum output. (Didn’t we have the EU wasting food?!?) It seems any further increase in output will only be procured through technological means.
   
   
8. Forests – These used to be our natural carbon sponges, however, they have been decimated.
   
   
9. Energy – A problem that is already in the public domain, with oil prices rising and the knowledge that Chinas projected oil consumption being higher than current production levels this is a problem just waiting to happen.
   
   
10. Urbanization – “In 1800 only one city – London – had a million people. Today (back in 1998) there were 326 cities with at least a million people. There are now 14 megacities, each holding at least 10 million people. Soon half of the world’s population will live in cities, the first time in history the world will be more urban that rural”.
    
    
11. Natural Recreation Areas – Seems a bit weak considering we’re faced with other problems that will test our continued survival.
    
    
12. Education – It states how the need for teachers and schools will grow, but not at the same level as the need for food. This is because birth rates are not just increasing. Increased longevity is where the problems occur. Failure to educate tomorrows world leaders is only going to push us into a new dark ages.
    

Originally posted by Sardion 2000
… continued economic growth actually has the effect of lowering birthrates

This is true Sardion. However some countries do not have economic growth, and some have very high birth rates. The intelligent people in these poorer countries move to somewhere like the US. Overall populations continue to rise. Also, as the population in the developed countries continues to rise through immigration there is increased pollution and consumption due to the difference in lifestyle either side of the poor/rich divide.

These problems are all interrelated (I’ve missed out the problems of housing, waste, income and meat production. The majority depend on new technologies, that supposedly, as soon as we discover them, are going solve all our worries. From the stories I see reported on this site it seems we have most of the technologies needed. Well submersible, that’s why we need to attribute blame, we need to ensure a concerted effort is made, because as has already been pointed out, the elite are lining their pockets while we fight for scraps.

This is a big graph of the worlds population...
www.unfpa.org...

This is a chart broken into different countries, follow the link ‘Charts’ at the top for more breakdowns of the information.
www.geohive.com...

This explains populations and gives us reason not to worry under the heading ‘Looking Ahead’...
users.rcn.com...

(First time I've tried using this much code, hope it works.)

Excellent post byhiniur. Thank you.

I can't comment on the content right now, but it looks comprehensive. Just wanted to give you an immediate thumbs up.

Sofi I have heard of all the things you mentioned. I also know that all life on this earth is highly intertwined and very closely related, so much so that whatever effects people will eventually, in some probably modified way, effect trees, grass, fish, bugs, etc. I think we share something like 60% of our DNA with trees, but at a deeper level, all DNA is the same. So yes, I worry about mis-folded proteins and everything else that gets into the machinery of life as we know it because eventually it will effect all of us.

Over population however is a very serious problem right now. Mother Nature will certainly solve the problem for us if we don't solve it first. The thing is though we probably will not like the way she solves it. Beyond our sheer numbers though are associated problems such as pollution of our air, our water, our land and even ourselves. The last time this topic came up someone said that we were eventually all going to suffocate in ever increasing piles of our own poop and that isn't really very far off the mark. What worries me as much as the mass die-offs that will certainly come if we don't do something to stop them, is whether or not we will have so polluted our planet by then that we may not be able to recover--ever.

If one could do a series of stop-action photos of the world from the dawn of mankind to the present I think it would be apparent that we are destroying our world at an ever increasing rate. We humans pride ourselves on our "intelligence", but looking at our planet from the perspective of life in general, I see no evidence of that intelligence. Indeed, we act more like a mindless, virulent disease than anything else.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by Astronomer68]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I think we share something like 60% of our DNA with trees, but at a deeper level, all DNA is the same.

"There is 40% similarity between human and worm DNA." www.actionbioscience.org...


What are peoples thoughts about AIDS being a tool for bringing about a reduced population? Has it been debunked already?

[edit on 30/3/06 by byhiniur]

[edit on 30/3/06 by byhiniur]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Sofi I have heard of all the things you mentioned. I also know that all life on this earth is highly intertwined and very closely related, so much so that whatever effects people will eventually, in some probably modified way, effect trees, grass, fish, bugs, etc. ...So yes, I worry about mis-folded proteins and everything else that gets into the machinery of life as we know it because eventually it will effect all of us.

I think you would be interested in the concept of humans as "superorganisms."

Most of the cells in your body are not your own, nor are they even human. They are bacterial. From the invisible strands of fungi waiting to sprout between our toes, to the kilogram of bacterial matter in our guts, we are best viewed as walking "superorganisms," highly complex conglomerations of human cells, bacteria, fungi and viruses.

[Ed....I would add "macromolecules" and "nanoparticles."]

Also see Wikipedia: Superorganism

...When I say microbes carry macromolecules between individuals and systems with the object of harmonizing everything one with the other, I mean it. In the long term, I don't think it's a bad thing, prions notwithstanding. In the short term, only, we face "disease."

Over population however is a very serious problem right now. ...Beyond our sheer numbers though are associated problems such as pollution of our air, our water, our land and even ourselves. ... What worries me as much as the mass die-offs that will certainly come if we don't do something to stop them, is whether or not we will have so polluted our planet by then that we may not be able to recover--ever.

The mass die-offs are happening already.

...(H5N1's) impact on biological diversity and on species may be far wider and more complex than might have been initially supposed," Ahmed Djoghlaf, CBD executive secretary, told conference attendees.

* The average abundance of species declined 40 percent between 1970 and 2000 while species in rivers, lakes and marshlands have declined by 50 percent.
* Between 12 and 52 percent of species within well-studied higher taxa including birds, mammals and amphibians are threatened with extinction.
* In the North Atlantic, populations of large fish have declined 66 percent in the last 50 years.

If one could do a series of stop-action photos of the world from the dawn of mankind to the present I think it would be apparent that we are destroying our world at an ever increasing rate.

Agreed. As far as what we're up against, have you seen The Pentagon Papers: Climate Change?

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters. ...A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

On ATS

Your concerns are valid - no doubt about it. I just find it incredibly simplistic and inaccurate to point at overpopulation, say "Eureka! There's the problem!" and jump to depopulation as the obvious solution.

We are dealing with complex systems within complex systems - and increased reproduction is nature's hardwired response to environmental stressors. So IMO the problem is environmental-cum-social stress - the solution is to remove that stress to regain planetery harmony, including harmonious rates of reproduction.

.

Yeah Sofi I have been tracking the development of those papers for the better part of five years now. I've even mentioned some of the least troublesome conclusions on ATS before. I have not gone into any depth because I didn't want to be accused of fear mongering--besides, some of the feeder papers are classified.

Relative to overpopulation, I do not advocate depopulation measures and I don't believe in the people who do. I do advocate curbing the continual growth rate through education, condoms, birth control, etc. I believe enough harm has already been done to the world to adversely effect the near runaway growth predictions that many groups publish. (In other words, I believe natural forces already set in motion will partially take care of that problem.) The forces of mankind are quite likely to take care of another significant portion of the overpopulation problem and may take care of more of it than is needed if allowed to get out of control.

I really hate being such a pessimist about the future of mankind over the next 50-100 years, but I just can't find any developments that have the potential to materially change the way things are going.

Originally posted by Astronomer68

Relative to overpopulation, ...
I really hate being such a pessimist about the future of mankind over the next 50-100 years, but I just can't find any developments that have the potential to materially change the way things are going.

Re: overpopulation. Have you monitored the CIA's census analysis? Population growth rates have been falling substantially for several years and the projections show a continued decline. ...There is a reason fertility clinics are popping up like Mickie Dee's on every corner. IMO - it's part and parcel of the chronic disease epidemic; some cases show increased fertility, many victims become infertile. It all depends which cells and organs are hit first.

Again - I think most pollution, fresh water depletion and climate change is linked to industrial activity, not individuals. Rethinking "the economy" is in order.

Although I sometimes share your pessimism, I think the strength of the human spirit is a significant but overlooked factor in scientific and economic analysis. One that conceivably could tip the tables.


.

Have not these policies have all proceeded from a given now situation, which is now "then." Thinking about the difference between on event horizon and another consists of changes representing qualitative to quantitative improvements. Leverage is an example. You get things done with lower expenditure of energy, a simple case for applied knowledge.

Assumptions of people such as Kissinger are approachable if they are dogmatic, where "there is nothing new under the sun." Wake up now! We have more changes in technological outlooks during the past 10 years than ever before in human history. At the same time industrial giganto-mania makes hardware important in its capital investment for as long an extended period as possible in the mind's eye of those industrialists. For that matter not only large hardware but also other types of hardware comprising an infrastructure of social systems is a vested interest. In today's financial world such a system is too busy replaying interest on notes created out of thin air, so that is the crux of an argument, another "given," in the formula of why "overpopulation," represents a problem. Now all of this is context, dependent upon ignorance. Say "given the persistence of ignorance," our world cannot sustain such and such a population.

Advancement of science is best described as a transformation of the qualitative into the quantitative. You make higher quality templates, and your produce in quantity better goods, services, and for that matter the possibility into the future of better knowledge to create more than only visible improvements. Think of the saying "Rome is an idea." In the same manner local sovereignty is the solution to the co-dependent relationship of centralized planning creating instabilities on a massive scale.

So my argument is that to plan politically a prescriptive policy to population as a problem is far removed from changing conditions where qualitative approaches transform existing conditions into quantitative solutions. Cross impacting processes must be duly noted, while willingness for governments to learn from their mistakes is essential to actual progress. With money as a sole barometer rather than that we perceive, evaluate, and control things with some semblance of basic morality extends concurrent overspecialization a real bone of contention.

The idea of "useless eaters," assumes a moebius strip of unchanging social Darwinism, Malthusian dogmatism, and the impressionable belief that because we hear things like "you will have the poor with you always," that so no effort is made to use all the knowledge and science to leverage and advantage present to future resources. Instead a profit motive actually creates less profit for the super wealthy but more temporal power to contrast themselves as elites over a starving world.

So a reduction of population has occupied the literature of different world organizations from the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, and others. That too is a vested interest, a paradigm, and a cash cow for research. Who are the real "useless eaters," here? Could it really be those who consolidate their concept of "power," by the same tired formula over and over again in history through the corollary of structural violence?

Such solutions are nothing more than ghosts reinforced by the chimera of flawed reasoning. My argument is that forecasting is necessary and with the rigors of proper prospectus, no final solutions are valid or sound. Hence optimism grounded in a perspective of continuous self improvement is a far more worthy goal.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by SkipShipman]

SkipShipman I agree with your final conclusion 100%. Saying what I'm about to say is more or less anathema on ATS but I think it needs to be said. The so-called New World Order (i.e., the concept of getting all peoples of the world under one unified government) may well be the only way around the problems now confronting mankind. So long as humans permit relatively small regions of the globe to profit and live large at the expense of other humans around the globe I don't think problems such as overpopulation, ecological pollution, etc. can be solved. Whether we like it or not we are all in this together and I believe we will either all go down together or succeed as a group.