![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 27. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by fayeroe on November 16, 2008, at 8:14:58
This is a post I don't want to write. Its subject is ugly; it makes me instinctively recoil. I have chastised people who bring it up at environmentalist meetings. The people who talk about it obsessively have often been callous about human life, and consistently proved wrong throughout history. And yet... there is a grain of insight in what they say.
The subject is overpopulation. Is our planet over-stuffed with human beings? Are we breeding to excess? These questions are increasingly poking into public debate, and from odd directions. Phillip Mountbatten -- husband of the British monarch Elizabeth Windsor -- said in a documentary screened this week: "The food prices are going up, and everyone thinks it's to do with not enough food, but it's really [that there are] too many people. It's a little embarrassing for everybody, nobody knows how to handle it." He is not alone. A strange range of people have voiced the same sentiments over the past few months, from the Dalai Lama to Hu Jintao, from Conservative mayor Boris Johnson to Democratic Governor Bill Richardson.
This is a timely article for this board. To read the entire piece, go to:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/are-there-just-too-many-p_b_144065.html
Posted by Sigismund on November 16, 2008, at 13:21:19
In reply to Is the World Over Populated?, posted by fayeroe on November 16, 2008, at 8:14:58
By humans? Most of the other mammals are dying out around here.
So, yes.
2 billion would be right.
No more than that.
Unless you want the earth to be a giant factory farm.
Posted by fayeroe on November 16, 2008, at 18:37:12
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated?, posted by Sigismund on November 16, 2008, at 13:21:19
And to think that back in the early 60s, Planned Parenthood warned that we needed something close to zero population growth. I was on the board of directors for 5 years, in OKC, and we had guest lecturers that spoke on that issue frequently.
We are put here to be stewards and we have really ****ed it up.
Posted by Sigismund on November 16, 2008, at 18:49:32
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated? » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on November 16, 2008, at 18:37:12
In the 50s one of the Chinese experts of the time was saying the same thing to Mao, who naturally took no notice.
And so later they had (well I suppose they had to, I have no idea how to handle this one) to be more draconian.
Posted by caraher on November 16, 2008, at 21:08:04
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated?, posted by Sigismund on November 16, 2008, at 18:49:32
As always, I think the devil is in the details, in that there's a mismatch between nations where population growth is large and nations most responsible for environmental degradation. In other words, it's a bit hypocritical in the "West" to tut-tut at 3rd-world nations for having excessive, fast-growing populations while those people do live modesty and we consume all out of proportion to the ability of Earth to support our lifestyles.
Thursday I attended a talk by Greg Mortenson (http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=22471). His is a remarkable story of going from down-on-his-luck mountaineer to building schools for girls in the high mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Anyway, he said that if you can just get girls to a 5th grade educational level it makes an enormous difference in things like birthrates (which decrease along with infant mortality).
Posted by seldomseen on November 16, 2008, at 22:06:12
In reply to Is the World Over Populated?, posted by fayeroe on November 16, 2008, at 8:14:58
Yeah, probably.
I don't know what we are going to do know that we need the corn for our cars.
Starve and drive I guess.
Posted by Sigismund on November 16, 2008, at 22:36:13
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated?, posted by caraher on November 16, 2008, at 21:08:04
>there's a mismatch between nations where population growth is large and nations most responsible for environmental degradation. In other words, it's a bit hypocritical in the "West" to tut-tut at 3rd-world nations for having excessive, fast-growing populations while those people do live modesty and we consume all out of proportion to the ability of Earth to support our lifestyles.
Of course, that's right.
Posted by fayeroe on November 16, 2008, at 22:37:43
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated?, posted by caraher on November 16, 2008, at 21:08:04
> As always, I think the devil is in the details, in that there's a mismatch between nations where population growth is large and nations most responsible for environmental degradation. In other words, it's a bit hypocritical in the "West" to tut-tut at 3rd-world nations for having excessive, fast-growing populations while those people do live modesty and we consume all out of proportion to the ability of Earth to support our lifestyles.
We're put here as stewards and our bunch isn't doing a very good job of it. I don't know how the West can cluck their tongues..but....
>
> Thursday I attended a talk by Greg Mortenson (http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=22471). His is a remarkable story of going from down-on-his-luck mountaineer to building schools for girls in the high mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Anyway, he said that if you can just get girls to a 5th grade educational level it makes an enormous difference in things like birthrates (which decrease along with infant mortality).
Posted by caraher on November 16, 2008, at 23:20:07
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated? » fayeroe, posted by seldomseen on November 16, 2008, at 22:06:12
> Yeah, probably.
>
> I don't know what we are going to do know that we need the corn for our cars.
>
> Starve and drive I guess.The good news (I think) is that the corn-based ethanol gold rush (at least here in Indiana) seems to be falling apart.
It's just wrong to use petroleum-intensive agricultural practices to grow corn, then turn that corn back into fuel, with a net "gain" in energy close enough to zero that's close enough to be subject to debate - meanwhile reducing food supplies.
Biofuels are not a bad idea, but running cars on food is.
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on November 17, 2008, at 19:56:58
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated?, posted by Sigismund on November 16, 2008, at 13:21:19
> By humans? Most of the other mammals are dying out around here.
>
> So, yes.
>
> 2 billion would be right.
>
> No more than that.
>
> Unless you want the earth to be a giant factory farm.
>
>Look, there is plenty of food to feed the world 2-3x OVER! Just like money. There lot's without it, but few who FREAKING hoard the stuff, capitalize on it, and everybody else suffers! Capitalism DOESN'T work. Social-democracy is the only answer. It's like...a tiny percentage of few at the top of the triangle own like 40 percent of the planet. Then another small group own the next 30 percent. And the billions left in the world have to divide up the remaining scraps. Look up the WHO numbers, it's all right there! Grrr....I better not say anymore or it will be deemed 'uncivil'.
Jay
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on November 17, 2008, at 20:59:45
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated? » Sigismund, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on November 17, 2008, at 19:56:58
Posted by rayww on November 18, 2008, at 0:29:05
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated? » Sigismund, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on November 17, 2008, at 19:56:58
> Look, there is plenty of food to feed the world 2-3x OVER! Just like money. There lot's without it, but few who FREAKING hoard the stuff, capitalize on it, and everybody else suffers! Capitalism DOESN'T work. Social-democracy is the only answer. It's like...a tiny percentage of few at the top of the triangle own like 40 percent of the planet. Then another small group own the next 30 percent. And the billions left in the world have to divide up the remaining scraps. Look up the WHO numbers, it's all right there! Grrr....I better not say anymore or it will be deemed 'uncivil'.
I can see this is an emotional issue for you. Social democracy will only work if you can trust those at the head of it. It is a system that can easily be wrecked by the wrong leader(s).
Socialism stifles initiative. Capitalism produces it. The cities are becoming over populated that's true. You only need to drive a few miles and you get the picture of how much space and potential for food production we have. We have a shortage of hard workers and people who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty working in the fields. We have too many people who want a hand out, and who want the government to take on more and more.
I find myself even thinking they should be doing this or that, when I could do it myself. The lawyers are the main problem, inching their way into litigation in every spot they can, till we are so over-regulated, and governed by so much policy, and most of it is just there to be another flood gate for law suits.
The lawyers and the unions are ruining our economy. And the brokers and the bankers. I think it's called greed. Pride is up there too, envy, jealousy, etc.
Over populated? I don't think so. With abortion so rampant, soon the white race will be eradicated. Not to mention what GBLT is doing to it.
There are wealthy people who give all they have to worthy causes, like Jon Huntsman for instance. He is determined he will find the cure to cancer. Look at all the doctors and dentists who travel to third world countries and help the people for free. And what about those who lend money to those who need to get their own business up and running. Do you realize how many people help people? There's the perpetual education fund that helps people afford college. There's so much good going on in the world right now. In spite of that little triangle at the top of the pyramid. Let me just ask you this. Who holds the top up? All of us underneath. And if it weren't for those at the bottom, the base, the whole thing would crumble. Every person is at the place where they were planted. There is a purpose for every person and every position. Find yours.
The world produces as much food as it can use. If I store food when I can it is not called hoarding. If we all store food we will produce more to keep up. Don't worry, farmers are always ready to produce more. Don't start to buy food when the crisis hits. That is hoarding.
It is up to each one of us to brighten the spot where we live, and do whatever we can for others. Look for the organizations that help and donate $$$ to them. We can't reach everyone, and certainly a global social democracy wouldn't either. I could go on, but I've probably said enough.
Posted by Sigismund on November 18, 2008, at 1:40:39
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated?, posted by rayww on November 18, 2008, at 0:29:05
>With abortion so rampant, soon the white race will be eradicated.
Right. That might be a good thing?
Posted by Sigismund on November 18, 2008, at 1:55:00
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated?, posted by rayww on November 18, 2008, at 0:29:05
>It is a system that can easily be wrecked by the wrong leader(s).
YES, as we have found.
Posted by Toph on November 18, 2008, at 10:05:51
In reply to Is the World Over Populated?, posted by fayeroe on November 16, 2008, at 8:14:58
All I know is there are way too many Green Bay Packer fans for my liking, Pat.
Posted by fayeroe on November 18, 2008, at 10:16:16
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated?, posted by Toph on November 18, 2008, at 10:05:51
> All I know is there are way too many Green Bay Packer fans for my liking, Pat.
I'm right there with you...UT FANS!
Did you read about Mark Cuban?
I wish we had a Sports Board.
Posted by fayeroe on November 18, 2008, at 10:17:50
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated? » rayww, posted by Sigismund on November 18, 2008, at 1:55:00
> >It is a system that can easily be wrecked by the wrong leader(s).
>
> YES, as we have found.Anybody want Bush, now that we're moving on without him?
Sigismund, we could do a "loan a leader" program. Who do you think you could push Howard off on?
Posted by Sigismund on November 18, 2008, at 12:58:41
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated? » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on November 18, 2008, at 10:17:50
But Pat, Howard left more than a year ago and we have been if not mourning his absence then remembering his presence ever since.
It will be the same with all the lot you currently have.
Who will I have left when this lot goes?
You can't expect me to learn Russian and find some eastern-European chat room.
Posted by fayeroe on November 18, 2008, at 13:50:40
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated? » fayeroe, posted by Sigismund on November 18, 2008, at 12:58:41
> But Pat, Howard left more than a year ago and we have been if not mourning his absence then remembering his presence ever since.
> It will be the same with all the lot you currently have.
> Who will I have left when this lot goes?
> You can't expect me to learn Russian and find some eastern-European chat room.I think you could learn Russian. I'll help you find the chat room. :-) You can come back here and let us know what is really going on. :-)
Posted by Sigismund on November 18, 2008, at 14:23:36
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated? » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on November 18, 2008, at 13:50:40
Sarah addressed the Alaskan Independence Party in (was it?) 1996 and that might be a good outfit to join?
Nice climate, capable people.
Posted by Sigismund on November 18, 2008, at 14:32:17
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated? » fayeroe, posted by Sigismund on November 18, 2008, at 14:23:36
>Sarah addressed the Alaskan Independence Party in (was it?) 1996
Maybe that's another vile liberal smear?
I could sign up to this
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlaskanIndependenceParty/
contribute my voice to taking Alaska back to the old country.
Posted by caraher on November 18, 2008, at 17:50:55
In reply to Re: Is the World Over Populated?, posted by Sigismund on November 18, 2008, at 14:32:17
Someone pointed out that we can probably thank the AIP if the Democrats pick up Ted "Series of Tubes!" Stevens' Senate seat. The AIP candidate for Senate garnered far more votes than whatever the final margin winds up being between Stevens and the Democrat.
Posted by Sigismund on November 18, 2008, at 17:57:02
In reply to Re: Alaskan Independence Party, posted by caraher on November 18, 2008, at 17:50:55
Why is Ted Stevens known as 'Series of Tubes'?
Posted by fayeroe on November 18, 2008, at 18:57:34
In reply to Re: Alaskan Independence Party » caraher, posted by Sigismund on November 18, 2008, at 17:57:02
> Why is Ted Stevens known as 'Series of Tubes'?
Because that is how he described the internet. It's just a series of tubes.....I laughed so hard when I heard that!
Posted by caraher on November 18, 2008, at 21:03:07
In reply to Re: Alaskan Independence Party » Sigismund, posted by fayeroe on November 18, 2008, at 18:57:34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f99PcP0aFNE
But do check the related videos - there are "Ted Stevens Remixes" to suit a wide range of tastes! I liked the Daily Show's coverage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8oSlo1R9hA
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.