Population; Who do you throw off the lifeboat?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

As the year 2000 comes up fast, one has to also wonder about the future of our natural resources.

Talks in our family seem to focus more on the growth of the world population than on the problems of the year 2000. Do the people in general not see this as a problem, or are they waiting until just a couple of years before we can do anything about it? (sound familiar?) Why are we waiting to fix this issue too?

Are we going to look at this as the next guys' job (read/ like the CEO who knew about the y2k bug and figured he'd be retired or at a different company by the time it needed to be addressed).

I believe the population problem will make the year 2000 rollover look like a total NON event, even if it turns out to be bigger than a bump in the road! Won't it take more than a few years to fix this one too?

-- P.A. (adkins@webbernet.net), November 27, 1999


You DGI yet! The Y2K problem is actually part of the solution to the population problem. Doomers are saying premature death for < to = of the population.

-- Slobby Don (slobbydon@hotmail.com), November 27, 1999.

How can we have an overpopulation problem when there aren't six countries in the world whose birth rates are at or above replacement? Have you ever driven to Alaska? I invite you to take the drive, and take any route you wish, but you must drive the entire distance. Population is not the problem. Most people in and around cities see congestion, and call it population problems. New homes on the outskirts of cities are being purchased by second, third, or fourth-time homeowners and this outward movement has nothing to do with birth rate but with crime and ugliness, as well as poor schools and quality of life.

-- Liz Pavek (lizpavek@hotmail.com), November 27, 1999.

P.A. wrote (among other things)...snip >>>Why are we waiting to fix this issue too? <<<

Pardon me, but what would you suggest be done for "fixing" the population problem??? I'll bet you expect to be on the panel deciding who stays and who "goes" ????

-- Irving (irvingf@myremarq.com), November 27, 1999.

Liz, do you live in upstate Alaska (would you want to?)? No one lives at the north or south poles either.

We might have a zero birth growth, but what about the other places (not of the "6") where are they moving to? How about places like the USA.

-- P.A. (adkins@webbernet.net), November 27, 1999.

If Y2K is half bad the problem may take care of itself, to wit; Europe feeds itself and exports a small surplus,ditto for Australia,New Zealand and Argentina. China is just barely self sufficent. North America exports a huge surplus and basically feeds the 2nd and 3rd worlds plus Japan. If our petroleum based agricultural and shipping industries suffer severe setbacks then mass starvation and societal collapse may become the norm throughout much of Africa, Asia and Latin America. In one of Cory's weather reports he makes reference to a so called ,"death pool", in which members of a Seattle area IT shop estimated the number of deaths to be caused by Y2K failures in the US only. The low prediction was 22 million.

-- Ralph Kramden (And@awayWeGo.com), November 27, 1999.

snip>>>what would you suggest be done for "fixing" the population problem???

We could start by "fixing" men who don't pay child suport, but continue to "father" (I use the term lightly) more kids.

And no I wouldn't want to be on the panel....why should there be a panel?

-- P.A. (adkins@webbernet.net), November 27, 1999.

This subject came up a couple of weeks ago too.

Seems several want to reduce the population but they do not want to be the one stepping to the front of the line to place their head on the chopping block in order to reduce it.

What exactly bothers you with having so many people in the world?

The poor are always going to be with us Jesus said so getting rid of part of the population is not going to get rid of the poor, if that is the intent.

If you think you are going to get less of the resources of the world because there are more people then stop being greedy and take only your share. Stop wanting more and more things. Many do not even get their "share" yet are they saying kill you off?

If you want to be concerned with the human issue think more about how you can help everyone's lives be better with what we have; instead of trying to get rid of people or control other peoples right to reproduce.

Do you have children? If so why did you reproduce? If not good for you at least you have taken one step in support of your beliefs.

One of my children says she will never have children so as far as I am concerned I have donated to the effort without trying or wanting too, as I WANT grandchildren and lots of them!

-- Obo (susanwater@excite.com), November 27, 1999.

PLEASE-----the problem is OVER CONSUMPTION,Over consumption,over consumption. Just let the World trade Org. have it's way and we (first worlders) will have consumed,much more than our fair share of non- renewables and condemened our children to ever decreasing standards of living. Don't blame the Egyptian family who lives on 350 dollars a year. Look in the mirror and you'll see the main cause of poverty(your own faces) you will spend more money on Pokeamon cards this Christmas than 2/3rds of the world will spend on essentials.While you await the y2k outcome with your stashes of flashlights and food,stocks and investments,gold and guns you may soon experience the survival pressures that most of your unfortunate brothers and sisters endure on a daily basis. The rich exploit, the upwardly mobile consume and the poor die quietly.Just investigate what the oligarch's are planning for the rest of us vis a vis the MAI treaty that usurps our congressional powers to control the disloyal and rapicious multinationals and you have witnessed the seed of war,murder and revenge that will certinly befall us all when the world finally gets it.

-- H fats Kissinger (draconionsolutions@uselesseaters.com), November 27, 1999.

"I believe the population problem will make the year 2000 rollover look like a total NON event, even if it turns out to be bigger than a bump in the road!"

I consider that a fact if molecular nano doesn't burst forth soon.

If the world does not have that breakthrough, then we know exactly what to expect, because it has been so well published by even the military: Huge beggar populations and shanty towns in American cities, and major cities everywhere. There will be constant civil unrest, famines, ecetera.

In that event, it seems to me, one child per couple will have to be a global law from which no one can escape.

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), November 27, 1999.

If Y2K does what we expect it to do, most of us are going to be in the "poor" group. Personally, I wouldn't mind going back to a simpler economy. My biggest worry is crooked politicians and busybody militarism such as we have seen illustrated in the last couple of years.

Many of us are going to die: the sick, the helpless, and the poorest will go first, but widespread death is unavoidable, and there's no doubt about that. It's a given. We are called, I believe, to help as many people as we can with what we have, until there is simply no possibility of going further. If that point is reached, I pray that the little that I have been able to contribute will have made a difference for someone.

-- Liz Pavek (lizpavek@hotmail.com), November 27, 1999.

A few months back, someone on this board wrote a line that still haunts me: "Species die-back is natural."

I'm just very thankful that I don't have children. Whatever I have to go thru in the future, at least it won't involve watching my own little ones suffer.

The neighbors, on the other hand... oh well.

-- praise the lord (pass@the.ammo), November 27, 1999.

God created more than enough resources for man and all of His living creatures to flourish. The problem is that humans are stupid and destructive. They are selfishly wasting and destroying these resources without any consideration for the rest of God's creation.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 27, 1999.

I vote for San Hose [sic]. What is your vote?

Best wishes,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 27, 1999.

It'll start with the have-nots going for the haves. If the infrastructure doesn't recover by, say, the end of 2Q, then all the remaining have-nots will have to do is wait for the (former) haves to run out of supplies, and come out.

If the rollover does crash, you'll see a lot of people suddenly without their modern conveniences roaming around looking for a scapegoat to roast. I wouldn't want to be a politician, a cop, or a RV owner.

-- hunter (way@up.north), November 27, 1999.

I really must apologize to Diane. A long time ago, in a universe far from here I went to her city [it was a small place]. We started to call it San Hose. I have been doing it so long, that I no longer know how to spell it. Hence, the sic. ;-).

Best wishes,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 27, 1999.

You might find interesting the article in Cory's WRP 106 "Why Infomagic is a pollyana". If you aren't familiar with Infomagic see: this thread.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), November 27, 1999.

As long as we have all you head in the sand types, who deny that there even IS a population problem, we'll never solve it.



-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), November 27, 1999.


Why don't you start to "solve it" right now and go jump off a cliff.

-- (too@many.jerks), November 27, 1999.

(too@many.jerks)--Thanks; you just made my point for me. Maybe you should stop jerking, pendejo


-- Al K. Lloyd (all@ready.now), November 28, 1999.

World's wealthiest 16 percent uses 80 percent of natural resources

-- da pigs (have@gotta.go), November 28, 1999.

As is always the case in times of strife,A man(or woman)with a gun is a citizen and a man(woman)without one is a subject.Rights are like muscles,they only work when you exercise them.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), November 28, 1999.

I don't think that the problem per se, is the sheer number of people. At least in most countries, it isn't a big problem. It's over-consumption and WASTE that causes the most problems. Americans are terribly wasteful and grossly over-consume, compared to the rest of the world.

Certainly, in some countries, the people breed like rabbits, and there are many more people than the land can support. If we can get them to adopt better technologies to feed more people, and if we can get them to slow down on the breeding, it'd be a good start. I don't think that it's necessary to go the route that China has done, in mandating only one child per couple (as I recall, could be wrong), with jail time and fines for extra kids. If people can exercise some self-restraint, it would be great.

I personally do the best I can do in not being wasteful, recycle, grow some of my own food. My wife and I also have no plans to have children either. Are we as frugal as some in the 2nd and 3rd world? No, but we do MUCH better than most Americans. It's a start at least.

-- Bill (billclo@msgbox.com), November 28, 1999.

The AIDS epidemic - 23 million people are now infected with the virus and the majority of the cases are in third world countries where high priced medicine is not an option. They die off faster there than they do here. I don't believe we will die off from starvation if Y2K is BITR, I believe we will die from disease with no known cure.

-- bardou (bardou@baloney.com), November 28, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ