How many billion of people earth could potentially support.

How many people earth can support.

  • 8

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • 10

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • 13

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • 16

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 20

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • 30

    Votes: 4 40.0%

  • Total voters
    10
LeBrok,



U.S. population was between 80% and 90% Non-Hispanic White during most of U.S. history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...d_for_Hispanic_origin_.281610.E2.80.932010.29

http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab08.html

https://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf

http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf

Only after 1970 percent of Non-Hispanic Whites started declining and currently it is just 60%.



Same case as above. They used to be ~99% White during most of history, until very recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHoG3KStuzc
And still these countries are at the top in the world and Europe. It doesn't seem that these immigrants are hindrance in their economies, not mentioning "collapse on their own".
 
Good Try but Hell NO :grin:

to leave in France standard, we need 2,5 Earth in 2012, now we need 3 Blue Planet.

After thinking that you killed all big mammals in a few seconds. (You said "Keep in mind that existence of big wild mammals is not necessary for people to exist.")
I guess, definition of sustainability is really different in your head (y)
160804_sri_graphic_earth_overshoot_earths_1.jpg
THis is very simplistic and doesn't take under consideration advances in science, economy, engineering and etc. 100 years ago there was 2 billion people, and except few lucky ones, all the world lived in poverty by our modern standards. Now most of world population live in better standards, and 2 billion much better than that. Still on the same one earth. You, and many resident pessimists here, wouldn't envision this if you lived 100 years ago.
This simplistic comparative model above reminds me of 80s, when some scientists predicted peak oil. We were supposed to run out of oil soon due to growing consumption and known methods of reserves and production. Well, 35 years later we have a lot of cheap oil, managed to overproduce it by a lot. So, what the heck happened?
We invented much better technology of pumping oil from the ground. Instead of only exploiting oil wells at 20% well capacity, we are getting closer to 50%. We found the way to get difficult to reach oil thanks to fracking. We found more oil fields, learned how to drill horizontally, etc, etc.
The same will be with other natural resources, fresh water including. Thanks to science, human genius, technologies and free market investments, people will find the way to stretch what we have and what we produce far beyond the limits set by doom and gloom "experts". Surely there are some limits now, and there will be some in the future, but not even close what these dystopian scenario predicts.
 
 

Overpopulation argument bases on sources of the Earth, not the human population.

Does the family in Bangladesh in 1965 who has 2 parents+ 5 kids consume same or less source then current Bangladesh families (2 parents+2 kids)?

No, current families consume more more then families in past.

There is no need to be panic but We need stable population and equal development until in any case of space-station living without helping Earth or planet colonisation age.
 
The earths survival is not just about food, its about fresh water availability and keeping the atmosphere in good shape (the work of trees (Plants) on land and in the oceans and seas. So open green spaces are crucial not just farmland). I am not sure if in the future humans would need open spaces to keep their sanity but that is a factor too. Increased noise pollution and close knit urban spaces seem to have a negative impact on a humans mental state unless its something that humans would get adapted to. Not to forget that wild animals have a right to share the planet too.
 
The earths survival is not just about food, its about fresh water availability and keeping the atmosphere in good shape (the work of trees (Plants) on land and in the oceans and seas. So open green spaces are crucial not just farmland). I am not sure if in the future humans would need open spaces to keep their sanity but that is a factor too. Increased noise pollution and close knit urban spaces seem to have a negative impact on a humans mental state unless its something that humans would get adapted to. Not to forget that wild animals have a right to share the planet too.
Would you really legislate the animal right to live, or is it more of human moral obligation to a fellow animal?
 
Would you really legislate the animal right to live, or is it more of human moral obligation to a fellow animal?

Oh you are Canadian so that's makes sense. :grin: We can understand why you are quering (y)
aeYjKN5_700b.jpg
 
Would you really legislate the animal right to live, or is it more of human moral obligation to a fellow animal?

It is an obligation and the preservation of wild life should be legislated. I am not sure if I can live in a world with a mind set that humans have some kind of right to destroy animals just to have uncontrolled numbers of their own species. Anyway such a mind set would probably end up exterminating its own species in the long run, no matter how many missions are planned to colonize other planets.
 
It is an obligation and the preservation of wild life should be legislated. I am not sure if I can live in a world with a mind set that humans have some kind of right to destroy animals just to have uncontrolled numbers of their own species. Anyway such a mind set would probably end up exterminating its own species in the long run, no matter how many missions are planned to colonize other planets.
I don't have problem making sure the whole nature ecosystem is doing well and protected. After all we need it for our existence and well being too. Having said that, I'm not sure what rule we can employ to "give a right to exist" to every wild animal. People usually think about mammals, especially big mammals, of the sea and the land or big birds, to be protected. And the cuter animal the better should be the protection, like panda bear. Most people forget that mosquitoes and fleas are wild animals too, and so are bacterias.
How can we be just and impartial in granting existential rights to animals if our own well being depends on killing billions of wild animals, mostly bugs, a day, not mentioning mind boggling number of murdered bacterias.
How can we be just and impartial when giving existential rights to wild animals but not to domesticated. Are domesticated less conscious and with fewer feelings, some sort of lesser animal, not to have rights?
Or should we forget about being objective and just and pick and chose to protect only "lucky" animals on our whim?

PS. My mind is not set on any side of this issue. I'm in subject exploration mood.
 
Oh you are Canadian so that's makes sense. :grin: We can understand why you are quering (y)
I would see your animal rights cartoon more objective if you protested Turkish Goat Killing Festivals. Let's start fixing the world from our own yards. ;)

AFP_Getty-535742903.jpg



The reason I asked these questions to Maleth is to see what other people think about this possibility and to learn what are the consequences of legislating animal right to live.
I'm curious.
For example, legislation to protect endangered species, as noble as it is, stops natural selection. People obligated themselves to protect species and their habitats to make sure they don't go extinct. A short term blessing for animals will stop them evolving with their changing environment, causing long term tragedy.
 
I don't have problem making sure the whole nature ecosystem is doing well and protected. After all we need it for our existence and well being too. Having said that, I'm not sure what rule we can employ to "give a right to exist" to every wild animal. People usually think about mammals, especially big mammals, of the sea and the land or big birds, to be protected. And the cuter animal the better should be the protection, like panda bear. Most people forget that mosquitoes and fleas are wild animals too, and so are bacterias.
How can we be just and impartial in granting existential rights to animals if our own well being depends on killing billions of wild animals, mostly bugs, a day, not mentioning mind boggling number of murdered bacterias.
How can we be just and impartial when giving existential rights to wild animals but not to domesticated. Are domesticated less conscious and with fewer feelings, some sort of lesser animal, not to have rights?
Or should we forget about being objective and just and pick and chose to protect only "lucky" animals on our whim?

PS. My mind is not set on any side of this issue. I'm in subject exploration mood.

You forgot the poor mice and rats too :grin:. In my opinion there should be a balance. There are some very important areas on the globe that support a variety of wild life such as the Serengeti in Africa were some of the most dramatic migrations occur. There already seems to be awareness about this and national parks are cherished by many countries. In Europe there is the reforestation of an encouraging number of areas and ancient wild species are being introduced. The migration of Butterflies from Canada to Mexico is another kind of preservation given importance to locate the resting places so as not to use herbicides and so on as the numbers were dwindling alarmingly. The urgency of preservation becomes more prevalent amongst species that are on the verge of extinction. To take your argument harmful bacteria, Rats and mice sparrows and pigeons (example do not fall in that category) Mosquitoes are important food for many birds and reptiles and do not really pose any real threat to humans in these wild areas. Most mosquitos do not even impose any real threats to humans, except in the cases of Malaria, the more recent Zika and so on. This then becomes an issue to human health so it has to be dealt with accordingly. Thousands died with Yellow fever when constructing the Panama canal. Otherwise these creatures are important part of the animal food chain.

Dont forget that in reality bacteria is much more beneficial then harmful. They break down organic material with yeasts into nutritions soil for plants and have many positive attributes towards the environment. They are present in our gut as part of our immune system. In reality we only have to deal with a few that happen to cause some fatal infections.
 
I would see your animal rights cartoon more objective if you protested Turkish Goat Killing Festivals. Let's start fixing the world from our own yards. ;)

AFP_Getty-535742903.jpg



The reason I asked these questions to Maleth is to see what other people think about this possibility and to learn what are the consequences of legislating animal right to live.
I'm curious.
For example, legislation to protect endangered species, as noble as it is, stops natural selection. People obligated themselves to protect species and their habitats to make sure they don't go extinct. A short term blessing for animals will stop them evolving with their changing environment, causing long term tragedy.

Have you watched Avatar? That was my view about killing animals

About Turkish goat killlig festival,

1- the photo you shared seems bulls not goats

2-it is not Turkish, it is islamic and actually Abrahamic

3-Where does the pork sausages come from which you eat?

4-Killing livestocks and killing wild animals is it same for you?

5-Do you have any idea about my opinion about killing goats?
 
Have you watched Avatar? That was my view about killing animals

About Turkish goat killlig festival,

1- the photo you shared seems bulls not goats
My bad, how does it make it better?


2-it is not Turkish, it is islamic and actually Abrahamic
Are you saying that true Turks don't kill animals?

3-Where does the pork sausages come from which you eat?
Supermarket. ;)

4-Killing livestocks and killing wild animals is it same for you?
I don't know, I never killed either one, except wild mosquitoes and flies, well and fish. Otherwise yes, in both cases animals are killed by people, and eaten.

5-Do you have any idea about my opinion about killing goats?
Did you ask my opinion about killing seals? Nope, you assumed that it was what I was getting at. And this is my point of my response: for cultural, survival, health and our culinary taste we kill animals.

Now let's talk about validity of the premise to give animals existential rights and protection to live and naturally die, and consequences of it.
 
You forgot the poor mice and rats too :grin:. In my opinion there should be a balance. There are some very important areas on the globe that support a variety of wild life such as the Serengeti in Africa were some of the most dramatic migrations occur. There already seems to be awareness about this and national parks are cherished by many countries. In Europe there is the reforestation of an encouraging number of areas and ancient wild species are being introduced. The migration of Butterflies from Canada to Mexico is another kind of preservation given importance to locate the resting places so as not to use herbicides and so on as the numbers were dwindling alarmingly. The urgency of preservation becomes more prevalent amongst species that are on the verge of extinction.
This is exactly the example which is not sitting right with objective look at nature. We make arbitrarily like and talk about Monarch butterflies because they are so pretty and don't affect our lives except providing esthetic experience. On other hand nobody cares about millions of other butterflies killed by pesticides to protect our food. Though actually the once that we kill might be more important to ecological balance of our planet than rare Monarch butterfly. The point is that we judge more by our sense of beauty than by being objectively and morally just.

To take your argument harmful bacteria, Rats and mice sparrows and pigeons (example do not fall in that category) Mosquitoes are important food for many birds and reptiles and do not really pose any real threat to humans in these wild areas. Most mosquitoes do not even impose any real threats to humans, except in the cases of Malaria, the more recent Zika and so on. This then becomes an issue to human health so it has to be dealt with accordingly. Thousands died with Yellow fever when constructing the Panama canal. Otherwise these creatures are important part of the animal food chain.
The issue at hand is, why don't we treat all animals equally? How does it make people fair, and legislated laws for animal protection right, if we consider some animals more important than others? What is our justification for preferential treatment; big eyes, nice colours, cute face, soft fur?
In the past it was much easier to decide. We were the dominant species, on top of food chain, and by law of nature we could do whatever we wanted with other animals. Now we want to protect animals and their habitats, but we are very selective in this approach, mostly protecting the cute and the cuddly. I don't think it is right.

Dont forget that in reality bacteria is much more beneficial then harmful. They break down organic material with yeasts into nutritions soil for plants and have many positive attributes towards the environment. They are present in our gut as part of our immune system. In reality we only have to deal with a few that happen to cause some fatal infections.
I really like my guy bacteria. It really agrees with me and my diet. Nothing to complain. ;)
 
This is exactly the example which is not sitting right with objective look at nature. We make arbitrarily like and talk about Monarch butterflies because they are so pretty and don't affect our lives except providing esthetic experience. On other hand nobody cares about millions of other butterflies killed by pesticides to protect our food. Though actually the once that we kill might be more important to ecological balance of our planet than rare Monarch butterfly. The point is that we judge more by our sense of beauty than by being objectively and morally just.

The issue at hand is, why don't we treat all animals equally? How does it make people fair, and legislated laws for animal protection right, if we consider some animals more important than others? What is our justification for preferential treatment; big eyes, nice colours, cute face, soft fur?
In the past it was much easier to decide. We were the dominant species, on top of food chain, and by law of nature we could do whatever we wanted with other animals. Now we want to protect animals and their habitats, but we are very selective in this approach, mostly protecting the cute and the cuddly. I don't think it is right.



I really like my guy bacteria. It really agrees with me and my diet. Nothing to complain. ;)

I sincerely do not think that for Scientists and genuine environmentalists decide on the survival of a particular species according to their level of cuteness. Bats are not particularly attractive but well protected (example) http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_the_law.html same with crocodiles. There are instances were animals were extinct in natural ways such as climate change and so (such as Dinosaurs) no one can blame humans, unlike hairy mammoths that probably were wiped out because of excessive hunting. Basically there should be huge areas protected where wild animals can be allowed to live in their natural habitat as much as possible without constant threat from human expansions and priorities. When one how much natural has been lost to human expansion (cutting down forests/ draining swamps/ buildings of dwellings and roads and agriculture) one should not be surprised that so many species are on the verge of extension.

Bees are also not so cute and they sting too, but look at how valuable they are for the whole echo system in the propogating process through pollination. Their alarming decrease is a huge concern to all. Pesticides and ever increasing in lack of natural habitats. The list goes on and on.
 
I sincerely do not think that for Scientists and genuine environmentalists decide on the survival of a particular species according to their level of cuteness. Bats are not particularly attractive but well protected (example) http://www.bats.org.uk/pages/bats_and_the_law.html same with crocodiles.
Yes, I think they are more balanced in their approach. However, cute Panda, though fairly unimportant to ecosystem, is a poster child of preservation of nature. Even you picked, subconsciously I guess, the cute butterfly as your example.

There are instances were animals were extinct in natural ways such as climate change and so (such as Dinosaurs) no one can blame humans, unlike hairy mammoths that probably were wiped out because of excessive hunting. Basically there should be huge areas protected where wild animals can be allowed to live in their natural habitat as much as possible without constant threat from human expansions and priorities. When one how much natural has been lost to human expansion (cutting down forests/ draining swamps/ buildings of dwellings and roads and agriculture) one should not be surprised that so many species are on the verge of extension.

Bees are also not so cute and they sting too, but look at how valuable they are for the whole echo system in the propogating process through pollination. Their alarming decrease is a huge concern to all. Pesticides and ever increasing in lack of natural habitats. The list goes on and on.
So I guess, you are not in favor of giving animals legislated rights to exist, at least across the board. Instead prefer to use human judgment to save what is considered in danger. Am I right?

Don't take me wrong, I'm not in favor of it either. I'm for protective habitats even some strict "no go" zones for people. However, granting existential rights to animals would have devastating consequence to humans. You can't just give these rights to cute ones only based on a whim of human aesthetics. One would need to implement rights across the board for all animals, if not for all life on earth like plants. This definitely would affect human health and even kill people. We have to remember that nature is not only nice and pretty, but also roofless, cruel and compassionless. It can easily kill or eat people alive.
 
Yes, I think they are more balanced in their approach. However, cute Panda, though fairly unimportant to ecosystem, is a poster child of preservation of nature. Even you picked, subconsciously I guess, the cute butterfly as your example.

The monarch butterfly is the only butterfly that makes two way migration similar to birds. Are they cute? Maybe some people have a butterfly phobia too. LeBrok they just happen to be unusual and particular. Their numbers have been dwindling because of particular situations. Rats do not have the same faith. They have learned to thrive with humans just like pigeons. Pandas are cute too? thats cool. They also have dwindled in numbers. Wild animals can survive with out being a threat to humans. I believe with the amount of space taken by humans (Cities aggriculture water use) have eradicated more then 80% of the world wild life. Yes I believe we have a moral duty to at least leave some space for these creatures to coexist. Humans are a much BIGGER treath to animals then they are to us. I really do not understand what is wrong with this reasoning.


So I guess, you are not in favor of giving animals legislated rights to exist, at least across the board. Instead prefer to use human judgment to save what is considered in danger. Am I right?

I am in favor for large tracts of land to be totally preserved (by the way we already have and aware of it) for all known animals to be able to live in their own habitat. I dont believe that Humans need to occupy every inch of the earths surface. Yes animals in danger of extinction will be given priority to animals who have either adapted living with humans like a number of bird species and mamals apart from the domesticated ones, but there are many many more who need a particular habitat to survive. Having extending cities and uncontrollable settlements (per some sagrosant right) into important designated wild life areas is silly and capricious especially when now have acquired so much knowledge about the harm and benefits of how this world works. Animals all sorts have a right to exist as much as we do, and we do not need to use a bear (example) attacking a human to wipe out the whole species. How many bears have been gunned down randomly without even imposing a threat to humans just for the sheer pleasure of slaughter? Our mind has grown since those primitive days.

Don't take me wrong, I'm not in favor of it either. I'm for protective habitats even some strict "no go" zones for people. However, granting existential rights to animals would have devastating consequence to humans.

We have the knowledge to co exist, as I said humans do not have to occupy every inch of this earth to survive. We know enough (and still learning) of what is important for the survival of many species.

You can't just give these rights to cute ones only based on a whim of human aesthetics. One would need to implement rights across the board for all animals, if not for all life on earth like plants. This definitely would affect human health and even kill people. We have to remember that nature is not only nice and pretty, but also roofless, cruel and compassionless. It can easily kill or eat people alive.

Why do you keep insisting on the cute factor. In reality the cute factor is not the case. I tried to give you examples. The cute factor applies more to a kindergarden classroom lesson rather then a more scientific and mature environmental challenge wild habitat is facing.

By the way even we do not live it....humans are having a huge impact on the seas, apart from over fishing which effects the Oceans and seas food chain there is an incredibel amount of pollution created by humans were huge areas of the oceans are simply turned into a rubbish dump.
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 38175 times.

Back
Top