tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post3398918974831307415..comments2023-09-25T06:48:48.316-06:00Comments on Magic Valley Mormon: More Fun With Newspaper Story CommentsCameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-31525075717010466242008-08-30T22:19:00.000-06:002008-08-30T22:19:00.000-06:00There is no inherent conflict between “going to wo...There is no inherent conflict between “going to work on making the world a better place and teaching my kids to do the same” and in advocating for, taking responsibility for, and taking direct personal action to address overpopulation.<BR/><BR/>All parents want the best for their children, but 26,000 children die every day from starvation, malnutrition, or easily treated diseases made more deadly due to malnutrition. (via Unicef: State of the World’s Children 2008) The reasons for this are complex, but a primary reason is overpopulation. <BR/><BR/>A few other things that might be worthy of your consideration:<BR/><BR/>What happens if every woman on the planet has three children, and their children have three children, etc, etc.? <BR/><BR/>What is the difference in use of limited global resources and the effect on the global environment if those children live in the US compared to say, rural China or northern Africa?<BR/><BR/>What will you teach your children about having children themselves? What you teach them (and what you do) is your answer to the question “what kind of world to you want?”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-88196281660474705062008-08-29T22:52:00.000-06:002008-08-29T22:52:00.000-06:00Quotes from Saturday's Warrior are flooding throug...Quotes from Saturday's Warrior are flooding through my mind.<BR/><BR/>I am a mother of three. My 12 year old son is planning on inventing an alternative-fuel Ford Mustang. My middle child will probably be a teacher - science is my guess. And my baby girl - she's going to run this place some day. You can talk about zero population all you want - I'm going to work on making the world a better place and teaching my kids to do the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-10135804449087631272008-08-29T13:26:00.000-06:002008-08-29T13:26:00.000-06:00Save the planet. Kill yourself!We were already su...Save the planet. Kill yourself!<BR/><BR/>We were already supposed to be in a huge food shortage crisis according to the doomsdayers of my childhood days. Instead, we've got a worldwide obesity epidemic which may curtail lifespan anyway.Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-68551053523016756832008-08-29T10:23:00.000-06:002008-08-29T10:23:00.000-06:00As usual Paul Chefurka is far more elegant and elo...As usual Paul Chefurka is far more elegant and eloquent than me, which is why I refer people to his website whenever possible.<BR/>(Thanks for playing here, Paul!) <BR/><BR/>I entirely agree with both of Paul's points 1 and 2. However, I also encourage people to take more "radical" (from my point of view "reasonable" action now: initiate a more controlled population crash now by ceasing to have children. (Yes everyone, yes everywhere.) <BR/><BR/>While this is unlikely, people have done other unlikely things, and doing so would reduce the horrific suffering to come as outlined by Paul's point 2. <BR/><BR/>(And yes, I too am childfree and sterilized.)Mikata Karasuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15478264967253116461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-57398112067567785452008-08-29T06:29:00.000-06:002008-08-29T06:29:00.000-06:00Since my name has already popped up in a comment, ...Since my name has already popped up in a comment, I thought I'd throw my two cents in here.<BR/><BR/>The population bun-fight generally devolves into a stand-off: "The first world has to reduce their consumption, but not their population" vs. "The third world has to reduce their population, but not their consumption."<BR/><BR/>One thing that would be helped by a reduction in human population, no matter which "world" you're talking about, is biodiversity loss. Human populations out-compete all other species for habitat, and it takes very little human encroachment to reduce regional biodiversity.<BR/><BR/>Beyond that one area it becomes a question of human impact as symbolically expressed by I=PAT, where the higher levels of technology and activity come into play alongside sheer population numbers.<BR/><BR/>In order to avoid puerile charges of promoting genocide, I've adopted the following position (which I also think is how it's actually going to play out):<BR/><BR/>1. Human population growth (but not our absolute numbers) will continue to decline due to the ongoing world-wide decrease in birth rates. This decline is being driven largely by the spread of affluence.<BR/><BR/>2. Absolute human numbers will eventually be reduced by involuntary resource shortages and system failures induced by the spread of affluence through a growing population as described in point 1.<BR/><BR/>We can help along the declining growth rate in point 1 by educating and empowering women as well as by expanding access to family planning knowledge and technology. Mother Nature will take care of point 2.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I'm child-free and sterilized.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-6736321984860158212008-08-28T16:18:00.000-06:002008-08-28T16:18:00.000-06:00Wow, where do you people come from and how do you ...Wow, where do you people come from and how do you find me?<BR/><BR/>My "assumptions" are all UN data.Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-53255561850997806562008-08-28T13:17:00.000-06:002008-08-28T13:17:00.000-06:00Wow, pretty creative assumptions you have there.Fo...Wow, pretty creative assumptions you have there.<BR/><BR/>For one thing, you seem to lean on estimates out to 2050 that assume no significant changes caused by overpopulation, peak oil, or environmental collapse between now and then. Estimates by those disconnected from religious ideologies or financial incentives to maintain the status quo make no such assumptions and just look at the data.<BR/><BR/>Good examples of that approach include www.paulchefurka.ca and of course www.theoildrum.com<BR/><BR/>We’ve already exceed global carrying capacity. We are now in “overshoot”. Global population is nearing 7 billion. Global carrying capacity is about 2 billion. (This assumes some level of social justice and a moderate, low by US standards, standard of living.) We will get to that 2 billion number the hard way (wars, famine, disease, and their accompanying losses of environmental quality, freedom, and social justice) OR the less hard way (immediately and drastically reducing our population voluntarily). <BR/><BR/>It’s too late for any “us” vs “them” arguments or any belief that national boundaries will do much to help anyone. This is a global issue with local and nation-state consequences. For example, immigration is a consequence of overpopulation, not a cause of it. <BR/><BR/>One of the key factors in this scenario is also our sense of time. This is a slow motion crash that requires immediate action, a bit like trying to steer a supertanker on a crash course by putting in consistent input over a multi year time frame, and the one effective input is to stop making babies. (Yes all of us and yes everywhere.) The supertanker analogy is also apt because it was oil that allowed us to get this far out on a limb, and peak oil has already happened. <BR/><BR/>Other good resources include:<BR/>How Many People Should The Earth Support? http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html<BR/><BR/>Earth’s Carrying Capacity <BR/>http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/<BR/><BR/>Peak Oil, Carrying Capacity and Overshoot: Population, the Elephant in the Room:<BR/>http://canada.theoildrum.com/node/2516#moreMikata Karasuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15478264967253116461noreply@blogger.com