The world is not overpopulated take 3

[jaelh]

At one point, our former prime minister was advocating a bigger Australia, saying that we could support 35 million people! Luckily the country laughed him down and the next PM has stated that it was a ridiculous idea

Pity, IMO. We aren't going to be able to avoid more people - we need to work out how we are going to manage increasing numbers. Continuing to bang the "no bigger" means we stick our head in the sand and don't prepare. At the very least, we have a significant moral obligation in the Pacific as increasing numbers of people are being displaced through rising sea levels. Pretending we can avoid this is a fools mission.

And yes. Water restrictions should be permanent, and the large scale agricultural desecration of the country (and related waste of water) should be... remedied. Post haste. Australia is a food exporter - indeed, we export "a massive 60% (in volume) of total agricultural production"* - agriculture uses over 50% of the available water. Household use? About 12%. (http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/236-wate ... tralia.asp)

The enemy, such as it is, is not resident persons.

All those resources we can't use to support a population within the country? They're supporting people abroad. That we can't support more people doesn't make any sense. Of course we can. We just need to reorder the house a little.

*http://www.nff.org.au/farm-facts.html

I'd go back to K07 in a heartbeat. A face off between turnbull and k-7 = my dream election. The debacle we have presently is... just awful

[Boogalou]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh look, I was talked about. Go me:

some free jinger dimwit thinks that just because land is desert it can't be used for agriculture. I guess maybe she'd change her mind if she saw all the farming in Arizona and Southern California but she wouldn't care she'd still believe all the over-population lies.

Because that is definately sustainable in the long term. It's OK everyone, we are going to start farming the Sahara!

[jaelh]

Agh. That's the *very type of agriculture* that subverts the sustainability of a large population. [headdesk]

:animals-chickencatch: (i don't know. it just seems to fit, somehow...)

[mirele]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh look, I was talked about. Go me:

Because that is definately sustainable in the long term. It's OK everyone, we are going to start farming the Sahara!

Yeah, with what water?

I remember driving a friend from Boston around central Utah, which is profoundly empty and he couldn't understand why there weren't any people. I explained...there's no water to support people--or crops.

[lilah]

Yes..... Sure.

But that you live somewhere that requires greater resource allocation doesn't in and of itself justify the greater use of resources. If you used less resources, more would be freed up elsewhere, right? That's exactly the kind of "redistribution" I'm talking about. That you need a 4WD to leave the driveway in winter isn't more necessary than say... a family needing a light in Nambia.

That makes sense. It's also correlated with a lesser rate of resource depletion and there are better outcomes for residents [egeducational, financial]. The positives and negatives don't cancel out the other, but that cuts both ways.

Re the "don't think we should": I'm not advocating for a greater population. The world is a mess. I'm saying thought that if we got our house in order, we likely could.

I got into a whole argument with the LIfe in a Shoe idiot about overpopulation. I pointed out that the Rwandan civil war was in part caused by overpopulation, you had something like 8 million people with almost 70% of them under 25, a fertility rate of 8 children per women. People were farming on tiny postage stamps sized farms, with severe soil erosion and poor rainfall.

First she argued that the Netherlands, Vermont and Massachusetts were not going to war over resources, confidently ignoring that size does not equal population d density. So I countered that my argument Rwanda's population density is 8.3 while the other areas mentioned were at 1.3-1.6 After that She argued that the reason why the Rwandan civil war happened was because the Rwandans were a bunch of godless sinners (except that about 93% of the population is Christian but about 50% of them are those heathen Roman Catholics)

I agree that the problem isn't always too many people but poor resource allocation. The world has a finite amount of resources and it's unfair that the united states consumes about 25% of everything. And that while you can farm in the desert, it is at the cost of using far too much water.

[O Latin]

I'm not surprised by the statistic above about the disproportionate consumption of energy by the USA. I stayed in Orange County, CA for three weeks earlier this year and was quite shocked. It seemed to me (although I'm sure it's not true) that people practically lived in their cars, going from an airconditioned house, into the car, and driving around a car park for ages so they could get a space right next to their destination. People were horrified when I asked if a location was within walking distance, "Walk? We don't walk!" Oil consumption must be horrific.

Somewhat off topic, but I always wonder how those people who can't walk five steps (just to clarify, I don't mean people who are physically disabled and actually can't, I mean people like those mentioned above who drive around the parking lot until a good space opens up) ever got through college. At my university, even if you buy the most expensive parking permit you're still going to have to walk quite a bit to get to all your classes throughout the day. On the average school day I spend at least 40 minutes walking. Outside of my apartment building (which is technically on campus) is about as good a parking spot as I could ask for (parking has gotten really horrible in the last year since they keep getting rid of parking lots to build more science buildings).

[Deleted03]

Yeah, with what water?

I remember driving a friend from Boston around central Utah, which is profoundly empty and he couldn't understand why there weren't any people. I explained...there's no water to support people--or crops.

Mexico's

[xDreamerx]

Somewhat off topic, but I always wonder how those people who can't walk five steps (just to clarify, I don't mean people who are physically disabled and actually can't, I mean people like those mentioned above who drive around the parking lot until a good space opens up) ever got through college. At my university, even if you buy the most expensive parking permit you're still going to have to walk quite a bit to get to all your classes throughout the day. On the average school day I spend at least 40 minutes walking. Outside of my apartment building (which is technically on campus) is about as good a parking spot as I could ask for (parking has gotten really horrible in the last year since they keep getting rid of parking lots to build more science buildings).

Same here. I don't walk because I do have a disability, but I know people that do and many have to park 15-20 mins away (by foot) and walk because there aren't enough parking spaces. At my university, they sell more passes than there are spaces available with the disclaimer that buying a pass does not garantee parking. They keep closing down lots to build or expand buildings, yet they are still selling the same number of spaces.

ZsuZsu really is moronic. I have never been to Utah or other areas of America with desert, but it's fairly common sense that you cannot farm in certain climates. It's kind of like thinking we should farm the arctic tundra just in the opposite extreme. One is dry as fuck and the other is frozen.

[SquirrelySquirrel]

Can someone explain to me what environmentalists have to gain by lying? This is where I always get lost. What, exactly, is the ulterior motive behind wanting Earth to be a better place?

[emmiedahl]

I think people like Al Gore (who is not an environmentalist by any means) stand to profit by selling books and enhancing their political careers. But the average environmentalist--the Emmies who refuse to air condition their houses and eat legumes instead of meat--have nothing to gain. I am doing this because I cannot justify using more than my share. If you look at the starving people around the world, I think having lentils for dinner and buying used products is a small sacrifice.

Of course I save a ton of money living this way, and that is a huge part of it. I cannot imagine paying an electric bill of $500 for a small apartment the way my neighbors do. I can't afford it either.

edited because I cannot spell before I have half a pot of coffee in me :)

[urban explorer]

HAHAHA this women really cracks me up, where does she get her info from. It is scary that she teaches her kids this

[SquirrelySquirrel]

I think people like Al Gore (who is not an environmentalist by any means) stand to profit by selling books and enhancing their political careers. But the average environmentalist--the Emmies who refuse to air condition their houses and eat legumes instead of meat--have nothing to gain. I am doing this because I cannot justify using more than my share. If you look at the starving people around the world, I think having lentils for dinner and buying used products is a small sacrifice.

This is what I'm getting at. I know so many people who get downright pissy if climate change or living "green" is so much as mentioned, and I don't understand why. This should not be viewed as some evil liberal agenda because we all benefit from any and every step made for a better Earth. I can't wrap my head around why people are happy to hide their head in the (dry, non-farmable) sand and/or scream "persecution!"

[theologygeek]

See.... I don't think the earth is overpopulated, nor do we have an issue with resources. (and yes, I've spent plenty of time outside the western world).

I do think we have a *massive* problem with resource allocation. We do not need to eat a meat heavy diet. We do not need to live X miles from town. We do not need to run air conditioners. We certainly do not need to undertake wet rice cultivation in dry climates etc...

We also don't need much land to live on. The surprise of Asia isn't the availability of land, so much as the fact that it's possible to live on land parcels that make complaints about NY studio apartments look laughable. We don't *need* much space. We like it, sure (like we like the convenience of personal vehicles, aircon in summer etc...).

If we could manage a little better using what we have I think we could support more people, no problems.

(None of this is to say that idiocy of the comments section at Z's makes any sense at all.)

I can't work without air conditioning if it is too hot. Others may be able to, but I can't. I will get a migraine and dizziness. Just yesterday I heard on the news that an elderly man died because his house was too hot. It was so sad and broke my heart.

[browncoatslytherin]

What is wrong about being a good stewart to the world? Isn't that part of the bible? There are groups of Christians here in America that seem to have forgotten that.

this. it's like they just ignore that scripture. along with a lot of other ones.

[Deleted03]

This is what I'm getting at. I know so many people who get downright pissy if climate change or living "green" is so much as mentioned, and I don't understand why. This should not be viewed as some evil liberal agenda because we all benefit from any and every step made for a better Earth. I can't wrap my head around why people are happy to hide their head in the (dry, non-farmable) sand and/or scream "persecution!"

Yeah it's mind boggling to me too, sacro-saint growth at all prices. It makes me think of this story of the guy who trusts god to save him from the flood, haven't you had enough messages that you have to do something to save the planet, if we are all sinners, is it so hard to imagine we're thick enough to destroy our planet?

[camdendayton]

This is what I'm getting at. I know so many people who get downright pissy if climate change or living "green" is so much as mentioned, and I don't understand why. This should not be viewed as some evil liberal agenda because we all benefit from any and every step made for a better Earth. I can't wrap my head around why people are happy to hide their head in the (dry, non-farmable) sand and/or scream "persecution!"

I get the feeiing, at least with our fundies, that because they are trying to get everyone else to live like them, they think that environmentally minded people are going to try to force their way of life on them. They also seem to be big believers in the slippery-slope, that if they give an inch someone will take a mile.

[O Latin]

I find certain "green" types annoying for the same reason that many people find fundie Christians annoying. Around here we have a lot of people who seem to believe it is their personal mission to save the earth and if you are not every bit as devoted to it as they are, you are horrible, awful, earth-hating scum, no matter what your circumstances might be. For example, my apartment has no recycling. You can either throw it in the garbage or I guess go take it to the recycling center yourself. I'm a college student trying to stay awake while I write five papers at once. I don't have time to be hauling shit all over town. But the green nazis won't even listen to that. It also irritates me that they put all the blame on the individual. No one ever gets upset at the powers that be who decide whether or not there will be recycling at my apartment. No, it's all my fault for not trying harder to recycle.

It's not that I disagree with their cause, but in this area there are a lot of people who are single-mindedly devoted to some cause or another and they won't give the time of day to anyone who's not. I get annoyed with all these people. In my mind it's just another way of dressing up judgment of people who don't want to live exactly like you.

Edited to fix a typo.

[latraviata]

I find certain "green" types annoying for the same reason that many people find fundie Christians annoying. Around here we have a lot of people who seem to believe it is their personal mission to save the earth and if you are not every bit as devoted to it as they are, you are horrible, awful, earth-hating scum, no matter what your circumstances might be. For example, my apartment has no recycling. You can either throw it in the garbage or I guess go take it to the recycling center yourself. I'm a college student trying to stay awake while I write five papers at once. I don't have time to be hauling shit all over town. But the green nazis won't even listen to that. It also irritates me that they put all the blame on the individual. No one ever gets upset at the powers that be who decide whether or not there will be recycling at my apartment. No, it's all my fault for not trying harder to recycle.

It's not that I disagree with their cause, but in this area there are a lot of people who are single-mindedly devoted to some cause or another and they won't give the time of day to anyone who's not. I get annoyed with all these people. In my mind it's just another way of dressing up judgment of people who don't want to live exactly like you.

Edited to fix a typo.

Hear, hear!!

In Europe we also suffer from the green maffia, horrible people!

[jaelh]

I can't work without air conditioning if it is too hot. Others may be able to, but I can't. I will get a migraine and dizziness. Just yesterday I heard on the news that an elderly man died because his house was too hot. It was so sad and broke my heart.

Here is the thing - why is your need to be cooled any the more important than someone else's need for light or running water; or for someone in the Rajasthan desert to have access to a fan to prevent the same symptoms? Why is any given old man's need to be air conditioned to live more important than an other old man in East Timor's need to be air conditioned to live, or than a hospital in Zambia's need for power to run or a nursing centre in Guatemala to have the power to run equipment to save children's lived?

Most defiantly- any given individual in the west might suffer/have to do without comforts we currently enjoy with a redistribution of resources.

However, there are any number of given individuals in the world who are are already suffering/going without. That we currently have a claim on air con and the like doesn't make the claim free from charge against it .

I think it is esp important to remember this because it's the existence of that claim itself [ie] that's resulting in depravations amongst others that we say would make relinquishing the claim impossible [ie].

I can understand anything like the above really deeply bugs those who don't think there is an issue with resource consumption. And even many of those who do

Agree with camdendayton that it can be seen as a threat against a way of life. Why shouldn't every person in China and India have access to electric heating and cooling - and the same consumption patterns- as we do? In our current state the world would be on its knees if such a thing happened. That we had this pattern of consumption first etc.. first doesn't mean that we have a right to it. If we don't want China and India to scale our heady heights of consumption, the only we can level such a claim to to adjust our own power use etc... Otherwise we're hypocritical as hell.

Finally - I hope Science can work out how to make nuclear waste safe, I really do. And I love lentils. :)

[latraviata]

Finally - I hope Science can work out how to make nuclear waste safe, I really do. And I love lentils.

So do I and I love lentils too, especially 'lentilles du Puy'

http://www.lalentillevertedupuy.com/uk/i_actu.html

[Boogalou]

Just to be clear none of this stuff is coming from ZsuZsu, it is all her crazy commenters. She hasn't responded to any of it either because she is too busy not using her microwave.

[twin2]

Just to be clear none of this stuff is coming from ZsuZsu, it is all her crazy commenters. She hasn't responded to any of it either because she is too busy not using her microwave.

Ugh, the effing microwave thing again. I am trying really, really, really hard not to start commenting on the microwave nonsense, trying to edjukate teh fundies on the basics of science is not worth the headache. For people who complain that we so easily believe the !!!11!!!!LIES!!!11!! its hilarious the BS these people will believe.

Oh trivia question for the day.

What composes ~30% of honey?

[emmiedahl]

I think that if you need something for your health and it is available, and you are making some kind of meaningful contribution to the world by having it, then fine. I have to have a serving or two of meat every week. I need it. That doesn't mean I need steak every day, or even hamburger.

I have friends (a lot of them) who apparently physically nneeeedddd to have their houses kept below 70 in the summer, and they also nnneeeddd to have their homes kept at almost 80 in the winter. They would swear that their health hits the fan if things are not kept at their ideal temperature, but if they can live with 80 in the winter wearing a sweater and slippers, I don't see why it becomes unbearable in the summer with a tank top on.

You get used to living at natural temperatures. I'm not saying we should all sleep in 25 degree homes in winter or 115 in the summer. And of course some people really need a cool home or a warm one--but most people who swear that they do, absolutely do not. When we refuse to evaluate perceived needs, we are hurting people. We are making people do without. The world only has so many resources and we need to start considering what our fair share might be.

If we don't learn to do it by choice, we will eventually have to do it by necessity.

[tinuviel]

I think that if you need something for your health and it is available, and you are making some kind of meaningful contribution to the world by having it, then fine. I have to have a serving or two of meat every week. I need it. That doesn't mean I need steak every day, or even hamburger.

I have friends (a lot of them) who apparently physically nneeeedddd to have their houses kept below 70 in the summer, and they also nnneeeddd to have their homes kept at almost 80 in the winter. They would swear that their health hits the fan if things are not kept at their ideal temperature, but if they can live with 80 in the winter wearing a sweater and slippers, I don't see why it becomes unbearable in the summer with a tank top on.

You get used to living at natural temperatures. I'm not saying we should all sleep in 25 degree homes in winter or 115 in the summer. And of course some people really need a cool home or a warm one--but most people who swear that they do, absolutely do not. When we refuse to evaluate perceived needs, we are hurting people. We are making people do without. The world only has so many resources and we need to start considering what our fair share might be.

If we don't learn to do it by choice, we will eventually have to do it by necessity.

Emmiedahl, absolutely. I've been thinking about this the past couple of weeks. I live in a city where few buildings have central heat and air, so most people have window units. I don't have any issue with that, and some people (especially the elderly) really do need things to stay pretty cool in order to feel well.

The body definitely does acclimate though. I was in the South for a few weeks in the spring and I made a point of sitting out on the porch in the 90 degree heat to get myself used to being sweaty again. It made it so much easier to deal with a hot apartment once I got back up north. (That, and the fact that "heat" usually meant "on the porch drinking sangrias" while I was on my trip, lol). I try to turn the AC on as little as possible because I don't want my electric bill to go through the roof. Turns out I don't need it that often anymore. I'm just okay with being hot sometimes. It is summer after all. I turn the AC on 10-15 minutes before going to sleep to cool the room down a bit, but then I'm pretty much good to go.

My friends who move from one air conditioned room to another are not taking the heat very well at all. Granted, people have different sensitivities, but some would probably feel better if they would just give their bodies a chance to acclimate.

Also, if the AC in your bedroom is so cold at night that you need THREE blankets in a 90 heat wave, you might be overdoing it!

[Boogalou]

Oh trivia question for the day.

What composes ~30% of honey?

Oh good, I lurv trivia. I have the following guesses (and I think it is something gross, or else what would even be the point in asking?):

A) Dead bees

B) Bee pee

C) Bee feces

D) Some sort of icky bacteria

E) Enough water to make all the world's deserts into usable and sustainable farmland

D) Ionizing microwave radiation that will kill people and make them dehydrated.