Are you American? Possibly from the South? Because this is a classic example of the traditional right-wing American blind-spot for class-warfare. And the first paragraph of your post was so promising…
Well now you’ve piqued my curiosity. What do you mean by “blind-spot”, how does this relate to our discussion, and what is traditionally right-wing about it?
It’s a long-standing tradition of the American Right to blame every problem on minorities (ACORN!!!11), Hollywood media elites (LIBRAL MEDIA!), europeans (SOCIALISTS!), and pop stars (DIXIE CHICKS!).
I just thought it was interesting to see that line of reasoning being applied to overpopulation/natural resource destruction, especially in the context of distribution of wealth, and am curious to see if it was in fact coming from a winger.
“I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species, and I realised that humans are not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. Instead you multiply, and multiply, until every resource is consumed. The only way for you to survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern… a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer on this planet, you are a plague, and we… are the cure.”
That’s such a load of shit, it went past being funny into the lands unknown.
Honestly tho, I think we are ok as long as we just get creative with the resources we have right now.
and besides, what IF there sudenly get to be too many people for earth? food will run low, people will start dieing of malnutrition, then more people will fight each other for the remaining food and presto! population controlled.
I really am not understanding the discussion to be had in this thread.
which part is bollocks? The 90-10% statistic is pretty close to fact:
So? Who cares about that part? Pretty sure wealth doesn’t influence global population. Yeah, unequal distribution creates problems, but that’s got bugger all to do with the thread.
Yeah, the world can support twelve billion people, if you ignore the oceans covering 75% of earth, and the fact that pretty much every single square metre of land would have to be used to farm.
wealth influences the global population’s standard of living, though. We can say overpopulation is a problem because fucktons of poor people can’t afford to eat, or we can recognize that we can’t do much about the numbers but we can do something about the food with distribution of wealth.
On note to the original post, I 100% agree. Not because of population control, but the fact that families with more then two kids seems to have a hard time financially and it’ll help stabilize the economy [hopefully] and cause less bankruptcies across the states let alone the rest of the world that is experiencing a similar situation.
Mattemuse, that’s ridiculous. Millions of people are starving, and better distribution of wealth is going to do fuck all if the population keeps doubling.
Do you seriously think millions of people are starving because there isn’t enough food? We do in fact have the resources (globally) to feed everyone, it’s just that the world economic system doesn’t allow for that bottom 50% to eat. Give them 2% of the wealth and their standard of living doubles, and the upper economic class wouldn’t even notice the 1% difference in their status.
Exactly ! ,sad but true =/
I like how you handily ignored the part about population growth.
i don’t know what the theoretical maximum population the earth’s food supply can support is, and neither do you. Therefore I’m ignoring it as a hypothetical, while addressing what you acknowledge is a current problem - as you said millions of people are starving.
garthbartin kill yourself and help solve the over population problem!
I don’t care for things like the well-being of the human race or hurting the planet’s feelings.
Everyone on this forum is going to die before the century is out.