RECENT TOPICS » View all
Japanese tsunami fund 'used for whaling programme'
Index » 喫茶店 (Koohii Lounge)
qwertyytrewq wrote:
There's a lot to criticise China for, but they should be commended for their 1 child policy (flaws of the policy aside). Imagine asking self-indulgent Americans to do something useful for once and have 1 child only.
Please tell me you're not seriously defending the one child policy. It basically just contributes to poverty in rural China and messes with demographics and will have all sorts unintended social effects (generations of spoilt children etc). Birth rates go down as wealth goes up. China doesn't need this policy.
Also earth is nowhere near it's carrying capacity.
nadiatims wrote:
Also earth is nowhere near it's carrying capacity.
... there's hardly any resource that we're not running out of in the very near future. That puts us at carrying capacity, pretty much.
this is relevent for understanding carrying capacity for humans: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
The place that really makes me sit up and take notice most is part 3.
It goes something like this (in case you don't have time to watch it):
Suppose you have a bottle, and at 11.00am, you put in 1 bacterium. At 12.00, 1 hour later, you observe the bottle is full.
Here's 3 questions:
1. At what time was the bottle half full?
2. If you were a bacteria in the bottle, at what time would you first realise that you were running out of space?
3. Suppose now, those bacteria make an amazing discovery of 3 whole new bottles. So they now have another 3 times the amount of space they ever had. At what time are those bottles full?
the answers are as follows:
1. The bottle was half full 1 minute before 12. So, at 11.59am, the bottle is half full.
2. Well, would it be when the bottle is half full (remember that's only 1 minute before). What about a quarter full? That's 2 minutes before. Well, what about when the bottle is only 1.6% full, leaving 98.4% free space? That's only at 11:54am, 6 minutes before the end of the line.
3. Even with those 3 whole other bottles, the population growth can only continue for 2 more minutes. At 12.01, bottles 1 & 2 are full. At 12.02, bottles 3 & 4 are full, and that's the end.
Our population growth problem isn't quite as bad as bacteria in a bottle, but you get the idea. Our consumption of many resources such as oil really IS that bad, so, how many more "minutes" does the human population have?
Last edited by IceCream (2011 December 16, 3:24 am)
qwertyytrewq wrote:
Actually now would be a good time for this link: http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_wh … phere.html
Great article, very interesting and entertaining read.
qwertyytrewq wrote:
I don't think we should actually make a decision and implement the wiping out of humans. I prefer the poetic justice route: The human race as a whole wipes itself out naturally by the unsustainable combined individual self-interest.
My only issue is that the human race does not have the decency to wipe itself without wiping out everything else (trees, ocean, animals etc).
I don't know why, but I've heard an awful lot of people say the planet would be better off without us. To me that point makes absolutely no sense.
Assuming humans are not the product of chance, but just another step in an evolutionary process, we can safely conclude that if all humans were to die today, another strain of monkey would soon (read: in a few million years) emerge and the same thing were to happen all over again.
So if you really think it through, you'd have to conclude that the planet would be better off without life at all. But who cares about the well-being of a lifeless rock?
This brings me to my next point. If humanity were to vanish today, who would really be better off?
I believe most people think of animal species going extinct and the destruction of the rainforest and similar stuff when they make this statement.
However they tend to forget that the rainforest, and most animal species we know today will vanish anyway as evolution marches on. So are they better off? Not by very much.
So whole species of animals are not better off if humans were to perish. What else is there to worry about? Are individual animals better off? I don't think so, since nature revolves around the prey and predator scheme.
So the only thing one could argue is that life itself would be better off without humans. But as the past has shown us, life evolving freely will most likely lead to the emergence of one intelligent race that colonizes the whole planet, builds machines and pollutes the environment.
So I really don't see the point in arguing that Earth would be better off without humanity.
Also I do not think humans possess the capability to wipe out all life on the planet. It is physically impossible.
apirx wrote:
Assuming humans are not the product of chance, but just another step in an evolutionary process, we can safely conclude that if all humans were to die today, another strain of monkey would soon (read: in a few million years) emerge and the same thing were to happen all over again.
i don't think you really understand how evolution works. Chimpanzees aren't "evolving into humans"... the way evolution works is that each species needs their own sort of niche that allows them to survive. So, chimpanzees aren't evolving into humans, because they already have their own niche that allows them to survive. Humans have their own niche too, but if that niche remained empty, it doesn't mean that something else will necessarily evolve to fill that gap. There are plenty of other species who use intelligence and communication in quite different ways for their survival.
apirx wrote:
However they tend to forget that the rainforest, and most animal species we know today will vanish anyway as evolution marches on. So are they better off? Not by very much.
Again, it doesn't really matter if a species goes extinct as a whole. What matters is whether humans cause that or not. If a species goes extinct under normal circumstances, they didn't have the right tools to survive in a balance with the rest of that ecosystem. But humans are wiping out species that would have survived if it wasn't for our methods. What usually happens, in an ecosystem, is that populations of everything in that ecosystem rises and falls dependant on each other, but they don't wipe each other out completely.
We shouldn't be interfering to that extent, not least because such short sightedness damages humans themselves.
Last edited by IceCream (2011 December 16, 3:54 am)
nadiatims wrote:
Please tell me you're not seriously defending the one child policy. It basically just contributes to poverty in rural China<...snip>
From what I recall, the one child policy largely doesn't apply in the countryside (they are suffering from a dwindling population as everyone moves to cities).
Jarvik7 wrote:
nadiatims wrote:
Please tell me you're not seriously defending the one child policy. It basically just contributes to poverty in rural China<...snip>
From what I recall, the one child policy largely doesn't apply in the countryside (they are suffering from a dwindling population as everyone moves to cities).
The literal "One-child policy" doesn't apply to the rural population and ethnic minorities (I think rural Tibetans have no limit whatsoever), but they still face restrictions - they can have a second child if the first one was female or disabled. For them the biggest issue is the gender imbalance resulting from sex-based abortions and abandonment of female babies.
IceCream wrote:
i don't think you really understand how evolution works. Chimpanzees aren't "evolving into humans"... the way evolution works is that each species needs their own sort of niche that allows them to survive. So, chimpanzees aren't evolving into humans, because they already have their own niche that allows them to survive. Humans have their own niche too, but if that niche remained empty, it doesn't mean that something else will necessarily evolve to fill that gap. There are plenty of other species who use intelligence and communication in quite different ways for their survival.
I understand very well how evolution works and don't need to be educated about it. Nowhere did I state chimpanzees were evolving into humans. But if you like it or not, if humanity were to vanish, chimpanzees (and any other species on this planet) will either perish or evolve into something different. The species we are looking at right now on the planet are only a snapshot of past and future species.
Since evolution tends to bring forth those species that are best adapted to their environments, and humanity is currently the best adapted species when it comes to living on Earth, it is only reasonable to conclude that evolution would bring forth similar species in the future, if humans were to go extinct.
And a few million years is a reasonable time frame for that to happen.
Also, humans do not fill a niche in any ecosystem. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is open to discussion.
IceCream wrote:
Again, it doesn't really matter if a species goes extinct as a whole. What matters is whether humans cause that or not. If a species goes extinct under normal circumstances, they didn't have the right tools to survive in a balance with the rest of that ecosystem. But humans are wiping out species that would have survived if it wasn't for our methods. What usually happens, in an ecosystem, is that populations of everything in that ecosystem rises and falls dependant on each other, but they don't wipe each other out completely.
We shouldn't be interfering to that extent, not least because such short sightedness damages humans themselves.
One could argue that because humans are able to wipe them out, they didn't have the right tools to survive.
Yes and because it doesn't really matter I think arguing that the world would be better off without humans is pointless.
And no, in evolutionary processes species do get wiped out frequently as evidenced by billions of species that noone will ever have a name for because they perished long ago.
I don't think you're getting the point.
It isn't "reasonable to assume" that a similar species would evolve in the future, because humans aren't the "pinnacle of evolution". They're just one species on a branch somewhere. There are many ways a species can be well adapted for their environment or for survival, and many many ways they could be adapted far better than humans are.
As you said yourself, humans aren't particularly well adapted as a member of an ecosystem. What they ARE good at is increasing their population exponentially over an (evolutionarily speaking) short period of time. We're good at surviving, but only in the short term. We aren't anything more than any of those other evolutionary blips (as it stands now).
If you look at ants, cockroaches, or germs, you'll find that they're actually much better at surviving with large populations than we are, because they ARE part of a balanced ecosystem.
Just because humans have a particular way of surviving right now doesn't mean that we're so precious that something else will evolve just like us again. There are many many more ways different species could be adapted for survival than exist or ever existed on our planet, and yes, chance plays a huge part in that.
Yes, there are currently no animals that could survive absolute destruction of their environment. We couldn't either, for that matter, so would you argue that if something else DID have that power, it'd all be fine? Just because we're the ones who have the power to destroy every other living thing's environment doesn't make us evolutionarily better. If some germ came along that wiped out all of it's hosts, without exception, would that make for an evolutionary great? Of course not, that's ridiculous.
Last edited by IceCream (2011 December 16, 5:18 am)
The sole reason why human population numbers are increasing exponentially is because we are the species that is best adapted. We are not precious or anything, but we are better adapted than all (most?) other animals. There is simply nothing like us on this planet.
Name an animal that can live on every continent, can survive in the most extreme circumstances, from -50° C to +50° C. Our species has no natural enemies, most of us don't search and hunt for food.
And the fact that we are the first species to ever leave this planet is absolutely crucial.
Looking at our current technological progress, if we can survive another 1000 years (nothing in evolutionary terms) we will no longer be dependent on this planet.
Within a few ten thousand years, we could have colonized most nearby star systems.
Within a few ten million years, we could have colonized the entire galaxy.
I'm not saying this is going to happen, but it would certainly be possible. Evolution is happening on a galactic scale too.
Long story short: Humans are the best adapted species on this planet. We are sooooo close to being independent from this planet. Only a few thousand years left, NOTHING compared to the evolution of our species. If we don't manage it, I'm sure evolution will bring forth another species who will accomplish it.
Last edited by apirx (2011 December 16, 5:41 am)
there are plenty of other species that can live on any other continent, and manage huge populations without detroying their own environment. But i don't think you're actually willing to rationalise about our position.
Sadly, it's that very attitude that means that humans have a very slim chance of surviving in the long run.
Global population is not increasing exponentially. The global birthrate is falling...
Meanwhile we are becoming more efficient in our food production. Part of this increased efficiency is only possible because of the economies of scale that come with larger population. Anyway, if some resource becomes scarce, the prices will rise and the market will adapt accordingly.
IceCream wrote:
there are plenty of other species that can live on any other continent, and manage huge populations without detroying their own environment. But i don't think you're actually willing to rationalise about our position.
I'm not one with the church to say humans are special and have souls and whatever. I do know humans are still animals. But you will have to accept the simple fact that humans and other animals are not equal in terms of accomplishments.
No animal has ever been this close to being independent from this planet, the planet we all emerged from.
IceCream wrote:
Sadly, it's that very attitude that means that humans have a very slim chance of surviving in the long run.
Sadly, there is only one thing that can wipe out humans, and it's not my attitude, but nuclear weaponry.
um... the global birth rate is definately not falling, though it's not exponential anymore, no.
We have 7 billion now, and are expected to reach 10 billion by 2050. When i was born, in 1984, there were 4 billion.
"Efficiency" has it's own costs, in terms of disease, and pests. A few years ago we were managing to kill off shiploads of bees because of the pesticides used on such "efficient" crops. If you read the literature surrounding efficient production, you'll see plenty of ways it's not really working for us as much as we'd like.
Unfortunately, when resources like food and water, and energy to grow such "efficient" food becomes scarce, lots of us just end up starving, precicely because the market responds to that. It isn't the best idea to wait until the market takes care of it. And, if you've been watching the news, and riots over food prices, you'll understand that it is already starting to happen.
apirx wrote:
IceCream wrote:
Sadly, it's that very attitude that means that humans have a very slim chance of surviving in the long run.
Sadly, there is only one thing that can wipe out humans, and it's not my attitude, but nuclear weaponry.
we're far more likely to destroy ourselves through destroying our own environment through ignorance and ignorant behaviour than we are through nuclear weaponry. Then again, nuclear weapons are just one more example of that, so...
IceCream wrote:
apirx wrote:
IceCream wrote:
Sadly, it's that very attitude that means that humans have a very slim chance of surviving in the long run.
Sadly, there is only one thing that can wipe out humans, and it's not my attitude, but nuclear weaponry.
we're far more likely to destroy ourselves through destroying our own environment through ignorance and ignorant behaviour than we are through nuclear weaponry. Then again, nuclear weapons are just one more example of that, so...
Global warming won't wipe out all humans. Insufficient oil won't wipe out all humans. Destroying the rainforest won't wipe out all humans. Insufficient food and water will not wipe out all humans. Reducing our numbers, sure, but not wiping us from the face of the planet. Even another (non-nuclear) world war won't wipe out all humans.
Nuclear weaponry really is the only way for humans to wipe themselves out.
Last edited by apirx (2011 December 16, 6:11 am)
it really depends on the extent of our destruction. If we're willing to drive species to extinction, and let the market take care of resources, there won't be anything left for humans. Most humans don't even have the skills necessary to survive on their own if they needed. Perhaps indiginous tribes would be left, which would be fine by me. But so much for our "great technological advances", because they need natural resources to run.
Last edited by IceCream (2011 December 16, 6:13 am)
IceCream wrote:
um... the global birth rate is definately not falling, though it's not exponential anymore, no.
We have 7 billion now, and are expected to reach 10 billion by 2050. When i was born, in 1984, there were 4 billion.
by your own data, the birthrate is falling. That means population will eventually level off and then start falling. Between 1984 and 2011, the population increased by 3 billion in 27 years. From 2011 to 2050 (39 years), the population is expected to increase only another 3 million despite expected increases in lifespan.
ah, i see, yes. The birthrate is falling. Yes, it is expected to level off eventually... it has to whether we like it or not. The challenge is to not destroy the world in the meantime.
IceCream wrote:
it really depends on the extent of our destruction. If we're willing to drive species to extinction, and let the market take care of resources, there won't be anything left for humans. Most humans don't even have the skills necessary to survive on their own if they needed. Perhaps indiginous tribes would be left, which would be fine by me. But so much for our "great technological advances", because they need natural resources to run.
I cannot think of a single human caused catastrophe that will reduce our society to tribes apart from wmds.
well, start by researching how we produce our food. Think about what kinds of resources are really necessary for society to continue indefinately. Try watching that video series i posted above.
We're haven't solved these problems yet, and time is pressing on. If we do get there, it'll be down to those humans who aren't willfully ignorant, and employ a great deal of forethought.
Last edited by IceCream (2011 December 16, 6:50 am)
IceCream wrote:
well, start by researching how we produce our food. Think about what kinds of resources are really necessary for society to continue indefinately. Try watching that video series i posted above.
Lack of food/water can maybe reduce population growth to zero or even induce a recession, but in no way will it reduce humans to critical numbers. Also, resources don't have to last indefinitely.
IceCream wrote:
We're haven't solved these problems yet, and time is pressing on. If we do get there, it certainly won't be thanks to people with attitudes like yours...
I'd like to return the compliment since I'm not the one heralding doomsday.
Yes, these problems should be adressed rather sooner than later, but even if they aren't adressed at all, they may cause a lot of death and misery, but there is certainly no danger for humanity as a species (once again with the exception of nuclear war).
i'm hardly heralding doomsday. Just trying to say that humans should be a little more rational about their "great achievements".
And no, there's no way i can save the planet. I don't have the right skills and experience, so the best i can do is try not to make it worse.
like i said before, you're obviously not willing to accept rational thought, so there's not really any point in this discussion. There's no way i can convince you, but i really suggest you do some research on it on your own, that would help a lot.
edit: do you really think that a lack of ability to mass produce food would just cause a lack of population growth, or a bit of a recession?? or are you arguing for the sake of it...?
Last edited by IceCream (2011 December 16, 7:23 am)
Can you please stop making assumptions about the rationality of my thoughts? Or for that matter, about me at all? I don't think that is necessary in a discussion. Except if you're trying to end it.
And I also don't see how you were trying to convince me of anything, as you have largely ignored any points I made. I tried, however, to address every single point you made. Looks like I valued what you wrote a lot higher than the other way round. Reread the thread, maybe you will notice.
Yes and finally you tell me to do my research. I don't see the point of a discussion on this level either.
Last edited by apirx (2011 December 16, 7:31 am)
i'm sorry that i've insulted you. You're right, it's not helpful. If there are any points you'd like me to go back and address, i can do that. But really, in the meantime, it would be worth looking into some of this stuff on your own, since it's going to be far more informative to you than this kind of discussion where you (i mean universal "you" here, not you in particular) feel like it's necessary to stick to preconceived opinions no matter what. I also should, and do do the same, regularly, so... i'm not just talking about you.
Last edited by IceCream (2011 December 16, 7:58 am)
Interesting thread... I agree with IceCream. 10 billion people combined with increasing technological prowess seems like a recipe for an endless rolling environmental disaster.