Originally Posted by Fallacy

Maybe to the uneducated it does. Post an argument or leave.

Originally Posted by Fallacy

Overpopulation. Present trends suggest that even though total population for the world is increasing, the density of population on most of the world's surface will decrease. This is already happening in the developed countries. Though the total populations of developed countries increased from 1950 to 1990, the rate of urbanization was sufficiently great that population density on most of their land areas (say, 97 percent of the land area of the U.S.) has been decreasing. As the poor countries become richer, they will surely experience the same trends, leaving most of the world's surface progressively less populated, astonishing as this may seem.

Originally Posted by Gorman

And what is that about 'past experiences'? There are numerous examples of civilizations wiping themselves out by using up all their natural resources.\
.

Originally Posted by Fallacy

Overpopulation 'crisis' - Bullshit
Natural Resources 'crisis' - Bullshit
Food 'crisis' - Bullshit
Land 'crisis' - Bullshit

I think it's clear by now the message that I'm attempting to get across to you.
I'll address each of the bullshit crises I've called out one by one. If you disagree with me, comment and I'll respond.

Overpopulation. Present trends suggest that even though total population for the world is increasing, the density of population on most of the world's surface will decrease. This is already happening in the developed countries. Though the total populations of developed countries increased from 1950 to 1990, the rate of urbanization was sufficiently great that population density on most of their land areas (say, 97 percent of the land area of the U.S.) has been decreasing. As the poor countries become richer, they will surely experience the same trends, leaving most of the world's surface progressively less populated, astonishing as this may seem.

Natural resources and energy. Hold your hat - our supplies of natural
resources are not finite in any economic sense. Nor does past experience give reason to expect natural resources to become more scarce. Rather, if history is any guide, natural resources will progressively become less costly, hence less scarce, and will constitute a smaller proportion of our expenses in future years. This is called the theory of decreasing natural-resource scarcity. Population growth is likely to have a long-run beneficial impact on the natural-resource situation.

[Running out of]Food. Contrary to popular impression, food production per capita has been increasing for the half century since World War II, the only decades for which we have acceptable data. We also know that famine has progressively diminished for at least the past century. Average height has increased in developed countries in recent centuries, a sign of people eating better. And there is compelling reason to believe that human nutrition will continue to improve into the indefinite future, even with continued population
growth.

Land. Agricultural land is not a fixed resource. Rather, the amount of agricultural land has been increasing substantially, and it is likely to continue to increase where needed. Paradoxically, in the countries that are best supplied with food, such as the U.S., the quantity of land under cultivation has been decreasing because it is more economical to raise larger yields on less land than to increase the total amount of farmland. For this reason, among others, the amount of land used for forests, recreation, and wildlife has been increasing rapidly in the U.S. - hard to believe, but substantiated beyond a doubt.

So really, all of these crises that the media and politicians spurt out all the time are unjustified in the face basic economics. If you're going to respond to this, then put a bit of thought into it.

Originally Posted by WibbleWarrior

If i may... my logic might not agree with yours, but your logic clearly does not agree with mine.

Let us discuss...

Originally Posted by WibbleWarrior

The problem i have with overpopulation is density. i enjoy the wide open areas. the next problem i have with population density is that it breeds babying dependencies. we dont learn how to manage our own stuff, someone else does it for us-specialists who then find ways to profit on such jobs as waste removal and water treatment, resulting in several jobs, in education, waste removal, and most likely at least 2 mechanical careers.
The problem I have with this will be further explained later.

Originally Posted by WibbleWarrior

First, the bolded area: in an economic sense, we are depriving each other of our abundant natural resources more than supplying them freely.
There are plenty of resources for everyone on earth to survive, but not in an economic sense. the monopolization and distribution of organic food and clean water deprive the individual of the independence of maintaining these necessities for one's own self unless explicitly prompted to-generally for the further management of already established agricultural monopolization.

Originally Posted by WibbleWarrior

thus we are forced to 'find jobs' and 'become productive' so as to 'earn' something we then spend on things we want and other things, which we could have otherwise grown for free from the start, leaving us with more time to spend on our own pursuits.

Originally Posted by WibbleWarrior

It is not often encouraged to pursue gardening, and with all the free time we continually assume to provide the public with, life becomes more about technology and quantity and less about biology and quality.

Originally Posted by WibbleWarrior

Balance is crucial, something the whole of humanity still needs to improve. case in point: starving, homeless, human people in first and third world countries.

Originally Posted by WibbleWarrior

Sure, we can learn to grow our own food, but unless we are prompted to, our interests are bred to lie elsewhere; most are more willing to BE taken care of by others and place their faith in the system of distribution, thereby removing all personal power and responsibility to maintain one's own life, ergo no longer possessing ownership of one's own life; thus belonging to whom so ever supplies y/our need(s).

Originally Posted by WibbleWarrior

The responsibility of self sufficiency has become a logical fallacy within the 'progress' of 'development'.

Originally Posted by WibbleWarrior

Independence. read as: I'll put my faith in you to take care of my basic needs for me so that i can be a productive resource for you.

no wait-

Originally Posted by WibbleWarrior

In spite of my arguments, you are correct, that we are growing, in quantum. However, I feel it is dire to recognize our shrinkage in personal quality-that we have come to recognize ourselves as tools, spare parts, cogs in the machine that provides for us... No longer in possession of our own lives...

Originally Posted by WibbleWarrior

Regardless of how 'advanced' our societies become, we always must exchange our personal power for public advancement.

Originally Posted by WibbleWarrior

the whore now more respected for selling out than the warrior for protecting all.
(read as: the soldier now more respected for following orders and killing than the mother for providing for her children and living)

Originally Posted by WibbleWarrior

I agree that things are not as dire as portrayed, however, i do feel there is a strong amount of inherent life quality deprived of us all in our pursuits of quantified progress. it is as though it all belongs to the public, the city, the nation, no longer is there a self whose life has inherent value otherwise than to "produce".

We no longer maintain dominion over our own lives but have been dominated by the tools of our progress.

This is dire in my eyes. a pandemic disease spreading across the globe.

Originally Posted by Fallacy

Overpopulation. Present trends suggest that even though total population for the world is increasing, the density of population on most of the world's surface will decrease. This is already happening in the developed countries. Though the total populations of developed countries increased from 1950 to 1990, the rate of urbanization was sufficiently great that population density on most of their land areas (say, 97 percent of the land area of the U.S.) has been decreasing. As the poor countries become richer, they will surely experience the same trends, leaving most of the world's surface progressively less populated, astonishing as this may seem.

Originally Posted by Fallacy

Nor does past experience give reason to expect natural resources to become more scarce.

Originally Posted by Fallacy

Population growth is likely to have a long-run beneficial impact on the natural-resource situation.

Originally Posted by Fallacy

If you're going to respond to this, then put a bit of thought into it.

Originally Posted by thejodash

I have a new one
Global warming-bullshit
On another note al gore is a man bear pig

Originally Posted by thejodash

Weather changes as a natural process, so i guess I was partially wrong, global warming is a real process. That's obvious through all of the ice ages in the past followed by an extreme heating of the world that melts most of the ice and repeats. It is natural though, humans don't cause it nor are we a main factor of it, we may speed up the process, and we do have an effect, but its not near the magnitude all the scientists say it is. Especially al gores movie which was mainly politically persuading about his not as succesful as wished about not being president story, or guilt tripping about his son who almost died.