»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Population
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Population |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Do you think in general, how numerous we are as humans permits us to "function" as we should? Do we have enough space from one human body to others? How does one approach something like this? Is it important? Just wondering what your thoughts are. Thanks |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Mad_Hatter Member
since 2003-06-29
Posts 393Canada |
If I'm reading the question right, then in my opinion it was one of the most important. Having so many people on earth creats complications, mainly because humans haven't fully evolved in the spirit and the soul. We're still very primitive about things and aren't interconnected. Having so many people on earth makes humanity alot less personal, we almost look at people who live far away from us as a different species. The fact that there are so many of us distracts us from the real problems, by creating new unnecessary ones that are spawned from the original problems. Until we learn to live together as one, we shouldn't technically have another child born on this earth. Humanity however, is probably nearing it's peak and therefore having more of us seems, in an evolutionary sense the most logical; the more people there are, the more oportunity to better us. However we cannot become what we we were meant to be, until we stop seeing eachother as different this and different that. Thats my two cents. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't understand what 'should' means. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Madhatter, Brad et al With should I mean as is best to for our own health and the world's weal in general. I don't have enough time to converse right now; but I will be back in a while. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-20-2003 09:35 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Is 300,000 square feet (6.5 acres) of land per person enough for us to function as we 'should'? Overpopulation is a very subjective concept. There are about 68 people per square mile in the United States... worldwide about 96 per square mile. quote: from http://www.crta.org/webfiles/antithesis/v1n4/ant_v1n4_growth.html Some people choose to live in rural areas where population is sparse. Some in urban areas where it is dense. Each, obviously, prefers it that way.... how can we reach a conclusive answer to your question? It's an important question -- but difficult to answer objectively -- I've seen some studies that support a maximum world population of 40 billion. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (12-20-2003 09:57 PM).] |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Not to mention the many different cultural ways of living that there are... nomadic hunter\gatherer sedentary farmer inner-city dweller etc etc etc I'm not sure this question can be answered in a nice 'tie it all up neatly' way...  K |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Liebig’s law of the minimum is an important component of the question -- whatever single resource is in the shortest supply will constrain the growth of a crop, or a population -- regardless of lifestyle choice. In the 19th century when coal was the primary source of heat and the skies over metropolitan areas were dark with ash I'm sure a coal shortage would have invoked panic -- just as oil prices drive our current economy. Humanity prevails (so far). Politics enters into the picture too. President Bush is, miraculously, touting investment in hydrogen energy -- but (surprise surprise) is proposing the bulk of government funding for producing hydrogen from... (you guessed it) oil? One of the least efficient methods of production which also emits the same pollutants into the environment during production. Tsk Tsk Mr. President... you can do better. But Hydrogen is an excellent, safe form of energy and you can make it from a glass of water with the sun.... when you burn it you get --- ta da -- water. Boron may also be a rival for hydrogen in energy storage and release... that's what the real problem is -- fuel is just a convenient way to store and release energy -- and energy is in no short supply in the universe. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Try telling that to the Hindenburg, LR.  Energy, almost by definition, is unsafe in all but the most controlled circumstances. But I suspect most of know what you meant. Robert Heinlein wrote, circa 1941, about a time he called "The Crazy Years," a period in his remarkably consistent Future History, which itself spanned most of his work. I don't have the short story that first introduced me to Heinlein's Crazy Years, haven't seen it in at least thirty years, but I think it was titled " Blowups Happen." It opened with a woman casually stripping on a busy street corner, for absolutely no reason except she could. Crazy Years, indeed. Take a bunch of rats, enclose them in too small a cage, and they very quickly start developing neurosis. They go a bit crazy. Our cage isn't yet too small, and there's no doubt science will reveal many, many new things in the years to come that will make it more comfortable and accommodating. But it is still a cage, and if we don't escape from the cage, the outcome is as inevitable as two plus two equals four. There is no such thing as unlimited growth. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well that's certainly not the first time I've heard that objection Ron... and... are you being flip? Heh.. I was raised in the muscle car years and I loved them... wanted to go fast... big blocks, big tires, loud roars, low gears, sprint runners, high-end runners... but about the time I was old enough to actually drive one the energy crisis had hit and the whole world seemed to be insane. Not to mention the fact that President Nixon was freezing us to death by asking us to turn down our thermostats -- but even worse!!! 55mph!!!  I immediately began trying to come up with alternative solutions. I was in utter shock.... yes.. shock... to discover that the internal combustion engine I was in love with was probably one of the stupidest and most in-efficient designs for power transmission ever created. To wit -- the fact that it needs to be cooled... duh... little did I realize that all the excess heat was just wasted energy. The whole concept of taking a translational motion (pistons inside a cylinder) and converting it into torsional energy via articulated torque arms (levers -- or.. Rods for those of you who've ever thrown one through a block) is so absurd it's a wonder it ever caught on. But, then there was that whole love affair with VHS wasn't there? One of the first places I looked for answers was alternate fuels -- and began very early on trying to develop ethanol and hydrogen producing systems -- but -- given my youth and the constant reference to the Hindenberg -- I was unable to attract the required capital. Pioneers always take the arrows. It is a little known fact though that it was the Diesel fuel on the Hindenberg that caused most of the mayhem though -- the H2 merely exploded and was gone... the aftermath of burning diesel is what killed most of the victims that unfortunate day... but, control is the key... and fuel cell technology is coming up to speed... one of my final projects was a covert attempt to build the required assembly equipment -- which is very difficult because fuel cells require some very thin and fragile web elements -- which masqueraded as 'Oxygen Generators' -- ha... the cheif project engineer was shocked when I called his bluff and said it was a fuel cell -- what.. do they think we're idiots? If I can tie this back into the thread somehow -- there are finite resources on Terra Firma but there is little shortage of brain capital -- greed -- that's what's stupid. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think the way people fancy cars today is ridiculous. These take hundreds of lives a year, injure many more, they pollute, clutter space, they rust, make junkyards, are the objects of many crimes, the causes of many accidents; they make us immodest and hurried to get places and greedy for money to get them and sell them; we have to take up so much space to accomodate them; they go out of fashion in their forms like all machines; they are advertised too excess and the dealerships display them in excess. I get too weary to admire them anymore. Compared to the ill and discomforts they cause despite what they are meant to be for humankind, enhancers of living, the virtue and good things they offer seem very minor now. I wish I could enjoy them as much as other people seem to, but I don't think I ever will until very many changes come. If I were mayor I would probably put all carmedia and streets underground, and cars would have to stay there so people wouldn't have to see them or watch out for them when they come up for a walk and fresh air in the real world. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-21-2003 02:44 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
With the exception of India, how many nations are even at replacement reproduction rates? I can't think of any advanced nation that is. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Interesting... Asia growing at about 1.7% annually North America .6% Europe down .05% http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/population_growth_rate/ |
||
|
Mad_Hatter Member
since 2003-06-29
Posts 393Canada |
Lesser developed countries have a greater population growth and Asia would have a higher growth rate because of the sheer ammount of people that it has. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: Hydrogen fuel cells generate power by chemical reaction, not combustion. The misconception that hydrogen fuel cells are can blow up like H2 is a myth. The by-products of the chemical reaction are water and heat and many fuel cells are capable of generating power at 90% or better efficiency even after 10 or more years. But you probably already knew that. It does make sense for energy generation suppliers to be involved in the development of renewable and alternate sources of power, since they are most able to recover research and development costs by rate payers and shareholders. Jim |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: In truth, I didn't (though some might argue combustion IS chemical reaction, Jim). I'll have to look up some current research when time permits and see what's been happening. I've read a bit about the end products, i.e., battery-powered and hybrid battery/gas vehicles, and wasn't terribly impressed. Higher prices and lower performance probably isn't going to be a big market performer. I still remember, a few years back, when the cold fusion hullabaloo came out of Utah? There was about a week there when I think was honestly as excited as I've ever been in my life. Had it been true, it would have changed everything. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Ron: Prices will come down in time, but you need demand before mass production becomes a viable business option. I attended a Pennsylvania Joint Legislative Air & Water Pollution Control & Conservation Committee meeting at which Siemens presented on their Solid Oxide Fuel Cells. There website has some decent information and another good link: http://www.siemenswestinghouse.com/en/fuelcells/history/index.cfm?session=2599649x79 396907 http://www.fuelcells.org/ Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (12-22-2003 01:18 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
My emphasis on cars earlier I thought was valid because it seems they are almost as numerous as people in our North America and many people have more than one car: and when they are in motion they require even much more area. They take up much more than people themselves. But I think other structures, and possessions, that shall generally be raised withal should be considered when judging a population weal: everything counts. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-22-2003 02:22 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Basically our popular notion of progress yet seems to follow the Romans' linear toward city-structure seeking and push away from ruralness and direct intimacy with nature; And Christendom, inculcating one should not seek spirit through nature's physical bodies but always through the church, a structure, and the bible another structure. These influences basically abolished our faith in nature as a source of of divinity and wisdom and enlightenment in which to live; so how could the humanworld have evolved to live anything but city and structure-centered, when The Romans and Christian missions mastered our minds through so much of history? The Roman conquest of structuralism still shows very much, but Christianity and Spiritual purposes in general are basically now taken over by affixation to Science and Technology. The Roman conquest for making the world into a street of city-structures continues, only now with even more devastating ordinance of massive technology against nature ruling even more massive populations with minds more mechanically determined and less distracted by spiritual delay. The main world still puts more faith and attention to Structures than to Nature; that is what I have a problem with. To me urbanization and structuralization do not mean "civilization" Especially when accumulation is there sought more than cultivation and takes people too far away from naturalness and ruralness. The problem is when we live in excess urbanization, where cars are pouring in our face almost everywhere, and building and roads take away almost all the green landscape, with traffic of such massive populations full of haste, we become the savages of our own structure -of the structure that was made to keep us from being savages of nature. Are the main centers of the human world, so dense with population, so inflexible that as city-structures growing all the time, could never consider or make a new plan that is a bit more observant to letting us live with the natural world a bit more, a bit slower, a bit less pressed, a bit less complex? Why do we let so many negative excesses go on? Is it impossible to downsize and reverse just a bit? [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-23-2003 02:48 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Humans said they loved the natural landscape; they banned it for the city. They said they loved the horse that helped draw their burdens through war and peace; they abandoned it for the unliving luxury of a hastewagon that pollutes, and creates an enviroment given to thousands of accidents, injuries deaths and yards of metal junk. They said they loved civilization; they banned it for business and technology; they said they loved religion, they forsook it for science. They said they loved God, they forsook him for selfworship and luxury. What is left of civilization that may possibly given away? It looks like we fared from the basement of natural ignorance to a noble crest, and have now returned to the same basement we learnt to will ourselves from, only now willing ourselves to it. |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
You know Ess...this may sound like a judgement, but do you really see the world through such negative eyes? It sounds to me like you idealise and glorify past civilisations, and have condemned our own completely. There is good in our civilisation Ess, there really is. Medicine. Travel. Global communication (which is, to me at least, a huge benefit). The movement toward equal opportunity for women and men (though we are not quite there yet). Opportunity in general - it is more widely available for many. I like lists..they give the impression you can write more and more and more lol. The fact is hon I'm being slightly hypocritical because when I immerse myself in fantasy literature I often think 'wow, I wish I could be there...it's so much better, so much purer' etc etc. Truthfully? That's crap. I'm sure that if you actually lived in the time of horses and cute little carriages and leeches and bloodletting you'd find a lot to complain about then too. It's our nature (prerogative?) to complain. How else would 'progress' occur? Heh... K |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Curious if anybody's read The Country and the City by Raymond Williams. |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
just a small comment Ess...I moved away from a larger county in another state over 28 years ago across the line into the next state and although I have seen change over the years...we still do not even have a traffic light for miles around... the town is old..and the old is still there ( some from the times of horse and buggies). In fact my neighbor who passed away about 10 years ago use to tell me of the weekly trips to Baltimore and how they would spend the night delivering coal. Now it takes 35 minutes to get there by car... You can have country living, suburban living or city dwelling, be at the seashore if that is what you choose..or go to the mountains and be alone...it's all a matter of choice and wants. M |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
A question Ess - at which point did we reach a 'noble crest' anyway? K |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
This much is certain... Ess is not the first poet to eschew civilization and favor nature.. eh?  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"You know Ess...this may sound like a judgement, but do you really see the world through such negative eyes?" The human world or the world that's buried a thousand layers underneath that? "I'm sure that if you actually lived in the time of horses and cute little carriages and leeches and bloodletting you'd find a lot to complain about then too." I think I would rather live with horses and leeches and the small inconviences they make than unliving machines that cause more wickedhaste and destruction and pollution everyday. "...I'm being slightly hypocritical because when I immerse myself in fantasy literature I often think 'wow, I wish I could be there...it's so much better, so much purer' etc etc. Truthfully? That's crap." That's because most fantasy literature is usually based on most curious and unique attributes of former times, manners and mysteries, when men and women were knights and maids, and lord and ladies, in a pursuit of honour and protecting each others honour. I really think those things did exist, not as ideally drawn in fantasy books; but there was a dignified senstiveness about honour and shame, that both men and women had, despite some of the roughness they also had to live with. We also live with roughness today but I don't think that dignified senstiveness is there to counter that as much as it was in early times. [This message has been edited by Essorant (03-14-2004 05:23 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
You can have country living, suburban living or city dwelling, be at the seashore if that is what you choose..or go to the mountains and be alone...it's all a matter of choice and wants. Where? If you are born in the city you are caught in a much larger web. You have to have money for the transportation because it the city is too many miles broad to walk without taking up an age of your life to get to where it ends. You can't just take a leisurely walk anymore and find grove to sit in, or a stream to sit by, or a plain to enjoy quiet in. The cities are so big, no one may walk out of them easily to find nature's habitat, a woodland, a lake, a meadow. If it is a hill or a lake Ocassionally it is too large for a city to remove therefore it has to gird it and live with it, but in most cases, the city gets the best of nature. How many groves are in your city? How many natural places, that aren't extremely isolated and very surrounded by buildings, streets, cars and humans? How many times do you see a horse, or goat, or sheep, unless you watch TV and then how often do you see them outside the context of how our fellow earthlings are doing at the meat market for humans, unless you have a speciality channel like natural geographic? Doesn't it strike you at all strange that we have to be so distant from the more natural living we used to be so close to? Do you really agree with the modern idea of progress of ruralness being at the bottom and urbanization at the top? Look at how the internet is: predominated by advertisment, business and money making, and pornography: these are the kinds of things that are coming into human minds today. These same kind of people that predominate on the internet, are the people who run things in the real world as well. People may do whatever they wish basically on the interent; they have the freedom to make a community as ideal as they wish; and still the internet turns out to be more full of excess and vice than anything. How may we trust that the internet isn't like a token of what people are trying to do to the real world? If these mentalities don't give a predominatly moral shape and manner to a "virtual" world, how may we trust they are trying to impart one to the real world? [This message has been edited by Essorant (03-14-2004 06:26 PM).] |
||
|
nakdthoughts Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
I live in a small Pennsylvania town...moved here 28 years ago because I could afford it after the first oil shortage raised the prices of homes...and bought an older, cheaper fixer upper one that needed love and care instead of new. I did not take away from this community but renewed a part of its history. And if I wanted to and had the youth and strength I could bike my way (as many do) to every place but the ocean...I am surrounded by farmland, mts not too far away depending on what one might call a mt in this area, streams and rivers and nature on a 44 mile bike path, where I have ridden at least half of it and returned enjoying nature, animals, birds, trees, friendly relaxed faces. There are park benches (dedicated in memory of some who have died) to rest on...I guess it depends where you choose to live. And it is a choice. Just because you grew up in a city ( I did) doesn't mean you have to stay there. And it doesn't necesarily take alot of money. You choose the style of living you want, the field you wish to work in and how you wish to live. There are people here who have lots of money and things and those who have only enough to live day to day but are very satisfied here. It would be hard for me to move from here, if I had to someday. Ess, I have no idea what it is like in Canada although someday I would like to visit..but many communities that are being built, at least in the east are designed to keep nature available...trees must be planted..there are lands that must be set aside for parks...even the inner cities are being remodeled/renewed (mostly for tourists) but who cares as long as they offer the view and comfort for those who also live there to take walks by the bay or harbors...we have more mass transit( some underground) that does keep the cars off the roads in the busiest areas. I do agree that the highways are way too crowded (too many not sharing rides) and even with speed limits raised, the traffic can be at a standstill..some of that is overcrowdedness but much is due to poor driving skills with people darting from one lane to another causing traffic to stop and let them in to get off the highways, if not in the proper lanes. Anyway... I am not always happy with what they call progress...but if not needing to build for the next generations then I guess we would all go back to having ourselves, our children and their children living in the same household...if there is nowhere for them to go. p.s. porn and the internet and or cable tv/movies is another topic in itself... M |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Nope. Whether you are born in the city or not, you face choices that need to be made. You don't like the choices you've made in the past? Stop blaming the situation and start making new choices. Oh, but there might be a personal cost or sacrifice required? Yep. There always is. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Thank you. I know what you both say is true. |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
'How many groves are in your city? How many natural places, that aren't extremely isolated and very surrounded by buildings, streets, cars and humans?' Many actually. Many. I live in the area classified as the 'central city.' In 30 seconds I can walk into a nice little park. In 30 minutes I can reach a large park that, once you are in the middle of it, you can't hear any traffic. In 20 minutes by bus - 40-60 minutes (depending on pace) I can reach a very large park that is peaceful, secluded and is 15 minutes walk from the cbd. Same distance, I can reach the park that was just across the road from my university. In 30 minutes by car I can reach over 30 beaches on two coasts and\or secluded bush walks that take you far away from humans. The plethora of beaches means that they are not, as a general rule, over-populated (though the most popular are in the middle of summer). One beach requires a 30 minute hike so when I was there - it was deserted. It does exist Ess. However, I like living in a city. I like the convenience. I chose to come here from the country. I like going to sleep to the sound of traffic. I like waking up early sometimes to the peaceful sound of birds. Not all cities are horror-stories of concrete and grime. Auckland has it share of that, but I think it's pretty balanced as far as a city goes. As for fantasy...ever read Steven Erikson? Hah..that'd dispel your notions... grin.. K |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Severn That sounds like a city unlike most out there. And yet I still have a feeling that those more natural spaces you mention are probably quite isolated and not part of an obvious naturalness that continues throughout the whole city and is preserved to balance the overall structuralism that keeps growing. Even though I sense from your words that there is still more naturalness there overall than many. The direction overal is still to make the city thicken in almost all cases, and to thinify the natural aspects as small as possible, to provide more room for ever larger populations and more technological traffic. But unfortunatly the real, natural world, is not going to get larger for these larger populations and greater traffic! The Romans made the basic "blueprint" where houses are very compactly together fixed on lines and very closely girt by streets; and every step they tried to take with yet some moderation and failed somewhat in, all the following world would take with even less moderation in mind and further lack moderation in performing again, and thus all the cities went to excess because the plan was based on over-expansion from the very start. If the housing arrangements have to be so pressed together, and so close to the streets, obviously, things are fasshioned with a mind to keep room for much more density and accumulation, and we fill that motion-room with as much density and accumulation of urbanization as the great ambition that must have filled the initial plan. There is nothing wrong with modern business and technology, in and of them as things people wish to live with and enhance their living with but it is wrong in how people put those into so much excessive densnesses and haste and pressure, over all things, and intrude upon the natural world so violently, and then treat lesser evil, like less pollution as "good" Yes less pollution is good in a sense, but pollution in any case is not good for anything, and the more little bits of it there, even though it is "less," the more it adds up again. No one may justify discarding the horse from human society. Horses through throughout history were companions to Human, in his travels, and plans; every one knows that cars are more "powerful" and faster than horses. But no one may deny that cars have put all the world in more danger, than horses did or may. And cars don't have any living instincts, and are not beings, contrary to how some people seem to fancy them. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
From the Formation of England (H.Finberg): "The civilization of the Roman Empire had been [was] an urban one. The life of the early middle ages was primarily rural. This transition is implicitly a tale of decline, for urban life is more complicated, more structured than rural life, and an urbanized society invariably is one that has transcended [transcends]its high degree of direct dependence upon agricultural and pastoral activity." This is more in context with england of course; but I think the continued and modern idea of "progress" seems to fall in basically the same mentality. More Rationalization and Urbanization for ages were treated like the footprints of Civilization and our minds are not very different today; we continue to build a part of the "Empire" the Romans had, and pretend that we are on some superior level based a a lot on distance away from the more rural and natural life. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
