ARE WE CROWDING THE EARTH?
July 21, 2007 at 5:17 pm #7981
The environmental problems that cause so much world-wide concern may mean that the Earth’s resources are not less but that we are more. Decades ago, “over-population” was considered a big threat but the dire predictions that were based on it have never been born out. It might seem that with the right technology, we can pile up our numbers indefinitely. By living in high rise buildings, we would never even be limited in space. We could make room for one hundred billion of us. It all depends upon our technological ability to keep compensating for the continuing decline in per capita resources and the rising cost of obtaining them.
But suppose the scientific age began to falter, to slow down and even come to an end. Then, living standards would drop in direct proportion to the rise in population and the decline of science and technology. It is not as though this cannot happen! It has happened over and over again in world history.
One thing that could slow and then stop the growth of science and technology would be a continuation of the turning back to the old religions. The Age of Science came to fruition in the Age of Enlightenment. But by electing “born again” presidents, we are changing that. Pat Robertson-trained people pouring into the Federal bureaucracy is helping. No wonder scientists have to keep defending evolution. Science is becoming less and less effective in our society.
People are turning back to the old faiths because the stress level of society is rising. That has some thing to do with feeling over-crowded. Rats and mice have been shown to exhibit so much stress from feeling over-crowded that they experience a behavioral deterioration. It occurs not from lack of food but just being too close. I suggest that we feel crowded in direct proportion to how much we are ideologically divided. It is hard to feel close to someone who has an entirely different world-view and way of thinking.
July 21, 2007 at 7:53 pm #74712kotoreruParticipant
I read somewhere that, if stood shoulder to shoulder, the entire human race could fit neatly onto a land area the size of the Isle of Mann.
July 21, 2007 at 10:21 pm #74713JDavidEParticipant
Interesting I find it difficult to legitimise a rationale for this ‘house of cards’ scenario, Charles. And certainly more difficult to predict the breaking strain if it were legitimate. I would have thought the evolutionary dictum would be a decline in birth rate the more a society evolved technologically as seems to be borne out by modern trends. However, that would be a sociological problem, surely, not one of evolution. Still, it’s an interesting theory. I was about to close but suddenly wondered how your theory would explain historical examples such as the crusades and the Catholicization of the Americas? Any ideas?
Oh, and Kotoreru wrote: “I read somewhere that, if stood shoulder to shoulder, the entire human race could fit neatly onto a land area the size of the Isle of Mann.”
I think I still have a T-shirt from that rock concert.
July 22, 2007 at 3:39 pm #74733DarbyParticipant
Any "trends" in the rationale / religion shifts are still affecting a pretty small fraction of the world’s population, and even fewer of their governments, and even then for fairly limited timeframes. Like the population doomsayers, you’re using limited datapoints and localized effects to make very broad predictions.
July 23, 2007 at 2:06 pm #74755quote JDavidE:
A decline in the birth rate affects only the wealthier society and does not prevent the continued growth of world population. It is not an evolutionary dictum because it is a SOCIAL evolutionary dictum, a dictum or process that religion-bonded societies have followed throughtout the history of human civilizations. Why the process occurs can even be explained.
In a world loaded with WMDs, how can one doubt but what a normal breakdown in a world empire can now cause a "house of cards" senario?
The crusades is easily explained and is in my work. It was a barbarian invasion on the civilization of Islam and a unifying "Cause" to Christendom. Should I elaborate?
The lower Americas were Catholicized because they were conqured by a militant Spanish-Fundamentalist Catholic segment of Christendom.
July 23, 2007 at 3:42 pm #74757khenwoodParticipantquote charles brough:
You discount the huge multitude of people that appreciate the differences in others. Or people who move to large cities so that they can experience & appreciate different cultures & world-views. Or people who have relatives in several countries & travel to them frequently to immerse themselves in culture – I am in this category. Need I go on with more examples? No.
If people feel crowded, it’s because of where they live & the overall population size. People that don’t like this usually move.
But you can’t narrow this cause-and-effect of "crowdedness=changed behaviors" down the demographics of a population. So I have to disagree with your end conclusion.
That being said, are we crowding the earth? Yes.
Has science failed us? No. The science is objective, it’s just science!
It’s up to the people & their governments to handle it responsibly & intellectually enough to make sure there is enough growth in various fields AND make sure it can be used by the people in a safe way.
July 27, 2007 at 4:24 pm #74821quote khenwood:
Where is this ‘huge multitude’ of people who like to live with people of other religions? Are they the persecuted Christians in the Near East, the Sunis and Shia in Iraq, the Muslims in the U.S. or atheists living in the Southern U.S.? Perhaps you are thinking of wealthy U.S. tourists who leave their small communites where the local newspaper has no international news at all and go on voyages to foreign resorts to see wild animals and native dances?
"crowding" is a biological/sociological term which can be used to refer to a teleological state that can result in behavioral changes, increased stress, or whatever that can lead to a population crash. We humans do not escape this process. We experience it when the beliefs that bind us into society divide, the more they divide, the more society weakens and social problems grow. This is not a simplistic process. This is just an introduction to the subject. When you then admit that we ARE crowding the Earth, you might be admitting to something you do not understand.
July 30, 2007 at 6:43 pm #74875khenwoodParticipant
Well – you posted, I responded to further the discussion.
I’m not going to argue with you or throw insults, because arguing on a forum for the sake of arguing is pretty lame.
But let me clarify a bit –
Where is this ‘huge multitude’ of people who like to live with people of other religions? I did say "huge multitude", but I never said religion. I said differences. I wouldn’t want to limit "differences" to religion, especially when I was responding to your initial statement about differences in "world-view and way of thinking".
Also, crowding has very different meanings on demographic levels. I’m not sure you or I could really judge & understand the effects individual populations feel from crowding. Too many factors come in to play.
As for the rest, I will PM you so that everyone else can get back to the discussion.
July 30, 2007 at 7:37 pm #74879quote khenwood:
Seems like you are responding to one of my more cranky posts! Anyway, a religion is to me a world-view and way of thinking. Of course, in our society, we also have a secular belief system that we try to believe is compatable with the basic, older and more obsolete religious one. The two together comprise the world-view and way of thinking that enables the UN, the global economy, etc.
Overcrowding is indeed a big and complex field, one that is rather alien to the general public. It is not quite an accepted subject.
I am happy to get back to the subject whatever it is . . .
August 27, 2007 at 6:33 am #75470david23Participant
We know the problems as scientists, lets figure out some solutions.
1. Over population creates a strain on the world resources. Famine as well as problems will emerge.
2. More humans, more cities equals more destruction of wild life and eventually more pollutions.
Lets solve these problems if we can.
Physicist might suggest the invention of cold fusion as an alternative fuel.
Us biologists can also contribute. We can attempt to engineer better crops, and create bacteria to eliminate pollution. We can attempt to increase plants’ ability to consume more oxygen and use it to reduce global warming problems.
Basically people should not turn their backs on science. It’s not impossible to improve the planet, just takes a little hard work. And eventually all that stress due to overcrowding will be eliminated.
August 28, 2007 at 10:51 am #75511quote david23:
Seems to me science is doing things like that and has for several centuries. that is the only reason we are able to sustain this huge and ongoing increase in world population. What I say is that we need to also slow down and then end world population growth. Instead of that happening, what I believe is that science is doomed to slow down because people are falling back on their own old religions and this necessarily slows down science. It is just a matter of a few years more and evolution, for example, will be replaced in the educational system by "creationism". That is the trend.
A solution? We need to fight the old religions with a whole new world-view and way of thinking.
August 28, 2007 at 5:05 pm #75529quote charles brough:
*sigh* Do you really think you can destroy the Truth that has stood the test of time?
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it.
~ Matthew 16:18
If Hell cannot overcome the Truth, what makes you think you can?
PS – My apologies if this post is taken by some to be "stretching the rules" a bit; I simply felt like I had to say something and this was the most civil way I could think of to express myself. I simply can’t let statements like that go unanswered.
August 28, 2007 at 7:37 pm #75542AstusAleatorParticipant
"A solution? We need to fight the old religions with a whole new world-view and way of thinking."
Charles, whether you like it or not, you’re simply describing a new religion. Furthermore, we do not have ALL the answers, nor will we probably ever, so religion is inescapable.
Like the mythic monsters of old, you can try to chop heads off, but more will grow in their places. Deal with it.
Really I find people like you slightly scary. If you were in control of a country, I don’t think I’d want to live in it. I’m not particularly religious, but I do appreciate my right to practice religion if I so choose, and I respect other people’s decisions to do so.
Ultimately religion is about What Matters Most, and you, Charles, obviously have identified What Matters Most to you, and have set up a nice little doctrine around it that you love to preach to others. I’m sorry, but you sound much like any other religious fanatic out there preaching their Word.
August 28, 2007 at 8:44 pm #75548quote AstusAleator:
That deserves an "AMEN!" 😉
August 28, 2007 at 9:28 pm #75557greeneye55582Participant
Oh man, I didn’t realize this thread was still going on.
Hi everyone! Through a long series of boring details/decisions that I won’t go into here, I decided to consolidate all my my forum accounts into one screenname & email (for the sake of sanity).
Hence, the screenname khenwood (view my previous posts in this topic above) is now greeneye55582. Apparently, screennames can’t be deleted so…
Hi Charles :o) I’m going to view your site soon & PM you my thoughts on it.
Hello everyone else! – I see that people are still tackling Charles & his POV. I don’t think some of his views are necessarily as scary as others’ however.
But I’ve made several comments in this forum already.. taking a break.
September 27, 2007 at 7:31 pm #76449
[/quote]*sigh* Do you really think you can destroy the Truth that has stood the test of time?And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall NOT prevail against it.
~ Matthew 16:18. If Hell cannot overcome the Truth, what makes you think you can? PS – My apologies if this post is taken by some to be "stretching the rules" a bit; I simply felt like I had to say something and this was the most civil way I could think of to express myself. I simply can’t let statements like that go unanswered.[/quote]
Playing to the others does not excuse your PREACHING! I delt with evolution and natural selection but you seem to do nothing but promote Catholicism to me! Please, go to the religious forums and get indignant there instead of all this angst and antagonism here in what should be a reasoned and scientific discussion free of Catholic or any other doctrines.
September 27, 2007 at 7:33 pm #76450
Charles, I will be more than willing to leave my religious beliefs out of this discussion, if you in return do the same with yours. That sounds fair, doesn’t it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.