are we doomed?

[sky otter]

i just read this cheery little piece this morning but it was put on line in 2010..it may already be too late
guess that's why old b gates is into eugenics and why countries are trying to get off the planet to somewhere else.
guess i better step up my recipe testing, huh





http://www.upworthy.com/a-smartypants-scientist-makes-an-easy-analogy-about-our-planet-and-now-im-scared

A Smartypants Scientist Makes An Easy Analogy About Our Planet, And Now I'm Scared
Rajiv Narayan

A good analogy can go a long way. What's great about this clip is that it starts out all cheery and hypothetical. Then here comes the punch line and BAM you're sort of kind of terrified. I know I am.
Credits:
David Suzuki is the guy who just made you a pee your pants a bit.

Tags:
Environment







Uploaded on Dec 20, 2010

David Suzuki speaks about world populations and how growth, is ultimately suicidal.

[ArMaP]

I don't think so, as there at least two differences between Earth and that theoretical test tube:
1 - the Earth is not full of food, allowing for a constant growth
2 - the population growth does not happen as in the example, people just don't turn into two.

But yes, I am known as being an optimist.

[rdunk]

My thought on this is, it is relevant to we humans here. My problem with it is, in his use of the minute time scale, and his assumption that nothing changes. The scale of minutes, does make it easily understandable, but also more "scary", to get attention. If he had used "eon" as a time scale, would it have been as scary? In astronomy, "eon" is one billion years - if we were already in the middle of the last eon, would we be scared about the end result yet?

Our population is growing- 4 births every second of every day, while almost 2 people die every second of every day. So.............every day the population of the earth grows by about 208,000 people. Each year the population grows by 76 million people. Thus, in 13 years, we will have another billion people on this planet.

We are at about 7 billion people now, so with just simple straight-line growth, in 91 more years the population of the Earth will have doubled to 14 billion. By that time, we may be having to use the Moon for dumping all of our waste and excrement, doncha think?

Yes, moving into space, and to the stars, will be the obvious answer - but can we even do that in the time we have?

[Somamech]

I am with Armap in being optomystic

Check how much food is being thrown into landfill each year worldwide... that will blow anyone's mind.

[sky otter]

i do like the way you guys think...

when i see stuff like this or read about it
it works to make me want to solve the problem not
sit an let it continue...

[Amaterasu]

That sounded like eugenics propaganda to Me.  As was mentioned, because We distribute by profit and not need, We produce about 25% more food than We ALL could eat on this planet (and with vertical farming and other tech, We could be producing enough to feed 100 times the present population), but throw out nearly half because of spoilage.

Also, population growth overall is slowing, going negative in places.  If We lived in a society where We all could pursue Our interests and gifts, that would drop more because the poor would not be relegated to TV and sex for entertainment.  It is a fact that the more "affluent" One is the less likely One is to have large families.

Plus, We are being attacked from many angles which reduce births (BPA's feminize men and can produce sterility, as just one example).

So, I call BS fear mongering on this guy.

[ArMaP]

If We lived in a society where We all could pursue Our interests and gifts, that would drop more because the poor would not be relegated to TV and sex for entertainment.

The poor don't have TV.

[Amaterasu]

Depends where You are, ArMaP.  And without TV...sex is all that's left for entertainment.

[undo11]

the bulk of the world's pop is in india and china, both of which have methods of curtailing population growth by murdering their unborn or newly born females.  in less than a generation (40 years) china's population growth will grind to a halt. i mean a dead halt.  india's will very slowly increase due to the introduction of abortion science. japan will kill its own population by exposure to lethal radiation doses.  the european races, as their number decrease from financial pressures and laws regarding life quality for children, will slowly be killed off by racism and religious fantacism, leaving the planet mostly populated by arabs and blacks.  muslims don't abort and have religious teachings requiring them to have large families. 

game set match

[sky otter]

holy crap, undo...aren't you just ms positive 

[rdunk]

Depends where You are, ArMaP.  And without TV...sex is all that's left for entertainment.

While we each might have differing thoughts about this, for me, the word "entertainment" doesn't come anywhere even close for defining the "drive" of/for sexual relationship, in men or women., unless you are talking about watching it! Sex as entertainment has never entered my mind! TV /entertaining, yes.

I would say that with the current make-up of we humans, the desire/need for sex is almost as powerful as that for food, if not more. But the words "desire" and "need" do not compute to the word "entertainment".

[undo11]

holy crap, undo...aren't you just ms positive 

yeah i realized after i said it that it was kinda grim.  i take it back. hehe
i prefer something like -- all these worlds are yours except europa, and then, the elite snapping out of genocide mode.

[ArMaP]

Depends where You are, ArMaP.

It shouldn't.

And without TV...sex is all that's left for entertainment.

That may be true, but I don't know anyone that considers (publicly) having sex as entertainment, although I have known several people that considered sex as a duty while married, by religious or cultural reasons.

PS: there's still the doubt about poor people feeling the need for entertainment, as that may be not really in their minds.

[deuem]

That may be true, but I don't know anyone that considers (publicly) having sex as entertainment, although I have known several people that considered sex as a duty while married, by religious or cultural reasons.

My guess is you have never been to Thailand

And as far as I know, humans and dolphins are the only two animals on the planet that have sex for entertainment. Ask Clinton or Flipper.
Deuem

[RUSSO]

The poor don't have TV.

Really ArMaP?

Most people have tvs in their homes. Some people dont have what to eat, but when you check their homes, there it is... a TV.(and to be honest, i think if they did not have it, the government would subsidize this to everyone. Its a matter of crowd control in my opinion )

Here in Brazil, for example, almost 100% of the people have televisions as you can see in this study made by the IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics):



here is the oficial document : ftp://ftp.ibge.gov.br/Censos/Censo_Demografico_2010/Familias_e_Domicilios/censo_fam_dom.pdf

As you can see almost 100% (its in brazilian portuguese)

It shouldn't.

Well, i agree with you.

It shouldn't.

But im sure if people around the world didnt were watching TV, our society would be way different. If they were reading books instead, i dont think we would have reached 7 billion people in the world.

It shouldn't.
That may be true, but I don't know anyone that considers (publicly) having sex as entertainment, although I have known several people that considered sex as a duty while married, by religious or cultural reasons.
PS: there's still the doubt about poor people feeling the need for entertainment, as that may be not really in their minds.

Dont you think people enjoy having sex?

en·joy  (n-joi)
v. en·joyed, en·joy·ing, en·joys
v.tr.
1. To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.
2. To have the use or benefit of: enjoys good health.
v.intr.
To have a pleasurable or satisfactory time.
Phrasal Verb:
enjoy oneself
To have a pleasurable or satisfactory time.

https://www.google.com.br/#q=enjoy+definition

Maybe i am doing something wrong, but sex as something that amuses, pleases and entertains pretty much fits in the way i see it. This without going into the merit of the Sexual Imperative.

I don't think so, as there at least two differences between Earth and that theoretical test tube:
1 - the Earth is not full of food, allowing for a constant growth
2 - the population growth does not happen as in the example, people just don't turn into two.

I fully agree!


My opinion is that the own planet, either by natural means (virus, etc) or artificial means (war, etc) tends to self adjust. Being right or wrong, who loses in the end of this story is the human being.


Edit to fix link*