Billionaire 'Good Club' Talks Overpopulation

[Hairball]

Fuck the Catholic Church and every other church for that matter.

Give women, the ones whose wombs give birth to the new people, the POWER to decide whether or not they want any more babies living in their bellies, and suddenly everything changes.

I don't get it. What changes? Do women not want to have children?

Not all the time I don't think...sometimes they may just like to make whoopee without the presence of a baby in the equation.

O Rly? All our problems would be solved if we had more women like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4253849.stm

[smiths]

i certainly wasnt advocating killing a third of the worlds population in some devilish way,

if however if i were hypothetically to advance such a point of view (which i wont) i would hypothetically get rid of the fat, lazy, close-minded, braindead, cancer ridden third of the worlds population that inhabit north america, europe and australia,

for it would hypothetically seem to me that the future surely lies with those who stay lean and quick witted in childhood and have to invent games and activities since they have no TV's, computers, poptarts and couches,
those who hunger so hard for a better life for their family and a chance to put their intelligence and energy to use that they are prepared to risk everything in boats and treks over great distances

naturally though,i would rather see a volunteer based global programme to reduce population through contraception over a few generations
i would also like to see volunteer based reduction of consumption and luxury standards in the 'western world'

cos currently most of my fellow westerners sicken me with their lifestyles

having said that i would like to state that i do love and admire hhumans in many ways and certainly dont wish to see the end of them on planet earth, (though planet earth would no doubt sigh with relief if we did just bugger off for a collective holiday for a while)

[Nordic]

Geez, are you gonna make me look up all the studies that show when you let women control their own wombs that birth rates actually drop?

And are you really going to hit me up with the idea that slowing the increase in births isn't the first step in reducing the same rate?

You really seem to be playing devil's advocate here, Barracuda, which is fine, but you're really getting to be a bit annoying with these notions of yours, i.e. that any discussion of reducing the world's human population has to be about reducing the population NOW and not through any practical means such as slowing down the growth rate BEFORE we actually go into a negative growth rate.

I mean, c'mon.

And I never said that providing contraception to all the world's women would solve all the world's problems (unlike that thread about pot) but it would be one really great idea to get birth rates under control, because it has been proven time and time again that women WILL control the birth rate if given the chance.

And pointing at one small place in a country the size of Africa and then saying it can't be applicable because birth rates in the ENTIRE continent of Africa are still going up is just intellectually bereft. And you know it, whoever wrote it (I can't even remember now).

What would you folks rather have, a compassionate and common sensical approach to reducing the human population, and a world-wide undertaking to actually arrive at some sort of sustainable lifestyle for the human population of the planet? Or would you rather have the pot boiling over and the resultant fire and destruction that ensues? Because the pot is most certainly on its way to boiling over, and a great many people seem to think "hey, let's just watch it and see how hot it can get before it actually boils over. "

It's almost like you want to sit around and take bets on it, like people watching dogfighting.

Seems rather sadistic.

Bottom line is right now the human condition is not a sustainable one, ecologically or economically, and to say that "well mass extinction is part of the cycles of the planet" is right out of the Rush Limbaugh Talking Points Notebook. I'm not joking there one bit. "We can't destroy the planet!" Yeah, but we can sure make it a nasty place to live, and we can most definitely render it uninhabitable for most of our species.

I am reminded of the myth of the Plains Indians who, as the myth goes, didn't waste an ounce of the buffalo. They ate all the meat, used the bones for tools, used the hides for clothing and tipis, used the hooves for god knows what, etc. etc. when the reality was there were SO MANY DAMN BUFFALO that they would run a few hundred of them off a cliff, carve off a few steaks and let the rest of them to rot. It made no difference because there were so damn many buffalo compared to the people. But then the white guys showed up with their trains and their guns and within a few decades managed to wipe out the entire population save for, what, 40? that TR decided to set aside and save.

For those who say "well it's just a natural part of the earth's cycle that we should deliberately wipe out untold species", I say that's an abominable point of view, and one I've only heard from the Pat Robertson/Rush Limbaugh/James Watt assholes.

[barracuda]

Nordic, the study I cited actually agrees with your position re: contraception. And as much as I love children, I have no interest in forcing them on anyone who doesn't want to have them by withholding birth control. But as you've said yourself, that's not going to solve the problem. And I'm all for slowing birthrates - the more time we have to implement a sustainable infrastructure for the future the better.

What would you folks rather have, a compassionate and common sensical approach to reducing the human population, and a world-wide undertaking to actually arrive at some sort of sustainable lifestyle for the human population of the planet? Or would you rather have the pot boiling over and the resultant fire and destruction that ensues? Because the pot is most certainly on its way to boiling over, and a great many people seem to think "hey, let's just watch it and see how hot it can get before it actually boils over. "

But as you admit, slowing the birthrate will not solve the problem. So we had better look toward a future with even more people as inevitable, don't you agree? I'm trying to put forward the point of view that something seriously must be done which perhaps actually can be done - preparing for that inevitability.

To simply say "control the birthrate!" is not enough, because we all know that what that really means is "poor people need to stop breeding."

Other things need to change. Top down things which might actually be changed through regulation of sheer waste and greed, as opposed to "solutions" which rely upon the poorest and most oppressed groups on the planet, like third world women, to carry out while we continue the lifestyles that are destroying the world.

Bottom line is right now the human condition is not a sustainable one, ecologically or economically, and to say that "well mass extinction is part of the cycles of the planet" is right out of the Rush Limbaugh Talking Points Notebook. I'm not joking there one bit. "We can't destroy the planet!" Yeah, but we can sure make it a nasty place to live, and we can most definitely render it uninhabitable for most of our species.

I am reminded of the myth of the Plains Indians who, as the myth goes, didn't waste an ounce of the buffalo. They ate all the meat, used the bones for tools, used the hides for clothing and tipis, used the hooves for god knows what, etc. etc. when the reality was there were SO MANY DAMN BUFFALO that they would run a few hundred of them off a cliff, carve off a few steaks and let the rest of them to rot. It made no difference because there were so damn many buffalo compared to the people. But then the white guys showed up with their trains and their guns and within a few decades managed to wipe out the entire population save for, what, 40? that TR decided to set aside and save.

For those who say "well it's just a natural part of the earth's cycle that we should deliberately wipe out untold species", I say that's an abominable point of view, and one I've only heard from the Pat Robertson/Rush Limbaugh/James Watt assholes.

My point is mankind is willfully destroying species, not through some unknown mechanism related to the presence of a lot of people, but by simple desire, carelessness and greed, most of which of course emanates from the wealthiest populations. Greed for narwhal and rhinoserous horns to make old Chinese men get erections. Greed for the tiny margin of money which can be aquired by the rendering to oil of some of the friendliest and largest targets for harpoons in the sea, whales. Greed to get rich by clear cutting old growth forests to make cheap, disposable paper products with no regard for conservation or replanting.

On the other hand, species live and die, mostly via climatological change, such as the one we are currently experiencing, which is being brought about by... greed. Greed to drive your own autonomous motor vehicle, when there are tens of thousands of othe rpeople going to exactly the same place you are. Greed to produce products no one wants by production methods which pollute the earth. Greed to get your money off the backs of the poorest people in the world while you live in a third rate shop-window paradise.

I wouldn't sacrifice the birth of a single child so that some asshole in the U.S.A. can continue to drive his Volvo four hours a day to and from his job that he hates anyway. But these kinds of changes don't happen by imposing our practised will on third world women. We already tried that, for the last, ohh... well, forever.

[Nordic]

Okay well we're far more in agreement than it seemed.

I'm not saying letting women control their own wombs is gonna solve everything but it will sure be a help.

And yes, of course, populations will keep rising before they drop.

But they're not gonna drop until the growth slows, then ceases.

I'm totally in agreement with you as far as the Western world, and now the Eastern world, with its free-for-all embrace of western style consumerism, is the culprit of pretty much all these problems.

And the problem there is the sheer magnitude of it, and the rate at which it is growing into the developing world.

I remember being horrified that people all around the world were happily gobbling up episodes of "Dallas". Talk about promoting a lifestyle. Everybody then wants to live like Americans, the 2% of the people who consume 25% of the resources of the world. Of course at that rate only 8% of the population will then consume 100% of the resources of the world. Then what?

That's why i think we need an international body, like the UN only with teeth, that can take a good hard look at resource use on a planet-wide basis. So we quit destroying things like, oh, I don't know, the rainforests.

There has to be some leadership, somehow, from somewhere, to commit people to live within their means on a planetary scale.

Right now it's just a free for all, and it's a deliberate free for all, because that's how the Corporations make their $$. I mean, emerging markets are where it's at, right? The highest growth rates, the highest return on your money. Look at the stock of Tata motors in India in the last year. It's done better than probably any stock out there. Cars for India! Everyone in India should have a car! Let's build the roads to make it possible! (already done).

It's completely insane, but perhaps what's good about it, is that we're all accelerating, at the last moment, right INTO the cliff, or the brick wall, or whatever you want to call it. It can't last much longer.

Then? Well, anything could happen. More dictators, world war, mass resource shortages for certain countries/groups of people, who knows what?

It ain't gonna be pretty, that's all I know. And a lot of people are going to die. Not in a good way.

Like in any panic situation, I just don't want me, or my family, to be in the group of those who die. I'd rather be in the survivor category. Call me selfish.

[Hairball]

Well, I've been reading up on this stuff, 'cos of this lively and healthy debate. Presuming these numbers aren't made up (* based on figures who's source is the CIA World Factbook ) and I didn't make a brainfart in the calculations then we are actually more screwed than I thought:

0.5 hectares of farmland is enough to supply the current American dietary standards - {2,200/1,800kcal per day for men/women - (I'm guessing the average American actually consumes considerably more)} according to a population control expousing website.

0.55 ha is the size of an American football field

0.5 ha is currently being cultivated for each human on the planet.*

0.45 ha more land is arable but would require irrigation/deforestation to cultivate.*

So, yeah, if these numbers are right then there is a population problem.

In happier news (for cats):

In their book Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, New Zealand-based architects Robert and Brenda Vale say keeping a medium-sized dog has the same ecological impact as driving 10,000km a year in a 4.6 litre Land Cruiser.

Constructing and driving the jeep for a year requires 0.41 hectares of land, while growing and manufacturing a dog's food takes about 0.84 ha - or 1.1 ha in the case of a large dog such as a German shepherd.

(emboldening is mine)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26248145-5009760,00.html

1.1 ha = 2 American football fields.

A Land Cruiser weighs 6,000lb (2,700kg).

Architects have hungry dogs and/or should stick to architecture.

Maybe German shepherds do eat far more food than the average human but isn't dogfood made out of stuff that only dogs would willingly eat anyway, e.g. snouts and tripe? *shrug*. (Yeah, I know, my sister used to work for masterfoods, they made her eat dogfood, she said it tasted like dogfood).

I'd like to see a source for arable/cultivated land other than the CIA. Especially since they show that there is exactly enough farmland currently being used to give a heathy diet to everybody (thus I'm sorely tempted to call it propganda bullshit). Needless to say, growing plants for biofuel is an horrific crime if these numbers are correct.

In any case I still think population control (which I read as depopulation) is completely wrong and we need to come up with ideas on how to feed more people. Quickly. *nods to self*

[Hairball]

0.5 hectares of farmland is enough to supply the current American dietary standards - {2,200/1,800kcal per day for men/women - (I'm guessing the average American actually consumes considerably more)} according to a population control expousing website.

OMGSTFU!

Enraged at reading your drivel after I returned home from work this evening I decided to do some calculations of my own. It seems that someone following a 2,100 calorie/day diet by lording it up on steak, getting their carbs by eating vegetables that have half the yield of potatoes or rice, and stuffing their face with luxurious cheeses would be satisfied by .35 hectares of argricultural land. Had they opted to eat chicken and rice and get their fats from vegetable oil and milk they'd get by with .2 hectares!!

Oh, wait. That's not all. Because, you see, if they'd gotten their protein from fish (which many communities and even whole countries almost exclusively do) they'd only need .08 ha to grow their food. Because fish are aquatic (although, somehow they are considered to use 2 sq m of agricultural land per year per calorie anyway - go figure).

Since the West dumps vast quantities of food, and even pays farmers to leave fields unused, in order to artificially keep prices high, you can bet that most of the people in the world get by on far less calories than the US government recommends - because they can't afford to eat. So the number falls again!

(* based on figures who's source is the CIA World Factbook )

Exactly. And it's "whose" not "who's". Dumbass.

we are actually more screwed than I thought

No. We are not. Unless the third world starts eating twice a day at Burger King (and refrain from ordering the fish cakes) there will be enough agricultural land to feed the entire population if it doubles as expected in the next 60 years without cutting down one single tree. So we may as well grow biofuel and keep packs of ravenous bloody great dogs and feed our food eating cars that we import from New Zealand (where cars eat food and are made out of food) more than Oprah eats until 2070.

Although, it takes thousands of litres of water to grow a hectare of food, so if the aquifers run dry we're screwed. Well, not me, it rains here 200 days of the year. It's rained all day and it's still raining.

[barracuda]

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, Hairball. Although I can see you've discovered a novel way to win a debate.

The Carbon Footprint of a Hamburger

[Fred Astaire]

They're getting ready for the harvest.

[JackRiddler]

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, Hairball. Although I can see you've discovered a novel way to win a debate.

Points for being pithy! Do you get it, or are you just as confused as I am?

[wintler2]

Nice job smiths, arguing for family planning and not getting flamed as a misanthrope - could be a first for RI.

As you acknowledge, of course family planning wont fix all of our problems. Those sort of solutions exist only on TV, just before the last ad break, and demanding them in the real world is distinctly unhelpful.

[Hairball]

0.5 ha is currently being cultivated for each human on the planet.*

Incidentally, a bodybuilding diet involving eating 1.2kg (2.6lb) of chicken and a similar weight of grains/vegetables a day requires less than .45 hectares of farmland to supply. In reality most bodybuilders replace every second meal (because eating let alone preparing 6 dinners a day takes a lot of time) with a whey protein supplement (essentially a waste product of the cheese industry normally used for animal feed) and also eat fish (fish don't use any farmland).

Honestly the earth has enough food production capacity to feed a considerably larger population. If the "Good" billionaires were genuine humanitarians they would be concentrating on relieving the hunger that exists in the world right now.

That destruction is being wreaked on the planet by humanity is a matter for debate. Except among those who've already had their minds made up for them by a constant bombardment of one-sided "journalism."

the low hanging fruit gains we made in the seventies in agriculture are done,

food production will be reduced over the next twenty years, not increased,

Technology advances all the time. The agricultural advances made in the last 200 years were spurred on by economic considerations rather than to reduce starvation. We should be reaching for the mid-level hanging fruit instead of throwing up our hands a calling for population reduction. Becuase if we do that, no agricultural advances will be sought or found and will be ignored if they are discovered by accident.

cheap available energy is running out and has unleashed major problems

The Large Hadron Collider (high energy physics research being the most likely source of cheap freely available energy) cost no more than $5 billion. That's less than 0.5% of global 'defence' spending. A reliable source of fusion power would allow us to desalinate as much water as we like and drain the oceans if the sea level starts to rise from global warming (which isn't happening according to thermometers). It's obvious that the people running the world have no interest in advancing the human race. Rather they want to propagandise every thinking person on the globe into parroting that there is an excess of human beings and that eliminating population growth is the only way to save the earth.

This way of thinking is nightmarishly dangerous.

i certainly wasnt advocating killing a third of the worlds population in some devilish way,

if however if i were hypothetically to advance such a point of view (which i wont) i would hypothetically get rid of the fat, lazy, close-minded, braindead, cancer ridden third of the worlds population that inhabit north america, europe and australia,

The lifestyles of the Western world that you rightly criticise are a product of the consumer society advanced for the last century by this "Good" club and their industrialist colleagues. Their gluttonous ways can be address and discouraged without need to reference all those selfish Third worlders using up our resources and daring to reproduce themselves.

They're getting ready for the harvest.

That was the banking bailouts of 2008. They're getting ready for a population cull now.

[wintler2]

Incidentally, a bodybuilding diet involving eating 1.2kg (2.6lb) of chicken and a similar weight of grains/vegetables a day requires less than .45 hectares of farmland to supply.

Half a ton of chicken a year from half a hectare? Not without many tons of feed imported from elsewhere, & water, and a heated shed etc.

In reality most bodybuilders replace every second meal (because eating let alone preparing 6 dinners a day takes a lot of time) with a whey protein supplement (essentially a waste product of the cheese industry normally used for animal feed) and also eat fish (fish don't use any farmland).

Fisheries are a rapidly declining resource, and bodybuilders are monstrous triumphs of overconsumption.

Honestly the earth has enough food production capacity to feed a considerably larger population.

But unarguably it doesn't and never has.. maybe your assumptions on food production capacity are flawed.

That destruction is being wreaked on the planet by humanity is a matter for debate. Except among those who've already had their minds made up for them by a constant bombardment of one-sided "journalism."

Sounds alot like 'teach the controversy', could be just your hostility. Which species do you blame for ocean acidification? Ozone hole? Pseudoestrogen pollution? Deforestation?

The Large Hadron Collider (high energy physics research being the most likely source of cheap freely available energy) cost no more than $5 billion. That's less than 0.5% of global 'defence' spending. A reliable source of fusion power would allow us to desalinate as much water as we like and drain the oceans if the sea level starts to rise from global warming (which isn't happening according to thermometers).

Fusion has never worked, its just one of the 'jam tomorrow' promises used to subsidise the nuclear industry. Let me guess, you derive your living from membership of some tech priesthood.

It's obvious that the people running the world have no interest in advancing the human race. Rather they want to propagandise every thinking person on the globe into parroting that there is an excess of human beings and that eliminating population growth is the only way to save the earth.

Really? Then why does my government pay thousands in cash for each baby, + tax breaks galore? Why does the catholic pope still bar contraception?

This way of thinking is nightmarishly dangerous.

Fear not, reality is only some good data away.

[chiggerbit]

A little population factoid that I just found, which may not be of interest to anyone else, but shocked me, about one of my first ancestors to come to America:

... All of Richard Warren's children survived to adulthood, married, and also had large families. It is claimed that Warren has the largest posterity of any pilgrim, numbering 14 million ....

From two to over 14 million, in under 400 years.

[wintler2]

..From two to over 14 million, in under 400 years.

And theres nothing unsustainable about that, they all recycle, ha ha.