Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The current paradigm that has been prevailing for sometime sees humans as consumers and not producers. The model is flawed not the people. Central authoritarian controls have also created distribution issues and siphoning off to a few at the expense of the many. A better model can produce better results.
Certainly, better quality of life has been shown to reduce population. Most high populations are in areas where people try to survive.
The survival of the fittest eugenic idea has been seriously twisted. At best fittest would mean "most appropriate model" not domination. Nature thrives far more on diversity, collaboration, adaptation. But you don't hear that being quoted much.
Much like the gay prison deacon, people will submit themselves to authoritative figures and transfer to them wealth and privileges. That's a sheepish quality humanity cannot escape, so there will always be an imbalance of life quality because all the resources are diverted to these figures, be them leader, star athletes, celebrities, etc. Imagine it like a pyramid standing upside down, as the wider section gets larger (the bottom of society), the whole structure will collapse on itself.
The problem is not that there's too many people... We're just to densely populated in small areas...
29% of Earth is land, and only 1% is occupied by humans....
The problem is not that some areas are densely populated...it is just that some of the population is too dense...like the ones that think people are the problem.
I sometimes wonder if urbanization is good or bad in this respect. On the one hand it brings a lot of problems for society, on the other hand there is simply not enough fertile land for everyone. Should China or India try to keep people from moving to the cities. Maybe it depends on the kind of agriculture. If it is manual and of the subsistence type, it can retain and feed a lot of people.
What about places such as Africa. There are huge areas where there are still more wild animals than humans. Can humans afford to retain lions and elephants etc. when they are running out of land? Maybe wilderness will gradually become a thing of the past. Why should Africans keep alive their wildlife when we in the North have all but extinguished ours... (Don't get me wrong, I love elephants, but they seem so outdated from a modern perspective.)
Not that I agree, but I would guess that the environmentalists would view the big African animals like the elephant pretty much like they'd view a big dually truck and want it eliminated.
After all elephants use a lot of resources, they eat a lot of food. They take more than their fair share of grass.
Same would go for lions, they are even worse because they are meat eaters and it takes a lot of meat to maintain a lion pack. They aren't a green kind of animal and should be exterminated as a species.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
