Overpopulation isn't as bad of a problem as it's made out to be.

[Revvy]

For a while I've thought that the overpopulation of the planet was one of the most disaterous issues facing the planet today, and I've probably stated this in some previous posts on totse. But after having an argument with some guy, I'm kinda at the half way point of changing my mind. I'm hoping a little debate here might clear things up for me.

Throughout the whole of history pretty much, populations have been relatively stable - with a slight, slight gradual increase. It's only in the recent century or 2 that the population has begun to grow exponentially (I think I'm using the term in the right context here - I never listened in maths).

Now if we compare the last 2 centuries to the rest of history, what's changed drastically? It's the level of technology we possess as a species. The industrial revolution and whatnot GREATLY advanced us a species technologically, allowing us to prolong life, make farming and shit more efficient so less people needed to work on the land; inject the global economy with lots of cash .etc .etc; it's no co-incidence that the industrial and technological revolution was met with a huge rise in population. However, if you look at the UK, Sweden, France, Germany - basically European countries which spearheaded this revolution, our populations are now stabilising (or even decreasing.) We've gone through the revolution and have came out as stable nations who don't need to grow anymore.

Compare this to China and India - developing countries. They are currently undergoing a revolution in terms of development. Their new found wealth has meant they are able to support a higher population and therefore that's what's happening. I bet in the next century, when China and India have stabilised their growth and are first world countries, there natural increase in population will be ~0.

The pre-industrial revolution population was slightly under 1 billion, and now it's at 7 billion or so and rising. Look at how our technology has improved since then; it only makes sense that our planet can now support more people.

Our next huge spike in population will probably be when we can colonise space.

Links you may find interesting:
Demographic Transition Model
World Population

Our next huge spike in population will probably be when we can colonise space.

No, it's going to be when we start simulating virtual mini-universes on computers and populating them with simulated humans (who are just as human as us) at the click of a button.

Other than that, good post.

[Idiosyncrasy]

It's just another of The Man's ways of keeping us scared and obedient, as long as we don't ask too many questions.

Originally Posted by Idiosyncrasy

It's just another of The Man's ways of keeping us scared and obedient, as long as we don't ask too many questions.

Good lord. Why does everything have to be tied to some overarching uber-authority keeping the 'little guy'/'lone individualist crusader in a world of sheep' down?

Originally Posted by Revvy

Throughout the whole of history pretty much, populations have been relatively stable - with a slight, slight gradual increase. It's only in the recent century or 2 that the population has begun to grow exponentially

Throughout the whole of *history*, population has doubled at an unprecedented rate. Whereas the total human population doubled merely 10 times in over 200,000 years (from the emergence of homo sapien to the end of the ice age, 10,000 years ago), it has doubled nearly as many times in the last 10,000 years. It is plain to see that sedentary/agricultural societies have intensified the rate of population growth.

In other words, it is inaccurate to say that populations have been stable with slight gradual increase throughout the whole of history. In fact, population has been going exponentially before history, since agriculture preceded writing.

[Idiosyncrasy]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Good lord. Why does everything have to be tied to some overarching uber-authority keeping the 'little guy'/'lone individualist crusader in a world of sheep' down?

It doesn't. I just took a class on mediated communication and it really opened my eyes to the media, its selection, and what it hopes to accomplish (control) by its selection. But I don't feel that oppressed.

Originally Posted by Idiosyncrasy

It doesn't. I just took a class on mediated communication and it really opened my eyes to the media, its selection, and what it hopes to accomplish (control) by its selection. But I don't feel that oppressed.

Except media isn't controlled by any one thing. Media is a bunch of different viewpoints and is produced by a bunch of sources. It's nonsensical to say that 'Media' hopes to accomplish anything.

The Media is this, this, this, and this.

Good luck arguing that all four of those media sources are acting in concert to control the people or achieve some grand objective.

[Idiosyncrasy]

It's more complicated than you're making it out to be. We control "the media" who also controls us, so we control ourselves without control. All media outlets fail without ratings, and they don't get ratings unless people watch. People aren't interested unless their lives are directly affected. And that usually only happens by a threat. So anything that appears threatening is played up, so we'll watch. By watching only those threatening things, we are fed only a small selection of what they want us to see, which is suffering generally.
We only see what the government wants us to see.

I don't even remember what my original point is, but I do know that they're not just "reporting the news" for the hell of it.

It is refreshing to see someone challenge what someone says though.

Originally Posted by Idiosyncrasy

It's more complicated than you're making it out to be. We control "the media" who also controls us, so we control ourselves without control. All media outlets fail without ratings, and they don't get ratings unless people watch. People aren't interested unless their lives are directly affected. And that usually only happens by a threat. So anything that appears threatening is played up, so we'll watch. By watching only those threatening things, we are fed only a small selection of what they want us to see, which is suffering generally.

----------

We only see what the government wants us to see.

The second part of your statement doesn't follow logically at all from your first. According to your first part if the government were to have some huge fuckup that posed a threat to people's lives, the media would report it. But that contradicts your second part, that we only see what the government wants us to see.

Not to mention both of these statements are contradicted by the internet media I posted, which are not dependent on ratings and are not dependent on any single government.

[Idiosyncrasy]

Well, I guess you got me.