Living in the Bubble
brianlux
Posts: 42,042
In another thread, The Waiting Trophy Man and Callen recently mentioned how we live in a bubble. We've probably all heard that before. That got me to thinking about how I feel about that. Should we feel guilty, lucky, ashamed, proud, sad, happy or just figure it is what it is? A lot of times the term seems to often be used in such a way as to suggest that we should feel lucky, maybe even guilty. I think, yeah lucky, for sure. But I've also often thought, why can't everyone live in the "bubble"? You might ask, "How?" I would say, "Easy. Limit human population and use resources sustainably." I don't mean to over-simplify the idea but, why not? Doesn't that just make sense?
Go ahead- hit me with your best shot. I know I'm an idealist. Why not? Fuck it.
Go ahead- hit me with your best shot. I know I'm an idealist. Why not? Fuck it.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Comments
Imagine if the world had population control and it came into effect right before your parents wanted to conceive you.
Why do we need population control?
The former, I see as self-imposed...like people yapping on their phone, driving like an idiot, unaware of others around them. General I-me-mine-ness.
The latter is perhaps due to happenstance, circumstance...and (lack of) responsibility and forethought as well.
One thing I don't feel, though - well, two things actually - are shame or guilt.
I could be wrong...... but I doubt brian means this literally.
Prague Krakow Berlin 2018. Berlin 2022
EV, Taormina 1+2 2017.
I wish i was the souvenir you kept your house key on..
Brian, I may be wrong but I think what you are getting at is that limiting human population growth doesn't necessarily need to involve externally imposed controls, and I'd agree with that. From what I've read and seen, it seems to me that women all over the world, whether in Burundi or Cambodia or Nepal or wherever else, want their children to be strong, healthy, well nourished and to live to adulthood. Few actually want to spend their entire adult lives either pregnant or breastfeeding, or both, and yet many end up in that situation. There may be some reasons unique to a certain country but generally they boil down to lack of education for women (and men, too), lack of access to contraception, high infant and child mortality which leads to fear that if you have a small number of children you may end up with none, and religious edicts (and I can hardly believe I'm bringing religion into yet another thread on AMT, but there you are...). When given basic health education, access to caregivers such as trained midwives, and to contraception, and when provided some control over the situation many women choose to limit their families. Of course, that's only a tiny piece of this puzzle. I like this topic; will post more later when my thoughts are in order.
Can you give the context (or just the link) of the conversation it was mentioned?
I was responding your "Limit human population" statement. That is very vague to say the most.
Limit human population to what Brian? Could you elaborate on what you think your bubble is?
The way I read your post is that you want earth humans to all live together using resources sustainably but with population control. Please elaborate on that comment.
Well I guess the same question could be posed to you. What is your definition of "Limiting Human Population"?
Hedo: One thing I don't feel, though - well, two things actually - are shame or guilt.
Nor I and I don't see a need to.
what do you think "the bubble" actually is?
Just the term that gets tossed out now and then that basically refers to our relatively (to extremely) easy life in a first-world country.
Dignin: No, not a literal bubble. Remember "Boy in a Bubble"? No, not a John Travolta thread. :-)
Hedo: Yes, the Seinfeld "bubble" Haha!
oftenreading:
Brian, I may be wrong but I think what you are getting at is that limiting human population growth doesn't necessarily need to involve externally imposed controls, and I'd agree with that.
Absolutely! No, I am not in favor of "control" as a solution. Education first, voluntarily doing what makes sense to follow.
bsL12:
"bubble mention" here:
http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/241969/where-s-the-global-outcry-for-victims-of-boko-haram-attacks#latest (Trophy man's post at top of page 2, Callen's further down).
PJFan:
Limit human population to what Brian? Could you elaborate on what you think your bubble is?
The way I read your post is that you want earth humans to all live together using resources sustainably but with population control. Please elaborate on that comment.
I wish I could remember where I read and what the number was of what sounded like a good approximation of a sustainable human population. Something significantly lower than it is now, obviously. I'll try to find that. Again, I'm definitely not into population "control".
What makes sense to me is the idea that if we really wanted to and tried to, we could gradually, humanly and voluntarily lower our numbers and learn to live within the bounds of what the earth can supply sustainably. To do this we need the right kind of leadership and we need to rid ourselves of the tendency toward self-destruction. When we hear or read something about the "doomsday clock" or "the end is near" we tend to think, "yep, ah huh." Seems to me it would make more sense to start thinking in terms of solutions rather than laying down in front of failure.
http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/241938/the-slaughter-of-2-000-by-boko-haram-the-same-day-as-the-attack-on-charlie-hebdo#latest
Nice work, Detective Dignin! :-D
This sounds like what the pope was recently trying to say.
Brian, could you please state what education people need to have before voluntarily doing what makes sense.
Cryptic statements are very hard questions.
I would say start with some basics of conservation biology and ecology (not the fad, the science) and the study of biological communities. If we saw ourselves within the context of these basic principles of the natural world, we would let out a collective "Holy shit!" and begin aligning ourselves with the marvelous balances that sustain us rather than work against them to our own demise. If we did that, our numbers would very likely begin to subside through our gained understanding of the world in which we live.
(Sorry to sound so freakin' pedantic. Just trying to paint an accurate picture.)
That's great Brian but
can you please state what you in your own opinion you mean about limiting human population.
He agrees with me, of course.
By "limiting human population" I mean voluntarily reducing our numbers to a sustainable level.
That, of course, begs the question, "What is a sustainable level?" The answer to that depends pretty much completely on how we live. If the average person lived at the level of consumption of the average American that number would be significantly lower than if the average person lived at the level of consumption of the average Burundian.
I'm pretty sure that is what oftenreading would say as well. ;-)
That's great Brian. So is the sustainable level based upon the average American or Burundian? I'm confused, we are all people.
I would definitely hope for something in between but either one is sustainable depending on the number of people. In other words, the earth could probably sustain a couple thousand people who live at the level of a multi-millionaire and maybe a 5 or 6 billion living at the level of a poor Burundian. Just guessing at the numbers but I'm sure you get my point, eh?
That's great Brian but
can you please state what you in your own opinion you mean about limiting human population and provide an exact number that the earth can sustain so we can let everyone know before they want to start families.
I can't tell if you are being an ass because you think you are funny or if you are being an ass just because you can.
I know he didn't. I guess I'm not as funny as I thought.
If direct questions and one liners ruffle your feathers so be it.
When someone posts very vague statements and answers with very ambiguous statements each and every time it solves nothing and makes the other person feel their time is being wasted.
You just made two very short one liners and I got the point.
I now will not have to ask you what you think of me.
As for my question to both you (which I asked earlier that you have not answered )and lux - What is the number earth is able to sustain so we can let others know before they want to start a family?
I don't know either. They don't really answer anything. If someone is going to put out a global idea it should be supported by firm ideas how to do it.
Limiting human population - What does that mean?
Please give your answer not what you think brian meant to say.