Too bad it is more complicated than that...........Although if it were that simple, we'd all have the same size vehicle, all be traveling the same speed. Some decisions are made that effect us whether we're driving or not. Maybe the driver should actually listen to the people they are driving, instead of all the other drivers heading towards that brick wall....
That's what we're all saying................but who is the driver????? They still have to make the decision to push the breaks or turn the wheel and so far they are just pushing the gas. It would seem that if you don't have a lot of $, you're not even in the car, you're in the trailor behind it, unheard.
YOU'RE THE FUCKING DRIVER!!!!!!!! WE'RE ALL THE FUCKING DRIVERS.
It's not complicated.
Absolutely. And that's what we have to rethink: "It would seem that if you don't have a lot of $, you're not even in the car, you're in the trailor behind it, unheard". You don't need a lot of $ to change your life, on the contrary, you need less money and more creativity. You need to change your priorities and needs. this is exactly what we should rethink, that this world and our life cannot be ruled by money, and the only way to subvert this is not to accept it in our life. how do people live? They have a job manily to spend money in order to refill their car go to work, and to buy a new cell phone or a new refrigerator. is there still someone who is able to invent is own job? is there someone who is still willing to go and see the world? is there still someone who is ready to fight a battle to defend one wood, one river, one hill from industrial exploitation? Very few. we live in a system that is like an engine, and our role is to feed this engine. But you can also reject the engine and start something different, by a different logic. None can stop you, and maybe one day this may affect the engine.
Too bad it is more complicated than that...........Although if it were that simple, we'd all have the same size vehicle, all be traveling the same speed. Some decisions are made that effect us whether we're driving or not. Maybe the driver should actually listen to the people they are driving, instead of all the other drivers heading towards that brick wall....
and who makes such decisions? probably the people that we have elected. No, it's not the driver who has to listen to the people, but the people that have to find the heart to make a choice. I see that people have chosen to accept the logic of an illusive well-being. The people have elected the drivers who give them tv, and new cars, and cell phones, and propaganda made of things that they like to hear. and the people buy all that stuff, and they go to work to buy all these stuff. The driver is just the expression of the people.
my thoughts exactly when I first read it. I mean, 45-50 years and we are done? this planet is fucking huge. seems way too fast.
this planet may seem huge to your eyes, but it is not an endless resource. there is an universe outside, with its balance, and this report doesn't say anything new, actually.
this report doesn't mean we're done by 2050 ... what it is essentially saying is that it will become a world of those who have and those who haven't ... obviously when you look at the distribution of wealth in this world currently that is nothing new ... it'll just continue to get worse ...
Absolutely. And that's what we have to rethink: "It would seem that if you don't have a lot of $, you're not even in the car, you're in the trailor behind it, unheard". You don't need a lot of $ to change your life, on the contrary, you need less money and more creativity. You need to change your priorities and needs. this is exactly what we should rethink, that this world and our life cannot be ruled by money, and the only way to subvert this is not to accept it in our life. how do people live? They have a job manily to spend money in order to refill their car go to work, and to buy a new cell phone or a new refrigerator. is there still someone who is able to invent is own job? is there someone who is still willing to go and see the world? is there still someone who is ready to fight a battle to defend one wood, one river, one hill from industrial exploitation? Very few. we live in a system that is like an engine, and our role is to feed this engine. But you can also reject the engine and start something different, by a different logic. None can stop you, and maybe one day this may affect the engine.
You are taking what I said completely out of context. I didn't say that people couldn't change for the better of the whole........I was pointing out that "it seems" like this is the current situation with high dollar corporations running our government instead of the people doing so. If I was able to personally get enough lobbyists backed by special interest groups supporting all of my well-hearted ideas then I might be a much better driver...........But as it is now, I'm in the back seat, doing my own good, calling representatives, not buying into the propoganda and trying to let the driver know that he is heading for a brick wall! If you look at the drivers as just being the people as a whole, then the driver will not even have the capability of making the decision to stop because the breaks have been cut by those with different viewpoints that aren't as effected by the decision to stop or crash...............When did I ever say that I needed more $ to "change my life" btw..........
Considering the age of our planet, the universe and that kind of stuff, I wouldn't be surprise of two things: the earth's resources will be depleted soon, and mankind might not be there to see it.
I mean, since when are humans around? How long did it take us to put ourselves in the mess we're in?
I don't want to sound nihilistic, but I don't see how we could simply stop what we've set in motion with the world.
And seeing what we did to our own bed, I do hope that mankind won't ever be able to live on another planet, for the universe sake
this report doesn't mean we're done by 2050 ... what it is essentially saying is that it will become a world of those who have and those who haven't ... obviously when you look at the distribution of wealth in this world currently that is nothing new ... it'll just continue to get worse ...
That reminds me of an article that I read talking about human evolution and the predictions of the changes in society in 1000 years. It talked about a society with split a human species where there will be "the haves" who are genetically superior physically and mentally, and the "have nots" who are pretty much like the worker ants that are controled completely by the genetically superior...........Reminds me of "The Time Machine"
You are taking what I said completely out of context. I didn't say that people couldn't change for the better of the whole........I was pointing out that this is the current situation with high dollar corporations running our government instead of the people doing so. If I was able to personally get enough lobbyists backed by special interest groups supporting all of my well-hearted ideas then I might be a much better driver...........But as it is now, I'm in the back seat, doing my own good, calling representatives, not buying into the propoganda and trying to let the driver know that he is heading for a brick wall! If you look at the drivers as just being the people as a whole, then the driver will not even have the capability of making the decision to stop because the breaks have been cut by those with different viewpoints that aren't as effected by the decision to stop or crash...............When did I ever say that I needed more $ to "change my life" btw..........
You said that "if you don't have a lot of $, you're not even in the car". Why do you want to be in the car? why don't you simply choose your own car, or why not an horse instead of the car? I am not talking to you personally, just in general. Of course I agree with what you say here, it's all obvious, but I am trying to show a different perspective. I, like you, feel outside that car. But I am actually happy to be and I have chosen to be outside that car. I just don't give a shit of that car........ do you know what I mean? I am not talking of being indifferent, I am talking of choosing a different logic in your own life, your own logic. If you accept this system, it's ok and I wish you well. If you don't accept it, I just tell you that if you don't want to waste your life, you just have to find a different path from the one of the system.
this planet may seem huge to your eyes, but it is not an endless resource. there is an universe outside, with its balance, and this report doesn't say anything new, actually.
wow thank you so much for your expertise. im sure im not the only who thinks the world is huge.
did I say it was an endless resource? of course not. but to use up all those resources 50 years from now is a stretch
wow thank you so much for your expertise. im sure im not the only who thinks the world is huge.
did I say it was an endless resource? of course not. but to use up all those resources 50 years from now is a stretch
you're welcome! but to me it doesn't take much expertise to see what's going on out there.... 50 years are even too much to me for this world to sustain such a HUGE mess... I seriously wonder how we are making it right now. But of course, your or my opinion here doesn't really count. We'll see, and I wish you were right of course.
You said that "if you don't have a lot of $, you're not even in the car". Why do you want to be in the car? why don't you simply choose your own car, or why not an horse instead of the car? I am not talking to you personally, just in general. Of course I agree with what you say here, it's all obvious, but I am trying to show a different perspective. I, like you, feel outside that car. But I am actually happy to be and I have chosen to be outside that car. I just don't give a shit of that car........ do you know what I mean? I am not talking of being indifferent, I am talking of choosing a different logic in your own life, your own logic. If you accept this system, it's ok and I wish you well. If you don't accept it, I just tell you that if you don't want to waste your life, you just have to find a different path from the one of the system.
That.........or try and change the system If I lived in a society where decisions of the system didn't have a consequence on my children's education or my personal freedom, or the lives of a whole hell of a lot of other people inside the car then outside the car would be the perfect place. I'd just sit back and watch the car crash and walk away...........but that's not the case. If we're the drivers we need to be slamming on the breaks, if we're the passengers, we need to warn the driver of the brick wall ahead. If you're the corporations and the makers of the car.......stop thinking about getting rich and give it better brakes.....?
That.........or try and change the system If I lived in a society where decisions of the system didn't have a consequence on my children's education or my personal freedom, or the lives of a whole hell of a lot of other people inside the car then outside the car would be the perfect place. I'd just sit back and watch the car crash and walk away...........but that's not the case. If we're the drivers we need to be slamming on the breaks, if we're the passengers, we need to warn the driver of the brick wall ahead. If you're the corporations and the makers of the car.......stop thinking about getting rich and give it better brakes.....?
Yes, but the problem here is "how do you do it". For exemple, you talk about children's education, and that means to me that you're inside that system, and think by that logic. Education for what? to become what? part of this system? I don't agree with anything of all that. and I don't believe in changing the system from the inside, not anymore. Maybe in the 70s we were still in time, not now. Right now the only way to me to change the system is to entirely boycott it. If the car crashes, I'll be very sorry, but it crashes because it was driven by a kamikaze, elected by kamikazes, and I simply think that I don't have the power to stop these kamikazes. I made all I could, giving signs, joining groups and then fighting alone. Now I am tired. and I don't want to kill myself with these kamikazes. All I can do is take a different car, better an horse, with the few people who want to share my same path to build a different way of life, and hope that a different practice may somehow reach someone else one day. That's the only possible way I can think of.
i made a post about 4 or 5 months ago about doing something about our problems. it's easy to talk and type, but how many actually follow through with it,...?
i got like two responses on that post. everyone wants to talk about the problem, but no one (seems) to want to fix it. i think this board needs a "what i did today for the good of humanity" thread.
i didn't have much luck with it, but we should try it again.
today,... i recycled a water bottle and i picked up some trash. i told a kid to read the script on the air dryer and try to use it versus wasting paper towels. (i do that a lot) me and my girlfriend carpooled to campus today, though our schedules are conflicting. (small sacrifice, i know) i have been ignored by the anderson recycling company repeatedly through emails about recycling thermal paper. can you recycle thermal paper? we use it at the restaurant i work in, and we throw a shit ton of it away. i wanted to implement some kind of program where we started recycling it. we are a big chain restaurant, and if we tested it and got results, i bet others would follow. anyhow, somebody give some feedback on this idea!
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
YOU'RE THE FUCKING DRIVER!!!!!!!! WE'RE ALL THE FUCKING DRIVERS.
It's not complicated.
If you are implying that it is people and not some "system" that has caused overpopulation...then you are correct.
However, the problem is the tragedy of the commons--the example is that five farmers share a field for their cows to graze. They need to conserve the grass for later in the year. However, each farmer can give himself some benefit by taking a bit more of the grass for HIS cows. Each of the five farmers does this and they've taken all of the grass (OK, so the grass will eventually grow back, but you can draw the parellel with the resources).
So, it is my, and your, job to stop the negative trend. But I think "well there are billions of people in the world and 300,000,000 in the US. If EVERYONE has four kids, that'll be a problem. But I cannot effect EVERYONE, only ME. and if I have four kids, that will make almost no dent on the US and world population, so who cares."
If someone wants four kids, are they honestly going to deprive themselves of that because they think it will do the world some good to only have one or two? No. Almost never. And no individual four kid family is going to cause a problem. Of course the cumulation of all the 4+ kid families is turning out to be quite disasterous.
Anyway, what I am saying is that individuals are two self-centered, aloof, or incompetant to make these kind of decisions with the "big picture' in mind. And the reason is because thier individual decision, in and of itself, does not make a dent. Tragedy of the commons.
I am not ready to put a cap on the number of kids people can have, but I do wish there was a way to NOT instill in people from birth that marriage three kids and a cat (used to be a dog, I miss those days) must be your dream. Some people have kids because "that's what you do."
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
I'm sure some of you remember the story of the family from Oklahoma or somewhere--they had 16 kids! This was treated as an "amazing" "wow" human interest story. I viewed it as a tragedy. Two people give birth to 16 kids that will probably create 75 kids in the next generation and so on--these things add up.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the population crisis i far more complicated.
There are places where it's critical to do "controlled breeding", like in China. It works at various level, but I heard it was mainly to keep economy at a steady rate.
In most european country, it's critical that people do kids, as a large part of the population is growing old, and there is not enough young people. Age pyramid upside down.
In Africa, it's again an overpopulation problem, but linked to sanitarian and economical problem.
If you are implying that it is people and not some "system" that has caused overpopulation...then you are correct.
That's part of what I'm implying. I'm also implying that no one is owned until they sell themself.
However, the problem is the tragedy of the commons--the example is that five farmers share a field for their cows to graze. They need to conserve the grass for later in the year. However, each farmer can give himself some benefit by taking a bit more of the grass for HIS cows. Each of the five farmers does this and they've taken all of the grass (OK, so the grass will eventually grow back, but you can draw the parellel with the resources).
Sure! Totally understand what you're saying here and don't disagree. But that doesn't contradict what I'm saying.
In your example, and the much larger real issue, it is not your responsibilty to ensure that I have "grass". It is my responsibility to ensure that I have grass. And if my environment includes greedy neighbors who try to steal all my grass, I have to adjust accordingly. And that gives me three primary options:
A) Shoot my neighbors Starve
C) Change the limitations
We, as a society, now fixate on A & B because we've given up on what makes C possible: the power of the human mind.
Thousands of years ago, there was another food crisis that faced mankind: the fact that we were at the mercy of the environment to provide our sustenance. Many chose option A then....many more chose option B then....but some people chose option C and invented agriculture, a scheme in which humanity changed the basic paradigm of feeding itself. That choice in turn created a population explosion and now we're faced with a new nascent crisis. And once again we have 3 choices.
I hate the "tragedy of the commons" argument because it always want to present human action as static and unchangeable. To borrow a very annoying phrase: it cannot think outside the box. It just assumes that there's "one grass field", "5 farmers", and that the existing sustenance model in unchangeable. It's a pathetic cop-out fit for rodents, not for human beings whose only biological advantage in the first place is to reshape their environment rather than vice versa.
So, it is my, and your, job to stop the negative trend. But I think "well there are billions of people in the world and 300,000,000 in the US. If EVERYONE has four kids, that'll be a problem. But I cannot effect EVERYONE, only ME. and if I have four kids, that will make almost no dent on the US and world population, so who cares."
If someone wants four kids, are they honestly going to deprive themselves of that because they think it will do the world some good to only have one or two? No. Almost never. And no individual four kid family is going to cause a problem. Of course the cumulation of all the 4+ kid families is turning out to be quite disasterous.
Anyway, what I am saying is that individuals are two self-centered, aloof, or incompetant to make these kind of decisions with the "big picture' in mind. And the reason is because thier individual decision, in and of itself, does not make a dent. Tragedy of the commons.
I am not ready to put a cap on the number of kids people can have, but I do wish there was a way to NOT instill in people from birth that marriage three kids and a cat (used to be a dog, I miss those days) must be your dream. Some people have kids because "that's what you do."
All this is fine. You're entirely right in the sense that you understand that change is required. I certainly wouldn't disagree. But the "too self-centerd, aloof or incompetent" thing I'll take issue with.
People need to be more self-centered. It's the altruistic insanity that leads to a lot of the responses in this thread which amount to this:
Who will save us?
Such a question requires the insipid altruistic axiom that states that your survival is my responsibility and vice versa. That's how you end up with 6 billion people looking at each other and waiting for some the other to save them.
Competence and its opposite have and will always exist in humanity. But why would you ever expect competence when we're instilling in people a mindset that it isn't required????????
I'm sure some of you remember the story of the family from Oklahoma or somewhere--they had 16 kids! This was treated as an "amazing" "wow" human interest story. I viewed it as a tragedy. Two people give birth to 16 kids that will probably create 75 kids in the next generation and so on--these things add up.
Why is that sad? Having kids is great, if that's what you want. And if you want 16 kids, so be it.
Sad, to me, is that we'd view the birth of new and unique humans in any amount as sad.
I don't believe it's anyone's moral obligation to procreate. If you don't want kids, that's cool. But to look down on the innocent child of another with only the thought of how many resources that child could deprive you of........
Hilarious just from reading previous posts I can now see why this planet is on a road to disaster....because of the same lame excuses..."world is too big cannot be happning"....people need to rid themselves of their ignorant view of the world as an endless machine built to maintain us......the whole mentaility of denying the inevitable (which it is) is the main reason we are heading down a path where we will have pillaged and raped this planet of necessary resources...keep telling yourselves that it won't happen in my lifetime BS....you may very well be correct in that view BUT there is high potential if things do not change that we will reach a limit...what always amazes me is that to rid your mind of problem based on the thought that things will not happen in your lifetime yet you damn well know it will happen sometime is dumbfounding to me......leave it to the next generation to change....my question is why can we not be the generation to change things? Classic human fault.....its like the 20 year old smoker who says "just one more cigaratte....it wont kill me"...then at age 40 still smoking and then the death bell tolls......
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the population crisis i far more complicated.
There are places where it's critical to do "controlled breeding", like in China. It works at various level, but I heard it was mainly to keep economy at a steady rate.
In most european country, it's critical that people do kids, as a large part of the population is growing old, and there is not enough young people. Age pyramid upside down.
In Africa, it's again an overpopulation problem, but linked to sanitarian and economical problem.
And so on...
I was just about to pont this. Casually, I'm doing currently some research about fertility rates for my work and there is not a unique trend. For example here in Latin America our fertility rates have been showing a decreasing trend for the past 20 years, and many countries show fertility rates close to the replacement level, which is approx. 2 kids par woman.
In several european countries you have negative rates, i.e, there is more people dying every year than being born. Actually countries like Italia and Spain could solve a few social protection financing issues with a higher fertility rate.
And so on...
I have not seen a statistical study but I thought Malthusian theories were proven wrong a long time ago...
I believe the real problem with our assets, resources, goods, wealth, etc seems to be a distributive one...
"I feel like we are in a giant car heading for a brick wall at 100 miles an hour and everyone in the car is arguing where they want to sit. For God's sake, someone has to say put the brakes on and turn the wheel."
Thank you for that!! David Suzuki is a good writer - have you read any of his books?
Thank you for that!! David Suzuki is a good writer - have you read any of his books?
i've got his big book from a while back - the sacred balance or something like that ... i plan on reading his autobiography when it gets to the library but i think i've seen so many things on him i don't need to ...
anyways - that quote was from a yahoo article posted today ...
I'm sure some of you remember the story of the family from Oklahoma or somewhere--they had 16 kids! This was treated as an "amazing" "wow" human interest story. I viewed it as a tragedy. Two people give birth to 16 kids that will probably create 75 kids in the next generation and so on--these things add up.
Yes, I did see that show....suggesting to people that they shouldn't have a/any kids is something I don't want to get into - but 16!!! C'mon! That woman was a baby machine!! And when you think about all the food/resources/space/etc. that these 16 kids will use in thier lifetime....it's staggering...especially if they all start having 10, 12, 14 kids themselves.
Comments
You are driving the same vehicle: a human being.
my thoughts exactly when I first read it. I mean, 45-50 years and we are done? this planet is fucking huge. seems way too fast.
Absolutely. And that's what we have to rethink: "It would seem that if you don't have a lot of $, you're not even in the car, you're in the trailor behind it, unheard". You don't need a lot of $ to change your life, on the contrary, you need less money and more creativity. You need to change your priorities and needs. this is exactly what we should rethink, that this world and our life cannot be ruled by money, and the only way to subvert this is not to accept it in our life. how do people live? They have a job manily to spend money in order to refill their car go to work, and to buy a new cell phone or a new refrigerator. is there still someone who is able to invent is own job? is there someone who is still willing to go and see the world? is there still someone who is ready to fight a battle to defend one wood, one river, one hill from industrial exploitation? Very few. we live in a system that is like an engine, and our role is to feed this engine. But you can also reject the engine and start something different, by a different logic. None can stop you, and maybe one day this may affect the engine.
and who makes such decisions? probably the people that we have elected. No, it's not the driver who has to listen to the people, but the people that have to find the heart to make a choice. I see that people have chosen to accept the logic of an illusive well-being. The people have elected the drivers who give them tv, and new cars, and cell phones, and propaganda made of things that they like to hear. and the people buy all that stuff, and they go to work to buy all these stuff. The driver is just the expression of the people.
this planet may seem huge to your eyes, but it is not an endless resource. there is an universe outside, with its balance, and this report doesn't say anything new, actually.
I mean, since when are humans around? How long did it take us to put ourselves in the mess we're in?
I don't want to sound nihilistic, but I don't see how we could simply stop what we've set in motion with the world.
And seeing what we did to our own bed, I do hope that mankind won't ever be able to live on another planet, for the universe sake
You said that "if you don't have a lot of $, you're not even in the car". Why do you want to be in the car? why don't you simply choose your own car, or why not an horse instead of the car? I am not talking to you personally, just in general. Of course I agree with what you say here, it's all obvious, but I am trying to show a different perspective. I, like you, feel outside that car. But I am actually happy to be and I have chosen to be outside that car. I just don't give a shit of that car........ do you know what I mean? I am not talking of being indifferent, I am talking of choosing a different logic in your own life, your own logic. If you accept this system, it's ok and I wish you well. If you don't accept it, I just tell you that if you don't want to waste your life, you just have to find a different path from the one of the system.
wow thank you so much for your expertise. im sure im not the only who thinks the world is huge.
did I say it was an endless resource? of course not. but to use up all those resources 50 years from now is a stretch
you're welcome! but to me it doesn't take much expertise to see what's going on out there.... 50 years are even too much to me for this world to sustain such a HUGE mess... I seriously wonder how we are making it right now. But of course, your or my opinion here doesn't really count. We'll see, and I wish you were right of course.
In that car exemple, there might still be a chance to jump out, to survive the crash or whatever.
So we're more like, all in the same plane, if you ask me...
Yes, but the problem here is "how do you do it". For exemple, you talk about children's education, and that means to me that you're inside that system, and think by that logic. Education for what? to become what? part of this system? I don't agree with anything of all that. and I don't believe in changing the system from the inside, not anymore. Maybe in the 70s we were still in time, not now. Right now the only way to me to change the system is to entirely boycott it. If the car crashes, I'll be very sorry, but it crashes because it was driven by a kamikaze, elected by kamikazes, and I simply think that I don't have the power to stop these kamikazes. I made all I could, giving signs, joining groups and then fighting alone. Now I am tired. and I don't want to kill myself with these kamikazes. All I can do is take a different car, better an horse, with the few people who want to share my same path to build a different way of life, and hope that a different practice may somehow reach someone else one day. That's the only possible way I can think of.
hey Eva. I visited your country last year. I love Roma. im italian too. just think how long your city has been going strong with "limited" resources.
love your city and country, its beautiful.
In fact my city is a mess, and I moved out!!!
glad you liked it, hope you had great time....... what do you mean you're italian too???
i got like two responses on that post. everyone wants to talk about the problem, but no one (seems) to want to fix it. i think this board needs a "what i did today for the good of humanity" thread.
i didn't have much luck with it, but we should try it again.
today,... i recycled a water bottle and i picked up some trash. i told a kid to read the script on the air dryer and try to use it versus wasting paper towels. (i do that a lot) me and my girlfriend carpooled to campus today, though our schedules are conflicting. (small sacrifice, i know) i have been ignored by the anderson recycling company repeatedly through emails about recycling thermal paper. can you recycle thermal paper? we use it at the restaurant i work in, and we throw a shit ton of it away. i wanted to implement some kind of program where we started recycling it. we are a big chain restaurant, and if we tested it and got results, i bet others would follow. anyhow, somebody give some feedback on this idea!
~Ron Burgundy
If you are implying that it is people and not some "system" that has caused overpopulation...then you are correct.
However, the problem is the tragedy of the commons--the example is that five farmers share a field for their cows to graze. They need to conserve the grass for later in the year. However, each farmer can give himself some benefit by taking a bit more of the grass for HIS cows. Each of the five farmers does this and they've taken all of the grass (OK, so the grass will eventually grow back, but you can draw the parellel with the resources).
So, it is my, and your, job to stop the negative trend. But I think "well there are billions of people in the world and 300,000,000 in the US. If EVERYONE has four kids, that'll be a problem. But I cannot effect EVERYONE, only ME. and if I have four kids, that will make almost no dent on the US and world population, so who cares."
If someone wants four kids, are they honestly going to deprive themselves of that because they think it will do the world some good to only have one or two? No. Almost never. And no individual four kid family is going to cause a problem. Of course the cumulation of all the 4+ kid families is turning out to be quite disasterous.
Anyway, what I am saying is that individuals are two self-centered, aloof, or incompetant to make these kind of decisions with the "big picture' in mind. And the reason is because thier individual decision, in and of itself, does not make a dent. Tragedy of the commons.
I am not ready to put a cap on the number of kids people can have, but I do wish there was a way to NOT instill in people from birth that marriage three kids and a cat (used to be a dog, I miss those days) must be your dream. Some people have kids because "that's what you do."
There are places where it's critical to do "controlled breeding", like in China. It works at various level, but I heard it was mainly to keep economy at a steady rate.
In most european country, it's critical that people do kids, as a large part of the population is growing old, and there is not enough young people. Age pyramid upside down.
In Africa, it's again an overpopulation problem, but linked to sanitarian and economical problem.
And so on...
That's part of what I'm implying. I'm also implying that no one is owned until they sell themself.
Sure! Totally understand what you're saying here and don't disagree. But that doesn't contradict what I'm saying.
In your example, and the much larger real issue, it is not your responsibilty to ensure that I have "grass". It is my responsibility to ensure that I have grass. And if my environment includes greedy neighbors who try to steal all my grass, I have to adjust accordingly. And that gives me three primary options:
A) Shoot my neighbors
C) Change the limitations
We, as a society, now fixate on A & B because we've given up on what makes C possible: the power of the human mind.
Thousands of years ago, there was another food crisis that faced mankind: the fact that we were at the mercy of the environment to provide our sustenance. Many chose option A then....many more chose option B then....but some people chose option C and invented agriculture, a scheme in which humanity changed the basic paradigm of feeding itself. That choice in turn created a population explosion and now we're faced with a new nascent crisis. And once again we have 3 choices.
I hate the "tragedy of the commons" argument because it always want to present human action as static and unchangeable. To borrow a very annoying phrase: it cannot think outside the box. It just assumes that there's "one grass field", "5 farmers", and that the existing sustenance model in unchangeable. It's a pathetic cop-out fit for rodents, not for human beings whose only biological advantage in the first place is to reshape their environment rather than vice versa.
All this is fine. You're entirely right in the sense that you understand that change is required. I certainly wouldn't disagree. But the "too self-centerd, aloof or incompetent" thing I'll take issue with.
People need to be more self-centered. It's the altruistic insanity that leads to a lot of the responses in this thread which amount to this:
Who will save us?
Such a question requires the insipid altruistic axiom that states that your survival is my responsibility and vice versa. That's how you end up with 6 billion people looking at each other and waiting for some the other to save them.
Competence and its opposite have and will always exist in humanity. But why would you ever expect competence when we're instilling in people a mindset that it isn't required????????
Why is that sad? Having kids is great, if that's what you want. And if you want 16 kids, so be it.
Sad, to me, is that we'd view the birth of new and unique humans in any amount as sad.
I don't believe it's anyone's moral obligation to procreate. If you don't want kids, that's cool. But to look down on the innocent child of another with only the thought of how many resources that child could deprive you of........
my grandma is from italy. I was born in america.
I was just about to pont this. Casually, I'm doing currently some research about fertility rates for my work and there is not a unique trend. For example here in Latin America our fertility rates have been showing a decreasing trend for the past 20 years, and many countries show fertility rates close to the replacement level, which is approx. 2 kids par woman.
In several european countries you have negative rates, i.e, there is more people dying every year than being born. Actually countries like Italia and Spain could solve a few social protection financing issues with a higher fertility rate.
And so on...
I have not seen a statistical study but I thought Malthusian theories were proven wrong a long time ago...
I believe the real problem with our assets, resources, goods, wealth, etc seems to be a distributive one...
Peace from Argentina
Caterina
Thank you for that!! David Suzuki is a good writer - have you read any of his books?
i've got his big book from a while back - the sacred balance or something like that ... i plan on reading his autobiography when it gets to the library but i think i've seen so many things on him i don't need to ...
anyways - that quote was from a yahoo article posted today ...
Yes, I did see that show....suggesting to people that they shouldn't have a/any kids is something I don't want to get into - but 16!!! C'mon! That woman was a baby machine!! And when you think about all the food/resources/space/etc. that these 16 kids will use in thier lifetime....it's staggering...especially if they all start having 10, 12, 14 kids themselves.