Famine

[steev]

Indeed so. In my opinion, (which is open to controversy, I realize), we are making too many people; we continue to relegate women to status as "breeders" and domestic service, rather than educating them, to their potential, and our benefit; we are letting things get out of hand and then saying "The only response to this (admittedly) awful situation is further de-regulation of industrial agriculture"; which is to say: more of what hasn't worked! Here in the USA, we've just had an election in which "more of what hasn't worked" sucked hind tit. Are we capable of learning, or are we critters pre-programmed at birth with all the knowledge we ever need, and so in no need of any education, whatsoever? Are we reptiles, birds, or insects? That's not a rhetorical question. While I accept the presence of the "lizard brain" in humans, I am offended by the self-serving appeal of some politicians to it, in their fear-mongering demagoguery.

There were recent reports of studies that showed organic food to be less nutritious than big-ag's; that organic farming is less productive than big ag, and that organic takes more land, water, and labor. Were these done by the "scientists" that proved tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer? Right; so if you chem-fert, pesticide, mono-culture, and herbicide your crops all to hell and make your operation so huge that it can all be done by machinery/tech, you're going to solve problems of global food distribution, over-population, and job-shortages? Did I get that right? I certainly hope so, as I'd like things to work out. I'm not holding my breath.

[blueadzuki]

I tend to agree, but I don't really see anyway out of it. Part of the problem is that, by now, I think we have gotten beyond the point where even the "one child per couple" method is going to drop the population fast enough to outstrip our passive rate of environmental degradation (the level we cause just by existing as animals. In other words, the amount that would still be there even IF we were to abandon all of our "modern" technology (and by "modern" I'm including basically everything starting from the wheel, fire and language.) We actually have probably reached the point where we need to convince the vast majority of people to produce no children AT ALL.

But there seems to be no real ethical way to go about such a thing. Trying to reduce the amount of actual sex in the world is probably a no-go, f**king is just too much fun to be able to convince most people to go without it (sorry Saint Jerome, we will never be a world of universally chaste people). Trying to governmentally limit the populace to one child already has been shown to not really work; trying to keep most people from having none would be all but impossible (and how would you? Require most people to be sterilized before puberty?) Plus, trying to decide WHO gets to actually have children is invariably going to lead into some really nasty eugenics sh**t.

To be honest, a part of me almost wishes the ultra conservatives were correct and homosexuality was a choice not a matter of birth. If it was, I'd say governments might actually want to encourage as many people as possible to become gay/lesbian since that would provide for the sexual, emotional and child nurturing needs of the people while cutting down on the number of unplanned and unwanted babies.

I also think that those heads of the major religions that are for making the problem worse should be brought to task for it. I don't meant their stances on abortion and birth control those are their own lookouts. I mean their continual pressure on their members to produce as many children as possible, their continued treatment of fecundity as a sacrament. In this day and age, I wish many of them would get together and agree that "Be fruitful and multiply and subjugate the Earth" is a commandment best considered no longer to be followed so rigidly.

I'm sorry if any of this is controversial. When you start thinking about things like this your mind starts to come to conclusions that are morally terrifying (like that leaders who commit genocide should actually be celebrated for diminishing the population.)

[mskrieger]

Actually, much of the world already has fertility levels below replacement. The big determinant of fertility seems to be whether people have an easy time 1)getting enough to eat, and 2)being secure in their old age. If those two things are relatively do-able, people will have fewer children (at least, this is what the evidence from around the world seems to be saying.) If not, children are had as a form of security.

Some populations have children for religious or other reasons, but they are not in the majority.

From what I've read, if the world's current population all used about 1/10 of the resources used by an average American, we could all share the planet and live pretty decent lives. Maybe not quite as cushy as those of us in the US of A have it now, but comfortable and humane. Since I live in the US...and I have several children...I take this very seriously. My family has been working hard to reduce our use of water, fuel, etc. down to the 1/10 level. I'm still a big offender because I drive so much for my job, but otherwise it's been very doable. Gardening and saving seeds is a big part of this, just like William says.

So buck up folks. We here are fighting the good fight, in our way.

[blueadzuki]

Well, that can be your opinion. I'll stick to mine, that the average human is too self indulgent selfish and downright evil to be counted on to sacrifice even the tiniest amount of their comfort for any benefit, and that the net gain of those who DO have that much foresight will be largely squandered by those who think that even the amount of ease and cushiness they have now is not enough.

As far as I am concerned, actually making progress is ultimately going to require a new kind of person, one who is perfectly selfless. And by selfless I don't mean nice or generous. Those are nice, but not nearly enough. I mean literally selfless, having no idea of self whatsoever, incapable of ever doing anything for ones own benefit, the final elimination of such things from our makeup as the desire for self enhancement, self gratification and even self preservation. It's the great irony, the only people who are probably suited to be allowed to live on our planet are those who have no desire to do so, who have truly reach the point where whether they live or die, or anyone else does, is of no matter to them.

In short I am more and more in agreement with that group who campaigns for human extinction (at least, until society collapses and some members decide the time is right for their philosophy to be taken to it's next logical level.)

[steev]

With no desire to disparage whatsoever, I would point out that producing several children and then working hard to reduce your environmental footprint is "a day late, and a dollar short"; it's not so unlike Al (the great environmentalist) and Tipper Gore breeding until they got a son to name Albert Gore III; one might suppose that 2 (or even 3) beautiful daughters could have satisfied them, but apparently not enough for them to make decisions in accord with Al, the great environmentalist's, years of study and advocacy of environmental responsibility. Kind of looks like "do as I say, not as I do".

I have sired one child (it was a valuable experience; memories of which swell my heart and move me to tears); I just don't think my genes are that special; I doubt that my old age, nor the future of the species, depends on my having produced more offspring; I accept that I will die, and I believe that will be the end of it (the Jewish perspective, if I'm not misinformed); I don't know when or how my end will come; the suspense is killing me!

[mskrieger]

steev, we all have our reasons
blueadzuki, if Stella's got you stuck inside today, you might enjoy watching 'Eyes on the Prize'...it's a documentary that makes it quite clear that ordinary people can do extraordinary things in pursuit of the public good. But I'll admit our current cultural conditioning makes that pretty damn hard for the average human being.

Anywho, since we know about climate change and environmental devastation and how our own actions are contributing to famine and all the rest, but yet here we are and all of us seem to have a strong will to live, "how should we live?" seems to be a pretty important question. Or as steev might say 'creation has provided us with Being and the capacity to contemplate Doing; shall we not get on with it?"

cheers.

[walt]

From 2003 to 2013 I lived on 160 acres of native prairie with a friend.  We tried to live off the grid and live as low input lives as possible.  We lived seperately, each with our individual vission of what a sustainable lifestyle would be.  Both of us were divorced and in the market for wives.  He found one that fit into his lifestyle.  I found one that required moving to town and making more money, a move I soon regretted.
When I started living off-grid, as sustainable as was suitable to me, I started out with only what I knew I would miss if I didn't have.  A couple of solar panels with controler and batteries, radio-cd player, light for reading, fan, greenhouse, my clothes, a big hoe named Matilda, a dog, seeds, and car.
I decided to only add things I actually missed.
After a couple of years, I added an electric water pump.  About that time I realized that some things I would start to miss as I got older and somewhat weaker.  Hence the electric water pump.  
I got a phone, which I soon regretted, and discarded.
I got an 8 by 20 trailer house for $35.  The next time my daughter visited, she asked why I had bought it.  I pointed out it had a cook stove, refridgerater, shower.  She said "But you were happy in the greenhouse."  I realized she knew me better than I knew myself.  I had caved to social pressure.  I had been happier in the greenhouse.  I missed seeing the stars and moon every night, or storm clouds, as that was the show sometimes.
I could go on.  My point is that most people buy stuff that they don't actually miss.  They use power, water, etc. which with a little planning they could be as happy without.  Most people spend their lives trying to keep up with the Jones, never seeing that the Jones are no happier than they are.

[steev]

YeS; while I don't doubt in the slightest that one may wish to breed, nor that it may be a reasonable decision; the simple fact is that more people want more amenities; food; housing; transportation; whatever. So the question is: am I so important that I should burden the rest of the world with more of my offspring (which are doubtless of incredibly superior stock). Clearly, there are people who espouse exactly that attitude. I'll not air my opinions of these self-serving assholes (oops; sorry; lost my sphincter control).

There are increasing notices regarding the need for (primarily Caucasion) breeding, lest the world become "less white"; am I wrong to think that this is more than a tad racist, if not simply ridiculous?

I think the question is not "can we make more of the right race of people", but can we make more intelligent/educated people, who can benefit us all.

[mskrieger]

Mar 15, 2017 3:36:53 GMT -5 steev said:

I think the question is not "can we make more of the right race of people", but can we make more intelligent/educated people, who can benefit us all.

or, maybe more "good" people. "Good" in this sense meaning people who strive to improve/repair the world and serve others (and perhaps recognize their integral role in the biosphere instead of seeing themselves separate and 'above'.) 

I'm all for intelligence and education but it doesn't necessarily do a fart towards making those so blessed humble or ecologically-minded.

[mskrieger]

and walt I love the idea of living in a greenhouse and seeing the weather.

[blueadzuki]

Mar 17, 2017 14:48:55 GMT -5 mskrieger said:

Mar 15, 2017 3:36:53 GMT -5 steev said:

I think the question is not "can we make more of the right race of people", but can we make more intelligent/educated people, who can benefit us all.

or, maybe more "good" people. "Good" in this sense meaning people who strive to improve/repair the world and serve others (and perhaps recognize their integral role in the biosphere instead of seeing themselves separate and 'above'.) 

I'm all for intelligence and education but it doesn't necessarily do a fart towards making those so blessed humble or ecologically-minded.

Like I said before, there is no hope as long as people have ANY sense of self. As long as you think "I matter, whether I live or die matters" you have damned yourself and everyone else. You not only have to accept your place on the wheel of nature, you have to accept, nay, embrace that with will roll right over you and utterly crush you and everything you could conceivably care about (or why one must strive to care about nothing.)

(I think I better stop here, I had a rotten day and I think it is showing.)

[steev]

I think learning about the ecosystem and our place in it is one of the highest fields of education; I think if one can grasp even a portion of the biosphere's range and interrelatedness one is led to humility; it is that "Humanity as separate and above" thing that most offends me about mainstream religion. Having trained as a zoologist, the whole anthropocentric viewpoint is not very tolerable to me.

On that note, I think I'll get some chow, since I have some (oops, smug attack).

[steev]

I am moved to point out that in the event of widespread famine, anthropophagy is a win/win strategy: it solves the eater's hunger and reduces the world's hunger-burden by removing someone who would otherwise need to eat. I'm not so much anti-soylent green as offended by the lack of honesty about what is being done.

Note that the only member of California's ill-fated "Donner Party" to ever actually admit to having resorted to cannibalism later opened a cafe in Sacramento.

[zeedman]

I normally avoid this topic, because it is depressing... but my 2 c's.

"Be fruitful and multiply and subjugate the Earth"

While I consider myself to be a person of faith, I would say that the subjugation of the Earth is pretty much done. Time now to set it free.

Nature has many ways of dealing with over-population. Famine & disease are two of those ways. With our technology, we have the means to reduce disease, and it is possible to reduce hunger (governments are both the potential solution, and the main obstacle, to ending hunger). If the population keeps increasing, though, all that our best efforts may do is prolong the inevitable - because sad to say, eventually the need will outstrip our means. In the end, all we may be doing is increasing the magnitude of the inevitable calamity.

Predation is another way that Nature deals with over-population - and humanity is its own worst predator. I tend to agree that the current dominant cultures on the planet are unlikely to embrace the changes necessary until change is forced on them, and unfortunately, war is likely to be the instrument of that change. That is a dark view I know, but the world is already on the brink of WW3, just waiting for someone to fire the first shot. I hope that never happens, but some of those arming for war have no sense of self-preservation, so it is hard to maintain optimism.

[SteveB]

Around here at least, I see many opportunities to produce food. The problem is the local laws and regulations make it a difficult venture. I mean for example I can grow any kind of tree, grow an obnoxious and cluttered flower garden mulched ridiculously heavy, hose down my lawn daily if I so choose with any number of pollutants, But a vegetable garden? Now you have to make sure they are not "over planted" because pests. Hold off on that Mulch because pests. All them corn plants? They are just disorderly and an eyesore. That trellis? Let's see if you need a permit. The fence? No that needs to go. Bare soil? That needs to be smoothed out with grass planted on it. Tomato plants? Sure you can, but do you really need more than a couple? I could go on, but yea some places make it nearly impossible to grow something that will feed humans...