Overpopulation solutions

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

innerbrat wrote:Now, of course, we're talking about destruction of vast amounts of land and ecologies. Bearing in mind how important biome like the rainforest are for things like drug research.
It would be very efficient to research these things by cataloging the species in question as we clear their habitats, taking both live and dead samples and placing the live ones in appropriate containment areas where they can be bred as captive populations for medicinal purposes if useful. Naturally the useful plant populations can serve to create the structure of such containment areas.

The idea of the rainforests being the "lung" of the Earth is ridiculous - Algae does that.

The simple fact is that humanity has all the resources it needs to feed the populace that will soon be on this planet, if we just focus on applying those resources to the projects necessary to exploit the maximum possible land to agriculture. I'd clear-cut a thousand acres of rainforest to sate the hunger of a starving village in the Congo; there's simply no comparison.

The problem with "fight hunger" efforts today is that they involve the redistribution of wealth and resources from the First World to the Third World. This is not going to world--we need to create entirely new infrastructure to support the populations growing in the third world, not just stretch the infrastructure of the First World thin. To be honest of it, what needs to happen is that the leadership of countries in the Third World need to start on projects which they are quite capable of and which will begin to enrich their nations and provide for their people. I provide Nasser's Aswan High Dam as an example of this. For instance, now Ethiopia is going ahead with its own plans to dam the Nile, and that can only improve and enrich that nation.

Vegetarianism is hardly going to solve anything. Many people in the First World are lazy and have the opportunity for such an unhealthy luxury, but in the Third World everything is at the touch-and-go, and the nutrients thus provide are really needed. We are omnivorous and meat is an inherent part of the diet since we first existed. So it must remain, and especially for those who shall continue to struggle to survive until they have reached our level of advance.

And reaching it can only be done through the efforts I propose.

The simple fact is that things like the Three Gorges Dam, and the three Yellow-Yangtze Canals, that China has embarked upon to solve the massive and pressing problems of water shortage, or agriculture--and even then shall need more to overcome the strain of a massive populace, but more is not beyond the redoubtable resources of that nation--are what are also needed for the rest of the world.

That is the example to be followed in every developing nation. Egypt has an even more grandiose plan to create an entire second Nile valley by diverting water from Lake Nasser along a path through the western desert, opening huge stretches of currently unuseable land for farming. It might not go through, but things like that are what could solve our insatiable hungers in the 21st century.

The human race has gotten where it has principally by building. At the beginning of recorded history we tirelessly built levies against the floodwaters of the Mesopotamian valley, and threw up walls against the ingress of barbarian tribes. Civilization progressed and through war and peace alike humanity's solution was to turn to the earth and labour. There is no other way to do things, none at all. From the construction of the great dams that tamed the western United States once and for all, to the desperate action of a man digging a trench in war--it is our best artifice.

So, we have a crisis, and what should we do? What has always worked in the past: build our way out of it! There are still many resources to be exploited on this planet--Africa, in particular, has vast untouched resources--and there are already processes underway which may produce synthetic fossil fuels cheaply. We have a known upper limit of where our population will peak, and so we simply must meet the demands of that level of populace for resources. The globe is our clay and our life alike, and now we must finish melding it to provide for us. Any other solution would be silly or unrealistic, and I expect that this is inevitable. People react to reality. Slowly, and in some areas of the world many probably will die of famine and disease. But the drive of those who remain is inevitable.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
InnerBrat
CLIT Commander
Posts: 7469
Joined: 2002-11-26 11:02am
Location: In my own mind.
Contact:

Post by InnerBrat »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: It would be very efficient to research these things by cataloging the species in question as we clear their habitats, taking both live and dead samples and placing the live ones in appropriate containment areas where they can be bred as captive populations for medicinal purposes if useful. Naturally the useful plant populations can serve to create the structure of such containment areas.
But it wouldn't really work - collection processes alone for many smaller organism are vastly inefficient in terms of time relative to clearing, and even evolution rates of rapid generatopms. You'd lose inifinitely more than you'd catalogue.
The idea of the rainforests being the "lung" of the Earth is ridiculous - Algae does that.
I know that - that's why I didn't bring it up. I'm talking about biodiversity, not carbon cycling. Not even algae does it - all photosynthetic organisms do it to an equal extent. The Earth's atmospheric oxygen has reached equilibrium, but only because the photosynthetic organisms provide enough energy and nutrients to sustain approximately the same amount of heterotrophs as they do oxygen (the net oxyge value of any biome is about 0)
The simple fact is that humanity has all the resources it needs to feed the populace that will soon be on this planet, if we just focus on applying those resources to the projects necessary to exploit the maximum possible land to agriculture. I'd clear-cut a thousand acres of rainforest to sate the hunger of a starving village in the Congo; there's simply no comparison.
So would I, but as a last resort. Reorganisation of agriculture need not be at the loss of any more natural ecologies.
Vegetarianism is hardly going to solve anything. Many people in the First World are lazy and have the opportunity for such an unhealthy luxury, but in the Third World everything is at the touch-and-go, and the nutrients thus provide are really needed. We are omnivorous and meat is an inherent part of the diet since we first existed. So it must remain, and especially for those who shall continue to struggle to survive until they have reached our level of advance.
I've argued the nutritional content of non-animals produce until the tofu comes home on this board - no one ever listens to me about the efficiency of processes vegetable carbohydrates no matter how much pasta and potatoes they load into their diet. Most non-vegetarians I know use meat only as a side to the vast amount of non-meat in their diet anyway.
And reaching it can only be done through the efforts I propose.
-snip-
I mostly agree with the rest of your post, so I'll leave it there and go to bed (quarter to two, and I have job hunting to do in the morning). But a lot of the changes your'e proposing require a radical shift in the politics of the Third world, which really will take a lot of time. African governments have mostly vehemently resisted reform imposed on them by the Western world (given the relevant histories, fairly understandable). So the only thing we can do right now is focus on using our own resources more economically and yes, provide aid where it is most needed.
"I fight with love, and I laugh with rage, you gotta live light enough to see the humour and long enough to see some change" - Ani DiFranco, Pick Yer Nose

"Life 's not a song, life isn't bliss, life is just this: it's living." - Spike, Once More with Feeling
User avatar
TrailerParkJawa
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2002-07-04 11:49pm
Location: San Jose, California

Post by TrailerParkJawa »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:Getting a dam project approved these days is nearly impossible.
We need to fix that.
Wont happen anywhere in the Western states. Almost every river is already dammed for power or flood control and they isnt many more places to do so. Besides, that really changes nothing. If you dam, you trash some other industry or resource. Its a trade off.

You will have much more luck actually mandating energy efficient lighting and such to reduce the need for a new dam's power production.
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
Post Reply