|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
isitts
Joined: 25 Dec 2008
Location: Korea
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 8:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Why are massive human populations even desirable? |
In addition to what Fox said, your comfortable way of life is also supported by large populations. As in, who assembled your smart phone, your computer (or the parts, if by chance, you build your own), who sews your clothes, who makes your shoes? You've got a lot of people working under you.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Excellent news. Its only backward third world countries that still have an obsessive focus on marriage and baby production. |
Well, they're kind of living a different life. You might look up K selected vs. r selected population dynamics. There are particular reasons for going about it one way over another.
Who are you to call it backward, anyway? Our population is going backward, and how smart and advanced are we going to feel if we overdo it?
EDIT: Maybe you should watch Children of Men or Idiocracy... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| All those modern conveniences which you suggested enabled us to "live more rewarding lives than any generation before us" are at least partially a function of large populations. |
Modern conveniences are secondary to a sustainable existence on this planet.
What good are conveniences if you've systematically destroyed the natural operating systems of the planet- thus ensuring there is no viable future for your dna offspring? Haven't you just defeated the whole point of reproduction?
Because all the industry that you're in love with has already destroyed vast swathes of the natural ecosystem- something you seem utterly oblivious to.
Let me give you an example. The agriculture required to sustain your immense population produces agricultural runoff in the forms of phosphates and nitrogen that creates hypoxic dead zones-where little or nothing can survive. One such dead zone of 47 000 sq km has formed where the missisipi enters the sea. Over the past few decades, other dead zones have formed in the baltic (84 000 sq km) , or the black sea (40 000 sq km).
The oil required to power your massive human populations has resulted not only in dangerous climate change, but unending accidents and pollution. The exxon valdez spill wiped out huge swathes of marine life and the livelihoods of coastal communities. 20 years on it hasn't recovered. But the deepwater horizon mishap spewed oil into the gulf of mexico at the rate of one exxon every five days, for three months.
All so that foxy loxy can have a car.
Ok I get it. Fox doesn't care that half the children on the planet live in poverty. He just wants people to keep pumping them out so he can afford a new cellphone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
Modern conveniences are secondary to a sustainable existence on this planet. |
I agree. You're the one championing consumeristic hedonism here. I emphatically do not agree that modern life is intrinsically more rewarding in any general sense.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
Ok I get it. Fox doesn't care that half the children on the planet live in poverty. He just wants people to keep pumping them out so he can afford a new cellphone. |
Westerners having fewer children will do nothing to raise Africans and Southeast Asians out of poverty. In fact, probably the opposite, the decline of western populations and their attendant economies will mean less potential for export-driven development, less foreign aid, and less tolerance for third world migration & wage remittance. And again, you're the self-declared champion of modern luxuries in this thread, not me; you asked why a larger population was more desirable, so I responded by explaining why your own comments imply its desirability. This is not complex. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isitts
Joined: 25 Dec 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
Modern conveniences are secondary to a sustainable existence on this planet….
…Because all the industry that you're in love with has already destroyed vast swathes of the natural ecosystem- something you seem utterly oblivious to. |
Really? What did you mean by this then?
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| We are able to live more rewarding lives than any generation before us… |
What’s rewarding about your life? You weren’t talking about conveniences and you weren’t talking about children. So, what did you mean?
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| What good are conveniences if you've systematically destroyed the natural operating systems of the planet… |
I presume, then, that you are typing this from some self-sustaining commune somewhere off the grid? You grow your own food, allow food waste and your own waste to be taken back into the ground? You don’t run a tap? You make your own clothes, shoes, and whatever device you’re typing on?
And when you die? …what? You didn’t have children, so what are you sustaining exactly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| isitts wrote: |
| And when you die? …what? You didn’t have children, so what are you sustaining exactly? |
The planet. The other living things and natural systems that we're supposed to be sharing the planet with.
Humans basically function as vermin. In effect. They ruin everything they touch with their selfishness, ignorance and greed. Until we start living with the earth in a sustainable way then we need to get our populations down to less harmful levels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isitts
Joined: 25 Dec 2008
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Humans basically function as vermin. In effect. They ruin everything they touch with their selfishness, ignorance and greed. |
What about indigenous people? Or are they not human? Or maybe they don't have rewarding lives, what with having children and all.
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Until we start living with the earth in a sustainable way then we need to get our populations down to less harmful levels. |
What are those levels exactly? What is your idea of sustainable?
And the fact is, someone has to keep having children to realize your dream. If everyone stops today, then we're done in about 100 years. So who gets to live on in your world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I launched a couple kids when I was poor. One my own & one I took on at age two who has since always called me dad. They're in their 30s now. They've proven to be the dearest people in my life. I'm pretty sure we havent significantly damaged the planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chaparrastique
Joined: 01 Jan 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| isitts wrote: |
What about indigenous people? Or are they not human? Or maybe they don't have rewarding lives, what with having children and all. |
Traditional/ indigenous people live much more harmoniously with the earth- without causing as much damage as we do, but they have still been historically responsible for e.g. extinctions of other species.
not sure what your point is here. All humans have had some negative impact on the planet. But some a lot more than others.
| Quote: |
| Chaparrastique wrote: |
| Until we start living with the earth in a sustainable way then we need to get our populations down to less harmful levels. |
What are those levels exactly? |
I don't know, but obviously we have far exceeded them because today 50% of the worlds 1.1bn children live in poverty.
| Quote: |
| What is your idea of sustainable? |
Sustainable means, "can be sustained".
That is to say, a civilization or lifestyle that exists without causing its own demise. Which happens by overexploiting its resources or pulling the rivets out of the environment that sustains it.
| Quote: |
| And the fact is, someone has to keep having children to realize your dream. If everyone stops today, then we're done in about 100 years. So who gets to live on in your world? |
If humans ceased to exist today, the planet would benefit massively. Ecosystems and weather etc would be able to recover. That was hinted at during 9/11 for example, when for (three?) days all US aircraft were grounded. The result was that the US climate briefly returned to historic normal levels.
I'm not anti-human per se, however. If humans lived without trashing the planet, then it wouldn't matter if we had big populations. But the point is.. given how destructive humanity is now, it would be a good thing for human populations to fall to levels that have less negative impact on the earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shimokitazawa
Joined: 14 Dec 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| People aren't worth a shit. Why create more? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
