Skip to main content

Youtube has a fascinating discussion by a Dr. Bartlett on exponential population growth and the inevitable crossing of the lines of the demands of such population and the supply of natural resources such as oil.

It' a bit long, but I found it compelling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Why am I posting this in the Religion forum? Because many religious people, especially Catholics (sorry veep and HoD), consider population control sinful.

If the Pope and Pat Robertson are not aware of the problem, then they have something to learn. They have resources and intelligent staffs, they should know. If they know and still work to thwart population growth, then they represent an evil that would hasten and worsen the inevitable.

It's not enough to say "someone" will find a way to burn water. We've been working hard on alternate energy technologies since Jimmy Carter's famous speech of, what, 1979? So far, "someone" has produced not much.

Nuclear fuel is finite, as well. With all nuclear energy's other problems, it is not the magic bullet.

Controlling population is essential to prolonged prosperity, and that will take the cooperation of religion. Will it happen?

nsns

Make time for great justice.  Expect us.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Deep,

I'm with you, man! Make Abortion and Euthanasia the law of the land! Allow only one conceived child out of 100 to live -- and put everyone over 60 to sleep.

By, the way, how old are you?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


ns, YOU JUST GOTTA LOVE THIS GUY, WHAT A SWEETY.
quote:
Originally posted by Brick:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Deep,

I'm with you, man! Make Abortion and Euthanasia the law of the land! Allow only one conceived child out of 100 to live -- and put everyone over 60 to sleep.

By, the way, how old are you?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

ns, YOU JUST GOTTA LOVE THIS GUY, WHAT A SWEETY.

WHAT? - NOW THAT I AGREE WITH DEEP - I AM WRONG? - YOU ATHEIST JUST CANNOT BE SATISFIED!

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1_-__Snoopy_Running
WHAT? - NOW THAT I AGREE WITH DEEP - I AM WRONG? - YOU ATHEIST JUST CANNOT BE SATISFIED!

You're two-faced. I don't agree with abortion. I do agree with the death penalty but YOU work harder keeping murdering bast**** alive than unborn babies. It's you christians that can't be satisfied. How about this bill, how about you "christians" stop treating unwed mothers and their worthless "boyfriends" like they're the most wonderful thing since sliced bread. The same goes for dopers and alcoholics. How about you christians stop trying to keep murderers alive. In other words bill, clean up your own house before you look at others.
quote:
Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
Jen, Brick,

Ignore him. He's just after a rise from you. It's the best he can do to feel like he has something to say.

He's a frustrated "wanna be preacher" that apparently can't get any followers. It's sad when today almost any nutcase can attract enough followers to rent an empty service station or office and begin the "Church of the Whatever in the Heck" they call it. I bet old bill would love that little gift that the government gives these loonies,that being tax free status.


nsns
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
WHAT? - NOW THAT I AGREE WITH DEEP - I AM WRONG? - YOU ATHEIST JUST CANNOT BE SATISFIED!

You're two-faced. I don't agree with abortion. I do agree with the death penalty but YOU work harder keeping murdering bastards alive than unborn babies. It's you christians that can't be satisfied. How about this bill, how about you "christians" stop treating unwed mothers and their worthless "boyfriends" like they're the most wonderful thing since sliced bread. The same goes for dopers and alcoholics. How about you christians stop trying to keep murderers alive. In other words bill, clean up your own house before you look at others.

Hi Jennifer,

If you have been around the Religion Forum for a while -- you will know the Deep is VERY Pro-Abortion -- and that I am VERY Pro-Life.

Personally, I would like to see all abortions stopped -- except those which truly threaten the life of the mother.

Yet, even accepting the abortions from cases of rape, incest, and mother's health -- these all together represent less than 3% of the over ONE MILLION abortions each year in America. So, if it would save the life of the other 97% of the babies killed via abortion -- I would be willing to accept those abortions; not like them, but accept them -- IF the abortionist will give us that 97%. Assuming ONE MILLION abortions a year in America -- doing this would save the lives of 970,000 babies. Can you imagine -- 970,000 babies a year will be able to experience life.

Unfortunately, the Liberals will not give us the lives of those 970,000 babies -- so, we must continue to fight for the life of every baby. One life saved is a blessing.

And, while I know that the death penalty is Biblical; I still could not vote to take a human life. This is why I could never sit on a jury where there was a possibility of the death penalty.

So, Jennifer, whether you like it or not -- it seems that you and I are on the same wavelength on these issues. You are my sister in saving lives.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1_-_Baby-From-God_DIE
I am pro-choice. I also believe every human being has the right to life....born or unborn. How can both of these statements be true? I am pro-choice because no baby was conceived accidentally. Someone made a choice to have sex. There is your choice. The rest are consequences of that choice. Don't be in the kitchen if you can't take the heat.
I also believe that the onslaught of illegals coming in here is part of a plan because we killed so many of todays "would-be" consumers with abortion since the 1970's that now we have to allow ilegals here to buy our products. Too bad they are mostly buying from yardsales.
quote:
Originally posted by savinforarainyday:
I am pro-choice. I also believe every human being has the right to life....born or unborn. How can both of these statements be true? I am pro-choice because no baby was conceived accidentally. Someone made a choice to have sex. There is your choice. The rest are consequences of that choice. Don't be in the kitchen if you can't take the heat.
I also believe that the onslaught of illegals coming in here is part of a plan because we killed so many of todays "would-be" consumers with abortion since the 1970's that now we have to allow ilegals here to buy our products. Too bad they are mostly buying from yardsales.

Hi Savin,

You may call yourself Pro-Choice; but, your beliefs label you very much Pro-Life. Welcome to the family!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_Piggy
quote:
Originally posted by savinforarainyday:
I am pro-choice. I also believe every human being has the right to life....born or unborn. How can both of these statements be true? I am pro-choice because no baby was conceived accidentally. Someone made a choice to have sex. There is your choice. The rest are consequences of that choice. Don't be in the kitchen if you can't take the heat.
I also believe that the onslaught of illegals coming in here is part of a plan because we killed so many of todays "would-be" consumers with abortion since the 1970's that now we have to allow ilegals here to buy our products. Too bad they are mostly buying from yardsales.


My dear friend Savin,


How can you say that no zygote is conceived accidentally?

Does not birth control sometimes fail? Do men lie about having vasectomies? Do women lie about being on The Pill?

What level of responsibility is appropriate?

nsns
Good Morning:
Perhaps we could shift the debate towards another end.

The abortion debate is endless and fairly futile. I have my own views, but I see no reason to throw them out here. They will add no value to what has become a meaningless stalemate.

Instead shall we discuss another idea?

How about sterilization of known vicious criminals? Or swift death sentences to these same individuals when they commit crimes against society? How about sterilization of obvious genetically defective human beings (we used to call them “retards” in the bad old days). Would this be a good thing? I think so. However, I do not feel qualified to say who would be sterilized. I think that this thing should be done at some type of a social and judicial level. What do you think? Do you think this is a good idea or a really bad idea, smacking of the Third Reich???

Ideas? Comments?? Questions???

Al
quote:
Originally posted by alwilliams767:
Good Morning:
Perhaps we could shift the debate towards another end.

The abortion debate is endless and fairly futile. I have my own views, but I see no reason to throw them out here. They will add no value to what has become a meaningless stalemate.

Instead shall we discuss another idea?

How about sterilization of known vicious criminals? Or swift death sentences to these same individuals when they commit crimes against society? How about sterilization of obvious genetically defective human beings (we used to call them “retards” in the bad old days). Would this be a good thing? I think so. However, I do not feel qualified to say who would be sterilized. I think that this thing should be done at some type of a social and judicial level. What do you think? Do you think this is a good idea or a really bad idea, smacking of the Third Reich???

Ideas? Comments?? Questions???

Al


Suppose we seriously considered such a program. Who would you trust to decide who gets neutered and who does not?

One could only support this if one is willing to undergo the procedure depending on the judgment of others.

Still, we have the death penalty.

bjbg
quote:
How about sterilization of known vicious criminals? Or swift death sentences to these same individuals when they commit crimes against society?


Violation of their rights.
---------------------------------------------------------------

How about sterilization of obvious genetically defective human beings (we used to call them “retards” in the bad old days.

Violation of their rights.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Paying for the upkeep and well being of murderers and other criminals.

Our duty, forgot about our rights, society has none when it comes to criminals' rights.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Supporting children of the mentally challenged or the plain old irresponsible.

Again our duty, no rights here either. Society is again forced to do this.
quote:
How about sterilization of known vicious criminals? Or swift death sentences to these same individuals when they commit crimes against society? How about sterilization of obvious genetically defective human beings (we used to call them “retards” in the bad old days). Would this be a good thing? I think so.



i think not. that's just horrible, im sure you wee being tongue in cheek right?
Nash,

Did you watch Dr. Bartlett's lecture?

The agriculture on which the world's population depends depends itself on oil.

No geologist in the world will tell you that the easy to mine oil is plentiful. The oil necessary to maintain even our current population will from now on become more and more expensive, making food more expensive, meaning greater hunger.

Our waste products have poisoned the air and the seas. There are 6 billion of us human animals and what? 200 white rhinos?

I watched the video you posted. Ridiculous. Sure, every person on earth could live in Texas. They'd soon die.

Did you see Dr. Bartlett's explanation about doubling? Let's just say the national population is growing at 2%/year. That means it will double in 35 years. Twice the electricity plants. Twice the petroleum. Twice the food. Twice the acreage in agricultural production. Twice the pollution. And you could live to see it.

And after the population doubles in 35 years, it will double again in 18 years. Then in nine years. And there will be fewer resources to provide for them.

Of course, it probably won't happen. Wars over resources that have already begun will thin out our herd. Communicable diseases will flourish. Is that the way we want to control our population?

Have you heard of "the new normal"? It's our way of admitting that we cannot continue to consume finite resources in the fashion to which we have become accustomed. It's slapping us in the face right now.

The writing is on the wall. The math does not lie. Without an honest discussion of our future, Nature will adjust the world's population, as she is doing now, and it will be very ugly.

We can at least try to do better.

Note this graph. http://images.search.yahoo.com...a9vk2&fr=ytff1-msgr1 Why do you think the world's population will level off? Because we get tired of having children? Or is it more likely that deprivation will be the cause?

To ignore this problem is cruel.


nsns
Did anyone even bother to look at the links I posted?

I don't mean this as an insult, just making an observation. I just find it interesting that some who claim to be the most logical and reasonable believe in such easily debunked concepts such as global warming and overpopulation.

I've presented a logical argument with evidence as to why I do not believe in the concept of overpopulation. Someone who is truly rational would consider the evidence and say at best, the jury is still out on the issue.

To dismiss any counter argument or evidence without consideration is an emotional response, not logical.

Dr. Bartlett isn't the first to claim the planet is doomed due to overpopulation. There have been others before him who used the exact same formula and said the exact same thing. The planet will face certain doom due to overpopulation by 1890.

Oh wait, I mean 1985.

Oh wait, that was wrong too. What date did Dr. Bartlett give?

Putting this observation to a test, where do you stand on the 9-11 conspiracy theory? Was it an inside job?

What about the JFK assassination, was there a major cover up?

How about the Roswell incident, was it really a weather balloon or something else?
quote:
SO, DEEP, WHAT WOULD "YOU" SUGGEST WE DO TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM?



unfortunately, the problem will solve itself in some pretty horrible ways. right this very minute, 23,000 children per day starve to death because of the non-existent problem of over population in many third world countries. people in california experience rolling blackouts that are a symptom of the non-existent problem of too many people using too much energy.

yes, over population is an undeniable problem right this very minute. the problem is that those of us in developed nations wont be directly affected by it for many years or even decades. i readily admit to beig a part of the problem. like most of you, it is difficult to feel pain for those starving children while i just finished a juicy burger.

if we do not take proactive measures such as ensuring the widespread availability of birth control (that will reduce the need for abortions) and education then the problem of overpopulation will continue to get worse. at some point, epidmics, wars over dwindling resources (the US is in the midst of one of those right now in Iraq), food shortages, etc, will tend to correct the problem without us doing anything.

the earth has a way of evening things out no matter how bad it gets.
quote:
most logical and reasonable believe in such easily debunked concepts such as global warming and overpopulation.



tell me: how many people starve to death every day, nash? not just the 23,000 kids i mentioned, but total?

just curious if you can find that statistic.

how many wars are currently or have been fought over dwindling resources such as oil?

can you answer these questions?
quote:
Dr. Bartlett isn't the first to claim the planet is doomed due to overpopulation.



that is a stupid statement. very al-gorish. the planet os not doomed unless there is a moon sized asteroid hurtling towards us.

but segments of our population RIGHT NOW are suffering because of overpopulation. how in the f--- can you deny that there is problem with too many people in certain areas of the earth? amazing!
quote:
Originally posted by Unobtanium:
quote:
Dr. Bartlett isn't the first to claim the planet is doomed due to overpopulation.



that is a stupid statement. very al-gorish. the planet os not doomed unless there is a moon sized asteroid hurtling towards us.

but segments of our population RIGHT NOW are suffering because of overpopulation. how in the f--- can you deny that there is problem with too many people in certain areas of the earth? amazing!


An emotional response.

Overpopulation in certain areas is very different than the theory that the planet itself is over populated.

Yes, some areas are highly congested, I live in one. There are other ares of the world that are even more congested, polluted, and hazardous due to too many people trying to live in one spot.

Some areas are sparsely populated, I saw one this summer when I went to Alaska.

Books such as "The Population Bomb" that started the scare is highly flawed and constantly revised to removed incorrect predictions.

Congested areas and planet wide overpopulation are two completely different things. One is obviously real, since I drive in it every day, and one is obviously a myth.
It's ignoramuses like this that give Republicans a bad name. Perhaps they deserve it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=player_embedded

We've fought two wars in Iraq over oil. We would never have fought the first one if we were self-sufficient in oil. Bush 41 admitted the war was about oil.

Imagine after the next 20 years, when all the easily mined oil is gone.

Nash, did you watch Dr. Bartlett's video? He invites specific instances of when he's wrong. Got any?
so nb,

is deforrstation a problem in your world? evere heard of ozone depletion?

did you know that africa’s population has tripled since 1960 and continues to grow the fastest of any continent in the word? europe had twice as many people as africa in 1960. By 2050 experts estimate there will be three times as many africans as europeans. latin america and asia's population has doubled. these are countries that are probably the least equipped to handle more people.

true, population growth has slowed or stopped in most developed contries but "developing" (third world) countries account for 95 percent of the worlds population growth

although developed countries generally good stewards of trees and forests, more than 80 percent of the earth’s natural forests already have been destroyed. up to 90 percent of west africa’s rain forests have disappeared since 1900 - all from this non-existant problem of human population growth.

people are starving to death, war, famine and disease is rampant in these countries yet you still sit there and say "there is no problem with population."

as long as you are getting yours, the world is OK, right?

amazing. absolutely amazing. good luck with continuing to plug your ears and eyes to this bloomong problem. we will have to deal with it one way or another no matter how long you deny it.
quote:
Nash, did you watch Dr. Bartlett's video? He invites specific instances of when he's wrong. Got any?


Easy.

He uses the exponential function as the formula to determine that the planet is overpopulating. Using this formula, it appears as if the world's population will exceed the possible resources.

This method of determining overpopulation was first proposed by Thomas Malthus in the late 18th century. He used the exponential function to determine that the world would be overpopulated by 1898.

Obviously, he was wrong.

Paul Ehrlich also used the exponential function to re-kindle the overpopulation fear. Like Malthus, his prediction of overpopulation by 1980 was also obviously wrong, but it scared a lot of people.

However, he sold a lot of books.

So if Dr. Bartlett is using the same exponential function that Malthus and Ehrlich used, then the results will be same. Wrong.

That doesn't mean this planet has serious problems. Addiction to oil is a very real and serious issue. The Amazon is shrinking due to deforestation.

Myths like overpopulation and global warming simply distract people from the real problems. Working to create solutions to non-existent problems allow real problems to get worse, that's why such myths are more harmful to buy into than helpful.
Nash,

First, you admit that addiction to oil is a problem, as though we could just quit it, like heroin or tobacco. Imagine what our lives would be like without oil. Urban life would become untenable. About 90% of American life is urban.

Thanks for proving my point.



Second, you call overpopulation a myth. Tell it to the starving people of Africa. Tell it to the people of California where urban sprawl takes over more farmland every year than new farmland is developed.

The cruelty of Nature will evidence itself upon our very own species soon enough. It's doing so now, just not yet to you.

We Americans consume WAY more resources on a per capita basis than almost anyone else. Those resources are finite. The end is in sight, especially since the Indians and the Chinese all want cars.

Your Pollyanna attitude is a big part of the problem. Enjoy it while it lasts, you'll live to see the decline in American lifestyle as we know it.

nsns
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
quote:
Originally posted by savinforarainyday:
I am pro-choice. I also believe every human being has the right to life....born or unborn. How can both of these statements be true? I am pro-choice because no baby was conceived accidentally. Someone made a choice to have sex. There is your choice. The rest are consequences of that choice. Don't be in the kitchen if you can't take the heat.
I also believe that the onslaught of illegals coming in here is part of a plan because we killed so many of todays "would-be" consumers with abortion since the 1970's that now we have to allow ilegals here to buy our products. Too bad they are mostly buying from yardsales.

Hi Savin,

You may call yourself Pro-Choice; but, your beliefs label you very much Pro-Life. Welcome to the family!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


I am sorry...my tongue was squarely in my cheek on this one. I am absolutely pro-life. I was just making an observation about choices we as humans make. Then you live with the consequence of that choice.I wonder if the choice people have considered that their own Mom could've made the choice to "terminate" them.
quote:
Nash,

First, you admit that addiction to oil is a problem, as though we could just quit it, like heroin or tobacco. Imagine what our lives would be like without oil. Urban life would become untenable. About 90% of American life is urban.

Thanks for proving my point.


All I said was we are addicted to oil. Are you saying we're not?

I never said anything about stopping our oil consumption instantly. As you pointed out, that would be impossible and wreck the world's economy.

However, with advancements in electric car technology we'll be able to reduce oil consumption in the future. They just installed an electric car recharge station near my house. The world can't quit oil instantly, but we can gradually reduce usage as technology and the free market permits.

So I'm not sure what point you were making that I somehow proved.

quote:
Second, you call overpopulation a myth. Tell it to the starving people of Africa. Tell it to the people of California where urban sprawl takes over more farmland every year than new farmland is developed.


Famines have happened when the population was a fraction of what it is now. People starving doesn't prove overpopulation. Example, the Irish Potato Famine in the mid 19th Century. That wasn't caused by too many people and not enough potatoes, it was caused by a sudden disease that ruined almost all the crops.

Many African countries are run by corrupt governments and warlords. People starving in Africa doesn't prove global overpopulation, it shows what happens when a corrupt government squanders a country's resources.

Like I said, the exponential function that Dr Bartlett used has already been proven faulty. He's not the first to claim the end is near and he won't be the last. If he's using the same formula that has turned out to be wrong before, then logically it will be wrong again.

So why believe him?
When I was in high school, my trig teacher had us calculate the world's population in 20 or 30 years or something. This was about 35 years ago.

Our calculations showed that, as of whenever, there would be 1 square foot of living space per person.

The math in this case doesn't prove anything for the simple reason that you can't really calculate future human behavior.
quote:
Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
Your Pollyanna attitude is a big part of the problem. Enjoy it while it lasts, you'll live to see the decline in American lifestyle as we know it.


and the reality is that the decline is exactly what we will experience before we will, as a whole, change our ways. i admit to being a part of the problem. ill probably not change my ways until i am forced to. some major crap is exactly what will have to happen before i give up my lifestyle.

but denying that i or my grandkids will never have to deal with issues of overpopulation is simply sticking the head in the sand. our friend NB seems to be very good at avoiding the obvious.
This brings up an interesting question. Why believe a formula that has been proven wrong?

Like Crusty pointed out, the overpopulation myth has been recycled for years. Certain doom is just a few decades away unless we change our ways now.

A flawed equation keeps scaring each generation since the 19th Century. Years go by and that date keeps moving farther and farther in the future, yet people still believe it.

Anyone who shows any skepticism towards this theory is scoffed at and ridiculed for not believing in it. Somehow those who see the flaw in the theory are part of the problem. We have to accept the myth and not resist change or we'll hasten the doom that will occur in 1890. Oh wait, that was 1980. No, what year are we on?

Instead of putting blind trust in a formula that has been proven false, look at the world around you and the patterns that are forming.

Birth control is cheap and easy to obtain. Abortion is a common and legal practice among many developed nations. Couples are having less children than in years past, many are choosing not to have kids at all.

China's "One Child" policy has dropped the nation's birth rate drastically. Because their culture values boys over girls, females are commonly aborted so the ratio of males to females is dangerously lopsided.

European countries are seeing drastic drops in their birthrates as people choose to focus on their careers for their own prosperity, whereas decades past careers were to support families.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09...t-birth.2683302.html

So the exponential function has been proven flawed. It's also been proven that many countries in the world are experiencing low birth rates.

So in light of those two facts, why does one choose to believe in the overpopulation myth?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×