Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Overpopulation is this a serious problem or am I overeacting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    i was thinking of resources like drinkable water rather than oil. I'm not even sure the capitalist society would collapse if the oil reserves went out.
    And I'm quite sure humanity will continue on despite almost ANY adverse circumstances, provided these can be foreseen. But I'm sure, too, radical civilizational changes are now both unavoidable and necessary. The current course of things is not even tenable for one more century.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by mordenkainen
      I'm afraid world development is no solution. Just the opposite: 1st world countries are less populous but consume much more natural resources and produce incomparably more waste and pollution.
      Does that have to be the case? It's the equality issue again, isn't it? If we had a more rational economic system I'm sure we could even find an alternative to oil.

      Originally posted by theAdlerian
      It is my belief that capitalism is really the force that limits procreation in the west. I think that people are less likely to have kids because they are afraid of the financial consequences.
      Poverty is an incentive to have children in developing countries as a social guarantee in the absence of sick pay, pensions, etc. A disincentive maybe for those just on top of the poverty line in developed countries (Welfare can be an incentive for those stuck at the bottom of the pile). But development liberates women, for a start, who stop wanting to be baby machines when they see more opportunities. Consumer society offers a lot more things to do than have families - the birthing age is going up all the time. Even the new affluent middle class couples in China are starting to become Dinkies (dual income no kids) as they'd rather watch dvds and party rather than change nappies.

      By the way, the question was "what is the solution", and I still think I gave the right answer. Whether humanity will actually adopt this solution is a different matter entirely! Who knows?

      As to 'natural' - I'm very suspicious of this word. Either everything's natural or nothing is, to my mind! I'd rather think about whether something's reasonable or not. Makes me kind of pre-Freudian, perhaps - but I think the powers-that-be have a vested interest in convincing us that we're a race of irrational no-hopers... :roll:
      \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

      Comment


      • #18
        Sorry. I don't buy into the war is natural point-of-view. Humans employ technology to kill humans over points of politics, religion and economy. The same silly reasoning lends credibility to the idea that tidal waves are acts of God. When you consider that the current American-Iraqi war is a eco-religious war (think "forgiven for killing and thieving") the idea synergizes into something completely unintelligent. Since intelligent people can be misguided by their government, I don't intend to insult anyone with my point. Maybe someone can offer a rational argument that supports the following:

        daisycutters are a force of nature
        waves that drown children are holy
        there was poverty before humans had economies

        Comment


        • #19
          We are animals. Animals fight each other over territory and food and water, especially as it becomes scarce. So too do we. War is a natural fact of human existance and if we only had stick and stones, we'd still be waging war on one in another in some fashion. Might we evolve past it someday? Let's hope to whatever gods might exist that we do...

          Comment


          • #20
            Ah, but politics (result of human status as social animal) religion (a consequence of the human psyche's perception of the inexplicability of the random universe) and economy (a logical extrapolation of the fundamental social function of exchange) are all natural sequelae of our existence as biological organisms with a neurological system geared to personal physical survival. All human organisation and behaviour is a direct consequence of our 'natural' evolution. War is destructive, 'morally wrong' and often counter-productive to the protagonists' aims, but is a natural result of our (naturally-developed) societies. This could be taken as a semantic argument, but basically, everything humans do is natural because we are ourselves both products of nature, and to a degree slaves to our natural instincts, however much we try to plaster a veneer of 'civilisation' upon them. Don't get me wrong on this - I do believe that we can 'out-evolve' our tendencies; but we must recognise from biological principles and our history that there is a tremendous hiatus between humanity recognising the faults in its programming, and overcoming them. Here's hoping....

            Comment


            • #21
              Sorry, DL, you posted just ahead of me - and made the same point more succintly and clearly than me! :D

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by feuerfuchs
                Maybe someone can offer a rational argument that supports the following:

                (1) daisycutters are a force of nature
                (2) waves that drown children are holy
                (3) there was poverty before humans had economies
                (1) Well, ants squirt each other with formic acid. Is that natural?

                (2) Warning: This is shocking and offensive:



                (from http://rawstory.rawprint.com/1204/we...ement_1230.php)

                (3) You've got me there...
                \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Mikey_C
                  Originally posted by feuerfuchs
                  Maybe someone can offer a rational argument that supports the following:

                  (1) daisycutters are a force of nature
                  (2) waves that drown children are holy
                  (3) there was poverty before humans had economies
                  Originally posted by Mikey_C
                  (1) Well, ants squirt each other with formic acid. Is that natural?
                  Can they do that while they fly airplanes?

                  Originally posted by Mikey_C
                  (2) Warning: This is shocking and offensive:
                  Was that a yes or a no?

                  Instead of posting this offensive material, couldn't you just post a link to it?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by DL
                    We are animals. Animals fight each other over territory and food and water, especially as it becomes scarce. So too do we. War is a natural fact of human existance and if we only had stick and stones, we'd still be waging war on one in another in some fashion. Might we evolve past it someday? Let's hope to whatever gods might exist that we do...
                    Sugar coated sentimentality. Do you think maybe the gods could, like, hurry the process up or something? People are dieing down here.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by feuerfuchs

                      Instead of posting this offensive material, couldn't you just post a link to it?
                      While I understand your objection to this, I am actually glad Mikey posted it. I followed up the website named on this particular nasty bit of fundamentalist propaganda: www.godhatesfags.com and I am just stunned to find this prove of Christian hate that is only rivalled by some proclamations of the most heinous Nazi pages and fanatized Muslim counterparts. It didn't think such a thing existed. Thanks albeit the shock ...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Sorry, forgot to log in, too shocked I guess. Last post was mine.
                        L'Etranger
                        Google ergo sum

                        Comment


                        • #28
                          Don't want to throw this thread off-topic, but go to the that website proper: http://www.godhatesfags.com/main/index.html
                          Somebody tell me it is satire and all rigged, but it looks very convincingly real ...
                          Google ergo sum

                          Comment


                          • #29
                            I find myself in that grey area where we're looking at hate, but can't quite justify nuking this image. Since it's not being used to promote hatred of people by the poster and is meant as an exhibit, I'm going to leave it up. If the context were different, say in the support of hatred or posting it is used to make someone here feel hated or the intent is obviously meant to promote hate, I'd delete it. But it disgusts me nonetheless. BTW, Howard Stearn have given air time to godhatesfags.com and they sound as ludicrous as their promotional material is.
                            The cat spread its wings and flew high into the air, hovering to keep pace with them as they moved cautiously toward the city. Then, as they climbed over the rubble of what had once been a gateway and began to make their way through piles of weed-grown masonry, the cat flew to the squat building with the yellow dome upon its roof. It flew twice around the dome and then came back to settle on Jhary's shoulder. - The King of the Swords

                            Comment


                            • #30
                              Right call, I'd say, Berry: there is a danger in censoring offensive material. It's better that everyone sees and hears about this kind of ludicrous campaigning, otherwise we might easily drift into the 'engineered ignorance' that much of the German population inhabited under the Nazis re: concentration camps. I had two of my gay pals here when I was reading this thread and I showed them the 'flyer' - they thought it was hilarious. It does have that sick silliness that seems to characterise extremist propaganda - ie, illogical arguments, bonkers references to some tatty old book and bizarre use of language. 'Course, it ceases to be in the least amusing if anyone tries to put its message into action... :(

                              It would be nice if there was a single gene or group of genes in the human genome that programmed for 'hatred of the different'. It does seem to be a key characteristic of the human condition, and of course can be seen to have 'survival' benefits under 'natural' conditions (back to our assessment of what is 'natural', Feuerfuchs!). If such a sequence could be identified, then perhaps environmental conditioning would be less effective; a potential 'cure' for the transgenerational hate of Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Palestine....or am I drifting into Eugenics now? :?

                              Anyway, I think it is better that we see this kind of laughable dross and thus enable ourselves to ridicule and counteract it, otherwise this sort of thing can gain ground. I personally worry about the circumscription of 'free speech' that a politicaly correct agenda can impose, because whilst it may reduce the chance of someone being offended, it also can lead to people not airing their genuine views, resulting in a starvation of argument and polemic. Thus a small germ of resentment does not get 'released' where it may be 'dealt with' in sensible discussion, the 'resenter' hopefully being persuaded that his views are wrong, whilst the 'resentee' may be made aware of their own responsibility to take the feelings of others into account. If the point of resentment is not 'let out', because the protagonist is too worried that their feelings will 'offend', then this little nag of irritation can easily be nursed in private into a core of true hatred. I feel we may all be a little too easily offended, these days: I get offended by a lot of things, but I would rather see people wearing their true feelings in the open, where I can challenge them, than paying hypocritical lip-service to an agenda they do not believe in. Forcing people's beliefs 'underground' will not destroy those beliefs: Cromwell tried that, so did Henry VIII, and Hitler....if anything, making any 'utterances' (however offensive or 'wrong') 'illegal' is very dangerous indeed - look at Sejanus and Tiberius! If we hadn't seen the flyer above, would we have appreciated the depth of nastiness that these people can produce? I stick to the old maxim: 'I disagree with everything you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!'. Better to fight it out in the open, than wait for insidious hate to rise up out of the ground and take us unawares...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X