your suggestion amounts to culling! Would you volunteer to die so that someone else could live with less agriculture?And as for overpopulation - the more out of balalnce a system gets, the more happens to rebalance it. Kind of.
Besides, a lot of LEDC's will become MEDC's in the forseeable future and that will seriosuly limit population growth.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:30,
archived)
Besides, a lot of LEDC's will become MEDC's in the forseeable future and that will seriosuly limit population growth.
absolutely notabsolutley not, im astounded that you would presume such a thing...
I dont think you are comprehending the problem here, and the natural relationship that ALL species on this planet adhere to... thats
'every species population is directly related to the availability of its food supply.'
and this applies to man as well, we are just another species on this planet, to think we have stepped out of this natural process is to belive the false illusion im trying to get people to notice.
(2+2=5)
Totalitarian agriculture is terraforming all biological matter into man and mankinds food.. it is leading our population boom , to continue to do so will exponentially increase this problem.
We will very soon get to a point where food chains start to fail becuase they just dont exist anymore becuase its all become man/mans food/ food mountains.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:44,
archived)
I dont think you are comprehending the problem here, and the natural relationship that ALL species on this planet adhere to... thats
'every species population is directly related to the availability of its food supply.'
and this applies to man as well, we are just another species on this planet, to think we have stepped out of this natural process is to belive the false illusion im trying to get people to notice.
(2+2=5)
Totalitarian agriculture is terraforming all biological matter into man and mankinds food.. it is leading our population boom , to continue to do so will exponentially increase this problem.
We will very soon get to a point where food chains start to fail becuase they just dont exist anymore becuase its all become man/mans food/ food mountains.
Seems to me what you have in mindin that people will refrain from having children due to being continually hungry.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:51,
archived)
not quiteits more an invisible natural unharmful process, not a choice.
Remember that food does grow without the need to farm it, and growns in abundance if we would to let it...
the difference is that with the advent of free food, mankind would not be forced into a way of life that only the elite few benefit from, the majority of people would have the choice to live freely. To with hold food in a culture is not a free society, (no mater how many advert items you can buy)
The world would not stop either, artists would still create, scientists would still science.. etc etc... but the people that are in jobs they hate because the HAVE to do that , would be able to do something they like to make them happy and would not be forced to feed the consuming monster of our culture.
Our culture is forcing the human species down a route that is unnatural for us becuase the majority of people are forced into things they dont want to do.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:01,
archived)
Remember that food does grow without the need to farm it, and growns in abundance if we would to let it...
the difference is that with the advent of free food, mankind would not be forced into a way of life that only the elite few benefit from, the majority of people would have the choice to live freely. To with hold food in a culture is not a free society, (no mater how many advert items you can buy)
The world would not stop either, artists would still create, scientists would still science.. etc etc... but the people that are in jobs they hate because the HAVE to do that , would be able to do something they like to make them happy and would not be forced to feed the consuming monster of our culture.
Our culture is forcing the human species down a route that is unnatural for us becuase the majority of people are forced into things they dont want to do.
...And heres the thing i object to the most
" Remember that food does grow without the need to farm it, and growns in abundance if we would to let it... "
It simply not true that without agriculture enough food would grow - agriculture is sustainable, wild growth, not.
Are you saying europe would be better of completly covered in forests?
Just you try going into a wood and living of what is there.
Hunter gathering can suppost only a small poulation, a population reached 13,000 years ago.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:09,
archived)
" Remember that food does grow without the need to farm it, and growns in abundance if we would to let it... "
It simply not true that without agriculture enough food would grow - agriculture is sustainable, wild growth, not.
Are you saying europe would be better of completly covered in forests?
Just you try going into a wood and living of what is there.
Hunter gathering can suppost only a small poulation, a population reached 13,000 years ago.
If the part about "abundance" is truethen what he's proposing is not an alternative to agriculture in terms of the amount of food produced. But if the part about abundance is not true and hunter-gathering produces less food than agriculture, people will be hungry. Unless he conceives advances in hunter-gathering that allow for increased food production and population expansion...
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:14,
archived)
hmim not proposing an instant change, that would be rediculous,
BUT if people started to realise how bad this situation really is, and is going to be in 20 years, we can start to prepare ourselves for it,
make the crash more a gentle bump
if food didnt grow naturally in abundance, no life would ever have existed...
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 15:12,
archived)
BUT if people started to realise how bad this situation really is, and is going to be in 20 years, we can start to prepare ourselves for it,
make the crash more a gentle bump
if food didnt grow naturally in abundance, no life would ever have existed...
hmmyour only pointing at a forest that u recognize as one free of human food growing, one that has been terraformed.
Agricultural cultures are NOT sustainable, it require CONSTANT growth and expansion,, this is the reason it does not work, we can not expand and grow forever .. something we do not have the ability to do on a little round planet.
Your asuming that mankind HAD to start farming, we didnt, check the story of Cain and Able, when we started it...
Europe would be infinitely beter off if things were allowed to grow and move freely about...
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 15:19,
archived)
Agricultural cultures are NOT sustainable, it require CONSTANT growth and expansion,, this is the reason it does not work, we can not expand and grow forever .. something we do not have the ability to do on a little round planet.
Your asuming that mankind HAD to start farming, we didnt, check the story of Cain and Able, when we started it...
Europe would be infinitely beter off if things were allowed to grow and move freely about...
This seems to stand on its ownwithout the need for the bit about populations being limited by food supply.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:10,
archived)
so overpopulation will sort itself out.You have a warped argument
You say we need to get "back to nature"; yet you also argue that humans are not "beyond nature".
I comprehend fully what you are trying to say, and i agree with certain things, such as overpopulation could be a really big problem, but the "soultions" you are suggesting are callous and shortsighted, and based upon a false premise.
Almost all of society is based upon agriculture. Some of human kind could survive as hunter gatherers; but it is a stagnent form of living; i for one would like more knowlege, more comfort and more opportunity, and so does the vast majority, or the current set up of society would not exist. This inculdes you're ability to argue your points, a significant point that you have so far failed to answer.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 13:56,
archived)
You say we need to get "back to nature"; yet you also argue that humans are not "beyond nature".
I comprehend fully what you are trying to say, and i agree with certain things, such as overpopulation could be a really big problem, but the "soultions" you are suggesting are callous and shortsighted, and based upon a false premise.
Almost all of society is based upon agriculture. Some of human kind could survive as hunter gatherers; but it is a stagnent form of living; i for one would like more knowlege, more comfort and more opportunity, and so does the vast majority, or the current set up of society would not exist. This inculdes you're ability to argue your points, a significant point that you have so far failed to answer.
ok..trying to answer your question..
Agriculture is the backbone of our culture. and thats the problem.
..You are only looking at our own culture ( not just britain , but all totalitarian agriculurists) and not taking any notes from other non agricultural sources,,
ask any pshyclogist and they will tell you that there is better security, comfort, saftey and a better working society in small tribal groups of humans than we will ever appreciate or see.
You can not deny that mankind works better in small groups compared to large workforces.
'Opportunity' is only from the perspective of OUR culture, non agri cultures dont see the need to make waves in the world. but you also seem to think that if we were to give up agriculture, artists would stop arting, scientists would stop sciencing etc etc.. that the world would stop... this is not the case... if these changes would happen, mankind would have so much more time free to spend on doing things that he realy wanted to do,.. comminities would form of differnt mindsets and would not be seperated by 'patents and money making'.
I dont think im being callous or shortsighted, drawing my conclusions from 'all of time', not just 10k years of agriculture
.. which is surely more shortsighted to 'ONLY' look at 10k years of agriculture ( and only at that one culture) than millions of years, ( or 200-300k of homosapiens lifestyle ( of all culltures) while all the time knowing about agriculture but choosing not to do it ))
Do you not think then, that forcing people to live the way 'you' want is callous and shortsighted? why do you not want mankind to have this option of life style?
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:23,
archived)
Agriculture is the backbone of our culture. and thats the problem.
..You are only looking at our own culture ( not just britain , but all totalitarian agriculurists) and not taking any notes from other non agricultural sources,,
ask any pshyclogist and they will tell you that there is better security, comfort, saftey and a better working society in small tribal groups of humans than we will ever appreciate or see.
You can not deny that mankind works better in small groups compared to large workforces.
'Opportunity' is only from the perspective of OUR culture, non agri cultures dont see the need to make waves in the world. but you also seem to think that if we were to give up agriculture, artists would stop arting, scientists would stop sciencing etc etc.. that the world would stop... this is not the case... if these changes would happen, mankind would have so much more time free to spend on doing things that he realy wanted to do,.. comminities would form of differnt mindsets and would not be seperated by 'patents and money making'.
I dont think im being callous or shortsighted, drawing my conclusions from 'all of time', not just 10k years of agriculture
.. which is surely more shortsighted to 'ONLY' look at 10k years of agriculture ( and only at that one culture) than millions of years, ( or 200-300k of homosapiens lifestyle ( of all culltures) while all the time knowing about agriculture but choosing not to do it ))
Do you not think then, that forcing people to live the way 'you' want is callous and shortsighted? why do you not want mankind to have this option of life style?
i dont have to force people to live the way i want, in fact its you suggesting it, which is one of the reasons i said shrotsighted and callous.The human race hasnt been here for the whole of time;
We only have historical knowlage dating back to agriculture.
The clue is in the word
agriCULTURE
It all stems from food. And yes, i think artist would stop etc etc, because without agriculture almost everyone has to spend most of there time finding food; and ther would be nowhere near enough.
As for "You can not deny that mankind works better in small groups compared to large workforces" - i can. More poeple can achive more, its simple. Especially with science - were all standing on the shoulders of giants.
"sk any pshyclogist and they will tell you that there is better security, comfort, saftey and a better working society in small tribal groups of humans than we will ever appreciate or see. " - yes, its called a family.
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 14:35,
archived)
We only have historical knowlage dating back to agriculture.
The clue is in the word
agriCULTURE
It all stems from food. And yes, i think artist would stop etc etc, because without agriculture almost everyone has to spend most of there time finding food; and ther would be nowhere near enough.
As for "You can not deny that mankind works better in small groups compared to large workforces" - i can. More poeple can achive more, its simple. Especially with science - were all standing on the shoulders of giants.
"sk any pshyclogist and they will tell you that there is better security, comfort, saftey and a better working society in small tribal groups of humans than we will ever appreciate or see. " - yes, its called a family.
in answerThe human race hasnt been here for the whole of time;
wrong, mankind has been here since the dawn of time, but earlier on we were just slime,, the way of life evolved with us fromt that very start of slime life, and changed with us as we changed... wehn mankind started agriculture we forgot the way the way to live that evolved with us and tried something new
an experiment.... its named ' The Great Forgetting' of mankind.
We only have historical knowlage dating back to agriculture.
WRONG again... we have historical knowledge going back 200-300k years for homosapiens, we also have knowledge going back to the first life forms on the planet.
Our culture only tells us that history only started when we started agriculture,(10k years ago) ( the start of the bible ) when mankind tried something new.. This is looking at only a small chapter of the whole history of mankind, we lived for 300k years as what we are now species wise without the need for agriculture.. Remember the nazis tried to forget/change history by burning the books, and that is in effect what the bible has done for us,,, its only the start of the experiment to control the world, and doesnt look at the time before that.
its like looking at america and saying history only started when the indians were wiped out and the land turned to farmland.
agriCULTURE
WRONG again,.. Sorry but non agricultural cul;tures still have culture.. and their culture has ben around and been more fine tuned than ours by over 300 times longer.. in fact going all the way back to the dawn of time...
Animals ALSO have culture...
It all stems from food. And yes, i think artist would stop etc etc, because without agriculture almost everyone has to spend most of there time finding food; and ther would be nowhere near enough.
WRONG again, agriculture takes more effort and time than hunting and gathering, your point is only from the perspective of food already being held away from us... non-agricultutral cultures can spend 3 hours a week to get enough food for the whole week, the rest of the time they spend on friends , family and doing things they want to do.
As for "You can not deny that mankind works better in small groups compared to large workforces" - i can. More poeple can achive more, its simple. Especially with science - were all standing on the shoulders of giants.
WRONG agin, go talk to a phsycologist, and ask does mankind 'work better' as small communites workling for each other, or does an unbalanced workforce work better?
( and i mean by 'work' how everything works together,,, your in more danger in london than in a tribe in the middle of nowhere in the jungle)
oh and your last comment just changed one of your points to suddenly agreeing with me,, you seem very confused in your points..
(,
Sun 19 Jun 2005, 15:02,
archived)
wrong, mankind has been here since the dawn of time, but earlier on we were just slime,, the way of life evolved with us fromt that very start of slime life, and changed with us as we changed... wehn mankind started agriculture we forgot the way the way to live that evolved with us and tried something new
an experiment.... its named ' The Great Forgetting' of mankind.
We only have historical knowlage dating back to agriculture.
WRONG again... we have historical knowledge going back 200-300k years for homosapiens, we also have knowledge going back to the first life forms on the planet.
Our culture only tells us that history only started when we started agriculture,(10k years ago) ( the start of the bible ) when mankind tried something new.. This is looking at only a small chapter of the whole history of mankind, we lived for 300k years as what we are now species wise without the need for agriculture.. Remember the nazis tried to forget/change history by burning the books, and that is in effect what the bible has done for us,,, its only the start of the experiment to control the world, and doesnt look at the time before that.
its like looking at america and saying history only started when the indians were wiped out and the land turned to farmland.
agriCULTURE
WRONG again,.. Sorry but non agricultural cul;tures still have culture.. and their culture has ben around and been more fine tuned than ours by over 300 times longer.. in fact going all the way back to the dawn of time...
Animals ALSO have culture...
It all stems from food. And yes, i think artist would stop etc etc, because without agriculture almost everyone has to spend most of there time finding food; and ther would be nowhere near enough.
WRONG again, agriculture takes more effort and time than hunting and gathering, your point is only from the perspective of food already being held away from us... non-agricultutral cultures can spend 3 hours a week to get enough food for the whole week, the rest of the time they spend on friends , family and doing things they want to do.
As for "You can not deny that mankind works better in small groups compared to large workforces" - i can. More poeple can achive more, its simple. Especially with science - were all standing on the shoulders of giants.
WRONG agin, go talk to a phsycologist, and ask does mankind 'work better' as small communites workling for each other, or does an unbalanced workforce work better?
( and i mean by 'work' how everything works together,,, your in more danger in london than in a tribe in the middle of nowhere in the jungle)
oh and your last comment just changed one of your points to suddenly agreeing with me,, you seem very confused in your points..