Attenborough: there's too much life on Earth

[nunthewiser]

Nature has always had an uncanny way of readdressing the balance, we have had a few scares with SARS, bird flu and AID,s is every present.

Hope it never happens but a disease will most likely wipe a good portion of us out at some point, maybe many years or decades, even hundreds of years away but just look at what the plague did a few century's ago, IMO at some point we will face a similar if not worse highly contagious and deadly disease.

Gday m8 ....... read "the stand" by stephen king now thats a good story about what COULD happen at any given time if one thinks about it

good tale anyways

 

[moXJO]

I heard it was a race between China and the US to create a virus that would knock off a large portion of the population. Might be sooner then we think.

Wonder if those whispered rumors became fact? Apparently US has been preparing for something like this for a while.

 

[Trevor_S]

To keep this debate alive, there was a segment on Life Matters (an ABC Radio National program, listened to by myself and four others across Aus. probably ) on Australian population density

Anyhooo... the link below if you want to have a listen

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2009/2600274.htm

By 2050, Australia's population is predicted to be between thirty one and forty two million.

Notable, as the guest, like myself was mortified at Costello's baby bonus policy.

 

[doogie_goes_off]

Most importantly is hectares of arable land/head of population. I we can feed us all we'll build our houses out of something. Then we just need somewhere to sh*t. I hope our sh*t does not consume us

Sustainability is a perception. It's probably not sustainable to drive cars for much longer, but doesn't mean we can't live.

So fundamentally is there too much life - no. Is there too much life to support the rate of consumption of natural assets, well that is simply an equation that involves how much oxygen and light is available to the earth when projecting this cosumption.

While the sun comes up each morning and we breath an acceptable level of oxygen there seems to be little concern for such futile ponderings.

So maybe we should consider if we should be threatened by population or doomsdayers. It's a philosophical argument with too much scientific bias.

Figure out what you want for your fellow humans and act accordingly.

 

[Happy]

...

No one wants to talk about quasi eugenics, but it may come to this.

I might put my spin on this.

Since we have surplus human beings, reintroduction of death penalty would be good start and all those who kill, rape, rob could go first.

Drug addicts who overdose repeatedly would be probably better off with the extra nudge.

I would look at cut off point for early birth, one of the Netherlands countries I think Belgium (not sure) put it at 25 weeks. Sounds good to me, why have child that has 50% chance of being blind, and 40% chance of having learning disability or behavioural problems.

I would look at voluntary euthanasia including assisted suicide at any age.
Why not, if somebody wants to go let him or her go.
Might change mind later? No problem as long as it happens before exit is administered.

Doesn’t sound reasonable or fair, well, we have more than 1,000 deaths on our roads and I bet many of them are innocent and didn’t want to die, so few unnecessary deaths will not make big difference.


Aha, almost forgot, the entire antisocial element would be housed separately from vibrant and productive society.
If you don’t pull in our direction, we will not tolerate you as a nuisance.

Utopia? You bet, but sooner or later some form of population control will have to happen.

Of course it might happen the natural way, after all we even didn’t have a second wave of recent flu.

 

[drsmith]

I might put my spin on this.

Since we have surplus human beings, reintroduction of death penalty would be good start and all those who kill, rape, rob could go first.

The problem with an alternative like this as a means of population control is that to achieve it we may need to go as far as on the spot lead poisoning for jaywalking.

 

[Happy]

The problem with an alternative like this as a means of population control is that to achieve it we may need to go as far as on the spot lead poisoning for jaywalking.

This is just a start, as deep we go will only depend on the target.

If we will have to drop population to 1 billion and we have 100 years time 1 child policy might be all we need, if speed reduction is vital we might have to have birth lottery?

People who work against community should not have right to enjoy right of sharing space with that community, population control or not.

But we all know how it is, and how it will be for a while and we will have to adjust to ever growing violence, ever increasing robberies, assaults, rapes to name the few.

 

[Trevor_S]

This is just a start, as deep we go will only depend on the target.

How's about instead of this Soylent Green armageddon, we instead try to

1. educate Government that population growth education is okay so that they
2. educate the public that population growth education is okay (ie it's okay to have kids if you want to but lets not be out there doing the have many and many more e.g no welfare for children would be nice start)
3. start to spread this message around the World by lifting education and health standards instead of pouring money into the military ?

too controversial ? I guess we bury our heads and go Soylent Green in 2100

 

[Julia]

I have plenty of sympathy with suggestions above, but I can't see any of this happening in our lifetimes due to the shouts of outrage from the left about human rights etc etc.

I feel particularly strongly about voluntary euthanasia: why on earth would you not let people go comfortably when they've simply had enough, whether due to disease or just the incapacity of old age?
The argument from opponents, of course, is that cliche that it would be the start of the slippery slope and before you know it, well we'd be bumping off every grandparent in the land.

Instead we continue to spend megabucks on keeping old people alive in miserable nursing homes. Just makes no sense.

So if we were to have to support fewer old people then we wouldn't need the additional numbers in the younger generation in the work force, providing the tax base to look after the geriatric segment. This is probably a simplistic argument but it seems to make sense at least superficially.

Happy, re your suggestion of isolating criminals, that might indeed prove some deterrent to recidivism. Maybe Nauru could be brought back into service, and the facilities on Christmas Island extended.

And for the sake of the discussion, maybe we could have a contribution from someone opposed to these suggestions?

 

[Duckman#72]

And for the sake of the discussion, maybe we could have a contribution from someone opposed to these suggestions?

Hi Julia

I'll jump on board for the sake of debate. While "in theory" I agree with your euthanasia viewpoint, I find the logistics of how it would work in practice very difficult. How, who and when do you determine a person is "right to go"? The moment you start rolling out the rules, there are so many..... what ifs?

One of our primal instincts is self-preservation and the need for survival. How do we reconcile that core instinct with the belief system that a life is worthless?

Duckman

 

[Julia]

Hi Julia

I'll jump on board for the sake of debate. While "in theory" I agree with your euthanasia viewpoint, I find the logistics of how it would work in practice very difficult. How, who and when do you determine a person is "right to go"? The moment you start rolling out the rules, there are so many..... what ifs?

One of our primal instincts is self-preservation and the need for survival. How do we reconcile that core instinct with the belief system that a life is worthless?

Duckman

Hi Duckman,
Do you remember the brief existence of the Northern Territory legislation allowing voluntary euthanasia? It seemed to work quite well. That was limited to people who were in the latter stages of a terminal illness, and they needed the assessment of (I think) three doctors, probably the initial GP and two specialists. Presumably one of the specialists would be a psychiatrist to attest to whether they knew what they were doing.

But that doesn't cater for a huge number of people who are simply experiencing the dependence, loss of dignity, and disability of old age :
who find life a burden in every way, and who would like to be able to peacefully call an end to it.

I understand that to establish criteria for such deaths is very thorny indeed, and of course the possibility of coercion by greedy relatives to make an exit is a real risk. The stats on elder abuse already are pretty distressing.

But if it were possible to find some equitable way of allowing those who on an entirely voluntary basis want an assisted death, then I think that availability just of itself would reduce the anxiety of a lot of older people.
The fear of the incapacity of real old age, with its utter dependence, is something many fear over anything.

 

[Duckman#72]

I understand that to establish criteria for such deaths is very thorny indeed, and of course the possibility of coercion by greedy relatives to make an exit is a real risk. The stats on elder abuse already are pretty distressing.

But if it were possible to find some equitable way of allowing those who on an entirely voluntary basis want an assisted death, then I think that availability just of itself would reduce the anxiety of a lot of older people.
The fear of the incapacity of real old age, with its utter dependence, is something many fear over anything.

That is why I am still open to the idea. I have seen first hand the suffering of elderly people. Not knowing anyone, not knowing who you are, not having control of bodily functions, losing your spouse and having no relatives /friends left. It is so sad. I so hope and pray that this will never be my parents.

It is very hard to argue that people in those circumstances would not be better off - and so would the lives of those around them, not to mention the economy and health system.
Duckman

 

[ronnieling]

I'll also jump on board for some counterpoint against all the Darwinist-survival-of-the-fittest sentiment out there.

Nature is indeed self-regulating, one of the coolest things I learnt at uni was that male Kangaroos lost their fertility and even became sterile when conditions became too hot to support a higher population. Human beings might have been subservient to kangaroos if they discovered air conditioning before we discovered fire!

What Darwin observed was nature in its pure form. Once you start implementing technology to improve the standard of living, it brings not only yin but also yang. We've long reaped the rewards of better healthcare, remedies to disease and higher agricultural productivity but now its time to deal with the consequences. If we want to go back to survival of the fittest where nature self corrects and all is right with the world, you and I are going to have to leave our mobile phones, clothes and cars at the door.

We can't apply rules to a game which we have been changing for thousands of years.

 

[GumbyLearner]

Too much to analyse?

 

[drsmith]

This is just a start, as deep we go will only depend on the target.

If we will have to drop population to 1 billion and we have 100 years time 1 child policy might be all we need, if speed reduction is vital we might have to have birth lottery?

People who work against community should not have right to enjoy right of sharing space with that community, population control or not.

But we all know how it is, and how it will be for a while and we will have to adjust to ever growing violence, ever increasing robberies, assaults, rapes to name the few.

Population management and the management of other issues (such as crime) are separate issues and need to be managed accordingly. To put the two together may result in an overall conflict of interest with potentially highly undesirable outcomes for society as a whole.

That's all I'm trying to say.

 

[Trevor_S]

How, who and when do you determine a person is "right to go"?

I think it completely audacious not to let them decide. Have the decision reviewed by two others (professionals) and a cooling off period. I think this was something along the lines of the NT model (as Julia mentioned).

To me it's not about us deciding to knock them off for the sake of expediency but allowing them to decide they no longer want to be here. My father suffered terribly from cancer, spreading into his brain, was an avid believer in euthanasia long before he found out he suffered from cancer and was so ridden with pain and suffering he asked constantly to be euthanised and yet those attending him (including my mother all the time) could offer nothing aside from platitudes. To me, watching him suffer, it seemed at times like that a controlling Government was truly evil.

That aside, it seems to be that education (of women in particular to show they have choices) a better standard of living and a Government that is not biased one way or the other but there to provide education is the solution. It may be easier to recognise there is a problem, then go down the path of solving it. At the moment their seems very why little recognition there is even a problem and every attempt to accelerate the problem into a crisis.

 

[Julia]

I'll also jump on board for some counterpoint against all the Darwinist-survival-of-the-fittest sentiment out there.

Nature is indeed self-regulating, one of the coolest things I learnt at uni was that male Kangaroos lost their fertility and even became sterile when conditions became too hot to support a higher population. Human beings might have been subservient to kangaroos if they discovered air conditioning before we discovered fire!

What Darwin observed was nature in its pure form. Once you start implementing technology to improve the standard of living, it brings not only yin but also yang. We've long reaped the rewards of better healthcare, remedies to disease and higher agricultural productivity but now its time to deal with the consequences. If we want to go back to survival of the fittest where nature self corrects and all is right with the world, you and I are going to have to leave our mobile phones, clothes and cars at the door.

We can't apply rules to a game which we have been changing for thousands of years.

So can you extend your above approach to the end of life/v. euthanasia question?

Too much to analyse?

GL, sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I don't know what you're suggesting here. Can you expand a bit?

 

[Happy]

...

euthanasia question?

...

It’ll probably go like this:

More and more people will commit suicide.
Probably some kind of cottage industry will spring up due to demand.
And eventually government will have to put some measures to regulate the new cottage industry.

After all few other things were pushed through due to popular demand.

 

[The_Bman]

I liked the concept I saw on a TV show, think it was Sliders or something like that. You could withdrawal free money from ATMs, the more you withdrew, the more you were likely to be drawn in a gov lotto for "sacrifice".

And what really annoys me is we cull any species that we consider is plaguing except our own. (Excluding Genocide)

Clearly though the problem needs to be resolved before birth however then there is the economic impact. No one is ever going to say reducing humans is good for business. We can’t even agree on reducing the pollutants we produce.

 

[Firefly_au]

I might put my spin on this.

I would look at voluntary euthanasia including assisted suicide at any age.
Why not, if somebody wants to go let him or her go.
Might change mind later? No problem as long as it happens before exit is administered.

Hi all,

Pardon the Pun -

All we need is for a internet virus or worm to permanently wipe out the internet and we will all be taking the EXIT in desperate boredom he he


Seriously though - In every culture and nation on earth where women have been given control of their own fertility by the use of the contraceptive pill being generally available to them, the birth rate has fallen below equilibrium and stayed there! Unless the Governments involved take drastic measure like the baby bonus to deliberately encourage women to have more babies.

To me the answer is simple give women equal rights and control over their fertility and the world population will fall without the huge disasters that usually occur in natural population systems. Naturally we would need to tie the hands of interfering governments as well.

BYE