Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Nihil

(13,508 posts)
44. And the matching one in your response:
Mon Sep 29, 2014, 06:59 AM
Sep 2014

> For example, in most of Europe, internal population growth is negative - they are having children
> below the replacement rate. Population in Europe is currently only rising due to immigration.

The immigration that is still causing the population to rise is from countries whose internal population
growth is not negative. That means that despite all of the "education" & "technology" (and hence the
voluntary restraint) of the native population, the number is still increasing and so the impact of that country
is increasing at a far higher rate than the simple number growth (due to the increased impact per capita
of the receiving country compared to the generating country).

The global population is still rising and, because of the increases also rolling into higher technological
countries, the global impact is rising faster than before.


> We are not creatures that mindlessly fuck and spit out offspring that either starve or reproduce.

That is where you are wrong.

At an "individual" level, that comment is correct but at a "creature" level, that is exactly what we are.

At an individual level, our impact on the planet is governed by the way we live our lives, what we consume,
what we waste. We might well choose to not breed at all or to restrict ourselves to replacement level.
We might also choose to live as low impact lifestyle as we can, to minimise our personal footprint.

Just don't forget that along with all of the child-free couples in First World countries, there are also the
quiver-full fanatics, the "only two children from our marriage" folks who then split up & re-marry three, four,
five times and the gross consumers (where gross refers to overall attitude to waste, possessions, disregard
for the environment and selfishness rather than simply the appetite of the morbidly obese).

Taken at the creature level, the net effect is what we have seen for decades: the source countries keep
going through the same "boom & bust" cycles that you so eloquently described as "mindlessly fuck and
spit out offspring". If the offspring arrive in a "boom" phase then they reproduce. If they arrive in a "bust"
phase then they either migrate to an "emptier" place (a sink country) or starve if unable to do so.

That is the basic situation that has existed since humans appeared but the cycle has been distorted
horribly as our ability to do so has increased thanks to the industrial revolution, the agricultural revolution,
the transportation changes, the advances in chemistry, ...

Even the Borlaug revolution didn't change the things that matter - the inner motivation - but it just raised
the stakes: When the "boom" phase is active then the impact is even higher than before and when the "bust"
phase hits, it affects more people at a time.


So, what's the solution? Prevent all immigration from countries that do not have internal negative growth?
I can see that going down well ...

Let people starve rather than shipping out supplies on a regular basis to whichever region is suffering
the "inhumanity" of a famine or drought? Yeah, that sounds so caring & civilised too.

We are between a rock and a hard place here and the pressure of the rock is just getting worse.

Excellent! Sherman A1 Sep 2014 #1
Sorry bout that ..... edited in now n/t Ichingcarpenter Sep 2014 #2
wow! n/t eShirl Sep 2014 #3
That's how it starts The2ndWheel Sep 2014 #4
You need to define "increasing the environmental footprint" before you complain about it muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #6
Indirectly it will, by supporting more and more human beings GliderGuider Sep 2014 #7
By that logic, everyone who fails to kill themselves at once is increasing the environmental muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #9
Every extra person on the planet increases our environmental footprint, yes. GliderGuider Sep 2014 #12
The only alternative to what you said above is mass death joeglow3 Sep 2014 #13
Doomsday Rhetoric hueymahl Sep 2014 #15
+1000 Thanks for some sanity! LongTomH Sep 2014 #26
Excellent point! hueymahl Sep 2014 #27
But that logic is true The2ndWheel Sep 2014 #14
Except it isn't. jeff47 Sep 2014 #20
I wasn't the one talking about population The2ndWheel Sep 2014 #31
First of all, I didn't get "whining" from the DUer you're disrespecting. chervilant Sep 2014 #28
We have a development that might enable more food to be grown from a given area muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #30
What advance has decreased the environmental footprint of humanity? The2ndWheel Sep 2014 #32
Contraception already results in fewer people muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #33
Which is why population is projected to increase for the next century. GliderGuider Sep 2014 #34
My position is based on where contraception is widely used muriel_volestrangler Sep 2014 #35
It's a rather more complex situation than just having contraception available. GliderGuider Sep 2014 #36
Well, I can see why you presume that my observations chervilant Sep 2014 #37
You are assuming that if more grain is available, hedgehog Sep 2014 #10
No, I'm not assuming that. GliderGuider Sep 2014 #17
Then why isn't it? jeff47 Sep 2014 #19
It's not the only factor. GliderGuider Sep 2014 #21
Yet you're arguing as if it is the only factor. jeff47 Sep 2014 #24
We "tend to" fuck until we run out of food. GliderGuider Sep 2014 #25
What?!? No other rebuttal?!? chervilant Sep 2014 #38
Yeah just let those blacks die over in Africa... trumad Sep 2014 #11
Nice. Just throw in another smear by playing the race card rather than understanding. (n/t) Nihil Sep 2014 #42
Should have added the sarcasm thingy trumad Sep 2014 #43
In 1970 Norman Borlaug said this in his Nobel lecture: GliderGuider Sep 2014 #16
Here's the giant hole in your theory jeff47 Sep 2014 #18
See post #21 nt GliderGuider Sep 2014 #22
And the matching one in your response: Nihil Sep 2014 #44
Yeah, you're right. It's utterly impossible to educate those people jeff47 Sep 2014 #45
I think you have that backwards LouisvilleDem Oct 2014 #46
It's actually a feedback loop between the two. GliderGuider Oct 2014 #47
It's both in our case The2ndWheel Oct 2014 #48
+1 - Both Malthus and Boserup were correct! GliderGuider Oct 2014 #49
Norman Borlaug's sad legacy? LouisvilleDem Sep 2014 #41
Theres always SOMEONE out there thinking of a better way to do EVERYTHING. 7962 Sep 2014 #5
This could be one of them. marble falls Sep 2014 #8
A huge benefit to the environment TexasProgresive Sep 2014 #23
74% increase in GMO grains is what it will end up being. Oldenuff Sep 2014 #29
Pretty cool. Bookmarked. hughee99 Sep 2014 #39
It's apparently not controversial to very many. GliderGuider Sep 2014 #40
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»16-yr old Irish Girls Win...»Reply #44