Sri Lanka, How To Ruin Your Economy

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Skybird wrote

We are too many

Well are we too many, or are the resources distributed unevenly ?

Markus

We are too many, no matter how you distribute something.

And while Kapitan has made an argument on quantity levels, I would add to it an argument based on qality as well. A good share of what is being produced in farming, imo is not recommendable to be fed to humans at all. From the health thread last year that I fed with plenty postings you can see that i would object to a a food regime based on soy, much wheat, any glucose-fructose products, or using these for feeding animal lifestock. While some would say that is criticising on a high, luxurious niveau while in other places people starve or even die from not having food at all, I nevertheless remind of desease "pandemics" we have in the industrialized world that are caused or strongly related to people eating - additionally too much - bad "food". Obesity, auto-immune deseases, silent inflammations, cardio-vascular deseases all are related to eating calory-sufficient but nutrients-reduced and in principle poisonous food.

There is not enough fish to feed 8.6 bn people those ammounts of fish I would recommend to eat - and I talk of Japanese, Korean standards, if all humans would eat as much fish as these people do, which is recommended from health-related point of view, health-wise, the ocean would be empty by now. People would also get grass-fed meat frequently, in my recommended food regime: not necessarily daily, but several times per week, and not big quantities every time, but still: frequently. And producing meat means you need more acres of farming sopil, than if you feed agriclurela fruits themselves to people.

Several meat-alternative producers' stocks have done a dive in recent months, and over the past year or so. I welcome that, since feeding soy in huge quantities to humans or animals, simply is a lousy idea and makes them sick over the years. Can "feeding the world" really mean that we should feed the world into serious desease pandemics and shortend life expectations? And set them on pharmaceutical drug abuse to "cure" them afterwards?

Food, farming, garbage processing, pollution, energy, whatever you take, the conclusion is always the same: we are too many, thus we take too much, we cause too much waste, we cost the planet too much.



We are too many.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by Skybird

We are too many, no matter how you distribute something.

The Human population is vastly unevenly distributed, take where I am currently living in Manitoba the province is 3 times the size of the UK in land mass.

The UK population is concentrated in an area 1/3 the Size of the province I'm in right now and number around 67 million

Manitoba population right now is 1.37 million people with the majority of around 750,000 living in Winnipeg.

You cant redistribute people easily but trading your commodities can help create a sustainable population in various regions.

[Skybird]

^Think of my arguments, and add the whole species' global footprint to it. Too many is too many.

Plus erosion kills fertile grounds and forests. We currently live in an time when per day a significant ammount of fertile farming ground is getting lost - intentionally. You cannot easily replace it if you want it back some years later: it takes centuries.

I described this repeatedly over the years, but when I recall all opportunities when somehting i red, an author, a specialist, a book, from various and different scientific branches like oceanography, geography, anthropology etc talked about these issues, and there was a number estimated how many people the planet could sustain if we follow two principles, that all these people have a reaosnable standard in material living conditions and food, and have all the same social rights and guarantee of human dignity, then we cannot be more than 1 - 1.5 billion people.

Obviously that estimation is highly, highly unwelcomed. It spells nothing but troubles. But it makes sense. Unfortunately.

Many others grasp a straw and gloss over the conflict-enriched nature of the status we have now. So they "correct" their estimations upwards. Or ignore that we must talk not only of quantity of measurements, but also quality. So they say we can sustain 8.5 bn, rising. Sorry, no - we cannot.

A huge moral dilemma, but that is an argument only in the world of human thinking. Nature knows neither morals nor ethical principles. It just is. And if we are too many, it will let us know sooner or later, without compassion, and without mercy. What goes up, must come down.

Rummms.

[Jimbuna]

Glad I won't be around to see how it all eventually pans out.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Glad I won't be around to see how it all eventually pans out.

I think by the time it does I will be too busy dribbling and soiling myself in some nursing home.