Search found 10214 matches

The population taboo has been with us for quite some time and it isn't going away easily. Trying to sweep the issue under the rug is fraught with dangers too horrible to envision.
Why does overpopul ...

Assuming humans are not extinct, what will prevent them from wandering back into a state of overshoot after the die-off?

The lack of a heretofore inacessible abundant food/energy source that can ca ...

No, just that we choose from the right-hand list first before nature does.Why?

Because if we don't, Nature will choose what works best. Usually disease. The die-off will be that much greater and t ...

I would rather die from natural causes than be killed by another human being.

But that's the whole point; it isn't just about you.

I was asked for my personal opinion. I gave it.

Do you th ...

In the case of not prolonging the lives of those that nature would had taken care of (allow me to call it Monte Scenario), are there studies about what a porcentage of the population that would be? ...

However, whatever humans survive in a worst case environmental dystopia would have to live through what would feel like an endless purgatory for our sins.

Which sins? The sins of trying to reduce ...

I would rather die from natural causes than be killed by another human being.

But that's the whole point; it isn't just about you.

If you SLOWLY increase the death rate by holding back meds, charity, etc, in any country, the birth rate will slowly increase to match it. It happens time and time again.

Which is why you have to ...

What percentage of the population would you attribute to the "weak and infirm"?

Hard to say. Add up all the people who would not survive save for modern medicine and I think it would be quite a nu ...

Disease organisms are the natural predators of humans. You've stated this. But you've also stated that Nature is much more ruthless killing with disease. When you talk about "letting our predator ...

He's talking about killing people with a special virus in the drinking water.

That's clearly an option that would work, but not the least coercive measure available or one I would want to support.

Our predators return is what will happen, courtesy of Nature, as resources deplete. But you and others seem to advocate something unnatural, in order to mitigate the damages caused by Nature.

No, ...

Without fossil fuel inputs it's impossible to grow sufficient food to sustain more than about .2 - .5 billion people. Soon there won't be sufficient fossil fuel at a reasonable price for supporting me ...

Then how do we "succeed" in reducing the population drastically?

Stop trying to save everyone and let the death rate increase, while we control births.

A stable populaition is one where the bir ...

Why is it preferable for humans to deal with their inflated population rather than simply letting nature take its course?

I am not worrying about it, but people like monte who fully understand it ...