Humanity has pretty bad macro. In order to fix this problem:
We must remember to always build additional pylons, so we can keep building probes. This is not a game, so there is no 200 cap limit. Supply Depots for the less developed countries.
Day9 is the savior of humanity truly: with his proclamation:
"Probes and Pylons,Probes and Pylons,Probes and Pylons,Probes and Pylons," That's all we need to reach grandmaster level as a species (or at least diamond). Maybe later, once other planets are involved, we can start putting in more marines, more command centers, even a zealot or 2. Just incase we run into a terrifying space alien horde that xenobiologists will eventually call Zerg.
At 86, Sir David has no ulterior motives or hidden agenda behind this proclamation, and his body of work attests to this.
To become famous once again late in life. To give interviews, to be written about. To get favorable coverage by a media very attuned to global warming and the energy crisis.
I don't think you understand who you're talking about. He is one of the most recognisable figures in Britain, if not the world. He is an iconic symbol. He will be written about for years after his death and he is still producing documentaries that are shown all over the world. I disagree with his point but Sir David does not need to pull any kind of stunt to get heard about or be remembered for his conservationism. He's pretty much the founder of modern popular conservationism and all the environmental awareness that goes with it.
So he took up a new cause related to what he already believes in. I'll agree that he may be very recognizable in Britain, and perhaps many parts of the world. I'll confess, this is my first hearing of his name and achievements.
He may actually be quite right. At 86, Sir David has no ulterior motives or hidden agenda behind this proclamation, and his body of work attests to this.
Did you read this and think the writer went a bit overboard? Of COURSE, this man is a saint and cannot be suspected of any other motives! The author laid it on a bit thick, as if this is the first guy supporting the over-population agenda and over-consumption ideology that is an honest man to boot. I take it that the first reason I listed is untrue, as he need no more fame or interviews. A naturalist is late in life persuaded that both population growth and consumption will lead to a litany of ill effects, not only that, but that "Humans are a plague on Earth" (Did he always have this spark for hyperbole?). Maybe he's the best thing to come to the cause he now champions. One honorable man has made a mistake in going so overboard for this issue. I'd have to know more about population control advocacy in Britain to fully know if he's further in the fold with popular causes for the naturalists. I came out reading that he has no ulterior motives or hidden agenda that this was the endorsement of the Pope and discovered writings from both Gandhi and Mother Theresa.
Not really, that kind of rhetoric is needed for people such as yourself who probably only experienced his work with an American voiceover or something to understand what a big deal he is. You know every single animal documentary/programme ever? They trace back to Zoo Quest which is him 60 years ago filming himself and a team of professionals from London Zoo tracking down animals to capture and bring back to London zoo. He's had a conservationist streak for a long time, he has no need to establish credentials in that regard. He's been outspoken on climate change, endangered species, deforestation and so forth. On the other hand, he spends a lot of time in these places, despite his old age, he's someone who walked in the rainforests that have since been burned for plantations.
I don't think we're a "plague" to the planet, we just suck at taking care of it. You don't say you're a "plague" to your deteriorating garden; you simply don't take care of it. The earth was put here for us, much like a garden is there for the enjoyment of the gardener.
And I have a feeling this 80 year old guy is just going through the 80 year old man phase where you start saying things for the heck of it - BECAUSE YOU CAN. People never get mad at an old guy for speaking his mind, they know he doesn't have many years left.
There's definitely always something that can be improved, but I don't think you need to believe that it is as bad as he says it is.
Is our civilization on an unsustainable course? Certainly. By along shot.
But so what?
The biosphere is self-regulating. As we damage our ecosystem more and more, our ability to get enough food will be diminishing -> more people will be dying of hunger -> pressure on the ecosystem will be decreasing -> new point of balance with nature will be achieved.
The only scary thought is that this die-off in developing world and decrease in living standards in developed world is likely to start happening in our lifetime.
The only hopeful thought is that it may be possible to avert it by lowering human ignorance and selfishness and getting better technology to deal with diminishing resources.
Anyway, is there a reason natural limits to population growth are bad? I mean, scarcity may not be pretty, but it drives technological, economic, and even biological (evolutionary) innovation
Too much scarcity is definitely bad in the short term, but as others have said, at least its a self regulating problem. Certainly not as big a problem as humanity "sorting itself out" and getting a "coordinated view on the situation" - which sounds suspiciously like one world, totalitarian, beating women who have more than two kids into miscarriages, china style government. I just don't know about all this man. Feels a bit odd reading about this English gentleman casting judgement on how many children the people in some impoverished African nation should be permitted to have. I'm sensing a hint of the old colonial, white mans burden attitude here.
Considering people have been saying this since around the turn of the 19th century, I'm not sure how much weight I should put into one man's statement.
On January 25 2013 09:49 hasuprotoss wrote: Considering people have been saying this since around the turn of the 19th century, I'm not sure how much weight I should put into one man's statement.
I kind of agree with this, why is his particular statement so special? Hating humans isn't exactly a new concept.
I wouldn't exactly call humanity a plague. Humanity can be capable of great good, but we just need to be guided in that direction.
It is possible for technological progress to increase the resources to meet the demands of Earth's growing population, but unfortunately that is not a guarantee. Just need to be aware of that.
On January 25 2013 00:00 KNICK wrote: He is right about the plague part. I mean, this is kind of a no-brainer, isn't it? If we were not here, the Earth would be much better off healthwise than it is right now. I don't think anyone can deny that, no matter how many organisations and campaigns to preserve nature we might start. Limiting population growth would be a good first step to the only relevant thing that we as a species could ultimately achieve: our own extinction. Of course, that will never happen of our own volition. But I am confident that, in time, we will either destroy this planet and go down with it or it will destroy us.
I just hope space travel won't make progress fast enough for us to infest other worlds as well. That would be a shame.
That's equivalent to saying Earth would be better off without lions because they kill zebras. Are humans a disaster for a lot of specific ecosystems? Yes. In the end it will balance itself out though. Earth as a planet or a global ecosystem doesn't care much for humans unless we literally blow the entire planet to pieces. Life always finds a way.
Population control advocates always advocate for others to kill themselves, never themselves. Oh, but if they're not around directing and planning this process, then it won't happen...how convenient.
bill hicks said it best, we are a virus with shoes. i think it's very irresponsible and selfish to have children in today's world. i know so many people who adopt puppies and kittens and think they're doing the world a favor. how about a human being? is it that important to see (some of) your own stupid face in your kid's face?
surely humanity is capable of some incredible feats, and certain people throughout history have definitely stood out, but i'd say overall it's pretty undeniable that, as a whole, we fucking suck
On January 25 2013 09:49 hasuprotoss wrote: Considering people have been saying this since around the turn of the 19th century, I'm not sure how much weight I should put into one man's statement.
I kind of agree with this, why is his particular statement so special? Hating humans isn't exactly a new concept.
I honestly think he is just pissed he has to deal with so many pesky natives interfering with his heroic attempts at making the next great honey badger documentary. What with their deforestation of jungles to build up industry, hunting endangered species to provide better lives for their families, etc. I mean really, the nerve. Clearly the world would be a better place without so many people in it, better for Sir David Attenborough at least. We should implement population controls in Ethiopia and similar nations straightaway, so that wondrous continent Africa won't be bespoiled by the plague of humanity which presently threatens it. For that is what they are, you know - a plague.
Surprised so many Tlers are cool with this borderline hate speech, I guess everyone is just eager to show how edgy they are by dissing humanity.
People in this thread give humans way too much credit. As if we could actually destroy a planet lol. Sure, we might make it less inhabitable to some species and in return make it more suitable for others. But "Nature" is gonna be around a lot longer than humans.
In the long run, unless we go extinct, the long-term fertility rate of the human species will be two children per woman.* It's up to us whether we want that to be because couples voluntarily choose to have only two kids on average, or because most people die of famine or disease or violence before they get old enough to have children (or decide not to).
Value isn't inherent in the object but in the valuer. "Natural balance" is not a an end in itself" Destroying the earth is 'bad' because of the perceived negative consequences to the valuer, whether it be physical or psychological. Life also doesn't hold inherent value. All values are instrumental.
Just wanted to clear up this bit of philosophy that many people in this thread don't understand.
On January 25 2013 09:49 hasuprotoss wrote: Considering people have been saying this since around the turn of the 19th century, I'm not sure how much weight I should put into one man's statement.
I kind of agree with this, why is his particular statement so special? Hating humans isn't exactly a new concept.
I honestly think he is just pissed he has to deal with so many pesky natives interfering with his heroic attempts at making the next great honey badger documentary. What with their deforestation of jungles to build up industry, hunting endangered species to provide better lives for their families, etc. I mean really, the nerve. Clearly the world would be a better place without so many people in it, better for Sir David Attenborough at least. We should implement population controls in Ethiopia and similar nations straightaway, so that wondrous continent Africa won't be bespoiled by the plague of humanity which presently threatens it. For that is what they are, you know - a plague.
Surprised so many Tlers are cool with this borderline hate speech, I guess everyone is just eager to show how edgy they are by dissing humanity.
That is such a strawman argument. Don't try to make this out to be some sort of hidden agenda to force people in other parts of the world to live miserable lives. We already went there and we fucked up. So instead of learning anything from history we should let people repeat the exact same mistakes because they havn't had the opportunity yet?
There are more ways to improve quality of life than to burn down the rain forests to make parking lots.
On January 25 2013 09:19 Doominator10 wrote: Humanity has pretty bad macro. In order to fix this problem:
We must remember to always build additional pylons, so we can keep building probes. This is not a game, so there is no 200 cap limit. Supply Depots for the less developed countries.
Day9 is the savior of humanity truly: with his proclamation:
"Probes and Pylons,Probes and Pylons,Probes and Pylons,Probes and Pylons," That's all we need to reach grandmaster level as a species (or at least diamond). Maybe later, once other planets are involved, we can start putting in more marines, more command centers, even a zealot or 2. Just incase we run into a terrifying space alien horde that xenobiologists will eventually call Zerg.
User was warned for this post
What a way to shit up a serious discussion.
On topic, I find the overpopulation thing quite overstated. I bet China is can accommodate all of humanity and still have room for a few more generation, even with positive population growth.
Humans do probably act like a plague but there you go that's what we are. Not like the earth cares either way if we exist or don't, it's an inanimate rock.
On January 25 2013 09:49 hasuprotoss wrote: Considering people have been saying this since around the turn of the 19th century, I'm not sure how much weight I should put into one man's statement.
I kind of agree with this, why is his particular statement so special? Hating humans isn't exactly a new concept.
I honestly think he is just pissed he has to deal with so many pesky natives interfering with his heroic attempts at making the next great honey badger documentary. What with their deforestation of jungles to build up industry, hunting endangered species to provide better lives for their families, etc. I mean really, the nerve. Clearly the world would be a better place without so many people in it, better for Sir David Attenborough at least. We should implement population controls in Ethiopia and similar nations straightaway, so that wondrous continent Africa won't be bespoiled by the plague of humanity which presently threatens it. For that is what they are, you know - a plague.
Surprised so many Tlers are cool with this borderline hate speech, I guess everyone is just eager to show how edgy they are by dissing humanity.
Sometimes I really despise terms like "edgy" and "emo". Just because views are intensely negative, does not mean they are irrational. Instead of going for low blows and comparing people to angsty kids, please try to disprove them through logic and reason.
EPT
