On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 09:42:33 -0800, David P wrote:

> Smaller human populations are neither a necessary nor sufficient
> condition for biodiversity conservation
>
> https://overpopulation-project.com/smaller-human-populations-are-neither-
a-necessary-nor-sufficient-condition-for-biodiversity-conservation
> -----------------
>
> Steve Hawkins commented, Feb 14, 2023 at 8:30 pm:
> It’s kind of a moot point now anyway. The low lying areas where most
> people are concentrated, and the best land for growing is, are going to
> be under water soon, whatever they do now.
> I was amazed, recently, when a seemingly educated carer of mine was
> grieving over the lives lost to the Turkey earthquakes, but when I tried
> to explain about their cause, and why so many people were living in
> dangerous places, I found that he had never heard of continental drift
> and never thought about how mountains are made. He had never heard of
> massed extinction events, or even of geological periods of millions of
> years, let alone billions! He did not know that world population had
> nearly quadrupled in one lifetime or that there were eight billion
> competing for vanishing land and resources now. He did not know that sea
> level was rising, and was visibly shocked when I showed him this video!
> He showed me his own video of his baby daughter enjoying her first
> afternoon sat out in the sunshine.
>
> This is a young man who has travelled the world much more than I have,
> and has worked in high tech environments in ultra modern cities, but he
> really didn’t have a clue about how the world works, or of any of the
> dangers it is in.
> So: what chance of explaining this to the uneducated masses, who want
> nothing more than to have their own happy children enjoying their first
> day in the sunshine?
>
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CurmnLKikyI --------------------
> Edith Crowther commented, Feb 15, 2023 at 9:45 am:
> These prestigious articles and publications have become superfluous in
> recent years – because events have overtaken them. Also, it has become
> obvious in many cases (e.g. medical journals), that much of the research
> is undertaken in order to obtain funding, which knocks out any
> non-profitable topics even before their inception. Profit lies in
> prolonging human life, not curtailing it, so long as welfare dependency
> does not eat into government revenues and make governments reluctant to
> endorse privately-funded science.
> These journals and their contributors are still locked in the
> post-Enlightenment liberal worldview, where Progress is linear and the
> only way is up and Growth is limitless and Motion is perpetual. Meantime
> millions of illiterate people know what happens when your population
> goes from 21.5 million in 1950 to 84.5 million in 2020 (Turkey, not
> counting huge Diaspora), or 3.5 million in 1950 to 17.5 million in 2020
> (Syria, not counting huge Diaspora). Everything non-artificial starts to
> run out – including Water. Then ethnic hatred, civil war, and even war,
> arrive. But even so, human numbers do not shrink much.
> Ask the millions pouring across the border between North and South
> America, or between Africa and Europe, or between Asia and anywhere, to
> say truthfully why they are forced to flee. They know why, in their
> heart of hearts. They blame civil war, or gang warfare, or lack of jobs,
> or drought, but they know perfectly well what the ultimate cause of all
> these things is. They can’t say so, but at least they know. It strikes
> me that many academics not only can’t say it, they don’t even know it –
> they operate in a cocoon, even though they travel the world constantly
> in pursuit of Knowledge at considerable cost to governments and funding
> corporations. Eventually, the physical realities of Overshoot will
> overtake these happy academics and they will change their tune. Until
> then, there is little point in contradicting them.
> One day too, Overpopulation realists will lose the spar they cling to –
> contraception and the liberation of women – which they imagine will
> bring about the necessary reduction in human population, in a controlled
> and civilized manner which will enable Progress to continue (though at a
> slower rate), or at least stay steady and not decline. But here again,
> it makes little difference when or if those claiming that plummeting
> Total Fertility Rates BY CHOICE are the answer. Because soon the fact
> that they are not the answer will become all too apparent. Not unless
> they are caused by uncontrolled and unchosen near-total sterility of
> humans (including men) caused by pollution. We know that DBCP has caused
> sterility in male banana growers in Latin America, the Caribbean and
> Africa (and in men at plants manufacturing it) – but other chemicals
> causing male sterility are not so dramatically effective, though they do
> have an effect.
> It is useless trying to convince activist groups trying to reduce human
> numbers in a nice kind way that something rather nasty and uncivilized
> is going to have to do this, in the end. And it is equally useless
> trying to convince those who are convinced that Malthus was wrong that
> Malthus was right.
> One would have to be like King Canute who was obliged to show his
> courtiers that he was not all-powerful by actually sitting amidst the
> incoming tide. Even then, I bet quite a few were not convinced.
> --

Yes, subduction is a bugger.

Yes and while universities churn out people with great knowledge but little
common sense or the ability to apply their knowledge to all the problems of
the world.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Smolley" <s@home.net> wrote in message news:tslkp2$39ucr$1@dont-email.me...
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 09:42:33 -0800, David P wrote:
>
>> Smaller human populations are neither a necessary nor sufficient
>> condition for biodiversity conservation
>>
>> https://overpopulation-project.com/smaller-human-populations-are-neither-
> a-necessary-nor-sufficient-condition-for-biodiversity-conservation
>> -----------------
>>
>> Steve Hawkins commented, Feb 14, 2023 at 8:30 pm:
>> It's kind of a moot point now anyway. The low lying areas where most
>> people are concentrated, and the best land for growing is, are going to
>> be under water soon, whatever they do now.
>> I was amazed, recently, when a seemingly educated carer of mine was
>> grieving over the lives lost to the Turkey earthquakes, but when I tried
>> to explain about their cause, and why so many people were living in
>> dangerous places, I found that he had never heard of continental drift
>> and never thought about how mountains are made. He had never heard of
>> massed extinction events, or even of geological periods of millions of
>> years, let alone billions! He did not know that world population had
>> nearly quadrupled in one lifetime or that there were eight billion
>> competing for vanishing land and resources now. He did not know that sea
>> level was rising, and was visibly shocked when I showed him this video!
>> He showed me his own video of his baby daughter enjoying her first
>> afternoon sat out in the sunshine.
>>
>> This is a young man who has travelled the world much more than I have,
>> and has worked in high tech environments in ultra modern cities, but he
>> really didn't have a clue about how the world works, or of any of the
>> dangers it is in.
>> So: what chance of explaining this to the uneducated masses, who want
>> nothing more than to have their own happy children enjoying their first
>> day in the sunshine?
>>
>> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CurmnLKikyI --------------------
>> Edith Crowther commented, Feb 15, 2023 at 9:45 am:
>> These prestigious articles and publications have become superfluous in
>> recent years - because events have overtaken them. Also, it has become
>> obvious in many cases (e.g. medical journals), that much of the research
>> is undertaken in order to obtain funding, which knocks out any
>> non-profitable topics even before their inception. Profit lies in
>> prolonging human life, not curtailing it, so long as welfare dependency
>> does not eat into government revenues and make governments reluctant to
>> endorse privately-funded science.
>> These journals and their contributors are still locked in the
>> post-Enlightenment liberal worldview, where Progress is linear and the
>> only way is up and Growth is limitless and Motion is perpetual. Meantime
>> millions of illiterate people know what happens when your population
>> goes from 21.5 million in 1950 to 84.5 million in 2020 (Turkey, not
>> counting huge Diaspora), or 3.5 million in 1950 to 17.5 million in 2020
>> (Syria, not counting huge Diaspora). Everything non-artificial starts to
>> run out - including Water. Then ethnic hatred, civil war, and even war,
>> arrive. But even so, human numbers do not shrink much.
>> Ask the millions pouring across the border between North and South
>> America, or between Africa and Europe, or between Asia and anywhere, to
>> say truthfully why they are forced to flee. They know why, in their
>> heart of hearts. They blame civil war, or gang warfare, or lack of jobs,
>> or drought, but they know perfectly well what the ultimate cause of all
>> these things is. They can't say so, but at least they know. It strikes
>> me that many academics not only can't say it, they don't even know it -
>> they operate in a cocoon, even though they travel the world constantly
>> in pursuit of Knowledge at considerable cost to governments and funding
>> corporations. Eventually, the physical realities of Overshoot will
>> overtake these happy academics and they will change their tune. Until
>> then, there is little point in contradicting them.
>> One day too, Overpopulation realists will lose the spar they cling to -
>> contraception and the liberation of women - which they imagine will
>> bring about the necessary reduction in human population, in a controlled
>> and civilized manner which will enable Progress to continue (though at a
>> slower rate), or at least stay steady and not decline. But here again,
>> it makes little difference when or if those claiming that plummeting
>> Total Fertility Rates BY CHOICE are the answer. Because soon the fact
>> that they are not the answer will become all too apparent. Not unless
>> they are caused by uncontrolled and unchosen near-total sterility of
>> humans (including men) caused by pollution. We know that DBCP has caused
>> sterility in male banana growers in Latin America, the Caribbean and
>> Africa (and in men at plants manufacturing it) - but other chemicals
>> causing male sterility are not so dramatically effective, though they do
>> have an effect.
>> It is useless trying to convince activist groups trying to reduce human
>> numbers in a nice kind way that something rather nasty and uncivilized
>> is going to have to do this, in the end. And it is equally useless
>> trying to convince those who are convinced that Malthus was wrong that
>> Malthus was right.
>> One would have to be like King Canute who was obliged to show his
>> courtiers that he was not all-powerful by actually sitting amidst the
>> incoming tide. Even then, I bet quite a few were not convinced.
>> --
>
> Yes, subduction is a bugger.