A constant increase in the human population endangers the ongoing efforts to save our world. Many ecologists and professionals are aware of the problem, the explosion of the human population endangers its very existence.
I have written a lot and mentioned how the human population causes the depletion of natural resources and the environment, damage that is a double-edged sword since damage to the environment damages the damage/ here and there I also carefully and in a whisper mentioned one of the solutions. Now the spell increases and turns into a shout!
A constant increase in the human population endangers the ongoing efforts to save our world. Many ecologists and professionals are aware of the problem, the explosion of the human population endangers its very existence.
Despite the awareness of the problem, the members of the environmental movements are afraid to declare its existence and are even more afraid to make official announcements that will require preventive action, that is, to make a blanket statement that will demand action and action to stop the population explosion, to start ongoing activity for birth control.
Although to this day the subject is taboo, more and more ecologists and government officials are "coming out of the closet" and declaring their position, the need to control population growth. Lack of water, lack of food, lack of means of living are only part of the problem, but the fear of the social reactions to trying to stop the population explosion prevents any corrective and preventive activity.
Since the dawn of history, the ambition of every family has been to produce as many descendants as possible, an ambition based in human / animal nature for the continuity of the species. This aspiration developed in various societies because of the belief that "the children will take care of their parents in their old age". In Western society (USA and Europe) the children have long ceased to care for their parents. In some societies there is a system of protections and social insurances that free the children from the need, the same system of protections also exists in countries that are not considered "developed", countries that have a strong connection to centuries-old tradition and religion, tradition and religion that often require the birth of children.
In primitive societies there is still the feeling of duty of offspring to their parents, therefore precisely in countries where living conditions are more difficult, where resources are lacking, precisely where the natural reproduction is greater and greater. The statistics show that the better a family's financial situation, the fewer the number of children. But the same statistics also show the opposite situation: the more difficult the economic situation, the larger the number of children per family. Since about half of the world's population lives in difficult living conditions, those without the means multiply and this creates a spiral that leads to a population explosion.
Despite the seriousness of the problem, despite the deep negative impact on life in our world, the explosion of the human population was a taboo, a topic that for decades has been conspicuously absent from global public debate. Most of those dealing with the subject agree that: the uncontrolled growth harms the environment with a harshness that leads to calamities of indescribable dimensions. That is why they come to an agreement that action must be taken to stop the disaster.
And yet there are ecologists who refuse to address the problem, there are also those who ignore the numbers. These claim that an attempt to control the size of the population constitutes a "violation of human rights", and therefore it is better not to deal with the problem, while they are hung up on events in which there was harm to people while abusing the concept of "population control", a perverted use that led to absurdity. This is a confused approach since the lack of a solution to the problem will cause a much more serious and difficult injury.
You can learn from the past and prevent future harm. Those who are engaged in trying to influence population growth do so while respecting and emphasizing civil rights, for example: studying/educating girls and women to improve their economic/social situation. Their improved condition allows the use of various means to raise awareness of family planning options.
Those who oppose dealing with the issue hinder such activity, and prevent the development of initiatives that will bring advanced services to primary companies. For the fundamental question is what is the greater danger to the well-being of humanity, the possibility that the efforts to address the problem of the human population explosion will be misused? Or the continued failure to prevent the death of billions of people as a result of total environmental collapse?
Much has been said about the carrying capacity of our world, and it is clear to all those involved in the issue that we have been exploiting dwindling resources for a long time. The way in which we continue and pump is a major failure of the goal. From observations and research in other species, ecologists know that overexploitation due to population explosion causes the population to collapse, a collapse that for humanity should be a warning against calamity the likes of which we have not seen in history.
The chance to prevent disaster depends on our ability to relate to the numbers. There is no other way. There are those who propose to reduce the consumption per person... a proposal that will not stand the test of reality since the consumption per person doubles and increases with population growth. According to the "Global Footprint Network" data, we will remain in overconsumption and miss the goal if we do not take into account the size of the population.
Solutions do not appear out of silence. The issue of population explosion must be brought to the center of the public debate. The shackles of the taboo must be broken and those who have the expertise, understanding, knowledge and ability to express themselves and do, should be encouraged, expressions and actions that will attract attention, attention that will lead to a solution.
The famous Jewish saying "children at home are happy at home" is true and perhaps good for the parents, how true will the saying be for those children when they grow up and with them will grow billions of people in a world squeezed out of resources? Billions of people without means of livelihood?
Most of those involved in the natural sciences recognize and agree that uncontrolled growth of the human population is the main cause of ongoing environmental damage, and therefore most of them also recognize the urgency of stopping the explosion of the human population.
A body called the "Global Population Speak Out campaign" recruited about a hundred speakers from 19 countries who were called to explain the issue to the public. More and more people with understanding and opinion recognize the need and urgency of stopping the explosion. Will they succeed in breaking the conventions? Will we be able to free ourselves from the taboo?
More articles on this topic on the science website:
38 תגובות
Every newborn son will be thrown away - what's up with this world?
hahaha I had a great deal on this text today thank you to whoever wrote it. =]
Stupid, you'd better shut up outside of that first, go out and learn to write Hebrew properly! This is not about taking care of the elderly but about the population explosion on our planet and regarding one of the solutions you proposed, we are still bound in the solar system to remind you, and it doesn't look like we will be able to get out of it. Time is short and the work is many, it is indeed better to limit the size of the population than to lose billions in an ecological holocaust and the extinction of the entire human race, which will happen if we do not take ourselves in our hands (all of humanity) and act in due time.
Pro and Rebo is not a blessing but the destruction of humanity
To 20
If both a small population and a large population always strive to raise the standard of living, then it is better for humanity to choose and impose upon itself a decrease in population. And so the resources will burn more slowly and last for more years.
Ah
In general, the earth can easily contain and sustain a much larger amount than you think. There is no shortage of living space and agricultural land, and even in China there is no shortage of room for many more people than today.
Provided that the world is also restored in a smart way and not in a way that devours natural resources and destroys as is customary in the "developed" countries.
But there are governments that see the rate of population growth in less developed countries as a serious threat to their "security" and "foreign interests".
The commission established by the King of England in 1944, George VI. The committee was called the "Royal Committee on Population Affairs", and its purpose was "to consider what measures should be taken for the security of the state in order to know how to influence the future tendency of the population". The committee concluded that Brittany is under threat from population growth and the industrialization process its colonies are undergoing, and that this fact will surely affect its military and security forces.
And in the United States on December 10, 1974, the National Security Council of the United States issued a confidential report under the direction of Henry Kissinger called "National Security Council Study of Morundum 200: The Consequences of the World's Population Growth Rate on US Security and Foreign Affairs" The study claimed that the rate of population growth in less developed countries poses a serious threat to the US.
The report was adopted by the then president Gerald Ford in 1975. The report outlined a secret plan to reduce the population in certain countries by birth control, and also implicitly offered to help with wars and famine. Brent Squawcroft replaced Henry Kissinger at that time and was responsible for implementing the same plan, while George Bush Sr., who served as the head of the CIA at that time, was instructed to help Squawcroft, as well as the other senior administration officials at that time promoted the policy outlined by the report H.
Similar to the Royal Commission report, Memorandum 200 drew similar conclusions regarding 13 key countries that it identified, including India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Brazil, Mexico, Philippines, Egypt, Colombia and more. The threat from these countries, the report concluded, is that population growth in those countries will stimulate and increase their political, economic and military power in relation to the US.
Here you can read the report in full
http://www.lifesitenews.com/waronfamily/nssm200/nssm200.pdf
Kissinger refers to projection a, in which he predicts that if things continue as they are until the year 2000, the amount of the population will more than double and that in the year 2075 the amount of the population will exceed one hundred billion. Kissinger claims that this can't really happen because there is overwhelming agreement among everyone that the world cannot support so many people, and that things like famine, war, and population control will prevent this. According to the things written in the report, it is clear that hunger and war play in favor of the goals set by Kissinger.
In the report, Kissinger promoted all kinds of ways to help deal with the "threat", including the development of programs to control, control, and reduce the number of births and the population. He also warned that even if these plans are implemented, the amount of the population is expected to increase before it begins to decrease, and therefore it is necessary to act quickly. One of the main measures was the lowering of the food supply to the countries marked as a target, he suggested that aid to the country would depend on the fulfillment of its requirements and obedience regarding birth control and control of the number of citizens, and in addition claimed "However, in such sensitive relations, the style is important, as well as the substance (referring to food aid ), to avoid being seen as coercive." It also says "Mandatory programs will probably be needed, and we need to consider these options now... Will food be considered a tool for political power?... Is the US willing to agree to food rationing to help people who are unable to control the rate of population growth?".
In short, this whole business is a problem of governments and certain people who strive to control the population and not a real biological problem..
If the UN and all other world organizations were not motivated by political motives of such and other powers that wish to leave the situation as it is.
They would create incentives for families with low birth rates in developing countries.
For example, free education up to the age of 18 for the first 2-3 children in each family.
It's a shame that no country really wants to change the situation in Africa and Southeast Asia for economic reasons.
In Israel there is a population problem, greatly strengthened by sectors whose names we all know.
In my opinion, especially with problematic sectors of immigrants, a one-child policy should be implemented.
And also to legally take care of children's rights so that no one will think of raising children just for nothing or for this or that allowance (I really see this being implemented well., a lot of blood will be spilled)
Hugin:
interesting. Do you want to tell me that you admit that when you wrote response 22 you were nobody?
I mean - I agree with this claim of yours and I think it is true for almost all of your responses, but it's nice to see that you admit it.
Michael:
No one contacted you.
Shut.
point:
Your approach is very straightforward and I like it.
In my opinion, logic is an excellent tool to bring us from the axioms we accept to the conclusions arising from them (and sometimes to the contradictions contained in them - following their discovery we realize that the axioms must be changed) but it does not allow us to avoid axioms completely.
I assume that the above sentence did not bring anything new to you, but it seems to me that you hesitate to base your natural feelings as axioms when sometimes there is no escape from this because they do not derive from the other axioms but are simply ingrained in you as a result of evolution (they are not ingrained in you for nothing and of course it is understandable Why did evolution plant them but that is another story that is not related to morality but to survival).
Evolution did not instill in us sympathy for humans who will never be born and it did instill in us sympathy for those who were born.
This is quite understandable - because our tendency to avoid doing to others what we hate is closely related to their tendency not to do what they hate to us, but both they and we are human beings who were born and not being born is not one of the things that anyone can do to us.
I think this is the real reason why both you and I feel it is wrong to kill an old man.
We like to be moral and therefore we also try to explain our behavior as arising from moral considerations.
I tried to show a consideration that in my view is quite convincing and in general it is the same consideration that we use to justify abortions in the early stages of pregnancy - while the fetus has not yet developed a nervous system and brain and all that is in it is only "potential".
There is also a very difficult practical problem with trying to deal with the potential problems of all the potential people.
Today it is possible - at least in principle - to clone any living cell into an entire human being. Does this mean that we should take care of realizing this potential?
Sam Harris - in the lecture I gave a link to recently, he jokes and says that every time the president scratches his nose, he causes an act of holocaust because he prevents the fulfillment of the potential of millions of cells.
This appears in the section where he discusses embryonic stem cell research, but it is equally relevant to cells that don't even become the subject of research.
It reminds me of a stand-up artist I recently saw in a clip that was circulating on the internet.
She says that during an argument with her son, the son asked her - "Then why did you bring me into the world?".
He probably forgot that his mother is a stand-up comedian with an extraordinary response to language and of course her answer was not long in coming.
She answered him "Well, well! I didn't know that the one who would be born would be *you*?!"
It is indeed a joke but there is something in it. Even when the parents "do" the child, they still do not really think about him and do not form any special attitude towards him. Only when he begins to really live do they discover that he is the most important creature in their world.
As mentioned - this explanation calms my conscience, but it is clear to me that in the end it is a rationalization that I make around an emotion that was imprinted in me by evolution.
Hugin:
Forgive me for not finding it appropriate to address your current swelling.
It is clear to me that changing the name is mainly a way to "open a new page" where people forget the mess you made under the previous name.
Unfortunately for you - the arrogant style and the emptiness of your words betray you every time.
A righteous man understands his mysteries,
A comma follows the connections of a point. None, following his question.
And so on, in the associations and situations that unfold on the site, related to the subject, article and comments.
very simple.
Besides, can awareness replace clothing accessories? No, then they replace nicknames.
The fact that, despite the changes in the nickname, manage to identify a temperament and tone associated with the name of the subject, proves that after all there is an identifying character and temperament for every personality visiting the site.
Now all that remains is to analyze the psychological meaning of each nickname.
Fatal boredom.
Hugin I can't understand what you did in changing your nicknames from new to old ones.
Michael R:
Your ignorance of the body of nature as one big brain with all its branches, components, branches and centers, does not mean that nature does not know, but yours, as a dormant individual from within it and perhaps unconscious coming out of it, has no knowledge at all or the ability to analyze and the conscious and abstract recognition that arises from the way of observation and observation as That the natural analog mind works by replicating it to its origins and enables synthesis and vision both deductively and inductively in understanding the complicated, orderly and complex interpretations attributed to it: nature is the beginning of the intelligent fractal infrastructure with consciousness that contains all its other parts.
Therefore, nature does "know in detail" in practice and in its spontaneous and intelligent way to filter and clarify and balance its components (such as the manipulative human population and its other parasites, the offspring of its loins and the born of its cyclical origins) in order to return again and again to its balance and to the internal, cyclical, neural-brain-intelligent harmony that flows out of it.
The solution is to find an energy source that on the one hand does not pollute and on the other hand is eternal, such as sun, wind, waves, thermo, etc. and to plant multi-level (multi-story) rainforests with irrigation and artificial lighting (to utilize space) to restore the hole in the ozone and reduce CO2
As soon as there is clean and eternal energy, 90% of environmental problems will be solved. The best bet is to research and aim in the direction of imitating the efficiency of nature (photosynthesis)
To all concerned
Anyone who proposes to control the number of people on the globe is basically saying: "I want to maintain my standard of living", in the end all our resources are like all the barrels of oil that are taken out of the ground
Or all the money we have, everything goes into that huge bonfire that burns our world.
What I'm trying to say is that even if we manage to limit the birth rate and the number of people the problem is
You won't solve it, simply because the resources will go somewhere else like raising the sea level and see what
Happens in the West Seven, fewer people with a higher standard of living, apparently the multiplier always gives
the same result.
As long as humanity exists our world is in danger and of course humanity itself and there is no escaping it.
Michael, of course I don't think so.
But I do not find a convincing argument.
point:
abandoned.
This argument seems really ridiculous to me and I can't believe you really think so.
point:
Even a sleeping person has a desire.
The fact that he does not communicate with the environment at the time does not cancel his will.
Besides, for some reason, you make this will to live think.
Whereas the mere existence of the will is much more important, and it will only exist if that one is born, so I still don't see the difference between stopping an existing will from existing, and stopping a non-existent will from existing. After all, the future is what determines.
That's why I wrote an old man.
point:
Desire is a product of the nervous system and the brain.
An unborn person does not have such systems and probably - no desire.
Michael I did not understand how this answers the question.
Every person wants to live (and anyway to exist, to be born), and there is no difference between someone who is killed and someone who is not born.
(Of course, apart from the grief it causes others, but as we said, this is not the measure for determining justice)
point:
I guess you're joking. Right?
Continuing our conversation about morality, you should think about the question of the meaning of killing someone as if that "someone" is you.
Those who will never be born neither suffer nor have any interest.
Their number, by the way, at any moment, is huge without any relation to the birth policy.
It reminds me of how I used to joke with smokers and explain to them that I enjoy not smoking much more than they enjoy smoking because there are many more cigarettes that I don't smoke than the ones that they smoke.
charming:
If people stop giving birth right now, the world's population will decrease by half a billion in 10 years.
You don't have to kill anyone for that (and here I was talking about the solution that is not talked about).
Of course, the problem is much more difficult because the uncontrolled reduction of the birth rate will also cause the collapse of the systems that support adults and I don't think anyone wants that. The economy will not tolerate such shocks either.
comma:
Nature does not care at all about our messages and our hypocrisy (whether they are single, double or triple or whether they don't exist at all) and our hypocrisy.
This is a result of the fact that he doesn't care about anything and he doesn't know anything either.
And what I always say:
Switch to vegetarianism.
Nature knows how to clarify and filter well if it is not disturbed by double messages and moral hypocrisy.
The more I think about it, the more I find it difficult to understand what the essential difference is between not bringing a child into the world, and killing someone who is already alive (in a sleeping state for example) I am not speaking from the side of the law but from the side of common sense.
In fact, according to Jared Diamond - a world-renowned expert, with more than thirty years of experience in protecting the environment - the Earth can support a population of the size that exists today. The two main problems are:
1. Each person in the western world consumes 32 times more resources than a person in the third world, and excretes 32 times more waste.
2. The developing countries - China and India in the lead - are trying to reach the standard of living of the Western world, and to that end they are consuming their environment, and through imports also the environment of other countries.
If the inhabitants of the Western world were to switch to a way of life that was more economical in resources (for example, consume less, throw away less, recycle more, etc.), then the situation would be much better. Most likely, the solution lies in assimilating the fact that the planet is not able to allow a western standard of living for all humans, or even for their minority, and agreeing on rules that will lower the level of consumption in a controlled manner.
The greens do not believe in artificial resuscitation or in sucking the core of the earth's resources.
If only all those who caused and cause every day the extension of life in a fake and artificial way and artificial fertilization. For this reason, it is recommended that they also produce the miracle capsule for their disappearance and artificial filtering from the world.
If Aldous Huxley is the author who inspired them with a 'wonderful new world' that they would continue on his way to the end.
There is a special hotel in Switzerland for suicide by personal desire - only for the rich and those with academic certificates, preferred as: in the field of physics, chemistry,
The solution is to commit mass suicides of the greens.
It just seems to me that actually the proposed solution is like trying to arrange a carpet only on one side of the room without noticing that it is crowded on the other side of the room?
It is said that as the population grows, so does the damage to nature and the population, and the solution is to control the size of the population.
It was said indirectly, in my opinion, that the population is currently too large, and the scope should be reduced.
But the proposed solution is a solution that takes many years to implement. That is, to reduce the number of people is to wait until some of them die. And here the problem arose. How long should I wait? quite a lot.
But didn't we say that the population is currently too large?
In my opinion, no one wants to say that there are simply too many people and that this number should be reduced as quickly as possible.
Because the solution is one of the two, the more obvious, which no one wants to say publicly.
And the second is the least practical at the moment, and it will be a massive extraterrestrial return and finding essential resources extraterrestrial.
Another problem is that various countries see the large increase in their population not only as a religious obligation or economic prosperity, but also as a political interest in order to achieve certain agendas. Many extremist Muslim groups and countries think that by increasing their population they will be able to "inherit" the country from the hands of Western culture. Because they see that with technological power they do not achieve achievements, so they use conversion to their religion and especially by families with many children to strengthen their power in the world.
With us, when the Ministry of Education allows the core studies, you miss the lesson on a geometric column.
Let's be realistic, birth control is not possible, after all, man came from the monkey (shoe)
The population of the real world will be reduced to a fifth of its current size
World War III + deadly plagues
I'm back from the future and it's really close
It is indeed problematic, it is a test of humanity's maturity, will it be able to curb its own size for the better. I am in favor of all other nations except the Jews limiting the birth rate, the Jews should be exempted because of the Holocaust. The problem is that this is what every nation wants, that all the others will limit but not it, and therefore it is similar to the concept from the world of economics called "market failure of the type of the hitchhiker problem" The problem is that the solution that is applied in economics to address this market failure is government financing, but to apply this solution to limiting Yolada needs a government or world government to impose its orders on the nations of the world and the likelihood of this happening is low, although powerful powers can do it with some degree of success.
This is not a scientific article.
This is a long and exhausting call. We already understood the idea in the second paragraph.
Moreover, the column suffers from many inaccuracies:
I take care of my mother, while my two older brothers are away.
Does the writer promise me that none of my children will take care of me?
And which "systems" that will take care of the elderly are you talking about?
Nursing Home ? After all, without the remains to take care of the bank account of the parent who can no longer read, someone will soon find someone to steal all his money.
(We will see you beautifying the strength of your Filipino, or of the director of the old people's home you will find when you are in your old age on your bank account)
By the way, in China, which controls birth extremely harshly, rapid reproduction still exists.
In short, try to come up with other solutions if you are a true scientist.
Here are a few: colonization in space, more efficient utilization of space resources and much more...
Whining or passing dictatorial laws will probably not be a solution, even if they seem brave to their supporters.