3 ms·

or. we could stop breeding so many humans. the earth isn't expanding.

by jelliclesfarm 6y ago

kube-system 6y ago
The earth has plenty of space, and isn't at risk of running out any time soon.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  we dont have enough natural and renewable resources. unless we are going to find ourself a house in a high density 'sustainble' neighbourhood that rations water, pay astronomical rates for power, still have two cars in a walkable neighbourhood and get caught in freeways to work 30 miles from home with a 2 hour daily commute. towns full of children and not enough schools. old people and not enough open spaces. increasing public sector pension liabilities and sinking into debt every year. this is happening in every part of the world. except countries with a low population. i think 5-7 million is the magic number for resource management purposes. take NZ for example. 5 million. sparsely populated. high density in north island/auckland. i doubt if it would be called 'sustainable' or 'smart'.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  + when we start building homes, we are building over what used to be water sheds, farmland, habitat, grazing land. All land is not suitable for building. So we take the best soils that had taken centuries to build its top soil and we pave them over. It’s a tragedy and a travesty. More numbers = more water. We don’t live near water and that has to be bought to where people live. Do you know what we have to do get water to people’s taps so it’s water on demand. Potable water. We have to dig for rare and precious metals. Build more factories to make our cars and steel roofs and pipes and plastic thingies. For every person born, their foot print is not just the home they live in..but water, land for food, everything from their daily porn to their smart phone to cute teapots and our recreational activities and schools. I mean... let’s make a list. From cradle to grave, what it realLy cost to assure basic living foot print for every individual. So.. no. We are way past our carrying capacity. We need to be 2-3 billion to achieve. Carrying capacity. In 1975, population of the world was 3.5 ish billion. Roughly half of what it is now. That’s a good goal. We should incentivise people to live quality lives and not focus on quantity. Only church and state needs more and more lives and people for souls to save and taxes to collect. If we remove the blinders, it is human nature to want to procreate and give the best lives possible to our children who are nothing but extensions of ourselves. But we are leaving a compromised and crumbling world. And robbing them of a future and defeating the chances we have of our species perpetual survival by depleating our resources, habitats and environment. What we are doing is not unlike sitting on the top most branch of the tree of life as an apex predator and saw off the trunk underneath us because we have been made to believe by church and state that ‘it’s all fine’. No. We are not fine. That’s all.
  - souprock 6y ago
    Despite being your nightmare, with my 13th kid due this summer, I'm going to agree with you on the farmland. Paving over San Jose was a terrible thing to do. San Jose was the best place to grow apricots. In general, all of the Silicon Valley area would make wonderful farmland. It'd be better to live on the foothills on either side of the Central Valley, or even on the Nevada side of the Sierra Mountains.
    - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
      How old are your kids? Do they all have the same mum? ETA: you are not my ‘nightmare’. You are however a social anamoly in this day and age. it is unlikely that our paths would have ever crossed except on this little online outpost. I come from a very large multi generational family totally (at times) 15 members. I am also from a country with a 1+ billion people and am aware how quickly exponential population growth will eat through the resource pile. I was able to migrate to America. Where will your children and grandchildren go? It’s already a crowded and resource dwindling world out there. However, I do have a dim view of single carrier of source DNA populating and sucking up resources over multiple generations that is meant for the entire species. There are many rural families even in the USA who have double digit children and I understand the pros and cons. The pros only benefit your family. The cons hurt the whole community. This is called a win-lose situation. Unless of course, you belong to a cult/religion that encourages this and then I am interested in hearing more about why you made a decision to have 13 children.
      - souprock 6y ago
        All have the same mum, with the oldest being 21. We're in Florida, in the sort of small-city environment that looks like a classic suburb but is separated from urban areas by lots of rural open space. Empty space for humans is not in short supply, but I do worry that we are choosing to live where the crops grow best. In my case, that would be pineapples and coconut. The decision to have 13 children (so far...) has many contributing factors. A notable one is that I found a wife who is probably more Catholic than the pope.

or. we could stop breeding so many humans. the earth isn't expanding.

kube-system 6y ago

The earth has plenty of space, and isn't at risk of running out any time soon.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
we dont have enough natural and renewable resources. unless we are going to find ourself a house in a high density 'sustainble' neighbourhood that rations water, pay astronomical rates for power, still have two cars in a walkable neighbourhood and get caught in freeways to work 30 miles from home with a 2 hour daily commute. towns full of children and not enough schools. old people and not enough open spaces. increasing public sector pension liabilities and sinking into debt every year. this is happening in every part of the world. except countries with a low population. i think 5-7 million is the magic number for resource management purposes. take NZ for example. 5 million. sparsely populated. high density in north island/auckland. i doubt if it would be called 'sustainable' or 'smart'.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
+ when we start building homes, we are building over what used to be water sheds, farmland, habitat, grazing land. All land is not suitable for building. So we take the best soils that had taken centuries to build its top soil and we pave them over. It’s a tragedy and a travesty. More numbers = more water. We don’t live near water and that has to be bought to where people live. Do you know what we have to do get water to people’s taps so it’s water on demand. Potable water. We have to dig for rare and precious metals. Build more factories to make our cars and steel roofs and pipes and plastic thingies. For every person born, their foot print is not just the home they live in..but water, land for food, everything from their daily porn to their smart phone to cute teapots and our recreational activities and schools. I mean... let’s make a list. From cradle to grave, what it realLy cost to assure basic living foot print for every individual. So.. no. We are way past our carrying capacity. We need to be 2-3 billion to achieve. Carrying capacity. In 1975, population of the world was 3.5 ish billion. Roughly half of what it is now. That’s a good goal. We should incentivise people to live quality lives and not focus on quantity. Only church and state needs more and more lives and people for souls to save and taxes to collect. If we remove the blinders, it is human nature to want to procreate and give the best lives possible to our children who are nothing but extensions of ourselves. But we are leaving a compromised and crumbling world. And robbing them of a future and defeating the chances we have of our species perpetual survival by depleating our resources, habitats and environment. What we are doing is not unlike sitting on the top most branch of the tree of life as an apex predator and saw off the trunk underneath us because we have been made to believe by church and state that ‘it’s all fine’. No. We are not fine. That’s all.
- souprock 6y ago
  Despite being your nightmare, with my 13th kid due this summer, I'm going to agree with you on the farmland. Paving over San Jose was a terrible thing to do. San Jose was the best place to grow apricots. In general, all of the Silicon Valley area would make wonderful farmland. It'd be better to live on the foothills on either side of the Central Valley, or even on the Nevada side of the Sierra Mountains.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    How old are your kids? Do they all have the same mum? ETA: you are not my ‘nightmare’. You are however a social anamoly in this day and age. it is unlikely that our paths would have ever crossed except on this little online outpost. I come from a very large multi generational family totally (at times) 15 members. I am also from a country with a 1+ billion people and am aware how quickly exponential population growth will eat through the resource pile. I was able to migrate to America. Where will your children and grandchildren go? It’s already a crowded and resource dwindling world out there. However, I do have a dim view of single carrier of source DNA populating and sucking up resources over multiple generations that is meant for the entire species. There are many rural families even in the USA who have double digit children and I understand the pros and cons. The pros only benefit your family. The cons hurt the whole community. This is called a win-lose situation. Unless of course, you belong to a cult/religion that encourages this and then I am interested in hearing more about why you made a decision to have 13 children.
    - souprock 6y ago
      All have the same mum, with the oldest being 21. We're in Florida, in the sort of small-city environment that looks like a classic suburb but is separated from urban areas by lots of rural open space. Empty space for humans is not in short supply, but I do worry that we are choosing to live where the crops grow best. In my case, that would be pineapples and coconut. The decision to have 13 children (so far...) has many contributing factors. A notable one is that I found a wife who is probably more Catholic than the pope.