[...]Here is a Great site You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You To See For Yourself[...]……

1. “The answer? We could kill others off and keep the spoils for ourselves.”

Reducto Ad Absurdum fallacy/False Dichotomy fallacy #1: There are other ways to control population growth besides homicide such as contraceptives and sex education. In fact these tactics have been too effective in some cases.

Ad Hominem fallacy #1: Opposing excessive population growth does not mean the person is homicidal.

2. “But, you may recall, most people don’t like being killed-off. If you try this, or even simlpy let them die off, you’ll likely see an increase in terrorist attacks. If you try this, or even [simply] let them die off, you’ll likely see an increase in terrorist attacks. Wars”

Strawman fallacy #1: This is not the argument I made. Reducing the number of children per household (CPH) of a group to manageable levels is not the same as killing off a group or letting them die off. In fact, the reverse is true. It elevates their standard of living as well as that of their children.

Argument to Adverse Consequences fallacy/Appeal to Force fallacies: Just because a group that is threatening the well being of another group might resort to terrorism or open war does not mean we should yield to these tactics.

3. “The alternative is, of course, to adapt our infrastructure to population growth.”

False Dichotomy fallacy #1 revisited: This is not the only alternative.

4. “While trillions of dollars are being spent on war machines, “family planning”, relatively fruitless space exploration and climate-scare, developing systems and technologies capable of better supporting a growing population are neglected, if not discouraged.”

False Dichotomy #2: Spending money on Wars, family planning, space exploration and climate research does not preclude spending money on infrastructure. In many cases it makes the money spent on infrastructure more efficient.

False Dichotomy #3: We owe people the right to reproduce at any rate they choose to the exclusion of investing in any other endeavor.

Error of Fact fallacy #1: The “relatively fruitless Space Program” has resulted in technological advancements that range from freeze drying foods to waste water recycling technologies to meteorology to communications to geology to oil exploration to the Teflon used in the frying pan to the computer we’re both using to have this debate. Just about every life monitoring machine you find in the ER owes its development to the Apollo program. The effects of a relatively minor investment in the 60’s have been paying dividends that have allowed the US to remain the center of a global technological explosion that has never been seen in the history of the planet. We will continue to reap these rewards long into the future in ways that can be easily predicted such as mining the asteroid belt and terraforming Mars and possibly Venus to other advancements neither of us can even begin to imagine.

Error of Fact #2: Providing adequate food and water has received more attention than any other endeavors in human history, including the eradication of disease. This resulted in inventions that range from agriculture to irrigation to aqueducts to fertilization to animal husbandry to genetic manipulation. Most of US infrastructure and land use is dedicated to food and water production and distribution.

The “Green Revolution” in India between the 1940’s and 1970’s allowed it to sustain more than quadruple the number of people it had trouble feeding in the 1930’s. This included the development of short grained rice and other grains that were better able to tolerate the monsoonal rains.

5: “And if you believe that indigenous peoples have nothing to contribute to civilization, you’ve probably never met any. Not [acquired] knowledge.”

Strawman #2: I never mentioned the utility of indigenous people.

Ad Hominem #2: Opposing explosive population growth is not a racial issue. It doesn’t’ matter if you are White, Brown, Black, Yellow, Red, or Green-with-Purple-Polka-Dots your standard of living will be eroded if you allow population growth to exceed infrastructure.
.
6. “They’re quite human, quite creative, and far more intelligent than you can imagine, though their I.Q. may not register high by modern academic standards, but that’s mainly because I.Q. tests rely on academic knowledge.”

Ad Hominem #2 revisited: Race is irrelevant. My argument does not stand on the concept of racial superiority or inferiority.

Academic knowledge is a function of infrastructure (education) so this portion of your argument supports my point.

7. “In this case, are you saying the slaughter of American Indians, the slavery of Africans and the subjugation of Asians is suddenly acceptable?”

Strawman #3: I am not advocating pogroms, slavery, or subjugation. I am advocating controlled birth rates that do not exceed the growth of infrastructure. This can be done without any of the process you offer.

False Dichotomy #1 revisited: These are not the only solutions.

Ad Hominem #2 revisited: Race is irrelevant.

8. “If you have an open, flexible mind, you’ll recognize the potential for every human being to contribute to his or her community, and his or her right to exist.”

Strawman #4: I have never argued against racial equality. I’ve argued against excessive population.

Ad Hominem#2 revisited: Race is irrelevant.
9. “If not, please, at least have the decency to wear your swastika on your arm.”

Ad Hominem #2 revisited: Race is irrelevant. I’m sorry Fiver but not everyone that disagrees with you is a racist.
Factual Error #3: The swastika dates back to the Neolithic period and was used by Hindus, Buddhists, and other groups besides the NAZI’s. You might as well be offering that all terrorists wear turbans and burqas.

[On a personal note my ex-wife was something like 1/8th Cherokee so that means my daughter is 1/16th “Indigenous Peoples” and even at age 5 she’s smarter than most of the people that post on here so you look pretty silly from this side of the screen.]

Your argument is broken. Get a new one.

I respectfully agree with your assertion that the current infrastructure is loaded, even stressed in some areas. The answer? We could kill others off and keep the spoils for ourselves. But, you may recall, most people don’t like being killed-off. If you try this, or even simlpy let them die off, you’ll likely see an increase in terrorist attacks. Wars. This won’t help the situation.

The alternative is, of course, to adapt our infrastructure to population growth. Don’t think it’s doable? While trillions of dollars are being spent on war machines, “family planning”, relatively fruitless space exploration and climate-scare, developing systems and technologies capable of better supporting a growing population are neglected, if not discouraged.

And if you believe that indigenous peoples have nothing to contribute to civilization, you’ve probably never met any. They’re quite human, quite creative, and far more intelligent than you can imagine, though their I.Q. may not register high by modern academic standards, but that’s mainly because I.Q. tests rely on academic knowledge. Not aquired knowledge. In this case, are you saying the slaughter of American Indians, the slavery of Africans and the subjugation of Asians is suddenly acceptable?

If you have an open, flexible mind, you’ll recognize the potential for every human being to contribute to his or her community, and his or her right to exist.

If not, please, at least have the decency to wear your swastika on your arm.

“With more children, there is more potential for cooperative solution-finding and sharing work-loads, not to mention pooling creativity and knowledge. If there are any impediments, it’s not likely got much to do with numbers of people, maybe just the number of restrictive laws and unjust practices.”

The thing the author and you are ignoring and Victoria points out and you minimized is that population is not a function of land area, it is a function of the ability of the infrastructure to support the population that relies on it. you can’t put everyone in Alaska because there aren’t enough roads, hospitals, schools, farms, markets, factories, jobs, banks, etc. in Alaska to support six billion people regardless of how much property is theoretically available for habitation.

Population needs to keep pace with infrastructure or you end up with ingnorance and poverty. Latin America, India, and Africa demonstrate this clearly and this is further supported by examining what has happened in the “First World” as we have tried to absorb the ever increasing masses produced by the “Third World.” Europe and the US are staggering under the burden of imported ignorance and poverty. They can’t “cooperate in solution finding” because they lack the tools to understand the problem much less invent a solution. Most end up in unskilled positions in fast food, resturants, landscaping, and similar positions displacing young adults attempting to enter the work force and gain job experience. Flipping burgers at McDonalds is supposed to be the first rung on the employment ladder, not a lifetime career.

This planet may well be able to sustain a much larger human population than it currently does, but at this point our infrastructure can’t support these numbers at current reproductive rates. As it stands we’re not helping them up; they’re dragging us down.

think_about_it, may I suggest that the author’s space-calculations were primarily to make the point that the entire population could fit into less space than it does now? There are brilliant geniouses who specialize in transforming smaller spaces into profitable work area. The Chinese have become leaders in this. Life’s about cooperation, not annihilation. And the reference was only to land-mass. We’ve barely begun exploring the widths and depths of the oceans, underground living, vertical structures… There are many plausable and adventurous solutions without having to refer to slaughtering innocents. Chinampas? Vertical Farming? Permaculture? Please look for realistic alternatives.

Victoria, you’re wrong about Niger. With more children, there is more potential for cooperative solution-finding and sharing work-loads, not to mention pooling creativity and knowledge. If there are any impediments, it’s not likely got much to do with numbers of people, maybe just the number of restrictive laws and unjust practices.

Oh, and about “religious people”… It so happens that religion often teaches such virtues as sharing, compassion, justice, and frugality. Many problems are usually stemmed in greed and calousness.

Oh, and for the record, “non-religious” people have a heck of a track record so far when it comes to solutions, natural resources etc: 162 000 000 innocent civilians have been slaughtered IN THE LAST CENTURY by atheistic regimes (more than all the wars of history combined), not to mention the collapsed economies and horrid environmental catastrophies that accompanied them (chernobyl?). It would appear that a repugnance for virtue and faith has wreaked more havoc than religion itself.

There are many intelligent people with brilliant solutions, there is absolutely no need to talk about killing people off or promoting selective birth controls. How we can even consider the same things fought against in WWII is beyond me, but I suppose I oughtn’t be surprised, some people have always demonstrated a willingness to end human life just to satisfy their desire to have everything to themselves. Remeber Cain and Abel? At this point I don’t care if you take it literally or allegorically, but there weren’t many people on the planet, and one still killed the other. We haven’t gotten better.

Stop talking about killing each other or letting people die. Help others as much as you can and they’ll help you when you need it. Do the opposite and history will repeat itself.