Overpopulation - a myth?

[Gromoljut]

Originally Posted by Gonzalvus

I know him for some time now. I find his views interesting. The quote you provide describes accurately his approach.

The problem I have about his views is that I find them too artificial. The attitude towards life and nature he preaches about must be spontaneous, it cannot be artificially implemented today. Nazi's failure is a good example of this.

Indeed. I agree with both of you wholeheartedly. The only problem, Gonzalvus, with the spontaneus implementation is that you don't have a chance of knowing whether it will be on time.

I also agree with Hrvoje

[Marcus Marulus]

Excessive worries are so much in fashion these days...and it is possible that they give to some people a certain sense of self-importance.

[Martín Zalacaín]

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

Indeed. I agree with both of you wholeheartedly. The only problem, Gonzalvus, with the spontaneus implementation is that you don't have a chance of knowing whether it will be on time.

I also agree with Hrvoje

From my point of view, it doesn't matter. Mother Nature will fight back, it doesn't matter how hard we try to destroy Her --we can't. That's why I cannot share Linkola's pessimisim.

[Gromoljut]

Originally Posted by Plethon

Excessive worries are so much in fashion these days...and it is possible that they give to some people a certain sense of self-importance.

You mistake people who simply love nature (instead of only people, which are merely a part of nature) for Al Gore-like new-age pretenders.
I love trees, forests and wild animals. I hate the fact that one can hardly ever meet animals nowadays which were a common sight even 50 years ago. Wolves, lynxes, boars, ... are only examples. I hear stories from my grandparents and even parents - in their time, there was barely a paved road in Slovenia. Now, we build motorways like crazy, demolishing forests and countryside. Cities grow even if their population dwindles - land is used for stupid things like malls and movie theatres.
And it is not only construction & transport that annihilates nature. Cultivars of plants are being artificially developed these days (I am not talking only of GMOs) and monocultured, which not only destroys the soil, but also the genetic diversity of plants and the environment being cleared for their cultivation. A modern orchard of modern cultivars of apples or peaches is just as harmful to earth as any city or SUV.

Do not mistake me for Al Gore. Al Gore wants to make money and political points off "green politics" and "sustainable development", both of which are obviously insincere bull****.

[Gromoljut]

Originally Posted by Gonzalvus

From my point of view, it doesn't matter. Mother Nature will fight back, it doesn't matter how hard we try to destroy Her --we can't. That's why I cannot share Linkola's pessimisim.

We can indeed, and we always could. Humans have been eradicating whole species since time immemorial, for which there is plenty of evidence on all continents. The more "advanced" our tools were and the more "civilized" we were, the faster we do it. Do not believe there is not a limit to this. It may be 50 or 5000 years, but I don't care.
Or, are you all trying to say you are nationalist only because european culture is in such dire need? I know I would love my country and heritage even if it wasn't threatened by multiculti and everything else.

[Gromoljut]

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

You mistake people who simply love nature (instead of only people, which are merely a part of nature) for Al Gore-like new-age pretenders.
I love trees, forests and wild animals. I hate the fact that one can hardly ever meet animals nowadays which were a common sight even 50 years ago. Wolves, lynxes, boars, ... are only examples. I hear stories from my grandparents and even parents - in their time, there was barely a paved road in Slovenia. Now, we build motorways like crazy, demolishing forests and countryside. Cities grow even if their population dwindles - land is used for stupid things like malls and movie theatres.
And it is not only construction & transport that annihilates nature. Cultivars of plants are being artificially developed these days (I am not talking only of GMOs) and monocultured, which not only destroys the soil, but also the genetic diversity of plants and the environment being cleared for their cultivation.
A modern orchard of modern cultivars of apples or peaches is just as harmful to earth as any city or SUV.

Do not mistake me for Al Gore. Al Gore wants to make money and political points off "green politics" and "sustainable development", both of which are obviously insincere bull****.

What I forgot to write: compare the degradation of genetic diversity and quality of plants/animals (and all the processes that lead to it or purport it) to race-mixing, the "cultural melting pot" () and the degradation society. There are so many parallels it hurts.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

You mistake people who simply love nature (instead of only people, which are merely a part of nature) for Al Gore-like new-age pretenders.
I love trees, forests and wild animals. I hate the fact that one can hardly ever meet animals nowadays which were a common sight even 50 years ago. Wolves, lynxes, boars, ... are only examples. I hear stories from my grandparents and even parents - in their time, there was barely a paved road in Slovenia. Now, we build motorways like crazy, demolishing forests and countryside. Cities grow even if their population dwindles - land is used for stupid things like malls and movie theatres.
And it is not only construction & transport that annihilates nature. Cultivars of plants are being artificially developed these days (I am not talking only of GMOs) and monocultured, which not only destroys the soil, but also the genetic diversity of plants and the environment being cleared for their cultivation. A modern orchard of modern cultivars of apples or peaches is just as harmful to earth as any city or SUV.

Do not mistake me for Al Gore. Al Gore wants to make money and political points off "green politics" and "sustainable development", both of which are obviously insincere bull****.

OK, you make some good points and I partly agree with you. My perspective is theistic and maybe there lies some difference.

I view also nature as part of God's creation, which man isn't allowed to destroy at his will. He should rule over nature as a good master, not as a sadistic tyrant. I am also very upset at shopping malls (whenever I see them, my stomach churns). I am also horrified at GMOs. I see results of it every day, before my eyes. For example, today in Croatia good old tomatoes which we used to eat when I was a child and which had a good taste and smell, have almost entirely disappeared, in favour of tasteless monsters grown in glass-houses. Moreover, you must buy new seed for these new tomatoes every year, you cannot just use the seed of the old ones, as it was earlier possible (obviously, it is a tool of totalitarian control, you must buy, you must give them money).

Man at the same time is and isn't part of the nature, that is one of great paradoxes of the human condition (among great many). Modern stupid technological "civilization" destroyed any tie between man and nature, a tie that existed for thousands of years and was religiously sanctioned and celebrated. I am not talking here of paganism only, but also of all possible saints and festivities in the Traditional Christianity. While Christianity upheld those practices, it had some connection with life.

However, I cannot accept any philosophy which wants to put nature above human life. Here lies one of the traps of the over-population agenda. Who is to say that some people are superfluous and others aren't? It is ethically unacceptable. As for sick freaks like Pentti Linkkola, although they claim that they speak in the name of nature, in fact their views show that they are precisely products of the modern technologicfal civilization: namely, they think that there is a purely technical solution to the problem as they see it, as there is a "technical" solution to everything. They want to reduce human population. How? By genocide or what? Such people should be either put into straightjacket if they endanger someone, or left as some curious exemplaries of human stupidtity to observe, like some exotic beasts.

It is precisely this false alarmism about overpopulation and similar problems that is a testimony to the presumption of the modern man, who wants to control everything and plan everything, even the things that are beyond his control. That's the tragic and grotesque side to various ecological movements: while pretending to be against modern over-technological lunacy, they are in fact part of the problem. (like Al Gore whom you mentioned)

As Gonzalvus said, their views are artificial.

I love nature, but hate Linkola and Al Gore.

[Gromoljut]

Originally Posted by Plethon

However, I cannot accept any philosophy which wants to put nature above human life. Here lies one of the traps of the over-population agenda. Who is to say that some people are superfluous and others aren't? It is ethically unacceptable. As for sick freaks like Pentti Linkkola, although they claim that they speak in the name of nature, in fact their views show that they are precisely products of the modern technologicfal civilization: namely, they think that there is a purely technical solution to the problem as they see it, as there is a "technical" solution to everything. They want to reduce human population. How? By genocide or what? Such people should be either put into straightjacket if they endanger someone, or left as some curious exemplaries of human stupidtity to observe, like some exotic beasts.

It is precisely this false alarmism about overpopulation and similar problems that is a testimony to the presumption of the modern man, who wants to control everything and plan everything, even the things that are beyond his control. That's the tragic and grotesque side to various ecological movements: while pretending to be against modern over-technological lunacy, they are in fact part of the problem. (like Al Gore whom you mentioned)

As Gonzalvus said, their views are artificial.

I love nature, but hate Linkola and Al Gore.

I fully agree with the first part of your post, Plethon, which is why I left it out in the quote.
I will address everything else in order.
You pose the question: who is to say some (or which) people are superfluous. I do not support Linkola's idea of government, but I do very much agree with his analysis of the world and society we live in. There is a small catch here - if enough people would know that what Linkola tries to tell us about nature is true, there would be no need for a fascistic government or the absurd "green police" he talks about. People do simply not care enough and this enrages him, which holds, again, many similarities to how we nationalists are enraged by "political correctness", immigration and the public's obvious denial of facts. Do some people here on Stirpes not advocate fascism to solve this? I cannot say I agree with them, but I do say that their thinking is a complete analogy to Pentti Linkola's. Thus, if you call Linkola (or everybody else who thinks similarly) a sick freak, be consistent - there are many sick freaks on this board, following your reasoning. You do not agree with them when it comes to solving the problem - neither do I, but you do acknowledge that their analysis is a sound one.
What you say about controlling and planning, which modern man is obsessed with, I again agree fully. But there is a small catch here as well, the way I see it: the more advanced the technology, the more planning (dividing of labour, specializing etc.) is required. We needed no planning while we didn't have buldozers, airplanes and the like, when technology and tools were still simple enough for a single individual to process, but current technology is far, far too complex for that. It is the same with society. Still, I do NOT suggest planning, at least not in the way you have described. Planning, in my book, means not planning by government, but "self-censorship", so to say (a clumsy name - Gonzalvus' "spontaneus implementation" is better). People need to understand that fishing single handedly with a hook or harpoon to feed your own family is not the same as hauling tonnes of fish out of the sea in a matter of hours, yet they do not. I see here another analogy. When I discuss matters of mixed race couples (or everything that has to do with "purity" - of race, culture, language, breed, ... etc.), everybody tells me: "it is only natural that things mix". Of course it is, and it is only natural that man does to nature what he does now. The only problem lies not in the principle (activity, process), but in the extent. If we had tools of far lesser power, we would need no regulating ourselves. If we had not developed transport into what it is, there would have been no problem whatsoever with either nature or immigration. If one single negro decides to ride a camel from the Sahara to Slovenia and have a child with a local blonde, BIG DEAL! 10000000 years will pass before another one has the same idea. But I have much, on the other hand, against masses of negroes comeing here and calling themselves "Slovenians".
People need to separate quality from quantity. There is nothing wrong with WHAT we do, it is HOW MUCH we do it, crudely said. Nationalism and ecology will both be better off.

I hope you understand fully what I tried to say, else, I will be glad to debate with you further, Plethon

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

if enough people would know that what Linkola tries to tell us about nature is true, there would be no need for a fascistic government or the absurd "green police" he talks about. [...] Do some people here on Stirpes not advocate fascism to solve this? I cannot say I agree with them, but I do say that their thinking is a complete analogy to Pentti Linkola's. Thus, if you call Linkola (or everybody else who thinks similarly) a sick freak, be consistent - there are many sick freaks on this board, following your reasoning.

Start by defining "Fascism" and then explain why you belive that someone advocating "Fascism" is a sick freak.

And please, do it within terms of the doctrine advocated by Fascism itself, not by some perverted deviation constructed by the Left and the Liberal media and propaganda. Ignorance is not an excuse to insult the members of a public discussion forum by calling them sick freaks.

[Marcus Marulus]

Pentti Linkola:

Pentti Linkola -- amateur biologist, advocate of mandatory abortion and involuntary sterilization

Along with other groups such as the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and Charles Manson's Air, Trees, Water, Air (ATWA), Linkola believes that millions need to die for the environment's sake.

In the profile titled "In his Solitude a Finnish Thinker Posits Cataclysms," the gloomy nature-lover expressed the belief that the human catastrophe sure to accompany another world war would be a "happy occasion for the planet."

"We still have a chance to be cruel, but if we are not cruel today, all is lost," he admonished Journal readers.

Linkola's vision for population planning can be summed up in one inflammatory concept: eugenics, a field of study publisher and journalist Adam Parfrey has aptly dubbed the "orphaned science." This shunned approach to phenotypic prognostication, Linkola holds, would suddenly resurface, denying "genetically unfit" parents the right to bear children.
For those select families allowed to breed, a strict two-child limit would be enforced on all households.

"That there are billions of people over 60kg weight on this planet is recklessness. Considering the current population, it is insanity to whine for little over 200 dead in that Korean aircraft that was shot down. It was a relief, far too small though. I wish that death to mankind comes soon. So quickly that mankind will not have time to destroy natures potential for future evolution. Suicide is a deed of an active person. "

"a happy occasion for the planet.... If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating, if it meant millions of people would die."

I think these views qualify him as a sick freak. Of course, as I already said, he is harmless and shouldn't be paid too much attention to. More attention should be paid to a sick freaks like George Bush or Gordon Brown because they are not just a simple fishermen, but people (are they people at all?) with a big power.

Besides, these views show that Linkola is a child of the modern age, that he is firmly embedded in the modern "technical" way of thinking, no matter how he appears to loathe technology and modernity. The fact that media pay too much attention to people like this one may be an indication that some inhumane agendas are cherished by powers that be. Wasn't it Henry Kissinger in the seventies who had, in a memorandum he drafted, advocated a support for "limiting growth of population" as an expedient to preserve the existing world order and its elite in power?

No inhumane agendas (which are, in my opinion, not worth any serious consideration, except just for laughing at human stupidity) will help to halt the destruction of nature. Man has the role to cooperate with nature, even to embellish it sometimes (gardens). Every time you take an apple in your hands, you should be grateful for this wonderful God's (or nature's, if you prefer, all the same) gift. There must be some humbleness in dealing with nature...

And anyway popolation of the world is stagnating. Even Muslim countries have zero population growth (most of them).

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Plethon

I think these views qualify him as a sick freak. Of course, as I already said, he is harmless and shouldn't be paid too much attention to. More attention should be paid to a sick freaks like George Bush or Gordon Brown because they are not just a simple fishermen, but people (are they people at all?) with a big power.

Besides, these views show that Linkola is a child of the modern age, that he is firmly embedded in the modern "technical" way of thinking, no matter how he appears to loathe technology and modernity. The fact that media pay too much attention to people like this one may be an indication that some inhumane agendas are cherished by powers that be. Wasn't it Henry Kissinger in the seventies who had, in a memorandum he drafted, advocated a support for "limiting growth of population" as an expedient to preserve the existing world order and its elite in power?

No inhumane agendas (which are, in my opinion, not worth any serious consideration, except just for laughing at human stupidity) will help to halt the destruction of nature. Man has the role to cooperate with nature, even to embellish it sometimes (gardens). Every time you take an apple in your hands, you should be grateful for this wonderful God's (or nature's, if you prefer, all the same) gift. There must be some humbleness in dealing with nature...

And anyway popolation of the world is stagnating. Even Muslim countries have zero population growth (most of them).

I absolutely agree with your points, but I don't believe that the population is stagnating.
Can you provide evidence that population is stagnating in Muslim countries?
From what I know, the only Muslim country where population is close to stagnation is Iraq, mostly due the US invasion, and yet they have positive population growth.
Furthermore, the population of India is supposed to reach and exceed China's population in 50 years, making India the world's most populous country.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Monolith

I absolutely agree with your points, but I don't believe that the population is stagnating.

Can you provide evidence that population is stagnating in Muslim countries?

Population Resource Center

Turkey, Iran, Tunisia, Algeria and Kazakhstan have sub-replacement fertility Under 2 children per woman), lower than some European countries, most others between 2 and 3. Those with highest fertility rates are Afghanistan (6.64), Oman (5.74).

From what I know, the only Muslim country where population is close to stagnation is Iraq, mostly due the US invasion, and yet they have positive population growth.

Iraq 4 (very positive, US invasion doesn't seem to have played any role)!

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2127rank.html

Furthermore, the population of India is supposed to reach and exceed China's population in 50 years, making India the world's most populous country.

India 2.80.

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Can you provide evidence that population is stagnating in Muslim countries?

In some cases it isn't, e.g., Pakistan is literally exploding, and their country is coming apart at the seams because of overpopulation.

Furthermore, the population of India is supposed to reach and exceed China's population in 50 years, making India the world's most populous country.

India is mostly non-moslem, but you are correct that it will be the most populous country in the world by mid-century.

The world can probably support 500-1000 million people in moderate comfort (that emphatically doesn't mean US living standards, with people driving SUVs and generating prodigious amounts of waste). Europe's medieval population used to be around 50-60 million, which is where it should be now (instead of about 450 million today). In the time of Elizabeth 1, the population in the British Isles was 3 million; by 1800 it was 15 million, and it quadrupled over the next century (in spite of emigration to USA, Australia, etc.). So we have also had exploding populations in our time.

[Crvena zvezda]

Originally Posted by Gromoljut

You mistake people who simply love nature (instead of only people, which are merely a part of nature) for Al Gore-like new-age pretenders.
I love trees, forests and wild animals. I hate the fact that one can hardly ever meet animals nowadays which were a common sight even 50 years ago. Wolves, lynxes, boars, ... are only examples. I hear stories from my grandparents and even parents - in their time, there was barely a paved road in Slovenia. Now, we build motorways like crazy, demolishing forests and countryside. Cities grow even if their population dwindles - land is used for stupid things like malls and movie theatres.
And it is not only construction & transport that annihilates nature. Cultivars of plants are being artificially developed these days (I am not talking only of GMOs) and monocultured, which not only destroys the soil, but also the genetic diversity of plants and the environment being cleared for their cultivation. A modern orchard of modern cultivars of apples or peaches is just as harmful to earth as any city or SUV.

Do not mistake me for Al Gore. Al Gore wants to make money and political points off "green politics" and "sustainable development", both of which are obviously insincere bull****.

I support environemtnalism like you do, but i do not support Al Gore (just like you despise him). It is a big shame that he won the Nobel Peace Prize especially since if one was to follow what he proposes government do literally nothing will happen in his so-called "fight against global warming" and a substantial portion of the world population would die.