posted September 15, 2004 02:40 PM            

As the population increases, of course it follows that there isn't enough land for everyone. Sure, you can get a box twelve stories in the air, but I'm talking about land itself.

Living in a box like bees in a hive, well, it's demoralizing IMO, and disconnects humans from nature. I know many a philosophy book has been written on the subject - the result of technology and industrialization on man's connectedness to nature, etc.

It seems to me as population increases, people's ability to NOT live in a hive is going to decrease as the cost of owning land increases exponentially. I find this to be a scary, unfortunate and disheartening propsition for our future.

I was wondering what people's thoughts on the subject are.

**Please keep partisan accusations out of this discussion.**

posted September 15, 2004 07:35 PM              

Are you speaking of current population, or future?

I can definately see this becoming an issue in the future. But, I've also thought about this subject myself recently and was wondering if the gay movement (for lack of a less corny cliché) might have an impact on that... or maybe they're supposed to be having an impact on it. *shrug* Just an idea I was mowing over.

Also, I was thinking about how many couples I know that have chosen not to have children. This is also a pretty common movement among couples of my generation (I was born in 75).

posted September 15, 2004 07:46 PM            

Anywho, I guess my biggest concern is that while urban populations increase and competition for land w/in employment centers increase as well, that we'll be forced into a hive-like environment (see Japan for a prime example of this).

I wonder what can be done so that we can preserve the American Dream (owning your own piece of dirt - which IMO doesn't include box-like condos) w/out people having to drive several hours each way to work.

posted September 15, 2004 07:50 PM              

We do have a whole lot more land than Japan. It's possible we could reach that same problem here, but it would take a REALLY long time.

posted September 16, 2004 11:38 AM              

Death rate:
8.34 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est.)

posted September 16, 2004 12:10 PM            

Hmm, there's something to consider - boomers sucking the system dry and their children dry, thus removing the motivation to reproduce themselves...well, it's not like anyone my age really ever expected there to be any SS for us anyway. But if we shove all the aging boomers into rest homes, then maybe it will free up some housing in urban areas for us younger folk, and still leave us some time and resources to reproduce ourselves

posted September 17, 2004 02:39 AM              

People in poor countries, on the other hand, tend to have lots of babies (complicated reasons, I'll explain why if I need to). The natural thing for all these babies to do once they've grown up is to immigrate to rich places like norteamericana o europa. In rich countries they continue having lots of children for a generation or two, which keeps the population rising.

When you say you want to talk only about the West, Isis, it seems rather like you mean you want only to discuss white citizens of Western countries. This neglects the fact that most Western nations rest on the shoulders of non-white people, many of them first- or second-generation immigrants. Basically, poor countries produce an excess of people which they ship out to rich countries as cheap labor.

So on to overpopulation: Star, our planet could sustain many more people than it currently does if only we were better organized, in our political and social structures, and in the use of the resources we have. I believe we do have an overpopulation problem, but one that we teach us how to manage ourselves more efficiently.

posted September 17, 2004 10:41 AM            

******

If anyone is still with me after that, I'd like to address the issue of overpopulation. I realize that some comments I'm about to make will probably upset somebody so I'd like to apologize for that in advance.
I don't feel that overpopulation due to birth rates increasing is going to be a problem world-wide.
This is a quote I agree with whole-heartedly, and although it refers to "The Deluge", I feel it is relevant here. "It is barely possible that the human Mass Subconscious during that era anticipated world devastation and reacted with an ancient version of our own current sexual revolution to ensure the survival of the human species.
If so, we may speculate that the same Mass Subconscious foresees another cataclysmic event in the near future and has been seeking a margin of tremendous numbers to make certain that (at least) some will survive and carry on. After all, only one sperm out of millions that swam to fertilize the egg in your mother's womb ever succeeded in becoming you! Nature is profligate. Without this margin of tremendous numbers to ensure survival, man could easily go the way of the mammoth, the mastodon, or the dinosaur - this time on a global scale!"
I do not mean to be an alarmist with that quote (from Astrology: The Space Age Science by Joseph F. Goodavage) but merely to suggest that there is a possibility that there is some undercurrent of purpose to the seeming madness of overpopulation.
Isis, you did bring up a very interesting point in regards to immigration and, for the sake of simplicity, I'm only going to refer to the United States in regards to this issue. Someone brought the issue up of racial and national karma (as opposed to personal karma) in another thread recently. I feel that the immigration issue is a perfect example of these kinds of karma. The United States was founded upon perhaps the greatest ideals ever conceived of for any nation and can easily become, and is already in some people's minds, the best, most powerful, and richest country in the world. I am not denying that at all, and I also see the potential for greatness that remains to be achieved even now ... it could always get better, no? Nevertheless, this country was born out of conflict (it could be argued that all countries are but, again, we're sticking to the U.S. here). And not just any conflict ... immigrants, the "white men", came from their native lands, rebelled against their homelands (including the very bloody Revolutionary War), and took this land from it's current inhabitatants, the indians, by force. Today, such an invasion would be tantamount to genocide ... I don't think that anybody can deny that, not only were the indians killed in alarming proportions, but they were regarded as inferior because of their race and religion. On top of that, these whites also owe a large amount of the early successes of the nation to slave labor ... black slaves who were forced to immigrate from Africa to serve the purposes of this country.
Now, before anybody jumps down my throat for pointing out the obvious, please step back a second and try to view this from a larger scale, objectively.
In order for America to be born the way she was, immigration was necessary and racial conflicts arose. I'm sure it could've worked out a million other ways, but it didn't.
Hence, I think it is only logical that the current and or future state of the country is going to be faced with those same issues again. I think it is our national karma to endure immigration that threatens to take away what we hold dear, as we as a people devoted to the idea of this country successfully did to others, and that racial karma is also going to take a part as the white race sees itself invaded by other races which, interestingly enough, tend to be mostly from South America ... peoples who still carry indian blood in their veins.
Before anybody flames me about punishments or whatever, I would like to say that I don't see this as a punishment at all. It could very well prove to be a reward. Nothing remains constant, everything changes. It is how we react to this situation that will decide whether we learn our lessons, collectively, through pain or pleasure ... just as with personal karma.
I do feel that racial mixing is an inevitable process in this country ... the country that belongs to everyone and yet no one ... all it's citizens, not just one race or religion. It is a beautiful prospect, if we handle it correctly.
I feel that, once we accept our national and racial karma and work to make it as pleasurable an experience for all as possible, the scales will be balanced and America will remain the dream of all other nations, powerful and rich and wonderful. I don't think that the land will be unable to support the number of immigrants, but I do feel that the America of the future will be vastly different from the America of today.
Of course, like with personal karma, the more you fight it, the worse the situation becomes or seems to become. I don't think it matters how many laws are passed against immigration or whatever ... immigrants will continue to come, even as they do now.
Here's a really silly proposition: perhaps if the U.S. encouraged immigration for educational purposes and then encouraged those people to return to their countries, if they wished, to make a difference as educated members of society there, we would see a decrease, though not a cessation, in immigrants. It may sound like a waste of money and time and effort to some people, but I think it would be the simplest and, in the long run, one of the most cost effective ideas. Perhaps that is another lesson of national karma for us ... generosity, which I think we can all agree is a virtue. Poor people and nations may have many lessons to learn about humility, hard work, and acceptance of charity but rich people and nations also have many lessons to learn about generosity and compassion ... a perfect kind of balance if only we could see it.

******

I really hope you guys and gals understand that I am just sharing my personal opinions and ideas about these topics and that I am in no way trying to attack or insult or be negative to anyone.

Have a good one!

posted September 17, 2004 12:58 PM            

I would also take serious issue w/ this comment:

quote:

---

This neglects the fact that most Western nations rest on the shoulders of non-white people

---

Poor countries also do not "produce an excess of people which they ship out to other countries for labor". Where do you get these ideas? People emmigrate to other countries because they want a better life, a better opportunity at jobs. Govts do not hold yearly meetings in which they discuss how much of their population they're going to pack into a boat and send to a 1st world country for work.

Eleanor - I'm not talking about country living, I'm talking about even that little slice of suburbia (although I agree that too few people seem to be able to or give a damn about their yard/gardening), as opposed to living like they do in Japan (crammed into apartments like ants or bees in a hive).

I think you have a good point here,

quote:

---

We will learn to appreciate this Earth one way or the other. If we couldn't do so while we could each get our grubby little hands on it, then perhaps we will once its land becomes too scarce to privately own.

---

posted September 18, 2004 01:59 AM              

And, actually, governments practically are shipping their excess bodies to rich Western countries. Why? Because they know they will send money home, helping the economy and standard of living in their own countries. You know why parents in places like Guatemala have so many babies? So they can go work in the U.S. and send money home to support them in their old age. Look at it objectively. The purpose of the Third World is to provide cheap labor for the First.

posted September 18, 2004 03:21 AM            

You have some nerve telling me what I do and don't know about immigration. For starters, have you ever immigrated anywhere? I have. Do you have any personal experience whatsoever with the Immigration and Naturalization service of either this country or any other one? Are you a statistician, having ever worked in the field of immigration? Do you work for a company that conducts polls re: immigration? Are you well aquainted with each and every immigrant in this country? Before you go around calling people niave, perhaps you should think twice and hold your tongue, especially if you knowing nothing at all of the person to which you speak.

I challenge you to pull up the facts/support for your assertion that:

quote:

---

America truly does rest on the shoulders of recent immigrants, mainly Latin Americans and Asians

---

Also,

quote:

---

governments practically are shipping their excess bodies to rich Western countries

---

That's not what you said in your last post. You said they DID ship their folks overseas. That is false. Individuals come here to work, yes, they send money back to their home countries, yes. The statement you made: "poor countries produce an excess of people which they ship out to rich countries as cheap labor", is incorrect. They come themselves, of their own volition. "Practically" means nothing - it's your interjection into the subject, nothing more. Let's speak in facts. I know of no country that has a policy on shipping it's folks to the US to work and send the cash back. If any country does have such a policy, I invite you to post it here.

Your fixation on race sounds very racist to me.

And I did not say, "everyone's dream is to come to the U.S.". You need to read more carefully before paraphrasing people.

quote:

---

You know why parents in places like Guatemala have so many babies? So they can go work in the U.S. and send money home to support them in their old age.

---

Regardless, let's just assume for a moment that it is true of a percentage of their population, it is still no argument supporting governmental support of exporting labor to the US.

Note that the adults in this thread conducted themselves as such, for example not speaking down to anyone for starters. Presenting their opinions without belittling others. While this is a free world, it is not well regarded to speak to people like a pompous, condescending know-it-all.

posted September 18, 2004 11:51 AM              

"When you say you want to talk only about the West, Isis, it seems rather like you mean you want only to discuss white citizens of Western countries."

It may have been more productive to phrase this observation in the form of a question, to make sure that this is in fact what Isis was saying. For example:

"When you say you want only to talk about the West, are you referring strictly to white citizens of western countries? Unless I am misunderstanding, this is how I am reading what you wrote. Please explain...."

Similarly, Isis: when you responded to QOS's commment below:

"This neglects the fact that most Western nations rest on the shoulders of non-white people"

by saying, "That is just plain incorrect", it may have been more productive to ask QOS if there is any evidence or statistics that he researched to support this view, as opposed to just dismissing it. It's more important to know where people are coming from, rather than writing their views off as just a bunch of malarchy (even if that's what you think!)

Otherwise, we get into the "How dare you's" and "Who do you think you are's" and this is just utterly unproductive. Then it becomes an issue of "how well can I argue" instead of "how well can I understand".

Guys, I realize that now I am the one who may be sounding condescending or like the "know it all" or "holier than thou". Far, far from it. I am just trying to use my position as a neutral party here to facilitate more productive communication, more understanding. We don't have to agree with each other, obviously. That's not the point. The point is to communicate openly with the intention of really trying to understand why the other person thinks the way they do. I am guilty of not always approaching conversations in this manner but I have been trying to keep it in mind. Nobody is perfect but let's at least try to be more aware of this issue. One positive by-product is that this forum will be a lot less stressful to visit if we are aware!

posted September 18, 2004 04:16 PM            

I too would prefer acreage But at least a little bit of garden is a start. It's better than how they live in Japan.

When you get a chance to ask your friend about it please let me know. I'm keen to know how it works there.

Would you also ask him about something about how mortgages work there, specifically, do they have mortgages over 30 years? A family member used to live in Japan and told me they had 50-100 year mortgages there - you would take out the loan, and your children would see it paid off. Something to do with the rarity of land and the high cost of it, the longer mtge term allowed more folks access to ownership. Is this true and/or was it ever true?

Quick, with all due respect, I understand what you're saying, however I am of the opinion that QOS was way out of line in the way he approached the argument. If I did that to you, telling you you were niave and attempting to marginalize your opinion with condescention, while also putting words into your mouth, I think you'd cop an attitude too. Perhaps you can have a little off-board Mod discussion with QOS on how NOT to approach others in a debate. NOT calling people years his senior, who I might add he knows nothing about, niave, would be a start. I realize that's how teenagers can be to one another sometimes, but when you play with the adults you need to know how they operate and what's considered acceptable behavoir, and that is often nothing resembling what passes for acceptable in teen circles.