Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

freza wrote:Shafique, the fact that there is unequal distribution of food does not mean that there isn't a population crisis. Too many humans are using up too many resources which have resulted in decimated lands (for space, the more humans, the more living space we need, logical right?) timber, fuel sources, etc. Just the lands alone that have been cleared up to raise cattle are so vast as to be small countries. There is an overall fresh water shortage globally and also the problem of land erosion in some parts of the world. It seems that some areas are shrinking or sinking into the ocean year by year. Too many people put a strain on the environment. And the environment is at a crisis right now.

Don't believe the hype - overpopulation isn't causing the problem, over consumption by the minority is.

Check out the FAQ at http://www.overpopulation.com and the numerous other sites that Google throws up if you search for "population crisis".

In the 60s they were predicting that the world would implode if the population reached 4bn - we're way past that now (they similarly got it wrong in the 70's, 80's... )

Cheers,
Shafique

Shafique, I'm not one to believe in hype. Sheesh, I thought you were a bit more familiar with me... Of course we all know that industrialized countries consume and waste more that developing countries, who doesn't know this?

The problem with land erosion and shortage of water for example are very real problems. I'm sure you can google up the statistics on this. The world population can only grow so much while affecting resources - conservation or not - making space for humans entails cutting down rain forests or clearing up natural habitats, and finding sources of fresh water which is increasingly difficult. Are you going to deny that the environmental crisis has nothing to do with so many people? pleaze, let's be a bit more realistic.

I say, very poor people should stop having kids.
bye for now

Freza - you didn't click on the link did you

As for your last point - why don't we have a spot of peasant shooting?

She actually reminded me of an episode of South Park where one of the kids suggest in a report he did on how to make America a better place, to send all the poor people to camps and get rid of em

Shafique, your link is a one man show, and very generic. Frankly I'm disappointed. Why don't you send me some UN or Greenpeace links supporting your view instead?

Also, you have not addressed my points on the population having an impact on the environment - conservation or not - it has an impact a very real one. To say that everything is fine since there is enough food to go around except that inequality in distribution is to sorely miss the point. That food is grown in land that has decimated forests which provide the lungs for the world. The more you destroy to make room for people and their needs, the more the people in turn suffer the consequences eventually. It's really a simple concept.

I'm not into killing peasants, I'm not that violent. But if you're all for the very poor to have an entire lot of kids, so that those kids can suffer, hey, well that's what's happening. I guess that's all good for you.

freza wrote:Shafique, your link is a one man show, and very generic. Frankly I'm disappointed. Why don't you send me some UN or Greenpeace links supporting your view instead?

It appears you did not read my post citing the results Google throws up either.

Never mind Freza, let's not let facts get in the way of scaremongering.

Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote:Shafique, your link is a one man show, and very generic. Frankly I'm disappointed. Why don't you send me some UN or Greenpeace links supporting your view instead?

Also, you have not addressed my points on the population having an impact on the environment - conservation or not - it has an impact a very real one. To say that everything is fine since there is enough food to go around except that inequality in distribution is to sorely miss the point. That food is grown in land that has decimated forests which provide the lungs for the world. The more you destroy to make room for people and their needs, the more the people in turn suffer the consequences eventually. It's really a simple concept.

I'm not into killing peasants, I'm not that violent. But if you're all for the very poor to have an entire lot of kids, so that those kids can suffer, hey, well that's what's happening. I guess that's all good for you.

You should go to California. Seriously I thought the very same thing you just wrote. You have all those Mexicans running around, unemployed, complaining they don't have money etc etc, and every one of em has AT LEAST 5 kids, who of course don't go to school and just stay in the street before joining some gang. That's the side of L.A. you don't get to see on TV.

Nick81 wrote:She actually reminded me of an episode of South Park where one of the kids suggest in a report he did on how to make America a better place, to send all the poor people to camps and get rid of em

oh so now I'm a concentration camp advocate? Damn. Well whatever, it's not like Freza much cares for what peeps think of her. OK, I see a report on a famine somewhere, that's been going on for a few YEARS and I see that a family has many kids. Many kids who are starving. What the...?? Who's responsible for the famine? Usually it's man-made and the industrialized countries who love to save people happen not to be there en force. But what of these poor people's personal responsibility? Why continue to have kids in such miserable conditions?

Shafique,
You still haven't address my points. Nor did you provide trustworthy sources. Interesting. I'm fresh out of uni I don't need google for everything, still have retained some info you know. Go to the UN Population council and see what they have to say, then we can discuss, deal?

Ok - let's be a little serious for a minute.

Overpopulation isn't causing the destruction of the world's natural resources - forrests aren't being destroyed to feed massive families from poor countries, and the last time I looked poor people with loads of kids weren't causing land erosion or driving around in SUVs contributing to global warming.

Greenpeace isn't advocating population control, to the best of my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong).

I have to declare some prior knowledge - I'm an actuary and my field is demographics and population forecasts. All the evidence is that we are in a population crisis - but one of falling numbers of children, not the opposite.

Cheers,
Shafique

Nick81 wrote:You should go to California. Seriously I thought the very same thing you just wrote. You have all those Mexicans running around, unemployed, complaining they don't have money etc etc, and every one of em has AT LEAST 5 kids, who of course don't go to school and just stay in the street before joining some gang. That's the side of L.A. you don't get to see on TV.

(((hello))) you finally said something worthy! Now if these people are so desperately poor that they need to border jump, why do they add to their poverty by having an entire lot of kids that they many times can not manage to properly take care of?? Cuz the reality is that many of these border jumpers' offspring end up as thugs.

Shafique, I can't be serious and I need to get back to work. But really, I believe Greenpeace (even though they're labeled as green terrorists) more than you. They care for the environment, what do you care for? So there.

EDIT: Did I just sound incredibly racists? Cuz I just accused someone of being one (a racist) oh well.

strewth Freza. Ok, let's go to the UN Population Council :

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2006Changing_Age/Age_Structure.htm

This session held last year in October says the problem is low working population, not over population.

The 2005 report on Government practices to population makes interesting reading :

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2005/Publication_introduction.pdf

Similarly the 2004 publication on population trends/forecasts.

Perhaps you can enlighten me where these say there is a problem that cannot be dealt with by better redistribution of existing output.

Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote:

Nick81 wrote:You should go to California. Seriously I thought the very same thing you just wrote. You have all those Mexicans running around, unemployed, complaining they don't have money etc etc, and every one of em has AT LEAST 5 kids, who of course don't go to school and just stay in the street before joining some gang. That's the side of L.A. you don't get to see on TV.

(((hello))) you finally said something worthy! Now if these people are so desperately poor that they need to border jump, why do they add to their poverty by having an entire lot of kids that they many times can not manage to properly take care of?? Cuz the reality is that many of these border jumpers' offspring end up as thugs.

Shafique, I can't be serious and I need to get back to work. But really, I believe Greenpeace (even though they're labeled as green terrorists) more than you. They care for the environment, what do you care for? So there.

EDIT: Did I just sound incredibly racists? Cuz I just accused someone of being one (a racist) oh well.

I would believe Greenpeace more than me as well.

Perhaps you can show me where they say that people should not have large families.

cheers,
Shafique

freza my first post wasn't to criticize your viewpoint. Of course that's not a solution for poverty but honestly the things that some people do just crack me up sometime! And the jackasses dare complain that they barely have enough money to survive!

Heck, you don't have to go too far to find good examples of this! In Lebanon you find countless people going out EVERY single day of the week, spending fortunes in pubs/clubs/restaurants, and then whining and protesting in the morning that the economy is terrible and that they can't save a dime!

The world needs: World War III

Concord wrote:The world needs: World War III

Way to make a comeback mate!! Where've u been?


Edit: nevermind... Just realized u had posted a few days ago. It's me who just don't post as often as before...

Nick81 wrote:

Concord wrote:The world needs: World War III

Way to make a comeback mate!! Where've u been?


Edit: nevermind... Just realized u had posted a few days ago. It's me who just don't post as often as before...

You are almost right I've posted maybe 4 times in the last week and don't plan on posting much (to the delight of many) until MAC comes back.

shafique dude, what part of I need to go back to work don't you understand?
But let me answer your questions, first I did not say that Green Peace was against having large families, that is completely my own viewpoint. I think that is pretty clear, I think poor people should not have large families, period. My own words.

And again, I repeat what I thought I had cleared up earlier, the problem that I'm specifically addressing is the over-breeding with the very poor and the destruction of natural resources in general. You apparently only see one side to this argument and label those that don't see eye-to-eye as fear mongers. I guess that makes you happy... If there are people that think that the environment is not at risk, that it's all in the imagination of the crazy environmentalists..there are also two sides to this issue always, you know.

keywords: soil degradation; deforestation; severe overpopulation: http://www.unep.org/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... risis.html

I haven't read your latest links but I'll read them later, promise.

kanelli wrote:Peace, education, justice, morality and ethics, love, and more concern over global warming (a.k.a globular heating ) - those all sound great to me!

You competing for Miss World 2007?
I personally think abolishing "Interest rates" would be a very very big step forward.

freza wrote:shafique dude, what part of I need to go back to work don't you understand?
But let me answer your questions, first I did not say that Green Peace was against having large families, that is completely my own viewpoint. I think that is pretty clear, I think poor people should not have large families, period. My own words.

And again, I repeat what I thought I had cleared up earlier, the problem that I'm specifically addressing is the over-breeding with the very poor and the destruction of natural resources in general. You apparently only see one side to this argument and label those that don't see eye-to-eye as fear mongers. I guess that makes you happy... If there are people that think that the environment is not at risk, that it's all in the imagination of the crazy environmentalists..there are also two sides to this issue always, you know.

keywords: soil degradation; deforestation; severe overpopulation: http://www.unep.org/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... risis.html

I haven't read your latest links but I'll read them later, promise.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You believe overpopulation is a problem and not Greenpeace. You think that poor people should not 'overbreed'.

You link environmental issues with this 'overbreeding'.

My 'latest links' were your suggestion to look at what the UN says


Thank you for making clear the distinction between your views and the references I have given showing that underpopulation is the demographic threat the world is facing at the moment.

Oh - I did click on the two links provided - the UN site doesn't advocate smaller families and the second one says the problem is:

Mismanagement Not Scarcity

"This crisis is one of water governance, essentially caused by the ways in which we mismanage water," conclude the authors of the UN's World Water Development Report (WWDR) issued in March. Freshwater resources are being further squandered due to pollution and the way in which we use water.


So it appears you agree with me after all??

Cheers,
Shafique

Big business and modern convenience are main reasons why the environment is going to hell in a handbasket more quickly. It isn't the large family living in the middle of the India that is the main problem. Not everyone has access to birth control and large families can be desirable because of the high infant mortality rate and the need for children to take on responsibilities of caring for family members. In the more developed part of the world there are fewer people due to lower birth rates, but they put a huge stress on the environment with their living habits. Both educated and small families and uneducated and large families can have negative impacts on the environment. You just have to look at the stats to see that many countries with low birth rates are some of the worst offenders when it comes to environmental degredation and greenhouse gas emissions. As the countries with larger populations gain wealth and start to follow the same standard of living as the previously more developed part of the world, then we'll see some serious environmental impact. It is coming as China and India become superpowers and the standard of living goes up. Look how many Chinese and Indians now want to have a car in order to show status. More cars in the world means more pollution, unless they are cars with new low to non-polluting technology (the world is still waiting for those!).

It is definitely possible to support a larger world population if wealth, education, and good environmental practices could be implemented worldwide. This would take a major lifestyle change for many people (including big business), and frankly they aren't willing to do it. Big business wants to churn out products and exhaust resources in order to make huge profits. There is little thought given to the future when people are trying to make money and die with the most toys now.

Well put kanelli.

The world needs more clear thinkers - and less selfish people.

Cheers,
Shafique

The world needs The Libertines in their record collection, they saved rock n' roll so saving humanity should be an easy stretch for them.

Don't have the article on this computer but the latest figures show that 4 of the 5 biggest emitters of greenhouse gases per capita are in the GCC, the remaining 2 GCC countries still being in the top 10. The nouveau riche doing their best to upstage the old aristocrats it seems.

In the case of the UAE...

- the driving here is so crazy that an SUV could be lifesaving, with better drivers and enforced rules that result in less fatalities, more people would likely switch to smaller cars. Also, the hobby of dune bashing and wadi trekking, and the hobby of rich people buying highly polluting sports cars will likely never go out of fashion here.

- a transient population of expats makes for a lot of garbage. So many people moving things in and out of the country and buying new things to settle here.

- the culture of buying here is huge. This place is probably second to the US for encouraging consumption.

- the lack of environmental policy and infrastructure for handling waste is a problem. Where are the recycling plants and do they really exist? Some people have asked for info about this and get brushed off by the EEG and municipality. Look at the use of non-regional plants to decorate the city. This consumes huge amounts of water and chemicals. People in their homes use tons of electricity and water in this climate.

- too much growth too quickly has a huge environmental impact

shafique wrote:Well put kanelli.

The world needs more clear thinkers - and less selfish people.

Cheers,
Shafique

nah, that was aristotle, socatres etc. Look at what happened to them guys and their empire.

I say we need McDonalds and KFC in every cornere everywhere!



p.s. after World War III that is.

Concord wrote:

shafique wrote:Well put kanelli.

The world needs more clear thinkers - and less selfish people.

Cheers,
Shafique

nah, that was aristotle, socatres etc. Look at what happened to them guys and their empire.

I say we need McDonalds and KFC in every cornere everywhere!

p.s. after World War III that is.

Mmmmm - McDonalds!

I heard on the radio today that they are the 2nd largest landowner in the world today. (they didn't say who was first)

Cheers,
Shafique

Dinosaurs! Must be really cool to have around.