(For God's sake can we skip the predictable Betteridge's Law Wikipedia reference?)
This seems to happen a lot and not just in the ocean. Population dynamics are complex. Things often seem inexhaustible until they're not and that changes has a nasty habit of happening almost overnight. Look at the Passenger Pigeon, the Alaskan King Crab, bison, various whale species (some may never recover from the whaling industry), cod, etc.
I think this is exacerbated by it being hard to tell what exactly is in the ocean. With land animals it tends to be somewhat more obvious.
Some governmental oddities haven't helped here. Britain really screwed up in how it joined the EU (then the EEC) in the 1970s with the CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) [1], which is (now) a textbook case of the tragedy of the commons.
Norway didn't join. And they're swimming in oil wealth. Not that I think oil fields would've become a common resource (the North Sea oil fields aren't AFAIK).
And then there's the insatiable appetite of the Japanese for bluefin tuna that will probably drive the fish to extinction in a matter of decades at most.
IMHO all of these resource problems stem from the fact that there are simply too many of us and we're unable to live within our means.
I am pretty sure that you do not need to worry about Betteridge's Law coming up. The headline is not a question and after reading the article I do not know how you could restate it as a question with the answer being "No."
"too many of us and we're unable to live within our means"
To me a change of practices would be far more preferable to eugenics, which itself is a horrendously ugly option and a proxy for stupidity. Even with 90% of the population murdered, who's to say the same problems wouldn't reappear some time further in the future when the population reaches current levels again.
It's entirely possible to say "there are too many people on the Earth" and not believe in eugenics at the same time without being contradictory. Strongly implying that they're one and the same isn't conducive to progress.
To me, the OP's statement read as "we have too many people for the resources/practices we have at the moment", which means a change of practices is most likely our best (only?) option.
We have too many stupid people, or rather stupid people in power. And with that, we have evil as its replacement.
But my suggestion would be people try to awaken to their lifeforce which is infinite, (just like the cosmos) and then to look at places with the highest and then lowest birthrates: to lower birthrates you raise standards of living, right, you don't kill people?
Comments
(For God's sake can we skip the predictable Betteridge's Law Wikipedia reference?)
This seems to happen a lot and not just in the ocean. Population dynamics are complex. Things often seem inexhaustible until they're not and that changes has a nasty habit of happening almost overnight. Look at the Passenger Pigeon, the Alaskan King Crab, bison, various whale species (some may never recover from the whaling industry), cod, etc.
I think this is exacerbated by it being hard to tell what exactly is in the ocean. With land animals it tends to be somewhat more obvious.
Some governmental oddities haven't helped here. Britain really screwed up in how it joined the EU (then the EEC) in the 1970s with the CFP (Common Fisheries Policy) [1], which is (now) a textbook case of the tragedy of the commons.
Norway didn't join. And they're swimming in oil wealth. Not that I think oil fields would've become a common resource (the North Sea oil fields aren't AFAIK).
And then there's the insatiable appetite of the Japanese for bluefin tuna that will probably drive the fish to extinction in a matter of decades at most.
IMHO all of these resource problems stem from the fact that there are simply too many of us and we're unable to live within our means.
[1]: http://www.global-vision.net/facts/fact9_3.asp
I am pretty sure that you do not need to worry about Betteridge's Law coming up. The headline is not a question and after reading the article I do not know how you could restate it as a question with the answer being "No."
Did you read the article?
The submission title was originally a question, it's been changed since the comment you are replying to was posted.
Was the answer no?
"too many of us and we're unable to live within our means"
To me a change of practices would be far more preferable to eugenics, which itself is a horrendously ugly option and a proxy for stupidity. Even with 90% of the population murdered, who's to say the same problems wouldn't reappear some time further in the future when the population reaches current levels again.
It's entirely possible to say "there are too many people on the Earth" and not believe in eugenics at the same time without being contradictory. Strongly implying that they're one and the same isn't conducive to progress.
To me, the OP's statement read as "we have too many people for the resources/practices we have at the moment", which means a change of practices is most likely our best (only?) option.
The other option is simply population control like China does it. One child per couple doesn't rock, but it's better than a lot of other options.
We have too many stupid people, or rather stupid people in power. And with that, we have evil as its replacement.
But my suggestion would be people try to awaken to their lifeforce which is infinite, (just like the cosmos) and then to look at places with the highest and then lowest birthrates: to lower birthrates you raise standards of living, right, you don't kill people?