Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigD
I don’t believe we can say with certainty that all six of the people in this scenario would die. Possibly, some would die (eg: five), but some (eg: one) would live.It’s not hard, I think, but rather incorrect.
In addition to my previous objection, the analogy is very inexact, because the Earth has many times more than enough arable land to support its current population using current agricultural techniques. As noted hereThis is not to say that overpopulation is not a serious concern, only that the human population-bearing capacity of Earth is not currently close to being exceeded.
|
But more people means less land available for growing. AND - the supposition that a perfect distribution, with no surpluses, etc isn't even laughably achievable. These are human beings you're talking about. Greed. Power. Avarice. How about just plain old malignant psychopathy? We're not going to change. If we don't have the maturity to procreate with ration and logic (much less how we consume the Earth's resources), then what hope do we have as a species to act in the best interest of all? We can't even convince people of the future we face, and you expect people to change our very nature?
Science is supposed to be about truth. That scenario isn't, and could never be true. We need to face the facts that we're *not* going to stop global warming, we'll get our chance to say "I told you so" to the morons that refuse to believe, and we'll have to learn to live with the world we created. We survive those changes by adaptation - or we don't.
Like I've said before - we can't trust the morons out there to make the right decisions. Why should we let them decide then? Why should we tolerate their stupidity? Educate the ones we can - isolate the ones we can't from decision making positions.
