- The number of death is just always equal to the number of birth, no mater what.
- Carrying capacity doesn't apply to humans, we just kill everything else between and food if need be, and currently we basically make food out of fuel and ship it all over the world, and anyway.
- Gem fr (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Who do you know that eats petroleum? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Gem refers to using petroleum to farm areas that wouldn't be farmable naturally, by using petroleum-based fertilizers, burning petroleum to pump water there, using petroleum-based pesticides, and using petroleum to run tractors, combines, etc. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- this. Gem fr (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In many parts of Africa, where the malaria risk is highest, they are at the carrying capacity now, and frequently do have famines. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Famines occurs because of political strife and war and broken logistics impeding the flow of humans and food, not because exceeding carrying capacity. Most humans live in cities because we can flow food from all over the world to those massively over carrying capacity place. Only a handful of nation are net exporting food (America, Australia, a few more) while most of the world depend on them. Gem fr (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Importing food requires money, and thus those living in extreme poverty must rely on subsistence agriculture, which very much depends on the carrying capacity of the area. There is a nexus with war, in that an existing famine can be made worse by war, either unintentionally or through intentional starvation of enemies, but there are also famines unrelated to war. And, as I had noted, wars are often started over competition for scarce resources caused by overpopulation. In short, any program to wipe out a disease should be accompanied by a birth control campaign, to avoid such nasty side effects. SinisterLefty (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like an argument for eugenics. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If so, then all birth control is eugenics. The goal is just to keep the population at a sustainable level. SinisterLefty (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only eugenics if it's forced upon you. A better goal would be to improve the lives of the populace, rather than taking the "there's no hope" attitude. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Eliminating mosquito-borne diseases and providing free birth control would improve their lives, but instantly making the area as rich as Europe and the US is unrealiastic. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If at first you don't spell right, try, try again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think you can, you can; if you think you can't - you're right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you could, but it would cost several trillion dollars. Let's see, an additional 10% income tax on everyone in the developed world would do it. Think that idea will go over with the voters ? SinisterLefty (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How much do we spend on killing machines right now? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|