MovieChat Forums > Utopia (2013) Discussion > So didn't the 'bad' guys have the right ...

So didn't the 'bad' guys have the right idea?


This world is going to become a lump of steaming sh!te if we go on the way we are. Too many people are too concerned with everyone's 'right' to squirt as many resource sucking maggots out onto the surface of the Earth as they want to, and are not considering the consequences.

I'll admit this solution is drastic and would mean a VERY painful transition period (tho as mentioned several times in the show compared to eons of time it's only like pulling off a bandaid), but in the end I think population control is going to have to come and it's going to be unpleasant in any case.

reply

No. We throw away most of the food we produce and there is so much land that could be used to produce food. Cut down on meat and you have more than enough food to feed the planet. It takes up to 13 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of meat. So this is not the answer. The answer is justice in the world, and change of lifestyle.


- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -

reply

I know what you're saying, but the gloomy side of me thinks it's too late for any of that. We are far too greedy and selfish to change in the time required.

I've always believed education and equality in prosperity is the key to civilised population control, and those things are both in decline from what I can see.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]



"Earth is not fit to sustain more than 2 billion people"
Hahaha oh wow there are actually grown adult who believe this

reply

[deleted]

One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. As Wilson pointed out in his book "The Future of Life" (Knopf, 2002), "The constraints of the biosphere are fixed."

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

The 3.5 billion acres would produce approximately 2 billion tons of grains annually, he explained. That's enough to feed 10 billion vegetarians, but would only feed 2.5 billion U.S. omnivores, because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry in the United States.
http://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html

Although I suppose E.O. Wilson's pretty controversial these days. Regardless, according to the UN,
Around two thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion persons, and the median value is about 10 billion
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdf

But no-one really knows.

reply

[deleted]

Your exact words to that other poster were, "Hahaha oh wow there are actually grown adults who think they know better than the world's most renowned experts." The quote I gave you earlier shows that you yourself seem to think you know better than an award-winning sociobiologist. The quote I gave you afterwards showed that even though your own estimate may turn out to one day be proven to be correct, it is still at odds with the general consensus - most scientists believe the planet's carrying capacity is greater than 2 billion.

In response, you have given me a quote that appears to have been written by a poet.


That doesn't mean you're wrong of course. You just can't go about belittling everyone who disagrees with you like that.

Besides, veganism is a very unhealthy diet, both physically because it deprives the body of much needed minerals and vitamins, and mentally as it often is the symptom of deep rooted issues with human interaction, where those afflicted seek instead the comfort of animals which they worship like deities.

I'm not a vegan. I really don't care that much TBH.

reply

[deleted]

Fair enough.

Although seriously, when you bring the term "renowned experts" into a debate and are then only able to pull a quote from a poet when called on it.....it's just bad form.

reply

[deleted]

Thing is, I gave you a Pulitzer prize winner and you gave me, like, one line from a bunch of teachers...

I'm kidding of course. (And the guy who writes the article it was translated from is a poet - I think the Norwegian in the link just completely through me). But in any case, who said academic publications were "boring"?

reply

[deleted]

Besides, veganism is a very unhealthy diet, both physically because it deprives the body of much needed minerals and vitamins, and mentally as it often is the symptom of deep rooted issues with human interaction, where those afflicted seek instead the comfort of animals which they worship like deities.



Paint a broad brush strokes of ignorance much?

I've been vegan, and same with many of my friends, for 14 years now and not had a single health problem linked to my choice of diet. You should see a list of top atheletes and body builders who are vegan, Carl Lewis for one. Never heard anyone say, "...hey that Carl Lewis is severly unhealthy, dude". You'd be hard pressed to find a consensus from nutritionists that would say that a vegan diet is unhealthy.

There are many ways to replenish yourself of any nutrients you may miss out on from not consuming animal products (and there aren't very many anyway) and most nutrients can be gotten from vegetables, nuts, legumes and fruits. Just gotta eat healthy, which people who eat meat need to do aswell, anyway.

Don't know where you get this "deep rooted issues with human interaction" thing from. I'd like to see a paper on it but seems pretty ludicrous to me. Myself and all my vegan friends are highly sociable people and I speak in defense of humanity quite often.

And we don't worship animals, we simply give a s#!t about them cause we know we don't need to eat them. We just simply care.



Life's too short to make others shorter

reply

I would prefer 2.5 billion people in luxury than 10 billion in poverty.

------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair

reply

Cut down meat? Enough with that *beep* 100% of humanity can digest meat, only 2% can digest wheat - and you wanna cut meat down?

And fact that too much food is thrown away is exactly due to increasing number of meatheads - those should be cut down, and suddenly there'd be enough food for everyone, even if some of it is thrown away.

The bad guys were right

___
Anyone who has ever read any spoilers,
knows that Winter Is Coming

reply

Lol... cause yeah, wheat is the only alternative to meat... (sarcasm, btw)

I know you're responding to people who make statments about how much grain can be grown if we stopped eating animal products but wheat is not the only form of grain available and using a stat like that to dismiss the responsible act of cutting down on meats is either divisive or just plain ignorant.... and where did you get that ridiculous statistic that only 2%, of people I assume, can digest wheat?


Life's too short to make others shorter

reply

No we dont. maybe YOU throw away most of your food. I throw away nothing.

And americans are the only ones consuming a lot of meat to begin with.



------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair

reply

Roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year — approximately 1.3 billion tonnes — gets lost or wasted. Every year, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes).

See: http://www.unep.org/wed/2013/quickfacts/


- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -

reply

So i was right, YOU waste food.

------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair

reply

Yes, they had the right idea.

There are too many people, and the overpopulation problem that's on the horizon will be one that we don't have much time to react to once the dullards of the world finally see it starting to happen.

So, just sit back, relax, and hope that some kind of amazing scientific invention can quadruple the world's food supply within the next 50 years.

reply


There are interesting times ahead, that's for certain.

reply

There are too many people, and the overpopulation problem that's on the horizon will be one that we don't have much time to react to once the dullards of the world finally see it starting to happen.


This is wrong, dullards of the world (most notably church and religious institutions) realize this is the case, but they don't care, they want the end of days.

___
Anyone who has ever read any spoilers,
knows that Winter Is Coming

reply

They want the end of days, but once the end of days arrives, they'll change their tune rapidly... watching a live baby starve to death, or seeing people treated like cattle are not things they can force themselves to appreciate when the people being mistreated are them.

reply

They wont care. they will be rich (evne richer) and have what they want as the poor and ignorant massses starve.

------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair

reply

I think so. 90% of the population is a bit much though...

It's the f_cking ocean, Tonino! Doing what it's supposed to! Why the f_ck ain't he?!?

reply

The whole reason the planet is like this to begin with is b/c of the powers that be and authoritarianism. What do people learn in schools? Nothing useful, just memorizing stupid stuff they'll never use again. Nothing about ethics or critical thinking or more than a mention of the earth's limited resources or of responsible procreation and anything that truly educated people know about.

School systems and colleges are just as bad as any other corporation in terms of greed and deceit and favoritism and politics so that is the only true hope (education) and that as been taken over with agenda. It absolutely does not need to result in sterilization but since most people love giving away their power to people who harm them and can't live without being a massive consumer as a result of brainwashing, yes it's easier to sterilize but it still won't solve the problem b/c people are still consuming like crazy. It's just controlling one symptom but there are tons of others that movies can be made about the other symptoms. Lack of food is just one, water is another, jobs are another, the amount of cancers we see another. We are seeing more and more people infertile just b/c most people don't get enough fat soluble vitamins, most women have menstrual difficulties and issues, our water already has tons of hormones in it b/c hormones don't break down and it gets into the city's water from women taking hormones for whatever reasons.

They were right for stopping the vaccination b/c that was only a test anyways but why should the miserable maggots who cause and play into the problem through their behind the scenes machinations get to decide what should be done about it? We should simply revert back to simpler lifestyles and increase our education but if anything in places like america education is more pathetic than ever.

reply

I find it laughable that the pro-population control posters point to the limited resources because there's too many humans and would gladly see them die to make room (for themselves and their families, no doubt). They don't seem to have any ethical dilemmas making the ends justify the means. So why not just eat the humans Soylent Green-style? There's plenty of them. More than plenty.

I'd be willing to listen to those in favor of committing mass sterilization (or even genocide) if they'll volunteer to be the first sterilized (or sent to the gas chambers). Deal?

reply

I would volunteer for mass sterilization...

As much as it sucks to say it, reproduction is wrong when your planet is faced with resource crunches, even if you're sitting on a pile of resources. There are hungry people here now who need food, water, and medical attention... what kind of hubris does it take to declare that your offspring deserves it while another living being doesn't, simply because they are victim to a wicked regime or trapped in a country with no natural resources?

It's worth thinking about. I am no proponent of doing harm to people, but I do think that limiting our rate of reproduction would be massively wise right now, rather than 30 years from now, when we have no other option but to be spartan about it.

reply

But you really think mass sterilization doesn't count as harm?
I'm a little confused. you're up for mass sterilization because there're poor hungry people out there?
To me that's not a very reasonable cause, I mean if it's for saving the planet earth then I'm 100% with you.
but hungry people? like it or not, there'd always be poor people even if the world population decreases.
I think the problem here is people are stupid.
I'd never have a child if I couldn't afford one.
two words, birth control. such a simple concept, yet some people just don't understand.
Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to make a law for birth control, one works like adoption, only vetted family can have baby.

reply

I'd never have a child if I couldn't afford one.


Problem with this is that "afford" only means that one has secured a place in one particular kind of social and economic system. If this particular system is not compatible with your goals, it would be foolish to gamble your life on it, or your prospects for reproduction. It works, in effect, like a homeostatic feedback loop. If people can only have families because they can "afford" them, then you get a society of people who are more likely to accept such a system as a given. The idea that money comes first denies people agency.

The authoritarian idea is that it's fine to make people live under your thumb, because people have no individual or societal goals. Then they wonder why there are so many stupid people.

reply

The problem is that people are stupid, you're right about that. However, declaring other people stupid doesn't solve the problem that their offspring need food and resources.

I'm up for mass sterilization because I understand numbers and projections. Even if science can keep 15 billion humans well-fed and homed somehow in 2075, that many people becomes an untenable force at a certain point...

We already have issues that can't be solved with how many people we have now. Those issues will magnify and new ones will appear as the population doubles, triples, and quadruples.

Eventually, the starving, uneducated, ignorant billions will eat the upper echelon.

A population that is running into its carrying capacity is not happy and healthy... we should work to avoid being in that situation where every apple and seed must be accounted for in order for us to survive. It's dark times. The only solution is to stop breeding or find more land.

reply

I'd never have a child if I couldn't afford one.

Yet the people who can least afford them have the most of them. The problem with population isnt in the rich western world. the overpopulation problem exists in african and asia.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to make a law for birth control, one works like adoption, only vetted family can have baby.

Surely you can see the cries of "weeding out the undesirables" from the populists?

------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair

reply

I agree.

reply

I don't have kids, have never wanted any and won't be having any, so sign me up. I don't have too much of a problem with the soylent green style voluntary suicide either.

For the record, I wouldn't 'gladly see' anyone die, sterilisation doesn't require that.

I don't think there'll be any need for the soylent green food solution anytime soon so not really an issue.

Of course I can only speak for myself.

...then whoa, differences...

reply

Population control is a partial and correct solution for said problems. Breeding 10 kids that you can't feed or keep healthy or give instruction to should be considered a crime.
However, this solution is wrong, simply because it leads to extinction.

'What has been affirmed without proof can also be denied without proof.' (Euclid)

reply

I'm not sure what you mean when you say it leads to extinction. Wasn't the plan to have 10% of the population remain fertile?

Or was it 5%?, it's been a while since I've seen it.

...then whoa, differences...

reply

they say it is EREDITARY.
that is, 5% of population can have kids. but only 5% of kids will be able to have kids themselves, and so on. this leads inevitably to extinction because it's quite unlikely that 5% of 5% of 5% (and so on) of population meet and breed. there is no distinctive sign to recognize fertile from unfertile people. the result is extinction.

'What has been affirmed without proof can also be denied without proof.' (Euclid)

reply

I think that's a fair bit of supposition on your part, I would think they have factored in that the infertility gene would work itself out and not keep affecting the population similarly from then on.

...then whoa, differences...

reply

I believe it was said after a couple of generations more and more people would become immune to Janus or Janus would turn off something along those lines so it wouldn't lead to extinction.

____
It is hard not to sound condescending when you are explaining things to an idiot!

reply

Yeah, the human body has the potential to be amazing like that. It's like how more and more rabbits are becoming immune to myxomatosis, and there are re-emerging populations.

- We could be men with ven!

reply

You missed a crucial bit! They would choose some genetic marker which is present in a percentage of people. Those with this trait would not be susceptible to Janus. This trait would be hereditary, so this would be the population which continues on. Janus would have no effect on their offspring.

Of course, making people infertile would not prevent people from reproducing by cloning or recombinant genetics, but I suppose many wouldn't bother.

reply

Cloning, I didn't think of that.

If that became the only way to reproduce for the majority of the population, that would be a weird new world wouldn't it?

...then whoa, differences...

reply

I agree. I've always thought this. It was a very pleasant surprise when I found a TV show that's about that very thing.

reply

The whole concept of "Overpopulation" is a chimera in my opinion.

There are loads of studies now that show, that this won't be an issue at all in the future. Rising populations are actually just a local problem.
In Europe, Japan and Russia the population is actually shrinking and has done so for years. We actually need immigrants now in Europe because of that problem.

In China, the population growth has continually sunk in recent years and was at a mere 0,5% in 2012.
The explosion of population happens in very poor regions, like Africa, Pakistan, The Middle-East - that's because people there depend on their children to take care for them once they are old. There is no other social safety net. But once populations get wealthier, they have less children - that is a proven fact.

With the rise of technology that will happen in the next 30 years, there is no doubt in my mind that even countries and regions that are utterly poor today will benefit from better social security systems, better methods of acriculture and breakthroughs in the field of medicine.

I read a study(unfortunately can't find a link now) that says the human population will grow in the next decades, but will reach a plateau of around 9 Billion people and from that will go down again. That seems plausible to me.


reply

China is buying out all possible land in Africa just to cultivate THEIR food. When people in Africa will find themselves robbed of their own land and unable to use it for food, don't you think they will fight to have it back?
I don't think at all 3rd world population will benefit from any social security, better agricolture or anyhting. they will have more wars, famine and viruses. reason is: nobody earns enough from a wealthy 3rd world. and, yes, overpopulation is one of the biggest problem on this planet because we are running out of everything and all the new people born today will want their slice of this always thinning pie.

reply

we are not running out of anything.

there is more than enough of everything.

this is a stupid scientific prediction from the 60s and 70's by short sighted moronic scientists. Who were under the delusional that the new humans that are born are somehow incapable of farming.

Spain supplies most of Europe domestically grown food. Do you know where they do it?

In what was their desert. They turned it all into greenhouses, and use desalinated sea water to grow everything.

It is not hard. Just requires technology and money and willpower. Which necessity is the mother of.

reply

Utter nonsense. The problem with food is that we are runnin out of phosforus that we cannot manufacture artificially. This means we will run out of fertilizer in a few decades at this pace and you can kiss greenhouses goodbye. And no, btw, spain does not supply most of europes domestic food. If anything, Poland produces more.

And Spain does not use desalinated sea water. desalination is very expensive because it requires a lot of energy. Youll need a power plant for every desalination plant.

------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair

reply


In Europe, Japan and Russia the population is actually shrinking and has done so for years.

No, but close. Also GOOD. it should be srinking. its too big. And we should enforce it elsewhere as well.



------------------------------------------------
The spirit of abysmal despair

reply

Yes. I actually agree with this plan. It's all the murdering that was wrong.

 Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire

reply

Yes, from their viewpoint, all the murdering and torture was utterly irrelevant. Pretty cold.

...then whoa, differences...

reply

Totally agree with you. They could have done all of the same things to get Janus up and running without all of the killing.

____
It is hard not to sound condescending when you are explaining things to an idiot!

reply