5th Hour - Voices of Concern

[Admin]

After reading Lester Brown's Voices of Concern, reflect on the interview and select one of the following questions to answer. In addition to your posted reflection, respond to the postings of TWO of your classmates.

1. It is estimated that by 2050, the Earth will have almost 9 billion people. It currently has 6.7 billion people. Do you think the Earth can support 9 billion people? What does Lester Brown think? When will the world reach its carrying capacity & how will we know when we have reached it?

2. Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?

Initial Posting: Due Wednesday, December 1 at 11:59 pm
Response Postings: Due Friday, December 3 at 11:59 pm

[earthycolors]

Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?

Although using technology would prolong the lives of people while curing diseases and creating more food, interfering with mother nature will only make matters worse. With more people in the world and the population increasing every year, no matter how advanced our technology is, the world will still eventually end up being as crowded as China. I say we help people to some degree with sickness and help feed starving people in other places, but as far as curing diseases like HIV/AIDS and sicknesses like Influenza and Malaria; I know this sounds cruel and cold hearted, but let the sicknesses stay. The world has a carrying capacity, and we don't know if we've reached it, or we're still climbing; but I don't wanna be here when the whole world suddenly comes to a screeching halt when the limit on food and space wipes entire countries off the face of the earth. We only have the technology to increase the carrying capacity of the Earth, not increase the size of the Earth. Mabye the people in their lab coats and political attitudes can realize that while they're ongoing their speech to save the world.

[whatitdochickado]

Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?


no we should NOT use technology to extend the carrying capacity of Earth. Mother is doing a darn good job. She never let the population get too terribly dreadful before our time. She should keep it up. Now on the other hand, idiots should stop having kids, let the smart people have kids so that we will all know how to take care of the world. after all we don't wanna be sitting on each others laps just cause there is no room left in america. we should be different, don't follow the big population vs. small living space fad {even though its not really a fad, i just wanted to say fad} cause yo, it ain't rad!

[20north_star12]

2. Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?

Absolutely not. Humans have been obsessed with the idea of immortality since the beginning of time, but the truth is that it just is not possible. There is no reason for us to further intricate technology and thus allow humans to exceed their natural years. Death is a part of life and a part of Earth's natural cycle. This Earth does not belong to us; it can not belong to us. We need to allow it to do as it pleases and discipline mankind as it chooses. Food grown with technology cannot be all that healthy. This is already getting us into some problems with food because the food is getting more unprocessed and what not. The only thing I would be acceptable to would be that we could advance technology to cure disease because this would help ease suffering and pain. I suppose this would be a more humane ethic, but life shouldn't be all about pain and suffering; humans cause enough to each other without disease adding on. I would have clarified more between the morals and ethics on this, but I think that they are mixed together for me.

[earthycolors]

Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?


no we should NOT use technology to extend the carrying capacity of Earth. Mother is doing a darn good job. She never let the population get too terribly dreadful before our time. She should keep it up. Now on the other hand, idiots should stop having kids, let the smart people have kids so that we will all know how to take care of the world. after all we don't wanna be sitting on each others laps just cause there is no room left in america. we should be different, don't follow the big population vs. small living space fad {even though its not really a fad, i just wanted to say fad} cause yo, it ain't rad!

Is it the nutcracker that you're humming? Also, I agree with you one hundred percent. All these dumb people and people that have no business having kids are having more kids than the educated, good people. And I also think we shouldn't just cure every disease out there just to save lives. Because we will upset the delicate balance that mother nature has ever so gently set in place. And I, as well as alot of other people, don't want the world to be thrown off even further by us mere animals with extra smartness. So yeah, I agree with you.

[earthycolors]

2. Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?

Absolutely not. Humans have been obsessed with the idea of immortality since the beginning of time, but the truth is that it just is not possible. There is no reason for us to further intricate technology and thus allow humans to exceed their natural years. Death is a part of life and a part of Earth's natural cycle. This Earth does not belong to us; it can not belong to us. We need to allow it to do as it pleases and discipline mankind as it chooses. Food grown with technology cannot be all that healthy. This is already getting us into some problems with food because the food is getting more unprocessed and what not. The only thing I would be acceptable to would be that we could advance technology to cure disease because this would help ease suffering and pain. I suppose this would be a more humane ethic, but life shouldn't be all about pain and suffering; humans cause enough to each other without disease adding on. I would have clarified more between the morals and ethics on this, but I think that they are mixed together for me.

You stated your reasons perfectly, and I couldn't agree much more with what you typed. People always are looking for ways to stay young, look young, act young; while in reality, people are going to die. It happens. And us trying to improve technology to add on extra years to us while lowering the death rate in the world while the birthrate still rapidly increases out of control is just not moral or ethical. And yes manmade food is lacking in vitamins and minerals needed to live. But more food is getting PROCESSED (not un processed), and that can't be good for us. The people in this world are already living far beyond their years with our current technology, adding on the that will be kinda dumb. What are you gonna do in your 100's. Sit around and knit all day?

[smiley11]

I think that we should just let mother nature take its course to decrease the world's population problem. With tecnology sure we can cure the sick and make more food but that's not going to do anything with the living space if we don't have the space in the first place. This sounds bad, but the people with diseases should just die and end their suffering all together instead of having them live the rest of their lives out in pain. Also, tecnology can't always be trusted because it alway malfunctions and breaks down.

[londylou]

Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?

No we should not. I dont understand how adding more food to the world and enabling people to live longer can extend the carrying capacity. That doesnt do anything for the amount of living space available. And wouldnt more people mean less oil? Less renewable resources? More global warming? Why add to the current problems at hand? "Mother Nature" does what she does for a reason and I dont know why people feel the need to change it. And what if a mysterious virus breaks out and causes a pandemic? Or if a zombie apocolypse happens? It would simply spread throughout the entire world much quickly with all the extra people around. That is all =)

-LondyLou

[MiszCheesekake41]

2. Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?

I don't think we should use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the earth. I feel that doing that means spending alot of time and money trying to find ways to do this. People spend their lives worrying over this and don't get any enjoyment. Then even if we increase the carrying capacity eventually we will reach the new carrying capacity and want to increase it more. People aren't meant to live forever and are just going to have to accept it. Obviously people are supposed to die if more and more things keep happening in attempt to balance out the population. I know its horrible that people will have to lose lives(no one lives forever so deal with it) but whats the point in trying to increase things if life isn't as enjoyable.Either way it goes if we increase the earth's carrying capacity we will always run into more problems and issues.

[MiszCheesekake41]

Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?

Although using technology would prolong the lives of people while curing diseases and creating more food, interfering with mother nature will only make matters worse. With more people in the world and the population increasing every year, no matter how advanced our technology is, the world will still eventually end up being as crowded as China. I say we help people to some degree with sickness and help feed starving people in other places, but as far as curing diseases like HIV/AIDS and sicknesses like Influenza and Malaria; I know this sounds cruel and cold hearted, but let the sicknesses stay. The world has a carrying capacity, and we don't know if we've reached it, or we're still climbing; but I don't wanna be here when the whole world suddenly comes to a screeching halt when the limit on food and space wipes entire countries off the face of the earth. We only have the technology to increase the carrying capacity of the Earth, not increase the size of the Earth. Mabye the people in their lab coats and political attitudes can realize that while they're ongoing their speech to save the world.

That is so true ! I wonder why they don't realize that only population will increase not the earth's size. The end of the world will happen eventually or at least everyone will die at some point so as long as I live my life I don't care what happens. I mean I'm not saying i won't do things to help the world but im not going to spend my life worrying over if there will be enough space in the world for people in the future.

[MiszCheesekake41]

Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?

No we should not. I dont understand how adding more food to the world and enabling people to live longer can extend the carrying capacity. That doesnt do anything for the amount of living space available. And wouldnt more people mean less oil? Less renewable resources? More global warming? Why add to the current problems at hand? "Mother Nature" does what she does for a reason and I dont know why people feel the need to change it. And what if a mysterious virus breaks out and causes a pandemic? Or if a zombie apocolypse happens? It would simply spread throughout the entire world much quickly with all the extra people around. That is all =)

Hey thats a good point. If theres a virus that breaks out and it spreads throuhout this increased population , everyone will end up dying anyway, So mother nature should be left alone and people need to let her do her thing.
-LondyLou

[Communistkid]

2. Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?

I believe we should use a combination of law and tech to solve this crisis. Limit the amount of kids an unintelligent person can have to 1, and (to only but the smartest) limit it to 5 for others. Offenders should be neutered. Tech should be continued to increase the capacity of the earth. Thanks to the before mentioned law we would easily have the bright minds to continue increasing it. Is there anyone idiotic enough to say MOTHER NATURE should take care of this? If so please be the next peson to dumbly try to stand out a hurricane. Yeah I said it, people who stay in an area that is going to be hit by a spiral of pure choatic water and wind should not be allowed to reproduce.

Survival of the intelligent.

[Communistkid]

Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?

No we should not. I dont understand how adding more food to the world and enabling people to live longer can extend the carrying capacity. That doesnt do anything for the amount of living space available. And wouldnt more people mean less oil? Less renewable resources? More global warming? Why add to the current problems at hand? "Mother Nature" does what she does for a reason and I dont know why people feel the need to change it. And what if a mysterious virus breaks out and causes a pandemic? Or if a zombie apocolypse happens? It would simply spread throughout the entire world much quickly with all the extra people around. That is all =)

Hey thats a good point. If theres a virus that breaks out and it spreads throuhout this increased population , everyone will end up dying anyway, So mother nature should be left alone and people need to let her do her thing.
-LondyLou

So i shouldn't stany inside when theres a tornado? or hail? or snow? The point of renewable resources is that they can be forever farmed, you just need to have correct procedures. We no longer truly need oil. More food would allow for more people actually. There has never been a pandemic. Reanimated corpses that, for some odd reason, crave flesh? Besides the fact that dead brains equal absolutely no body movement.

[Communistkid]

2. Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?

I don't think we should use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the earth. I feel that doing that means spending alot of time and money trying to find ways to do this. People spend their lives worrying over this and don't get any enjoyment. Then even if we increase the carrying capacity eventually we will reach the new carrying capacity and want to increase it more. People aren't meant to live forever and are just going to have to accept it. Obviously people are supposed to die if more and more things keep happening in attempt to balance out the population. I know its horrible that people will have to lose lives(no one lives forever so deal with it) but whats the point in trying to increase things if life isn't as enjoyable.Either way it goes if we increase the earth's carrying capacity we will always run into more problems and issues.

I can make an oil rig on the ocean. I can live on said ocean oil rig. I don't take oil out of the ground so i just have a huge platform i can live on. On the OCEAN, the same OCEAN which is 70.9% of the freaking earth that, before i built an oil rig, was uninhabitable. People will never live for ever and most pretty much accept this (well except for people who for some reason you go to a place after you die but i suspect even they know deep inside that is BS.) but i, like you should know, other planets are inhabitable too. It isn't hardcore that you think people should die of disease, it's just dumb.

[snookieluvs2tan]

2. Should we use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth (ie. use technology to grow more food, keep people alive longer, cure disease, etc.) or should we allow Mother Nature's limiting factors do their job to limit population growth? What are the moral and ethical implications of your stance on this issue?

We should not use technology to extend the carrying capacity of the Earth. I believe that the planet knows what its doing, and use man made technology to try to "outsmart" it will only make matters worse. As the oceans are rising, and the atmosphere is warming, the planet is not worried what will eventually happen to human existence, WE are. The planet will naturally sort itself out, because maybe the Earth is nearing the end of its first cycle of mother nature, and we are just catching on to it. It kind of reminds me of Daoism and the Dao. Everything goes back to where it began, because of the Dao, and everything has a natural beginning and end.