What is Earth's true 'carrying capacity', in human terms?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

When the deer on Vancouver Island got to dangerously high levels, Conservationists re introduced a wolf pack back into the ecology. The deer stopped eating themselves out of house and home and returned to a level of population that their island home could support. Maybe Planet Earth is over run with people, and you have to be cruel to be kind and somehow start to 'thin the Human herd'?

In some African nations, women are regularly attacked and killed by crocodiles. But people accept this as inevitable in the same way that Western people accept road traffic accidents as just an inevitable fact of life.
Neither predators nor accidents have a significant affect on population levels.

In spite of famines, plagues and other natural disasters, human populations continue to steadily rise.
The real brake on human population levels is contraception, most widely practised in the (underpopulated) West.
The UN estimate once that Earth could support 12 billion people; Conservatives in the past have tried to prioritise jobs, income and education towards white men men and regard even white women as somehow 'more expendable' or 'surplus to requirements' - so what is Earth's true carrying capacity, and how do we arrange to meet it?

Comments

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

I thought it was feminists who said men weren't necessary, they were surplus to requirements.

But yeah, all those white people practicing female infanticide in India, all those white christian muslims giving women unequal rights in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. It really is disgusting what those white conservative males do, and so on topic to the rest of the OP.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

I thought it was feminists who said men weren't necessary, they were surplus to requirements.

Maybe they did, some of them, 'woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle' and all that. But the fact is that when we got industrialised, it was not Conservatives who led the fight to get women in the workplace and into equal pay. they would rather women stay home and mind the home and the kids while the men went out to be breadwinners.

The fat is that they prioritised men - as though there were not enough jobs or was not enough income and resources to go round.

And yes, in Afghanistan , Africa and other places, men have bought into the idea that there is not enough to go round, that men eat first and women and kids eat what's left, that women don't get an education or the rights that go with it.

White Western males may not be guilty of infanticide, but men across the world seem to be under the impression that we don't have enough to go round, when actually we can meet everyone's need, but not everyone's greed.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

they would rather women stay home and mind the home and the kids while the men went out to be breadwinners.

That explains the popularity of Sara Palin.


but men across the world seem to be under the impression...

This is based on polls? Or on what you want to believe.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Mrs Thatcher said the same sort of thing.
She wanted women to say home and mind the kids - exactly like she didn't. the Fact is that Sarah Palin and Thatcher can only run for office because women kicked up for votes, for women's rights like education and equal opportunities, none of which is what their parties fought for them or stand for now.

This is based on polls? Or on what you want to believe.

No, it is based upon a saying by Jesus. " By their deeds ye shall know them".

Go back and read your own comments about female infanticide and Muslims denying women equal rights in Saudi Arabia and other places. We agree that this sort of thing really does happen, right? So, what does that tell you about a lot of male mindsets around the world? Are they operating on the idea that there is enough to go round, or are they hoarding power and resources to benefit themselves?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Are they operating on the idea that there is enough to go round, or are they hoarding power and resources to benefit themselves?

First off, much of the world is neither Muslim nor Indian. Secondly, female infanticide is often committed by the mom, not a male. Third, subjugating women can easily be explained as a desire for male muslims to have power and control over females, it's not a sign of a belief in limited resources.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

_First off, much of the world is neither Muslim nor Indian._

So? It does not have to be either to be sexist. You mentioned India and SA, but China, or anywhere else practically, will do the trick.

_Secondly, female infanticide is often committed by the mom, not a male. _

Got a cite? And you are saying that daddy will object if he knows?

_Third, subjugating women can easily be explained as a desire for male muslims to have power and control over females, it's not a sign of a belief in limited resources._

Who is now saying that it's only Muslims? Why do men the world over want control and power over women ? how come the Anglican Communion has its panties in a wad over the ordination of female Bishops? What makes you so sure that this is not merely fear of ' not enough to go round'?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

but China, or anywhere else practically, will do the trick.

Well there's supporting evidence for your assertion. I can only imagine your teachers giving you decent marks on your papers not because you gave a coherent argument but because they agreed with your (irrelevant) potshots at whites/males/conservatives/christians/westerners.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

"Got a cite? And you are saying that daddy will object if he knows?"

It's a cultural thing. Parents in general would rather have boys in many places. In China the problem is furthered because parents who can only have one child would rather their one child be male.

"What makes you so sure that this is not merely fear of ' not enough to go round'?"

It's a power struggle, plain and simple. I've never heard of "fear of not enough to go around" being any kind of motivator for sexism. I'm not saying it isn't an element, but I'd make an educated guess that it's more likely to be a cover-up than a real motivation - perhaps even something these men are telling themselves to rationalize it.

I think your likelihood of getting something to eat depends more on your social or economic status in many places.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Oh, and let's not forget the number of African-American babies aborted in the U.S.

Ya know, if you REALLY wanna be racial about it.