How Do Other Animals Respond To Over-population?

[charles brough]

They respond the same way we do. That is, they consciously ignore the problem. We do the same, thanks to Catholicism and Fundamentalist doctrines.. Like them, we respond in a totally swarm-theory, instinctive way. They divide into more groups and kill each other, or they begin dying of stress, or the tension ruins their health. All this enables their numbers to plunge.

 

We do the same thing. Wo don't execute criminals but wage wars on each other that kill good people in much larger numbers.

 

Being small group primates, as we are, we feel stress and unsecure when our group becomes too large. We evolved in hunting/gathering groups and depend upon ideology to bind us into groups that combine into nations and societies in order to adjust to the population growth, In united ideology-based socieites, we can feel secure and work constructively to protect our society and all good members within it. But when the ideology breaks down into cults and no longer serves that role, stress grows. People fill with hatred, their health deteriorates because of the buildup of the stress, and leaders no longer care about the people as much as their own little group, that is, their family at home. For it, they steal.

 

In nature, when numbers in the social group grow larger than what is optimal to that species, the stress leads them to divide and the groups splits into two. With us, just stress . . .

 

Actually, it is a simple matter. Our whole economic system functions on the reality that the more abundant is the supply of something, the less value each of the items has. It works that way with us as well. Our excessive numbers mean that the value of the individual has dropped. That means that "the others" are competing for what we want and we resent the way they crowd the road, etc. As the crowding congesion grows, the stress that normally divides the group increases. "The others" not just drop in value to the individual but can even take on negative value. This is what happens to people who can no longer hide their hostility, take up arms and set out to kill as many people as they can..

 

But they need to do it right. They need to adopt some ideological justification for what they do. They want it to be the crowning achievement of their life and go out in "a blaze ofd glory.".

 

This is the way our secular-led world is functioning. We are all divided up into Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Marxist enclaves that the secular ideology is used to bring them together. The growth of stress, however, indicates it is failing. It definitly fails to replace the old and the defective present ideological systems.

 

Well, if it fails, if it cannot do the job and our society goes down and us all with it, then we had better adopt a new and better "secular" ideology.

 

Want to see a facsimile of such a new and advanced belief system? http://civilization-overview.com

[joekgamer]

A secular society is one that is not completly homogeneous. The United States is an example of this (2-party system), along with many other countries.

 

In your post, you seem to say that belonging to a group makes a person dislike all the others. Also, in the website you link to, it seems that secularism is defined the same as atheism, and the phrase "The secular system has been unable to do more then merely replace the world leadership of the old faiths, and the growing list of world problems indicates the secular system is losing its ability to do even that." (http://civilization-overview.com/introductionabstract) seems to say 'all politicians are atheists, and because there are problems, it is the politicians' fault, and therefore the atheists' fault'. However, because of the abiguity of the statment, it is hard to figure out its meaning. Could you clarify on these points?

[charles brough]

A secular society is one that is not completly homogeneous. The United States is an example of this (2-party system), along with many other countries.

 

In your post, you seem to say that belonging to a group makes a person dislike all the others. Also, in the website you link to, it seems that secularism is defined the same as atheism, and the phrase "The secular system has been unable to do more then merely replace the world leadership of the old faiths, and the growing list of world problems indicates the secular system is losing its ability to do even that." (http://civilization-...ductionabstract) seems to say 'all politicians are atheists, and because there are problems, it is the politicians' fault, and therefore the atheists' fault'. However, because of the abiguity of the statment, it is hard to figure out its meaning. Could you clarify on these points?

 

 

Good post . . . I agree that a secular society is one that is not completely homogeneous. I think that is because it the secular ideology that grew up from the Age of Enlightnment has "unhomogenized" our Christian ideological society. It was necessary to do because the old ideology was essential to hold society together but at the same time too old to any longer do it well. I use the word "ideology" for both because I do not accept that either is the abstract truth even though our secular system is far more comsistant with science than are the doctrines of the older faith, hence more accurate.

 

Belonging to a group means competition if not antagonism to other groups. It is human nature. We are shaped by millions of years of evolution as small-group primates. The whole function of ideology is to broaden that "group consciousness or feeling" to being the nation and as far as possible, the whole world. But there has to be some limit to the size of the group and the other groups are naturally then prone to competition if not antagonism, especially when environmental resources and space on the planet are increasingly limited.

 

I did not mean to give the impression that even a majority of secularists are atheists. I intended to state that secular-minded people needed to be as compatable with the old faith as necessary without compromising most science. That meant the most science came to depend upon non-theists because the Fundamental theistic beliefs of the old faith were totally inconsistent with science and science was and still is part of the secular ideology. I am an atheist, but I am more importantly, a member of the non-theistic brotherhood

 

I might add that I see no reason why a non-theistic, science-based ideology as attractive to the public as Christianity was 2,000 years ago could not now exist and spread as effectively as it did then.

[joekgamer]

Belonging to a group means competition if not antagonism to other groups. It is human nature.

 

So you are saying that if I see a Pakistani, or a citizen of the United Kingdom, or a Muslim, or a Buddist (and so on and so forth...), I automatically hate or even mildly dislike them? I know several people who were born and raised in India, and I can safely say I don't hate them. Also, I know people from England and Italy and Germany and Brazil (etc...), and I don't hate them. I also do not hate the Muslims and the Islamists and the Buddists and Christians (and so on...) that I know. Many of my good friends are Islamists. I'm an atheist.

 

I intended to state that secular-minded people needed to be as compatable with the old faith as necessary without compromising most science.

 

So you want everybody to be a Christian?

 

I might add that I see no reason why a non-theistic, science-based ideology as attractive to the public as Christianity was 2,000 years ago could not now exist and spread as effectively as it did then.

 

Christianity was not science-based then, and it is not now, either.

[Moontanman]

How do other animals respond to over population? The eat their young....

[geko]

...I see no reason why a non-theistic, science-based ideology as attractive to the public as Christianity was 2,000 years ago could not now exist and spread as effectively as it did then.

 

Religion has a long history. It also appeals to anthropomorphism and identity projection which are considered by many to be products of our evolutionary heritage. In this way religion latched on to assumptions that humans had about the world and the universe anyway. It was easy to adopt and, i guess, felt natural.

 

Science isn't. Even though it has a long history in various forms it only really came into being as an accepted approach after newton. It also generally teaches us that the universe evolves under uncommon sense as opposed to common sense which is obviously alien to many, especially the layman. This makes it harder to accept, especially when it goes against the cherished beliefs and ways of life of many people. Right or wrong, that's how it is at the moment.

 

It's also not clear whether science can inform us of values, something that historically has been the sole realm of theism.

 

These add to the problems of gaining general acceptance of a 'science based ideology'. There's also the problem of education. How do you get the population to listen? ...obviously in hope of developing unison with one general voice. That's a big problem as i see things. It's not that people are stupid, because they're not, some just don't want to know, or spend the time needed in order that they may know, or even have the time to do any of these things.

 

Consider politics, a relatively simple subject on the face of things and something that directly affects everyone's life who lives in a state governed society, yet the average person can't name but a bare handful of the policies that the candidates/parties propose and how the consequences of these will effect their lives.

 

I'm one of those people that thinks the world should change its ideology as the interventionist ideology that most developed countries run at the moment isn't conducive to human progress and well-being on the whole and over the long-term. Yet the only correct route available in my eyes is education, and that's anything but a quick route. I support the notion of a new ideology but i don't think for one moment it will be easy.

[CraigD]

They respond the same way we do. That is, they consciously ignore the problem. We do the same, thanks to Catholicism and Fundamentalist doctrines.. Like them, we respond in a totally swarm-theory, instinctive way. They divide into more groups and kill each other, or they begin dying of stress, or the tension ruins their health. All this enables their numbers to plunge.

 

We do the same thing. ...

Except - and I think this is a critical difference - regardless of how unhealthy or dedicated to killing one another we humans become, our numbers do not plunge. Even during the most lethal wars in history, the total human population increased.

 

If we did have a history of fairly balances rises and declines in our population, it might be easier to predict our future by using examples from non-human animals where overpopulation leads to disease, aggression, and other factors that result in sharp population plunges.

 

Ultimately, we can't increase our population in excess of its minimum food and water requirements, but we've proven amazingly ingenious at supplying ourselves with more food and water given the same natural resources, making it difficult to predict when this limit might take effect.

[Kriminal99]

Except - and I think this is a critical difference - regardless of how unhealthy or dedicated to killing one another we humans become, our numbers do not plunge. Even during the most lethal wars in history, the total human population increased.

 

If we did have a history of fairly balances rises and declines in our population, it might be easier to predict our future by using examples from non-human animals where overpopulation leads to disease, aggression, and other factors that result in sharp population plunges.

 

Ultimately, we can't increase our population in excess of its minimum food and water requirements, but we've proven amazingly ingenious at supplying ourselves with more food and water given the same natural resources, making it difficult to predict when this limit might take effect.

In the short term wars drop the population. In WWII by like 4%. So we repopulated and then some. But it created a situation where people who were stupid or incapable were more likely to die, and it took some of the pressure off and our capital and infrastructure was at a good point for where the population was.

 

Overpopulation in humans is really an issue of something like a ratio of people to infrastructure/capital.... but even then the lower total population the better. If an extra million population generates enough new traffic for Google to like add a server, and 10 more servers is enough to add a single job of server technician, it's easy to see why Quality of life goes down regardless the larger the population. What if all the jobs were things like Mcdonalds burger flipper, garbage man etc and only the top .01 percent of the population worked in corporate offices?

 

We need to wall off and maybe auto turret our border, and then implement a eugenics program to deal with all the descendants of illegals (indirectly through IQ testing)

[geko]

the lower total population the better. If an extra million population generates enough new traffic for Google to like add a server, and 10 more servers is enough to add a single job of server technician, it's easy to see why Quality of life goes down regardless the larger the population. What if all the jobs were things like Mcdonalds burger flipper, garbage man etc and only the top .01 percent of the population worked in corporate offices?

 

The labour market won't find itself in increasingly mundane jobs though. Things get more specialised as technology moves forward, so less people will be burger flipping and more will be in specialised technical jobs, quite likely in corporate offices.

 

Replacing a human with a machine also doesn't push people out of need increasing unemployment but rather does the opposite. R&D into the machine, manufacturing it, distributing it, teaching it, selling it, etc., which increases the market for various items in the line of production, which increases the need for labour across multiple sectors.

[dduckwessel]

 

 

Want to see a facsimile of such a new and advanced belief system? http://civilization-overview.com

 

 

Other than continued decline, we have only one other option. We can replace the old faiths with an advanced, new ideology system, one with a new science-based world-view and way of thinking.

 

By science-based I hope that includes philosophical also because we are naturally philosophical creatures!

 

There has to be some kind of population control, as in China, especially in the already overpopulated poverty stricken countries.

 

Unless of course we expand into space but in order to do that we have to spend much more effort and money in the building of a moon base (the most feasible). Even then I think it will take a couple hundred years or more to establish and require highly specialized individuals to run things.

 

Population control would solve a lot of immediate problems.

[dieadderalls]

Other than continued decline, we have only one other option. We can replace the old faiths with an advanced, new ideology system, one with a new science-based world-view and way of thinking.

 

By science-based I hope that includes philosophical also because we are naturally philosophical creatures!

 

There has to be some kind of population control, as in China, especially in the already overpopulated poverty stricken countries.

 

Unless of course we expand into space but in order to do that we have to spend much more effort and money in the building of a moon base (the most feasible). Even then I think it will take a couple hundred years or more to establish and require highly specialized individuals to run things.

 

Population control would solve a lot of immediate problems.

 

Population control is unethical for obvious reasons, but I don't really want to talk about that.

I just wanted to link these articles:

http://www.qdma.com/what-we-do/articles/herd-management/social-stress/

http://www.highbloodpressureinfo.org/stress-effects-on-blood-pressure.html

 

IMO it all stems from ego-mania, treadmill power-trips and all that ****. As we get more and more afraid and freaked out we end up with a situation where people can die from stress induced heart-attacks. How crazy is that! But yeah, this stress crap is what causes you to look around and shoot blindly into the woods when you hear a twig snap, causing violence and in turn curbing the population. GJ nature.