Political Crossfire Forums

[Headrattle]

Demonic Spoon wrote: I beg to differ. The advancing field of genetics is helping a LOT in this matter.
Also, our population growth is predicted to be leveling off relatively soon.
By the time we are so overpopulated that we can't support ourselves, we will be well beyond Earth and tapping resources in other places.

That sounds like a "Our kids will figure it out." The fact is that they don't always figure it out. We can't figure everything out. Just because we might be able to do it doesn't mean that we can. It is possible that we will be giving our children problems that they can't fix. So it seems wiser to be catious about things rather then the teenage like attitude of "We will fix it later."

[Headrattle]

ieatfood wrote: Phædrus wrote:

perhaps, but it is the waste that is the problem though ... just like bacteria humans live in their own waste, and just like bacteria they will die when the level of poisons reaches a critical point ... when and how this will take place remains to be seen, but it is pretty much inevitable now

but the levels of waste have been decreasing--in america, water and air are cleaner than ever
Source? You got a source for that madness? Come on! Give me a source! Sure, in some cases it is true. In many cases, it isn't.

And where do you guys get this information that the population is going to level out?

It is true that we have plenty of food and resources for now. But I am talking about later. Decades or centuries. It is better for us to start conserving and researching ways to conserve those resources now, instead of later. That is my only point. I don't like the idea of having faith that the next generations will fix it later. They might not be able too.

[The Impeacher]

Headrattle wrote:
And where do you guys get this information that the population is going to level out?


there's a lot of "free market" types promoting that societies with strong ownership and inheritance rights leads to a natural form of population control via economic choices - in a sense, that our greed is then a natural form of population control based on economic choices and "personal maximization" of wealth. kids get too expensive, in other words.

i tend to agree to a point, as well know about slow population growth rates in highly industrialized economies.

the counter argument that myself and others make is that china, russia, india, south america, and africa cannot go about things in the same manner we did due to the undue harm already caused by us in the west and in western europe.

thus, we get the DOHA protocols and whatnot...

other's see this as an attempt on the behalf of the west to maintain a "market hegemony" from our past harm - and thus things like the Kyoto Accord seem to give that argument some weight.

the truth is in the middle, i suppose. i just don't see any credence for arguing that the world needs more people than it already has....

[Random Evil Guy]

perdidochas wrote: Headrattle wrote: Demonic Spoon wrote: no, we have plenty of resources. We are just not tapping them as well as we could.

We have plenty... for now. Resources are important. But a drastic increase in population would require more resources. There is a point where we won't be able to feed the population should that population grow too big. And given current technology, that max population might not be as big as you think.

It would be wise to be careful.

In the 1960s and 1970s, they said that max population was about 4 billion. We are way past that now, and hunger in the poor nations is no worse than it was in the 1960s.

well, you obviously don't understand the problems of overpopulation. it's not about hunger; it's about energy consumption. pure and simple. the world can not sustain 6 billion people all living like westerners. with china's and india's rapid economic growth, this could be a problem much sooner than expected...

so there are two solutions really. less people or less consumption. the former is not realistic, so that means sooner or later unpopular measures has to be taken. unfortunately people won't reduce their 'comfort level' the slightest. not even by as little 5-10%. which could easily be accomplished with just minor actions(more efficient cars, efficient heating systems etc).

even though this isn't directly relevant, a recent study(azar climate policy 2005 nr. 5) showed that it is possible to reduce co2 emissions sufficiently without hurting the economy too much. in fact, the reduced growth in the world economy is estimated to be as little as 0,05%. this shows that we aren't talking about massive changes. just small, everyday stuff.

[Phædrus]

ieatfood wrote: Phædrus wrote:

perhaps, but it is the waste that is the problem though ... just like bacteria humans live in their own waste, and just like bacteria they will die when the level of poisons reaches a critical point ... when and how this will take place remains to be seen, but it is pretty much inevitable now

but the levels of waste have been decreasing--in america, water and air are cleaner than ever

inevitable? i say it is inevitable that wastes will decrease as GDP increases.

your point being ?

... that there will emerge a market for reducing or reclaiming waste ???

[Headrattle]

The Impeacher wrote: Headrattle wrote:
And where do you guys get this information that the population is going to level out?


there's a lot of "free market" types promoting that societies with strong ownership and inheritance rights leads to a natural form of population control via economic choices - in a sense, that our greed is then a natural form of population control based on economic choices and "personal maximization" of wealth. kids get too expensive, in other words.

i tend to agree to a point, as well know about slow population growth rates in highly industrialized economies.
I disagree with that. America's population has grown from 75 million to 275 million over the past century. I would say that because of better health systems and better medicine, population growth would increase in industrialized nations. In the last 80 years the world population has increased 4 and a half billion people. So I don't really agree with that assessment. Children are expensive (God are they!) but the less expensive medicine gets the fewer people will die. Think of all of the things that would have killed kids 50 or 60 years ago, and how they are so easily treatable now.

But this is a bit off topic.

Read Random's points. My point is simple. It is madness to believe that the next generations will fix everything. It is a procrastination to the extreme. It is essentially saying "I don't give a s**t about the next generation. As long as I don't have to do anything different, I am sure they will fix it." It just seems to juvenile.

[ieatfood]

Headrattle wrote: ieatfood wrote: Phædrus wrote:

perhaps, but it is the waste that is the problem though ... just like bacteria humans live in their own waste, and just like bacteria they will die when the level of poisons reaches a critical point ... when and how this will take place remains to be seen, but it is pretty much inevitable now

but the levels of waste have been decreasing--in america, water and air are cleaner than ever
Source? You got a source for that madness? Come on! Give me a source! Sure, in some cases it is true. In many cases, it isn't.

And where do you guys get this information that the population is going to level out?

It is true that we have plenty of food and resources for now. But I am talking about later. Decades or centuries. It is better for us to start conserving and researching ways to conserve those resources now, instead of later. That is my only point. I don't like the idea of having faith that the next generations will fix it later. They might not be able too.

it is true
Carbon monoxide, particulates, nitrogen oxides, SO2, organics, and lead are at much lower levels: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2005/econ-emissions.html

As a result of the Clean Water Act, waters that are safe for fishing and swimming have doubled: http://www.epa.gov/npdespub/pubs/25PROG.PDF


The hole in the ozone layer is getting smaller: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/17/tech/main522349.shtml

It has all been decreasing in America, largely becuase we are rich enough to afford expensive environmental protections.


There are only 2 examples I can think of where pollution is getting worse. One is CO2. The other is overfishing the seas. But that is largely a problem for rich people who require a diet of wild caught fish. Most non-rich people are eating farmed fish.

population is going to level out according to most experts. http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm

as for conserving resources, there's no need. We're not running out. If we were running out, then we'd need to conserve. But things like oil will be replaced one day with new technology. And there's no sign that oil is getting scarce any time soon. Therefore, there's no need to conserve. So calm down.

[Headrattle]

ieatfood wrote: as for conserving resources, there's no need. We're not running out. If we were running out, then we'd need to conserve. But things like oil will be replaced one day with new technology. And there's no sign that oil is getting scarce any time soon. Therefore, there's no need to conserve. So calm down.

You see, that is the exact thing I am cautioning against. It is possible that this could happen. But why rely on it? Why rely on others to do the work tomarrow when we should be doing it now. If you ran a business like that it would be bankrupt. Oil isn't the only thing that we need to stop using. And oil for completely different reasons then "we don't have enough." We need to get off of oil in order to get ON something cheaper, more cost effecient, and most of all, less dependant upon foreign supply. Fuel is an important thing to our economy. So much so that if something bad were to happen (not Oil running out, but rather embargos or whatever) we would be screwed.

My point is that we need to be cautious in our advances. Just growing for growths sake without investing into alternitives now is bad. Relying on the next generation to fix everything is bad. Am I scared? No. Am I calm. Yes. I am just talking about the wisest points of action.

[ieatfood]

Headrattle wrote: ieatfood wrote: as for conserving resources, there's no need. We're not running out. If we were running out, then we'd need to conserve. But things like oil will be replaced one day with new technology. And there's no sign that oil is getting scarce any time soon. Therefore, there's no need to conserve. So calm down.

You see, that is the exact thing I am cautioning against. It is possible that this could happen. But why rely on it? Why rely on others to do the work tomarrow when we should be doing it now. If you ran a business like that it would be bankrupt. Oil isn't the only thing that we need to stop using. And oil for completely different reasons then "we don't have enough." We need to get off of oil in order to get ON something cheaper, more cost effecient, and most of all, less dependant upon foreign supply. Fuel is an important thing to our economy. So much so that if something bad were to happen (not Oil running out, but rather embargos or whatever) we would be screwed.

My point is that we need to be cautious in our advances. Just growing for growths sake without investing into alternitives now is bad. Relying on the next generation to fix everything is bad. Am I scared? No. Am I calm. Yes. I am just talking about the wisest points of action.

it's not only possible
its a certainty
it is projected that solar will be cost competetive with oil by around the year 2050. That's not too far away.

ABout being dependent on foreign oil--that is a myth. Expert economists who study oil economics know that there's no such thing. We are not dependent on middle-eastern oil--never have been: http://mit.edu/ceepr/www/R2004-171.pdf

should we not invest in alternatives? of course not. investing makes a lot of sense. But we should not freak out. Generally, the condition of the environment and world are getting better. And we will all be fine.

[Headrattle]

ieatfood wrote:
it's not only possible
its a certainty
it is projected that solar will be cost competetive with oil by around the year 2050. That's not too far away.
Projected. Not Certain.

But oil isn't the only thing I am talking about. I am talking about every resource that we use. Not just oil. Take the food question.

Essentially, I am pointing out that the future is not certain. So perhaps some caution is in order.

[ieatfood]

Headrattle wrote: ieatfood wrote:
it's not only possible
its a certainty
it is projected that solar will be cost competetive with oil by around the year 2050. That's not too far away.
Projected. Not Certain.

But oil isn't the only thing I am talking about. I am talking about every resource that we use. Not just oil. Take the food question.

Essentially, I am pointing out that the future is not certain. So perhaps some caution is in order.

I think it's pretty certain. We know that solar's going to be a lot cheaper in the future than it is now. That's certain.

Food is not in short supply becuase of production. It is in short supply because of distribution. We could feed the whole world tomorrow if we wanted to. But because of politics, we don't (eg the EU didn't want the US to bring food to Africa becuase of genetic engineering bs). It has nothing to do with the amount of actual resources that the earth has.

[Headrattle]

Currently. There will be a point when there are too many humans for the Earth to handle. I am not saying now, I am saying in the future.

And if distribution were perfect, and we could supply everyone with the same portion of resources that America uses, we would find that we, in fact, don't have enough.

http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj09/palmer1.html

[ieatfood]

Headrattle wrote: Currently. There will be a point when there are too many humans for the Earth to handle. I am not saying now, I am saying in the future.

And if distribution were perfect, and we could supply everyone with the same portion of resources that America uses, we would find that we, in fact, don't have enough. I remember this being something said by Hawking. I'll look it up.

not really--population will level off at about 10 billion--maybe you're saying that 10 billion is too much for the earth to handle
but i would need to see proof of that

as for distribution, that is 100% true for food
American is so productive with its farms
trust me--we could end world hunger tomorrow if we wanted
we have so much food that the govt pays farmers not to grow more food
we have tons of grain just rotting in silos cause we dont know what to do with it
there is physically more than enough food in the world to feed everyone
the only problem is that the hungry people are not in the same place as where the food is.

I can think of no really other resources that are in danger of running out. Can you?

Your link has 3 points:

1. running out of trees is not a problem--no one will die from lack of trees because trees are a renewable resource. In fact, there are twice as many trees in America today as there were 100 years ago.
2. According to the article: "Our food problem may be manageable with minimum pain." SO it's not really a problem. Also, they're not talking about a food problem--theyre talking about a beef problem, which is different.
3. is the global warming debate which i will not get into

So what is the problem?

[Headrattle]

ieatfood wrote: not really--population will level off at about 10 billion--maybe you're saying that 10 billion is too much for the earth to handle
but i would need to see proof of that
I am saying that there is a point when the Earth can't handle the population. I don't believe that the population will level off at 10 billlion. Maybe because of mass starvations?

Quote: I can think of no really other resources that are in danger of running out. Can you?
So you think that all humans use is grain and oil?

Quote: 1. running out of trees is not a problem--no one will die from lack of trees because trees are a renewable resource. In fact, there are twice as many trees in America today as there were 100 years ago.
Sort of. We rely on less trees now then before. That doesn't really mean that there are more trees. Only that we use them less and they are regrowing.

Still, if the rest of the world were to use as much as we do, then it wouldn't be renewable. Trees need time to grow. Of course, that isn't the only resource that we use. Metals, fossil fuels all kinds of stuff. If the rest of the world used as much as we did, supply would meet demand. The amount of oil pumped in would not equal amount of oil used.

All I am saying is that caution is the wiser action. Not a doomsday statement. Not that the end of the world is near. Rather, that the wisest choice might be caution instead of recklessness.

[ieatfood]

Headrattle wrote:
I am saying that there is a point when the Earth can't handle the population. I don't believe that the population will level off at 10 billlion. Maybe because of mass starvations?

well the world's best population experts hired by the UN certainly believe that the population will level off. perhaps you think you are smarter than them.
Headrattle wrote:
Quote: as for distribution, that is 100% true for food
American is so productive with its farms
trust me--we could end world hunger tomorrow if we wanted
we have so much food that the govt pays farmers not to grow more food
we have tons of grain just rotting in silos cause we dont know what to do with it
there is physically more than enough food in the world to feed everyone the only problem is that the hungry people are not in the same place as where the food is.
Source?

c'mon--this should be common knowledge
but if you must: "Taken as a whole, the world produces enough food to feed everyone--but much of it is simply in the wrong place. Especially in countries with undeveloped transport infrastructures, geography restricts food availability as dramatically as genetics promises to improve it."
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/ofnote/06-11time.mspx
Headrattle wrote:
Quote: I can think of no really other resources that are in danger of running out. Can you?
So you think that all humans use is grain and oil?

you answer my question with another question
hmmmmm.. strange one you are
but you still havent really named a single resource that is in danger of running out
i'm waiting......

Headrattle wrote:
Sort of. We rely on less trees now then before. That doesn't really mean that there are more trees. Only that we use them less and they are regrowing.

actually, there actually are MORE trees--as in physically a higher number of trees in America today than there were 100 years ago.

[Headrattle]

ieatfood wrote: Headrattle wrote:
I am saying that there is a point when the Earth can't handle the population. I don't believe that the population will level off at 10 billlion. Maybe because of mass starvations?

well the world's best population experts hired by the UN certainly believe that the population will level off. perhaps you think you are smarter than them.
I am asking for a source so that I may understand this. Keep in mind that I edited my post earlier then you responded.

Headrattle wrote:
Quote: I can think of no really other resources that are in danger of running out. Can you?
So you think that all humans use is grain and oil?

Quote: you answer my question with another question
hmmmmm.. strange one you are
but you still havent really named a single resource that is in danger of running out
i'm waiting......
I am talking about supply and demand. If the world used as many resources as America, then supply would not meet demand. Sure, we may have enough resources today. But there are more then just Oil and Grain. You have textiles, other fossil fuels, industrial metals, ect... Once again, I am talking about the future and not the present. Just because it might be true now, doesn't mean that it isn't true later.

Quote: actually, there actually are MORE trees--as in physically a higher number of trees in America today than there were 100 years ago.
I misspoke. There aren't enough trees for the globe. There are more trees then 100 years ago, but not then say 200 years ago. If everyone used as many resources as we did there wouldn't be enough. In many cases this is supply meeting supposed demand.

Let me explain again.
All I am saying is that caution is the wiser action. Not a doomsday statement. Not that the end of the world is near. Rather, that the wisest choice might be caution instead of recklessness. That is my only point. Obviously the rest of the world isn't going to use as much resources are we do. However, if they did there would have to be drastic changes to our life style. However, I am simply stating that the future might not be all that bright. It isn't going to be death and destruction, but I would rather solve potention problems now through science and technology then just pretend that the next generations will do it. I would rather live the world in a better situation then I found it.

But I for damn sure don't believe that the Population will peak or platou at 10 billion. I see no explanation for this.

[ieatfood]

Headrattle wrote:
I am asking for a source so that I may understand this. Keep in mind that I edited my post earlier then you responded.

I edited my earlier post to include all the sources, including ones on air, water, and ozone pollution--see my post a few posts above. It's the one Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:01 pm

Headrattle wrote:
I am talking about supply and demand. If the world used as many resources as America, then supply would not meet demand. Sure, we may have enough resources today. But there are more then just Oil and Grain. You have textiles, other fossil fuels, industrial metals, ect... Once again, I am talking about the future and not the present. Just because it might be true now, doesn't mean that it isn't true later.

there is no shortage of cotton or polyester
there is no shortage of any metals
there is no shortage of any fossil fuels
are there any other resources that you would like to claim are in shortage?


you claim there will be shortage in the future. but 1) you have no evidence for that and 2)that is irrelevant. You have to understand how the economy works. Let's say you think cotton will run out. But as cotton becomes more scarce, it will increase the price of cotton. So cotton shirts will become more expensive. So? I don't think that the world will end becuase your shirt at the gap costs $30 instead of $20. Besides, incomes will increase a lot by the year 2050 or the year 2100. People will be much richer than they are today. So a $10 increase in cotton prices or zinc or copper prices is meaningless.

Headrattle wrote:
I misspoke. There aren't enough trees for the globe. There are more trees then 100 years ago, but not then say 200 years ago. If everyone used as many resources as we did there wouldn't be enough. In many cases this is supply meeting supposed demand.

actually, there probably are more trees today than 200 years ago.
trees are farmed like any other plant resource
just like there is enough food to feed everyone, there are enough trees for everyone.

Headrattle wrote: Let me explain again.
All I am saying is that caution is the wiser action. Not a doomsday statement. Not that the end of the world is near. Rather, that the wisest choice might be caution instead of recklessness. That is my only point. Obviously the rest of the world isn't going to use as much resources are we do. However, if they did there would have to be drastic changes to our life style. However, I am simply stating that the future might not be all that bright. It isn't going to be death and destruction, but I would rather solve potention problems now through science and technology then just pretend that the next generations will do it. I would rather live the world in a better situation then I found it.

But I for damn sure don't believe that the Population will peak or platou at 10 billion. I see no explanation for this.

I agree--nothing wrong with caution. As for the population thing--the link is from the UN who has extremely bright people coming up with that assesment of the population plateau. I think they know better than you. Sorry.

But what I am suggesting is that natural resources are not the limiting thing. Humans have progressed in technology, and will likely progress in technology much further, such that natural resources will not be of any major concern. Technology in the future will be far more advanvced than it is today. In 50-100 years, we will be laughing at those who thought that we might experience any oil shortage.

[Headrattle]

ieatfood wrote: actually, there probably are more trees today than 200 years ago.
trees are farmed like any other plant resource
just like there is enough food to feed everyone, there are enough trees for everyone.
Trees require much more time then anyother plant resource. It is most likely not true that there are more trees now then 200 years ago because of the amount of agricultural and industrial area that is now taken up. In most places where people live, on the other side of the Appleation mountains (some exceptions of course) was trees. They grow very well on their own.

Still, trees require decades to grow until they are farmable. As long as you have enough land in order to let decades of trees grow and the rate at which you cut down the trees doesn't infringe upon that rate, you are fine and it is replenishable. If you don't then it isn't. 100 years ago wood was used much more then today and no one was planting new trees. Now we use it less and we plant more trees. However, because of plastics and in some cases style, wood use is, I believe fairly stable.

I'll do some research and get back to you. Been a while (as in years) since I checked this out, so it might have changed.


Quote: I agree--nothing wrong with caution. As for the population thing--the link is from the UN who has extremely bright people coming up with that assesment of the population plateau. I think they know better than you. Sorry.
I investigated your site. I noticed this.

Projections of World Population
No one really knows how large the world's population will be in the future. But we can make educated guesses by looking at past and present trends in two of the components of population growth: births and deaths. The third component, migration, can affect the growth of individual countries, but not to world population.

The chart "Future of world population growth" illustrates three scenarios for population change, depending on levels of fertility. World population is projected to increase to 7.8 billion by 2025, and to reach 8.9 billion by 2050, according to the medium scenario where fertility stabilizes at 2.1 children per women. This projection does not correspond with the doubling time of 51 years associated with the annual growth rate in 2000. The projection assumes that the growth rate will drop slightly by 2020 and continue declining as the century progresses. If the growth rate does fall and the world population reaches 11 billion by 2100, the population will have doubled in about 100 years.

Because most of the world's population growth is likely to continue to be in less developed countries, Asia will continue to hold the majority of the world's people. Africa and Latin America will gain larger shares than they have at present. The population of these regions may increase by 100 percent by 2100, according to moderate projections. In 2100, nearly 90 percent of world population could live in countries currently considered less developed, compared with about 80 percent today.
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Future_Growth/Natural_Increase_and_Future_Growth.htm
The graph looks to platau. That is true. But the population is still doubling in 100 years. And that is with a midrange fertility rate.

Another interesting point.
Population growth and distribution have significant roles to play in the sustainability of the world's vast resources. Not only the number of people, but also the lifestyle, consumption patterns, and regions people inhabit and use directly affect the environment. The relationship between population growth and environmental degradation may appear to be rather straightforward. More people demand more resources and generate more waste. Clearly one of the challenges of a growing population is that the mere presence of so many people sharing a limited number of resources strains the environment. But when looking at the impact of human activities, the situation is more complicated due to the wide variety of government policies, technologies, and consumption patterns worldwide.

The link between population growth and the environment is found somewhere between the view that population growth is solely responsible for all environmental ills and the view that more people means the development of new technologies to overcome any environmental problems. Most environmentalists agree that population growth is only one of several interacting factors that place pressure on the environment. High levels of consumption and industrialization, inequality in wealth and land distribution, inappropriate government policies, poverty, and inefficient technologies all contribute to environmental decline. In fact, population may not be a root cause in environmental decline, but rather just one factor among many that exacerbate or multiply the negative effects of other social, economic, and political factors.

Many of the world's population live in poor countries already strained by food insecurity; inadequate sanitation, water supplies and housing; and an inability to meet the basic needs of the current population. These same countries are also among the fastest growing places in the world. A large proportion of these populations are supported through subsistence agriculture. As populations grow, competition for fertile land and the use of limited resources increases. The people living in these countries are also moving toward a greater standard of living, perhaps matching the lifestyles of the more developed countries whose current consumption patterns and resource use are not necessarily sustainable.
http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Environment4/Environmental_Relationships1.htm

Essentially, your source doesn't completely agree with you.

Quote: But what I am suggesting is that natural resources are not the limiting thing. Humans have progressed in technology, and will likely progress in technology much further, such that natural resources will not be of any major concern. Technology in the future will be far more advanvced than it is today. In 50-100 years, we will be laughing at those who thought that we might experience any oil shortage.
You might be right, but all that means is that the maximum number of people on Earth gets moved back a few centuries. There is of course a limit of the number of people that can live on Earth. Even if it is Theoretical at this moment (but then so is the Population Growth Numbers.)

[ieatfood]

Headrattle wrote:
Trees require much more time then anyother plant resource. It is most likely not true that there are more trees now then 200 years ago because of the amount of agricultural and industrial area that is now taken up. In most places where people live, on the other side of the Appleation mountains (some exceptions of course) was trees. They grow very well on their own.

Still, trees require decades to grow until they are farmable. As long as you have enough land in order to let decades of trees grow and the rate at which you cut down the trees doesn't infringe upon that rate, you are fine and it is replenishable. If you don't then it isn't. 100 years ago wood was used much more then today and no one was planting new trees. Now we use it less and we plant more trees. However, because of plastics and in some cases style, wood use is, I believe fairly stable.

I'll do some research and get back to you. Been a while (as in years) since I checked this out, so it might have changed.

I think the point is, regardless of whether there were more trees than 100 years or 200 years ago, that at some point in the far past, we did fine with the number of trees we had--the world did not come to an end.

Since we have more trees today, i doubt the world will come to an end because of lack of trees. That's the main point.

Headrattle wrote:

No one really knows how large the world's population will be in the future. But we can make educated guesses by looking at past and present trends in two of the components of population growth: births and deaths.
yes--predicting the future is never certain, by definition
but we go by what our best experts say
that's the best we can do
if they say it's going to plateau, then according to the best human knowledge possible, I will assume that it will plateau.



Headrattle wrote:

The graph looks to platau. That is true. But the population is still doubling in 100 years. And that is with a midrange fertility rate.

yes, which goes to my main point. If it plateau's at 10-11 billion and you think that this number is too high to be supported, then we have a problem. But you would have to give me evidence of that.

At the very least, though, no matter what happens, the US will be just fine. The rest of the world might not be doing so hot, but then, what else is new?


Headrattle wrote:
The link between population growth and the environment is found somewhere between the view that population growth is solely responsible for all environmental ills and the view that more people means the development of new technologies to overcome any environmental problems.

I think this is correct. There are three forces going into the future. One is population growth which will hurt the environment. One is income growth which will help the environment. One is technology improvement which will help the enrivonment. The question is--which will win out? I'm not 100% sure, but at the very least, the US will be fine.


Headrattle wrote:
The people living in these countries are also moving toward a greater standard of living, perhaps matching the lifestyles of the more developed countries whose current consumption patterns and resource use are not necessarily sustainable.

Essentially, your source doesn't completely agree with you.

the word sustainable is kinda dirty imho
in the history of mankind, no process has ever been sustainable
and yet, in the history of mankind, humans have done just fine--we have made incredible improvements in the human condition without ever achieving sustainability.
in truth, conditions are never sustainable because conditions are never sustained
our resource usage pattern today is VERY different from our resource usage pattern 100 years ago and it will be VERY different 100 years from now. As technology progresses, natural resources become less and less important as we depend more heavily on synthetic materials and processes.

Headrattle wrote:
You might be right, but all that means is that the maximum number of people on Earth gets moved back a few centuries. There is of course a limit of the number of people that can live on Earth. Even if it is Theoretical at this moment (but then so is the Population Growth Numbers.)

but if the population plateus, then we will never reach that maximum. I don't doubt that there is a theoretical maximum--as it is impossible for an infinite number of people to live on a finite mass. But I am not too concerned with theory.

[Headrattle]

Keep in mind that even when it "plateaus" it is still growing. There won't be a point when we just have the same population (more or less.) Either our population will continue to grow or it will start receding because of something bad like famine or war or disease. However I don't believe that it will stop growing. I find it interesting that we are supposed to find new ways to conserve our resources or create new ones, but new medicines and other health technologies won't decrease the death rate. Sounds a bit odd to me.