There is no greater problem for the world than overpopulation. Overpopulation leads to pollution, causes species extinctions, depletes resources, creates a environment for rapid spread of disease, and generally decreases the quality of life.

This overpopulation will be corrected one way or another. It could be starvation, disease, or widespread warfare. I would prefer it was corrected in an intelligent manner before the damage to the world as we know it is exacerbated.

I have seen little concern for this issue at a political level.

Is there any problem larger than this one for the long term ?
Will this problem correct itself without direct intervention upon it ?

Good topic, Gray Seal.

I would say that the biggest problem is over-population combined with over-consumption, and I don't think that it can be corrected without some form of intervention, but I don't know what an appropriate solution would be. I am curious to know what others' thoughts on this are.

Education and birth control.

Madtown

I agree. It is one of those issues where you get hammered from all sides. If you talk about a woman's right to choose you get hit by the religious right as a baby killer. If you talk about bringing birth control information and clinics into poor minority neighborhoods or countries then you are a racist eugenicist trying to exterminate nonwhites. Businesses want more cheap labor and poor families want to insure they have enough kids to provide for their old age. I can see why politicians don't want to touch the issue.

I think family planning, saving the environment, honest representative government and equitable opportunity have to go hand in hand otherwise one going bad will bring down the others.

Almost Half the Earth Is Still Wilderness

According to the article, "The 37 wilderness areas identified in the report represent 46 percent of the Earth's land surface, but are occupied by just 2.4 percent of the world's population, excluding urban centers."

So we're only using 54% of the planet.

Is this overpopulation?

Mike

How much of that wilderness is inhabitable though? I suspect large parts of it are mountain and desert, and its difficult to live in those areas. Esp. the desert in Africa, where there is little technology to survive out there, and few plants and animals.

What is the biggest problem for humanity?

Inhumanity.

I agree that overpopulation is the greatest source of problems on this planet. Many have argued against this position by pointing out that 6 billion people could fit into the state of Texas, each having something like 10 acres of land. I am sorry, but this is the most bone-headed argument around!

A single human being, in the course of a 70-year life span, consumes and produces.

The consumption can be measured in gallons of water for drinking, bathing, and lifestyle support. Another measure would be gallons of petroleum, kilowatts of electricity, board feet of lumber, and so on.

The production can be measured in gallons of waste fluid and square feet of solid waste.

I dare say that the more advanced a civilization gets, the more that individuals in that civilization consume and produce. As the world's civilizations advance, and as the population doubles every so many years, the associated problems of consumption and production increase.

So what's the answer? I can see only two options: take proactive steps to control population or let Ma Nature take care of it in the classical ways--disease, starvation, and war. My hopeful side thinks the human race will figure this out over the next few generations. My defeatist side thinks that hard rains are going to fall in the form of extremely virulent diseases, possibly unleashed unwittingly through some laboratory experiment that went bad or from genetic engineering that got out of hand. Maybe a bio war will erupt too.

However, I'm sticking with the hopeful side because certain advancements have come about. The morning-after pill is one, and the observation that more advanced societies tend to have low birth rates is another.

But what about the cheap labor industry needs? One word: robotics. Food? Synthesis. Money? Well now, that is an interesting thing--money. I've commented on this before--the human race has to drop the abstract idea of money. I'm not sure just where this will go, though. My faith is that our species will figure out something better because we have been blessed with big brains, expansive imaginations, and undying curiosity.

I'll second that.

Inhumanity. Tell me more about it as the biggest problem.

Science could answer everything. Providing a higher standard of living (with robotics) it could further a more advanced society and consequently result in lower birth rates and less population.

AuthorMusician writes:more advanced societies tend to have low birth rates .

Dominant culture in America is presently reproducing at a slower rate than its subcultures. I imagine this is because it is more educated or more "advanced" technologically / medically.

But, if one believes that the goal of humans is to spread their genes, - when science shifts the focus to quality offspring instead of quantity or eliminates the need to reproduce altogether- doesn't scientific "advancement" work against society's survival ? Although low birth rates may be the ideal, they may work against a society when there are other countries and subcultures that continue to have high birth rates.

jjirout

Overpopulation as the biggest problem of humanity? Maybe overpopulation of government employees and lawyers is a problem, but not overpopulation of the world.

If it indeed is the world's biggest problem, then war is a good thing. It reduces the number of people on this planet.

Why not also institute a one child policy for the entire world just like China?

What do I see as the biggest problem of humanity? Selfishness.

People care more about themselves than other people. People care more about how to please themselves now than considering the consequences on themselves, others, and their descendents.

[SIZE=14]MUSIC

I SAY MUSIC (RAP AND HARD ROCK ESP ) IS POLUTING THE MINDS OF THIS GENERATION

OH YEAH, VOLUME TOO!!

[SIZE=7]L. Zeved

Inhumanity is essentially a lack of compassion or charity - or a penchant for cruelty; a failure or inability to identify and/or sympathise with our fellows. Selfishness, like pride and greed, would be a component of inhumanity. I believe that all human ills stem from this - including overpopulation, overconsumption, the ruthless exploitation of others, and loud music.

Man's inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn.
-- Robert Burns

Hee hee...Music?! No way. All music, at some point has been the movement of rebellion, and I dont usually think thats the a problem of humanity....

I think Im going to jump on the bandwagon and agree with Wertz and Cyan.

Even the chicken littles at the UN expect the world's population to stabilize at about 12 billion. Other, more credible, researchers expect it to peak at around 9.3 billion and then creep downward. New technologies will also lower current man-made pollution.

Even if the population is going to stabilize at 10 billion or so our present 6 billion + already seems like too many. Critical to the question is what is the environmental trend line. Is there anybody who could give us accurate feedback on whether we are overall going forward or backward on things like water pollution including degrading of our underground aquifers, condition of topsoil including the amount of greenery, particularly trees, which supply our oxygen, the condition of the sea, air pollution, maintaining species diversities and the monitoring their human caused destruction, and of course the advance of the greenhouse affect which could cause major world wide disruption.

Then of course there is the specifically political side to all this. WMD's particularly nuclear could definitely make this an unfriendly place. I think less people means less tensions and less numbers contributing to these problems.

Well,Dingo, you may get your wish. New biological weapons are capable of wiping out 95% of mankind and leaving our environment intact. Great news!

Maybe great news for you. I would rather we do it sensibly by having less children and getting rid of our WMDs and polluting ways.

I believe that overpopulation is not a problem down the road. It exists today. It takes many forms. In Somalia, there are more people than their land can support which leads to starvation. In Venezuela, over population leads to strife as people compete for a standard of living their country can not provide for all in their country. In the United States, observe city living vs. rural life. Clearly when humans are packed more densely it leads to stress and conflict.

Personally, I have seen areas in this country which used to be vacant. I could stand at a spot and know there was not hardly anyone within 30 miles of me. Now I can see night lights in the distance in the same spot. I can drive anywhere in Illinois and never find a spot which does not have a multitude of residences visible.

Looking at geological records, never has a single species dominated the world as humans do today. I have an innate appreciation for biological diversity. Seeing wildlife is a big plus. Seeing non-human affected environments is a plus. It is an ill wind of too many humans scattering across the face of the world.

Quality of life is very important. The potential is limited by the current number of humans.

-------

As to inhumanity, I still do not get the point. Is it inhuman to not send over food to feed Somalians ? Is it inhuman to not send them goods and materials to raise their standard of living ?

Biology has shown that life forms are in constant battle for survival with environmental conditions and other life. Humans are part of this. Human's main rival for a niche in the biosphere is other humans. As much of a pacifist I am in my own life, I can not deny this and hope I am prepared to compete at a different level if I had to. Is it inhuman to compete with other humans ?

This could be a good subject into itself so I will start a thread.

As to being the biggest problem, inhumanity does not seem to be a problem to be solved. It is rather human to be "inhuman" depending on the circumstances. It seems to be a different sort of discussion.

--------

Does advanced society have lower birth rates ? How about thinking of it more as the status of women instead ? As the status of women in a society is raised, birth rates drop.

--------

I have no doubt the human population will stabilize at some point. I just rather it be done in a thoughtful manner as opposed to squeezing every last possible biomass percentage we can from the earth. Do some of you think we should have as many people as feasibly possible ? Is maximum quantity of humans a goal ?

No! We need to have more than enough resources to survive and more than enough land to live on so we can escape each other sometimes. I believe in the values of wilderness and diversity. I would like to see a population well below what it is now. Let communities decide for themselves what is a good number for them and have a lot of say in what that community should look like and what should be its sustaining elements.

I agree that you can't point directly to inhumanity as the problem. Like a mean dog that's been kicked and mistreated, people generally respond in kind to what life has dealt them. Change the conditions.

The fact is in 1875 Scientific American had an article predicting we would all be knee deep in horse manure by now. New technologies prevented that. Infant technologies today, super lubricants, hydrogen fuel cells, etc., will eventually both reduce pollution and lower energy costs. There is little need for government intervention. The dismal predictions of Malthus are, and forever will be, wrong.

Our worlds greatest problem, as I tried to hint at earlier, is biological weapons. Scientists have altered one cell in a mousepox gene that makes this highly contagious disease 100% fatal to humans with no vaccine available. One or two individuals in a lab the size of your living room can unleash death and destruction on a scale the world has never seen.

Technology will solve the pollution problem, if it does not kill us all first.

The specific predictions of Malthus may have been off but the general principle holds. Unchecked biology outruns its resource base. I think it might be useful to include with man his dumb and much abused cousins the domesticated animals. Cattle from what I understand already outnumber mankind and are increasing rapidly and taking the forests with them. I'm sure most have heard the horror stories of all the pollution immanating from those lovely pig farms.

Considering the amount of hype I have been hearing over the years these new nonpolluting technologies are coming along awfully slow. How about loading up government buildings with photovoltaics and giving the business a shot in the arm?

By the way government intervenes in everything and businesses intervene in government. But I guess people still want to live in their laisse faire fantasies. Who do you think pays for political campaigns? And from a positive standpoint why do you think we have any smog control devices at all?

As to the high tech doomsday nightmare I think we need to get off this idea that we should follow any avenue science might take us. In fact I think we need to set drastic limits on where science can go. As Hugo has suggested it may have reached the point where a couple of sick tech whizzes can turn us into an extinct species. That's not the only bio-horror scenario I've heard discussed. I read a Bill Joy article along the same lines.

This is rather an extraordinary statement. I have not heard of a disease capable of 100% mortality in any species. I am extremely dubious of such a claim.

Disease is a valid concern. The potential for a highly virulent pathological disease (10 to 70% mortality) to spread across the global human population is real. This is another theme to support the case for overpopulation. Overpopulation is leaving humans highly susceptible to such diseases. Diseases can not spread as rapidly when the contacts between potential hosts is less. Disease is not just the result of weapons. Such diseases will occur without the helping hand of man.

Overpopulation as a term seems to describe the point at which, as was mentioned earlier, a biological system outgrows it's available resources.

We humans have what is effectively an unlimited resource base on this world IF we manage/develop/maintain them appropriately. Deserts that have been created by mankind can also be reversed into tropics by mankind. The oceanic currents alone along with the water resources that could be harnessed simultaneously alongside pipeline technologies, ETC. can effectively quash any attempt at arguing "not enough resources". We are technologically capable of making the term "overpopulation" a thing of fiction. POLITICALLY, we are still cavemen and probably doomed to extinction... (k thats MY defeatist perspective), however, with new levels of multi-cultural and poly-religious tolerance being achieved on a global scale every day, I hold hope that one day we will be wise enough as a species to curb all forms of industry which do not have a positive nurturing effect on people and the environment in which they exist, e.g., gasoline as a source of fuel.... relegated to the history books as a great accomplishment of its time, but environmentally unconscionable, clear-cutting or burning entire forests for ANY reason, also, environmentally unconscionable. Toxic materials which are not recycled? Again... I am effectively looking forward to a day when there is "no stone unturned" and "no opportunity not reached for" in the global environment improvement realm. This holds what I believe the promise of renewed vigor in industry, education, and global "quality of life" issues.

Ultimately, I believe that there is more a case of "mis-management of resources" vs a case of "overpopulation". I attribute our lack of meaningful progress while being fully capable of such progress is the "proven as doomed" continuing efforts on any or all "establishments" to maintain the fictional "Status-quo" (far as I can tell.. the status-quo is a lack of an intelligent status-quo). The stronger a thing is... the harder it fights to resist anything that threatens that strength... seemingly, at all costs. Our historic "way of life" is not a "sacred thing". If we fight or resist changes to "our way of life", then we as much spit on the graves of all who fought to give us this way of life, as much as any who would try to destroy that way of life. We as Americans should fear no change. We are usually proud of being the ones who make those changes.

Are you saying there is no limit to the number of people we can sustain on Earth ?



To me mismanagement of resources is one of the results of overpopulation. I can not figure out how to separate the two.

I am not sure I am getting the true picture if the world you envision. Unlimited humans adopting a new way of life while not ecologically altering the earth gives me the idea people are stacked warehouse style somewhere with intravenous feeding.

Effectively, I do not see any reason for a need to limit the number of people. We have tremendous resources being exhausted on less than ideal use of said resources... One little example is when people who build homes in a tornado prone place see those homes destroyed and then... seemingly without regard for what just happened rebuild in the same place using the same technology... How many "board feet" must have been misappropriated for that kind of construction and land use?

Yes I do think that there is some inherent "stacking" of people involved, but the intravenous part... You know I think we're already there. HAHA... Gimme my "help me digest this stuff passing for food" pills...

Resources are where you find them, and what you make of them. Board feet can be "replaced" by "fiber count". Clean water is either where you find it or nowadays, where you can make it... It is only because of technology that I don't share the view of inseparability of the 2 terms. There IS free electricity.. just waiting for us to harness it. Doing so requires the hardware and initial manpower investment.... but that is still a more return than expense type of resource for us nowadays. Water... is a byproduct of free electricity in this day and age.. Free electricity... free water and no limit to either. Food production is more a function of Socio-Political mechanics than any real concern. This is a planet full of life and opportunity for life, and there are lots of "inhospitable" places that we could stack people comfortably, again, thanks to technology, and with the added benefit of staving off environmental impact per population growth in these areas. I realize that these "inhospitable" places are themselves delicate ecosystems, but even that can be "worked with".

I would venture to state that our current global and local political structures are incompatible with the mechanisms which hold the promise of unlimited resources, therefor, overpopulation is not a fiction.

Too many people thrown together don't think right. They tend to think like people playing musical chairs. I'd like to shoot toward getting the population of the world down to less than 1 billion at least. Let's put it this way, can anybody think of any advantage to having more people? ANY advantage? Now can anybody think of any advantages to having less people? It seems to that question a cornacopia opens up.

I think it's a question that should be asked generation after generation until the answer balances out. The discovery of that moment when you look outside and you say "gee, I wish there were a few more people living around here, we sure have enough resources to go around." That's ground zero. It would probably be a fairly low tech society but who cares? As long as general satisfaction prevails and no wars are necessary.

In theory... well.. common sense but not economic....

More people means less work for each individual to need to perform in order to enjoy life. And unless you gots a "healthy" antisocial streak, more people is better than less people. More friends, more lovers, more great music, more art, and more importantly than all of those, more perspectives to help us to remain as pragmatic as possible about our place in the world.

Course.. you could run the other way...

More people means... More killers.. more child-abusers... more foul-mouthed miscreants, more lawyers, more insurance industry exectutives... hahaha... more "protection money" sellers... more paranoiacs... more.. uh... more other stuff too. That STILL means that the world is overall a better place to live 'cause that would mean there are more peaceful productive people around to help make all that other "more" stuff manageable... as we push ourselves around, having survived, we are stronger for it... unless it kills us.

I read somewhere that using the same population density as New York city you could put the entire worlds population in Texas. That leaves a whole lotta planet out there.

But you do have a point. The population is growing beyond the planets ability to support us. Where there are people we cannot grow food. Where there are deserts we can grow neither people nor food.

What I notice is there are a lot of people that see problems. There are very few that offer viable answers. What many of you imply or come right out and say is that you want to limit the number of humans allowed to live. Think about that man. What if someone made that same decision 50 years ago? How many of us would not be here today? Is it right for us to today to decide who will be allowed to live 20, 30, 50 years from now? Of course not. It is however prudent to prepare the world for their coming. It is prudent for us to look to alternatives. Everyday almost we make breakthroughs that prolong life. Is this not what we should do? Even the Bible says the span of a mans life shall be 120 years. As mans life expectancy increases so will the population exponentially. So why not come up with a viable answer?

Why not allow every human a right to propagate and every human a right to exist? All we have to do is prepare for the eventual future NOW.

Consider this plan.
A readers digest version...welcome to poke holes in it if you like..

One of the basic drives we as humans have is the desire to reproduce. However we have a finite amount of arable land on the Earth. Thus we must begin the task of moving off of the Earth. Think of the problems that could be solved if there were a global effort, led by the UN possibly, to begin an all out global space program. The space station is small potato's. What we need is to colonize the moon and beyond. It is much easier to work in 1/6th gravity than it is in 0 gravity. It is possible to build domes etc. On the moon and then terra form under the glass.

Now before you quit reading think this part through. One of the biggest gains of such a venture would be JOBS. Consider how whole countries in Africa can be hired to produce the high grade tempered Glass required to build some of the structures. As an example. Consider the technology advances, the research and development generated. Imagine this being spread out over the entire globe. A supply base the likes of which dwarfs the Big three auto makers. From the economy generated in many third world nations a tax base is established based on GDP. Every nation is part of the supply base in one form or another. Even North Korea could participate and Cuba. Imagine the redistribution of wealth that could take place all with a common goal. Immediate benefits to man are innumerable. Long term benefit to man is obvious.


Well its just an idea...I am not the first nor shall I be the last to have it. I simply suspect I live in the first age where it could actually be possible.
What do you think? Could we convince the world it is for everyone's good? Would it be the beginning to a viable solution to the overcrowding issue?

GBYA

Aahz

I guess I have a healthy antisocial streak. I like space and I like to have the option of deciding whether and when I want any of those human goodies you mentioned. I certainly don't want them shoved down my throat.

I bet Adam and Eve got it on pretty good and wouldn't have wanted their forest hide-away knocked down to accomodate the many billions you seem to think are so socially and culturally necessary.

Give me one Julia Butterfly Hill.

Dingo so in other words you are more concerned about YOUR own personal comfort than that of other humans.
It amazes me that you care more about a tree than the life of another human being. Since you brought up Adam and Eve, you are wrong I fear. In fact Adam and Eve were told to fill the Earth and subdue it. You should see the wide open spaces left on Earth that can be inhabited they just aren't. There are vast areas that could easily sustain life for billions of people.

rather than play God and decide who lives and who dies how about playing a role you are much better equipped for, Human and work on an answer that is inclusive of everyone's rights. Not just your own...


GBYA

Aahz

I am. It's called bringing homo sapeans and the environment into balance.

Do you see a future the way things are going now?

YES!!!

I absolutely see a future the way things are going.
In fact I see a future that will make the last few years pale in comparison. I see man spreading into the solar system. I see large space stations with huge populations. I see biospheres on the Moon in my lifetime. I see mind married to machine and the actual potential for eternal life in a virtual world. I see mind driven space craft that will one day travel the stars. Yes indeed Dingo I see a future. I see man achieving a life span of over 120 years. I see even that not being the end of our ability to interact with friends and family in the future. Dude I see things in the future of mankind not even dreamt of by some of the finest sci fi minds ever in print...

Economically viable Hydrogen fuel cells- 15 years

Inhabitable space station- 12 years

Beginning structures on the Moon- 25 years

Life expectancy raised to 100 years- 17 years

Stem cell grown replacement organs- 10 years

defeat of genetic disease- 20 years



These are just my guesses based on what I see happening today and the rapid growth of technology coupled with the need to create jobs world wide.

Check my sig line man that should tell you how I see it..


GBYA
Aahz

Ok let me also throw in this....Any Liberals or so called bleeding hearts avert your attention now please...


Dingo...ya wanna do something about world population? Then do NOTHING about it. Let me explain the logic. You say we should achieve balance between the environment and mankind. That could also be said a balance between nature and man yes?

This being the case the best way for man to balance with nature is to leave it be and allow the natural progression of the laws of evolution to take place.

to wit Africa.....The absolute most evil thing we can do for the starving people of Africa is feed them. Why is that you may ask? Certainly nuking them is more evil than feeding them...no it isnt and here is why.(not condoning nuking anyone so calm down folks..

We cannot feed them all enough every day to keep them 100% healthy. It simply cannot be done. What we can do is feed most of them enough to keep them alive. Now since they do not have any agriculture to speak or, nor and industry to speak of, they have very little to do with their days and nights. They gather and eat then disperse and....propagate. What do we do? Show the little starving children with their distendant bellies and fly's crawling all over them on TV as often as possible so the people will send more money for more food so they can make more babys they can show on TV.

Some extremist say they should sterilize a percentage of African females. That seems a bit inhumane to me. That is man thinking he is smarter than God again.

Nature's (read God's) laws are quite simple yet very complex. Survival of the fittest exists for a reason. In Africa if we had stayed away and let the people fight it out they would be much better off today. It is the natural order of things. If you populate the land beyond the point of the lands capability to support the populace. You will have mass famine and disease. It is natures way of correcting the situation. The disease and famine is not so severe as to wipe out the entire population in most cases it is only enough to thin it out to more manageable levels.

There are those who believe that mans violent nature is a natural law in it's most supreme form. Perfectly executed automatically when overpopulation becomes a problem.

So as I say Dingo..if you want balance with the world and nature. Do nothing to interfere with natures laws.

For those who will argue...'So when we get sick we should just let nature take it's course?" In many cases yes. In some cases nature has provided a method for us to heal our selves...the brain... i.e. Doctors etc. This however applies on the micro not the macro level.


GBYA

Aahz

Oops, didn't avert my eyes.

That is perhaps the most amazing combination of bleeding heart idealism without a hint of fear of the sci-fi unintended consequences horror film possibilities raised by a lot of those lofty thoughts,

combined with a grisly theory akin to the iron law of wages. Africa has many problems, but many of those were visited upon the continent during the late 19th and early 20th century land grab. Others such as ethnic nationalism were borrowed form Europe and viciously applied to themselves. Survival of the fittest does not apply to our society. Why should we apply it to sub-Saharan Africa.

Africa was capable of feeding itself through 1970 and the continent has the land that is capable of sustaining its 720 million or so population. Perhaps tough love would work there, but I think the result will be an emerging leadership that can focus on the problems of the people and not the problems of remaining in power. It is not that the sub-Saharan Africans were not civilized enough to rule themselves as the Victorians liked to think. It is that they tried to incorporate European ideas (ethnic nationalism, democracy, socialism) all at once.

Development and mechanized agriculture for consumption rather than export would be a good start.

Social Darwinism. Uggh.

Well sir you do very well throwing words together that mean little. Perhaps you would like to discuss these "lofty thoughts" and their Horror film possibilities.

You say Africa could support itself until 1970? What happened to change that other than all these ism's you like to throw around? In laymans terms what is the problem?

I dont see the future as a bleak and desolate place full of famine etc. This makes me an idealistic bleeding heart? LMAO I see well actually it makes me a futurist doesnt it?...LOL The man asked a question I gave him an answer only to be ridiculed by one lesser than the inquisitor....One who seems to have no original ideas of his own only the beaten, tired old liberal line worn out years ago.

If you read back a little ways my opinion is we should be pulling the world together to move on. Stimulate a world economy based on a global need to expand beyond this planet. Yeah I know more lofty idealistic goals...but fortunately there are a great number of us out there that feel the same way. Thank God and George Bush we are back in control again...

Not a terribly original idea I admit but at least it is an answer rather than just mudslinging verbiage so typical of a whipped lib....

GBYA

Aahz

The biggest problem facing humanity is the persistently worshipped myth of the ego.

Hey Aahz,

Is it the Africans that have nuclear weapons?

Is it the Africans that have biological weapons?

Is it the Africans that have chemical weapons?

Is it the Africans that have micro and macro technologies that could end life on this earth?

Is it the Africans that came to Europe and America and enslaved and colonized the people and exploited their resources?

Is it the Africans who are using up the earths resources like starving hogs?

Modern industrial states have developed in a manner that while providing their citizens with lots of goodies have left us on the brink of annihilation. Is this a good survival strategy?

I think you are a little fast and loose with your facts. "No agriculture to speak of?" Are you joking? Most Africans live off of cultivation or grazing as they have for many generations. Why do you think they are here? Free McDonalds shipments? Perhaps you just felt you could nail some point or something.

As far as how we help them. Food, medicine, community development, education and birth control programs for starters. I think the elements should be integrated so we don't simply create a class of procreating dependent refugees. I'm not under the illusion that we can save everybody, particularly with this huge AIDS epidemic. But we can work with them to help build viable future societies. Anything wrong with that? What the hell are we on this earth for if not to help are neighbors.

If you believe in that Social Darwinist *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** then let's push for open borders and have everybody competing with everybody everywhere - mano a mano. How does that grab you?

Let's talk seriously for a change. If we are going to keep fear and distrust in check and have enough for everybody we need to cut down on our resource gluttony and lower our presence on this earth. I know there is a lot of ego and short term self interest riding on the other way of thinking but it's going to get us all killed.

Inhabitable space stations as an answer? Give me a break! Talk about pie-in-the-sky escapism.

More trees, less people. That's a good place to start.

Aahz! Please avoid that - if only to spare me having to type stuff about blanket statments and broad generalizations (Or possibly to uphold the integrity of the rest of your post )

Do you have any idea how silly you sound? One one hand you are rushing to help your neighbor survive on the other a tree is more imporatnt than a human...LOL you cant have it both ways man. Pick a position and stand on it duingo dont be a typical lib waffel huh?


GBYA

Aahz

Actually, I appreciated the idealism. It sounded like the stuff that many liberals are accused of when they are accused of being bleeding hearts. I applaud your hope for the future.

As for the Social Darwinsism, (sorry about the ism) I see this as completely contradictory to that sentiment and I see it as a vision of a world with a dark future.

Howdy eyore,

My bad was feeling a bit honery yesterday..

I think back in the 60's and 70's these ideas were more idealism than speculation. Today it is almost like there is no Science fiction anymore. Only Speculative fiction....

To me being a bleeding heart is letting the want to save a small fish over ride ones logic thus daming a stream and robbing hard working farmers of the natural gift of water. That sir is a bleeding heart. The folks that make video tapes on what is safe to eat from the dumpster for homeless people. that is a bleeding heart.

Social darwinism is obviously not something I am terribly convinced of. I simply thought it would make for an interesting angle to counter Dingo..

As I stated I think we need to allow all humans the right to exist even the ones yet to be born. So rather than alter the natural progression of man we should take advantage of it and build out...


GBYA

Aahz

Aahz,



Do you mind if I do a minor rewrite to make it readable? I had a little problem navigating it the first time.

Do you have any idea how silly you sound? On the one hand you are rushing to help your neighbor survive, on the other hand a tree is more important than a human...LOL. You cant have it both ways man. Pick a position and stand on it dingo. Dont be a typical lib waffel, huh?

Hope I got it right. As to the issue, it's a matter of balance. Right now people are out of balance with the trees. Being in balance with nature offers no contradiction with helping your neighbor, get it!

Curious how much of my post you chose to avoid. I'll accept your concession on those points.

Hey Aahz,

Is it the Africans that have nuclear weapons?

Do not see the relevance to this conversation. You are complaining about overpopulation I am pointing to one of the most over populated places on Earth and asking a question. How does this answer that question?

Is it the Africans that have biological weapons?

Yes in a way, Aids and Ebola come to mind.

Is it the Africans that have chemical weapons?

See above

Is it the Africans that have micro and macro technologies that could end life on this earth?

Again what has that to do with population. That is a technology argument and does not play here. In the words of the man...That dog wont hunt..


Is it the Africans that came to Europe and America and enslaved and colonized the people and exploited their resources?

Again what has that to do with over population? But since you asked yes look into the 700 years the Moores occupied Spain, Sicily, Parts of Greece I believe etc.

Is it the Africans who are using up the earths resources like starving hogs?

In fact it is. You see the Africans did exactly that they produced more mouths to feed than the land could support. In fact Africa is a perfect example of over consumption.



Modern industrial states have developed in a manner that while providing their citizens with lots of goodies have left us on the brink of annihilation. Is this a good survival strategy?

Yes indeed it is, you see as long as the good guys are in control these little genies stay in the bottle. It is the madmen that need to be contained like Hussein for instance. from those same weapons and technologies you have atomic power, a good thing by most accounts, the internet was born of the military and not Al Gore as some think..hehe

I think you are a little fast and loose with your facts. "No agriculture to speak of?" Are you joking? Most Africans live off of cultivation or grazing as they have for many generations. Why do you think they are here? Free McDonalds shipments? Perhaps you just felt you could nail some point or something.


I said no agriculture to speak of. I didnt say absolutely none. Grazing is not agriculture. The only farming the Africans know is what they have been taught dude. Check your history.

As far as how we help them. Food, medicine, community development, education and birth control programs for starters. I think the elements should be integrated so we don't simply create a class of procreating dependent refugees. I'm not under the illusion that we can save everybody, particularly with this huge AIDS epidemic. But we can work with them to help build viable future societies. Anything wrong with that? What the hell are we on this earth for if not to help are neighbors.

Yes there is much wrong with that. None of the things you mention are actually successful. We have tried it doesnt work. One scholar said to change Africa you must kill every man and woman over the age of 5. It has simply gone to far. Now I do not condone genocide as I stated earlier I will take an angle of devils advocate to expose your ideas for what they are. And I can argue this side quite effectively if required.

If you believe in that Social Darwinist *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** then let's push for open borders and have everybody competing with everybody everywhere - mano a mano. How does that grab you?

I would be quite comfortable with that.

Let's talk seriously for a change. If we are going to keep fear and distrust in check and have enough for everybody we need to cut down on our resource gluttony and lower our presence on this earth. I know there is a lot of ego and short term self interest riding on the other way of thinking but it's going to get us all killed.

Inhabitable space stations as an answer? Give me a break! Talk about pie-in-the-sky escapism.

I see so it is better to just limit the number of children folks can have? Or shall we march everyone into an annihilation chamber on their 30th Birthday? I say your solution is dark and foreboding not to mention self serving. While mine is full of answers and technology. The wonders of the Galaxy and beyond. I would say if we took a world wide poll my solutions are favored over yours.. Wanna bet?

More trees, less people. That's a good place to start.

More people, More jobs, More technology, more adventure.

There you go...Just didnt see much that you said as worth commenting on but since you insist.

GBYA

Aahz

Aahz,


Let's see, how do we phrase the question? How about, "Do you want us to let everything go to hell while we engage in a long shot technological crap shoot that's probably gonna end up getting us all killed?"

That seems like a fair question. My guess is, you lose that poll.

Let's not forget you brought up Africa. The relevance had to do with focusing on the title of this post - "What is the biggest problem for humanity", not just population per say. Since you seemed to put the onus on Africa as being the principle representative of the problem, I simply turned the search light on a more important target, the developed west with it's WMD's and huge resource consumption.

Your replies, to put it nicely, were nonserious and silly.

As to the resource hog comments, do you really want me to dredge up comparatives between an American's use of things like water and energy(Including pollution contribution) as compared to an African's? Remember the overpopulation issue goes hand in hand with the per capita consumption. By the way I never said Africa wasn't overpopulated, but so are we at our present consumption level.

Apparently you are still under the impression that agriculture is trivial and was introduced by Europeans. I would say that is on par with other statements you have offered. Check your history, present and past.

I brought up the slavery, colonial issue because you seemed a bit chauvinistic about the industrial west so I thought it might be fair to focus on the historical source of a lot of Africa's problems.

It's incredible that you think there is NO kind of aid, no matter how intelligently thought through, that can bring help to Africa. How about birth control devices and use education as a minimum since we both agree that overpopulation is an issue?



Ever hear of accidents? Ever hear of good guys becoming bad guys? Once the technology gets developed it eventually spreads to everybody just like any weapon in history. The very existence of these weapons is the bottom line threat and if we don't eliminate them internationally pretty soon that evil genie is coming out of the bottle whether we like it or not.



Would you like to take a poll on that one?

My ideas envision a happy reasonable future. Yours are dark and technologically terminal. You are simply too rigidly ideological, technocratic, factually challenged and lacking in a sense of the probabilities. I like my more balanced and humane and common sense approach, based on realities we already know. No one has to be guillotined at 30. Just cut down on the baby making and be more realistic about resource use, social planning and environmental management as we diminish are numbers and overpresence on this fragile planet.

How about we phrase it exactly how it is.

How should we deal with overpopulation?

You say forced contraception I say technology. It is quite simple.

You tried to divert the course of the conversation because you found no solid ground on which to stand. The answers to your questions about Africa are direct and accurate.

I said there has been and is not any agriculture to speak of in Africa. When I look at the food production of the USA compared to Africa I see that as a valid comment.

Why is it that because YOU are an extremist I must be by default?

Remember I am not an extremist...I said we need to deal with population not decide who lives, who dies, who is allowed to procreate and who isnt. These are not choices I wish to be responsible for. I am only another human on this planet. I for one am glad that nobody decided my Parents had their limit of children...otherwise I wouldn't be here. Cant you see that what you propose is evil? It is denying the basic right of life to people not even dreamt of yet. Wrong man that's all it is is wrong.

I think balance can be achived via technology. If not for technology we would all still be in caves....Which I presume would suit you fine..

I also didnt say anywhere that I supported Social darwinsism or lifeboat ethics. I merely used it to illustrate a point. I was pointing out that logic would state that YOU should believe in it to support your argument.. It's just a mind game man ....personally I think they should take 100 children from each starving nation and send them to the industrialized nations for an education in engineering. Teach them how to build desalinization plants and canals. Teach the Modern farming techniques that do not drain the land of nutrients. You cant do it in masse in country and expect to have an effect it simply wont work without occupation etc. This is a long term virtually guarenteed plan that would result in a self sufficient Africa. Divert some of the funds being spent on food to the education and construction process. Allow the rest of the folks to fight it out for whats left. We need the strongest and the smartest when the educated adults return. This is a purely logical approach, no emotion no heart right? Think again....it would be successful isnt that the goal?

You remind me of a story....The Exxon Valdiz...$80,000 per sea otter to clean them up. First one is ready for release and when they did a killer whale ate it a few yards from shore. Yeah buddy that was money well spent...

Again I say my replies are direct and to the point. Your complaint is overpopulation IS the biggest problem facing the world. At first I said it is not because there is an answer for over population. There is an answer that is better than yours.

You are trying to confuse the issue now drifting towards other problems with the world. Obviously you have decided that you do not have a viable solution for overpopulation. So now we move on to pollution? Thats fine with me but donut accuse me of doing what you are doing here....Changing topics in the middle of the stream ..


We use more resources in the USA than any other nation on Earth. No doubt about it. So whats your point? Many of those resources are renewable. Some are not. Do you know the difference? I ask because you keep talking about trees. Trees are the most easily renewed resource on earth. Water? the world is 70%+ water there seems to be plenty. However only through technology will we be able to get at it.

There are more green plants on Earth today than ever in the history of the planet.

Prairie Grasses exchange very little CO2 etc with the atmosphere. However fast growing grains such as Corn and wheat exchange vast quantities of so called green house gasses.

Ozone? All of the sudden we discovered a hole in the Ozone. Then the treehuggers decided this hole never existed before and it was getting bigger. Then a few years later they patted them selves on the back because it got slightly smaller then bigger again...Then finally science decided hey maybe that is just the natural cycle of that phenomenon...Imagine that....maybe it has always been there..Wow what a concept. Now you dont hear much about it anymore.

Now it is green house gasses etc.

Did you know that one decent volcano eruption puts more green house gasses in the air in a single day than Man has since the industrial revolution began?

Did you know that every time lightning strike on this planet it creates Ozone?

I get a big kick out of all the folks wearing 'Save the planet" Shirts etc. We haven't effected this planet a bit. Considering what Mother Earth has been through we are a minor nuisance at best. What you mean to say is "Save the Humans" Isnt it? I mean if we destroy our environment the Earth will still be here it will be us that is gone. But wait you take that even one step further...You want to save the humans but only those you think deserve saving...

Here is an interesting idea for you to ponder. No matter what we do there are only so many carbon atoms and so many Oxygen atoms on earth. This is a finite number. We are not getting anymore...but we cannot destroy what we have. You see these things are elements born in the sun. You cannot destroy an element. You can combine it etc. But it is still just an atom of an element.

ALL things revert to there simplest most stable form eventually....so it stands to reason that no matter what we do the planet will go on. Life will find a way. hehe....So lets talk about whats really bothering you? It isnt overpopulation because you dont really want to take the most logical actions to solve that problem. Pollution isnt nearly the monster y'all are trying to make it out to be. So what IS the biggest problem on the planet?



Last item....I believe in true free trade. That is an entirely different subject however so we can discuss it elsewhere. I support open borders and free trade just leave it at that..

GBYA

Aahz

Aahz:

[quote]How should we deal with overpopulation?

You say forced contraception I say technology. It is quite simple.[/quote]

Forced contraception? Now where did I say that?

[quote] You tried to divert the course of the conversation because you found no solid ground on which to stand. The answers to your questions about Africa are direct and accurate.[/quote]

Africans engage in chemical and biological warfare? Give me a break.

[quote] I said there has been and is not any agriculture to speak of in Africa. When I look at the food production of the USA compared to Africa I see that as a valid comment[/quote]

You still persist in your strange idea that Africans do very little cultivation and what they do do is a product of Europeans teaching them. Apparently in your view Africans were merely primitive hunter-gatherers who couldn't have come up with something so sophisticated on their own. And they still only do a little. You haven't explained to me yet how with very little agriculture to speak of so many millions have managed to feed themselves for generations. What planet are you living on? By the way, as an historical note cultivation has been traced back to Jericho in 9000 BC.

[quote] Why is it that because YOU are an extremist I must be by default?

Remember I am not an extremist[/quote]

I don't specifically recollect calling you an extremist but in fact you are. Anybody who thinks we can ignore overpopulation, WMDs, and environmental degradation while we wait for some nebulous technofix just around the corner is as about as out of touch and extreme as I can imagine. My position by contrast is moderate, sane, and based on proven principles to wit: lower the population(It's already happening in many industrial countries), switch to appropriate nonenvironmentally degrading technologies, restore clean water, air and topsoil, protect wilderness and biodiversity, cut energy usage and increase nonpolluting sources, build liveable politically responsive communities, see that production contemplates the ultimate restoration of the product as a basic earth constituent etc. All very sound and sane and within our present capacity if we make the commitment.

[quote]I for one am glad that nobody decided my Parents had their limit of children...otherwise I wouldn't be here. Cant you see that what you propose is evil?[/quote]

It seems a bit narcissistic to make an argument having to do with the general good that if such and such had happened I wouldn't be here. If anything changed the sequence in your parents life such as one of them scratching their head differently before conception you probably wouldn't have been born. Do you spend sleepless nights worrying about all the potential births that never happened?

[quote] Trees are the most easily renewed resource on earth. Water? the world is 70%+ water there seems to be plenty. However only through technology will we be able to get at it.[/quote]

It's hard to grow trees in areas that have been paved over. Sure trees are renewable but if you are using the land for other purposes, particularly that do not produce greenery.then so what?

Ever heard about depleting of the underground aquifers? Also do you know about dropping water tables particularly in coastal areas like mine where the result is ocean salt water being sucked into replace it. Have you considered the loss of natural fertility, cleansing flushing of a naturally flowing stream, destruction of wildlife habitat and salmon runs due to the damning up of rivers for urban and agricultural uses? By the way, desalination does have its uses but is very energy intensive and expensive and hardly constitutes a major solution to water shortages.

[quote] There are more green plants on Earth today than ever in the history of the planet.[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The critical concern would be the amount of plant material with chlorophyll to convert CO2 to O2. Are you saying that has increased? I don't believe it. I would like to see your sources. Remember seaweed is a major contributor in this regard which is one reason why our degradation of the oceans is of such concern.

[quote] Did you know that one decent volcano eruption puts more green house gasses in the air in a single day than Man has since the industrial revolution began?[/quote]

That is pure nonsense. Not even close. Where do you come up with this stuff? Common sense alone should have red flagged that one.

[quote] Did you know that every time lightning strike on this planet it creates Ozone?[/quote]

Yes I knew that. So? Apropos of nothing that I can see. No one that I ever heard of ever said the destruction of upper atmosphere ozone was a permanent thing.

[quote] I mean if we destroy our environment the Earth will still be here it will be us that is gone.[/quote]

First thing you've said that I agree with. You can happily contemplate the further evolution of cockroaches to buffer yourself from imagining with sadness the departure of our species.

[quote] But wait you take that even one step further...You want to save the humans but only those you think deserve saving...[/quote]

Typical of most of your attributions to me, they are concocted from some mythical dingo of your fantasies.

[quote] so it stands to reason that no matter what we do the planet will go on.[/quote]

Without us if people like you have their way.

I'm sorry I can't deal with ALL of your comments Aahz because so many of them are in the off topic, so what else is new category that I really can't even find a handle to address them.

Anyway, have a good day.

Dingo

Howdy Dingo,

One cant have a decent debate in sound bites...

But I will try.

Dingo when you say that you would limit people to having only so many children etc. By coercion, law or whatever it is forced contraception. People are not allowed to propagate at will. Now the method you use to enforce this idea of yours is up to question the end result is the same.


no man dont be so shallow...Africa is so underdeveloped etc. (Oh and my bad BTW I thought somewhere we defined the area we were talking about was Sub Saharan Africa. Didnt know Jerhico was in Sub Saharan Africa...my bad.. ) That diseases that would not have much of a chance in developed nations get a good start there and mutate to the point they are quite virulent. This is a bio hazard of an extreme order. You see their "bio weapons" are free of containment and could easily threaten the world.

As for Chemical weapons the see above was the line asking the relevance. Which you never did answer...

In fact yes virtually all of sub Sahara Africa were hunter gatherers. They do not have a modern understanding of agriculture dingo get that through your head man. Show me I am wrong. Show me somewhere south of the Sahara north of South Africa that is not still heavily supported as a"colony" with modern farming techniques.

Why do you reckon that is? No water maybe? Hmmm


Where have I said to ignore any such things? I merely said leave population control out of the mix. By assuming that I do take such an extremist view you expose not only your ignorance but your arrogance as well.

I am all for controlling WMD... I think it a pretty good Idea to see to it that only a few trustworthy nations have the capability to defend the rest. I think it is the only way it will work.

I think the environment is fine but that there are a few things we better watch if we want to continue to live in it. Namely smog around cities near the thermocline. This is a dangerous situation and it is in control.

I got some of my info from here: Environment vs humans
lower the population(It's already happening in many industrial countries)

Umm which industrial countries would that be?

world population

Just checked and couldnt find a single "industrialized nation" with a negative population Growth.



switch to appropriate non environmentally degrading technologies, restore clean water, air and topsoil, protect wilderness and biodiversity, cut energy usage and increase nonpolluting sources, build liveable politically responsive communities, see that production contemplates the ultimate restoration of the product as a basic earth constituent etc. All very sound and sane and within our present capacity if we make the commitment.


Umm how are you going to do all these things? Technology maybe? And umm ya dont reckon that one of the best ways for us to learn how to move into space etc. would be to develop clean energy sources etc....and maybe even terra forming which might actually serve the dual purpose of being employed on Earth? What a concept...Space research etc. benefits mankind...WOW what a revelation that is...


BTW I live in El Paso Texas so we know all about depleting aquifers.

By the way, desalination does have its uses but is very energy intensive and expensive and hardly constitutes a major solution to water shortages.

According to this site you may be mistaken again.
desalination

Again Look around have you ever been out of your area? Ever driven across Arizona or New Mexico? There is lots of land Dingo. Enough for a couple billion more humans easy. Ever been to Montana, Nevada, the Dakotas etc? Lots of land even just here in the USA.
Cool thing about most of that land is that if man moves onto it there arent any trees etc, to be moved. All he needs is water. See Pheonix some time.

Same thing with Africans all they need is fresh water. Why limit humans when we can simply divert the water supply and speed up the process of desalination. Thus allowing all humans to have the same shot at success? Why not? Guess what...Space research would also include water reclamation....No ya dont say...yes really it would...

Do you spend sleepless nights worrying about all the potential births that never happened?

See there ya go again with your condescending tones. IS that all you have? Do you have any actual evidence to back up what you say or just the same old tired drivel the media fills you with during your morning Mocha?

No I do not lose sleep over it but then again I am not responsible for it in anyway either thus it is nature/Gods law in action. So I dont worry about it. What I do worry about is folks that think we should limit the number of children born into the world. To me that is unnatural. Ever held a new born baby in your arms Dingo? Ever looked into a 1 year olds eyes and seen the wonder there as their little brain records and assimilates everything it encounters? "Indeed the most beautiful thing I have ever seen is the smile on the face of a child wondering."

For a person to decide a child is not right for them at a given moment. That is an acceptable thing I think. It is a personal decision that they have made for themselves. For man to pass a law or coerce a person in any way to do so is wrong in my eyes. Even barbaric depending on the methods chosen.

As for my sources on green plants....there are several out there look them up.. Green plants that create O2 huh...oh you mean like the Corn stalks that convert more o2 per plant than any prairie grass it replaced? Or the wheat that is grown twice a year that grows very fast which means it does a lot of photo-synthesizing....Broad leafed fast growing plants do more for scrubbing our atmosphere then any slow growing tree ever will. Look at Phoenix again and Palm Springs etc. These are just a few of many areas of the world that have terra formed an arid environment into a lavish green community of life. Come on man look around the world. Where there were once swamps that did very little for man now there are farms etc. Sea weed is doing fine. Kelp is still very healthy off Cali I understand so whats the problem? Lots of plants exchanging gasses fast growing food plants.

That is pure nonsense. Not even close. Where do you come up with this stuff? Common sense alone should have red flagged that one.

Depends on your definition of decent....Mt.St Helens was nothing compared to some of the really big blows in our history. Check that other site above...or this one more on volcanos

Or just a quick bite. Ya know I dont think man has ever done anything that raised the Earths temp or lowered it by that much.

Volcanic eruptions can alter the climate of the earth for both short and long periods of time. For example, average global temperatures dropped about a degree Fahrenheit for about two years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and very cold temperatures caused crop failures and famine in North America and Europe for two years following the eruption of Tambora in 1815. Volcanologists believe that the balance of the earth's mild climate over periods of millions of years is maintained by ongoing volcanism. Volcanoes affect the climate through the gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during eruptions. The effect of the volcanic gases and dust may warm or cool the earth's surface, depending on how sunlight interacts with the volcanic material.


Note that volcano's have been going of for millions of years and life still managed to get by...wow!




You can happily contemplate the further evolution of cockroaches to buffer yourself from imagining with sadness the departure of our species

Just another baseless snide remark be...Remember it is I that sees a future for the world without draconian laws etc.


Well since you dont see any sense in answering my questions to you. Nor even debating some of the other points because you decided they were off topic when in fact they are relevant to your post overall...i.e. biggest problems for humanity.

Methinks you just arent sure how to present your side of the argument without resorting to nonsense and opinion.

Such is life....

GBYA

Aahz

Aahz,

I think I'll just refer to your previous post and not bring over bits and pieces this time. It's there and you know what you said.

You continue to misrepresent me. Where did I talk about coercing anybody with regard to contraception or birth control?

Obviously it doesn't make any difference where Jericho was. It could have been in China. The fact that cultivation occurred 11,000 years ago is obviously the point, so it is not a relatively recent, inherently technologically sophisticated practice, unknowable by the so called "primitives" of the world.

Diseases have always been propagated spontaneously in tropical areas. That doesn't make them a bioweapon or chemical weapon. You like to play fast and loose with words don't you?

Your volcano link had nothing to do with what you originally said. Having amnesia about your own assertions is a bit of a bad habit of yours.

Italy, Russia, and Hungary for instance have lost population. Other industrial countries, I'm sure, have too or for all practical purposes have achieved population stabilization. An important point is that if they were not dealing with illegal population movements a lot more would be in the losing population category.

I know you think Africa has some kind of Tarzan of the apes type history - with little agriculture to speak of, even now. Your fantasy seems quite fixed. You might be interested in these quotes.



More greenery huh? Sorry you couldn't find any sources.



Think your corn, which by the way is depleting the midwest aquifers, is going to make up for this? Or maybe Palm Springs is going to save us all.

A little note. Swamps are a valuable part of our ecosystem. But now let's talk about sea plants.



That fellow from the Ayn Rand Institute, now he's an interesting piece of work. He makes it clear he:

1) Has only a passing interest in nonfossil based alternative energy.
2) Is not interested in conservation.
3) Is not interested in alternative forms of transportation.
4) Continually sets up straw men that I have never associated with environmentalists.
5) Sees no value in wilderness from which we evolved or which God created, which ever is your bent.
6) Thinks that government auto pollution standards and for instance raising the mpg average because it comes from government only makes things worse. He's wrong. Glad we have lead free gas etc.
7) Affirms, he says, only the fundamental value of human life and not of any of our living cousins. That's monstrous and, ultimately, antihuman to boot.
8) Mentions the problems of cows and pollution, environmentalists talk about that a lot believe it or not and include also their depredations of the rain forests, and then seems indifferent to the dietary implications and thinks cows are a nonindustrial source. Excuse me? Stockyards anyone? Transportation, artificial insemination, packing houses?
9) Seems uninterested in the historical annihilation of thousands of cultures and languages and the millions pillaged, murdered and enslaved due to techno-colonial predation.
10) Doesn't seem to get that the lack of a major famine among white people in the United States going presumably way back has a lot to do with the advantageous afforded by the low population to resources relationship in the early preindustrial period and beyond. Compare that with the major drop off in life expectancy, particularly among males, in modern industrialized Russia.
11) Seems to be uninterested in the implications of a world full of WMDs, resulting from badly managed and badly focused technological growth.
12) Obviously doesn't care about accelerated species loss and the loss of biodiversity buffers.
13) Seems not to understand that we have been placed in a position where our life expectancy can only be calculated to world war 3. That is an unprecedented development in our history.
14) Doesn't seen to understand that it is the business of man to winnow out the good of scientific and technological developments and make them serve our most decent future vision. Instead he buys the whole package which contains within it, unfortunately, the seeds of our destruction.

It's hard to evaluate your desalinazation link since it only talks about the energy to pump salt water through a membrane. I'm a big believer in it for coastal communities but even there it hardly is going to be sufficient for most agricultural needs or a major factor in large metropolises like LA. Forget inland communities.

You claim knowledge of the aquifer issue and then la de dah dismiss it and rhapsodize about green Phoenix. See something missing there?

I can see that you’re a person of vague, usually uninformed, sentiments and beliefs. Hopefully being on this Forum will help you discover realities you weren't aware of and dissuade you from delusions you presently entertain.

Anyway, I got a little bit of interesting research out of it.

Touché.

Dingo