You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

Nature_and_Environment.14

Population Growth

--------

{Nature_and_Environment.14.2}: Rick Neilson {lichenman} Sat, 13 Mar 2004 20:16:21 CST (75 lines)

Thanks Kia.

Richard, I took the liberty of pasting your last post in Climate
Change here:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Environment.7.135}: Richard Witty {gisland2} Sat, 13 Mar 2004
12:30:05 CST (18 lines)



just as in justice, not just as in only.

The limits of population growth are really of impact, of which
population is a component factor.

If a population lived in a way that had very minimal destructive
impact on the rest of the earth, more of them could live without
disturbing ecology, than how the west live.

Mobility and social flexibility relate to the earth being saturated
with people, that no people can migrate without forcefully displacing
another.

By the way we live as a society (and as individuals, but not only as
individuals), we can have a small footprint, and more of us can live
on the earth without harming it and others, or we can have a large
and heavy footprint, and less of us can live on the earth without<<<<
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Just as in justice<
I understood that.

>>>If a population lived in a way that had very minimal destructive
impact on the rest of the earth, more of them could live without
disturbing ecology,<<<

I agree that if we collectively had less impact on the earth there
would be room for more of us.  What that would ultimatly mean is
that when we reached the population limit there would be a whole lot
more of us.  If the earth were ten times the size that it is, we
would eventually reach the same crisis.

If the population of the earth was small enough, humans could live
the way that humans are.  We sit at the top of the food chain and we
creat a lot of waste.  That is our nature.  If it weren't, we
wouldn't be having the problems of climate change, pollution and
ecosystem distruction.  Primitive tribes did not have a low impact
on their environment because they were *so very aware*.  If the area
became degraded, they moved on.  They had space.

As I see it, there are three possible solutions to the problem of
overpopulation:

1.  Humanity agrees that we must limit population growth and we set
up rules concerning reproduction.  I calculate that if we had a one-
couple/one-child rule, the population of the earth would have
dwindled to zero by about the year 2600.  Of course, at a certain
point between now and then the population could be held steady.
This would be the best solution but I doubt that it can happen.

2.  Rules regarding reproduction could be imposed by a leadership
that recognizes that there is no alternative.

3.  The population will crash due to the stresses of overcrowding.
This would most likely be in the form of desease, starvation and
war.  The most hopeful possibility with regard to this would be that
fertility rates drop (something we are already seeing in the west).

Earlier, in "Climate Change", someone (I think it was you) mentioned
about how we have not found agreement on how to protect the
commons.

When we speak of the commons, we are saying that the earth
belongs to all of us.  I dissagree with that notion.  If we were to
realize that, in fact, WE BELONG TO THE EARTH, we would have a much
easier time of making it better.

Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

The New Café  Home | Your Hotlist and Directory | Independent Partner Forums |
FAQ | User Guidelines | Privacy Policy