Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis
Are we overpopulated ?
Population has grown but overpopulated ? Malthus said that there were too many of us when we had less than 800m people on the planet. But assuming it is a problem lets look at how maybe we could solve that, using growth by which I mean economic growth. This will help to reduce poverty, and reducing poverty will help to reduce population increase because wealthier people tend to have smaller families.
Hans Rosling on global population growth | Video on TED.com
Yeah there are examples of hige families in the west and at this point someone posts a picture of a huge US family, so I'll do it and save us some time. 
Not sure who the cluster****s are, but there quite a few people I also feel the world would be better off without too.
The model of development we have followed for a few thousand years is that economic growth generates wealth, education and knowledge which has in turn resulted in increased living standards, health and life expectancy. Although as they say on investment products, past performance does not guarantee future results, it looks like a reasonable link to me.
Agreed, previous generations seemed to equate the idea of human development as being a good thing no matter where it was or what impact it had - Jungles had to be tamed, wilderness cleared and farmed, rivers diverted, natives 'civilised' - and anything in the way - including wildlife - was forced to move, or die.
Now we know better but it is too late for some places and it is still happening in too many places - all those dams in China for example.
The "Earth First, we'll strip mine the other planets later" approach I agree, thats barking mad.
Neither have you
I think I need to see some examples of where "most of them have peaked and are heading downwards", but agreed anyone's choices will be subjective and different from anyone else's - mine are not the same as yours probably.
I am not arguing there is nothing to worry about or that we should not make some far reaching changes to how we treat the planet, the resources we use and each other. If you wish to move back to a more organic and simplistic approach to living then go ahead and do so. You are lucky to have the choice.
Humans have existed in pretty much every environment on the planet except under the sea. We lived at the north pole, in deserts, jungles, islands and in temporate forrests like Europe. There are clear examples of where we failed - Easter Island, Olduvai and so on but for the most part we have been successful.
My position is that we don't have only one choice - going back to an older way of life and expecting people to die out - and starkly this is what is being suggested in some places albeit not here.
We have a choice of development, growth, mitigation and adaption as well.
Rant over. £1.42 a litre this morning, but the oil price has eased again. |
Try to find a desireable spot- ya know, not a chunk of desert or swamp- that isn't wall-to-wall people.
In my little corner of the world sprawl has been exponential and astonishing in that such a radical change of landscape has happened in such a short period of time. Is that sustainable? Is that desireable?
Cluster****s aren't a who, they are cities, and all the yokels mentioned (politicians, bidness leaders, etc) who aren't in an existing cluster****s dream of making their smaller towns into bigger cluster****s, instead of just moving themselves into an existing cluster, because all the lemmings are running around convincing themselves that growth is the one and only way.
Yes the growth model is popular, even so historically, but that still doesn't explain it's
necessity. Why would the quality of life indicators you listed- wealth, edu, knowledge, etc. not be present and/or advancing w/o growth?
Maybe economic growth isn't the problem... could it be distribution? Oh- Thymeclock- don't **** your pants, I'm not suggesting a liberal socialist plot to redistribute anything...
Previous generations thought resources were limitless and to be exploited without care. Current generation isn't doing a whole lot better. But then, what's the difference between the consumption of, say 1,000,000,000 frugals that use resources wisely and 500,000,000 slobs that use 2x/capita? Well, one difference is, if they have equal fertility, the frugals are still going to be in a world of hurt resource-wise much sooner simply due to population pressure.... from...... growth.
We are finding that resources aren't infinite... right? Then what follows? Not infinite population... right?
Speaking of "development"... much more often than not, I find "developed" spots less desireable than they were before they got "improved".
Thinking about "are we overpopulated"... when I was younger, I could ride my bicycle from the farm on the paved road in any direction and be reasonably secure in thinking I won't get flattened out by a vehicle. Not anymore. If it isn't the 50x increase in truck traffic, or the 40x increase in regular motorists going through there, it's the 80x increase in non-situationally aware zombies behind the wheel that make it an adventure fit for those who laugh in the face of death. (Warning: those were made-up stats) Pretty much the same thing goes for swimming or playing in the lake at my Grandparent's cabin- might as well ride a tricycle down an interstate highway and see what that gets you.