I sincerely don't understand the "green" movement

[bradykp]

Originally Posted by randy8876

Optimum Population Trust reviews countries based off numerous traits. Typically when looking at overpopulation there are various standards such as CO2 production, arable land, trash generation, water availability, energy needs just to name a few.

Here's another website with info:
WOA!! World Ovepopulation Awareness

Massive amounts of denial. How about you show me some scientists that say the US is not overpopulated?

while i'm sure overpopulation.org is an upstanding organization that's been peer reviewed....YOU are the one stating something as a fact with an inability to provide evidence of such. i'm not saying the US is or isn't overpopulated...i'm questioning your statements. Why should I have to work to disprove something you claim as fact without offering anything other than your word (though i'm sure you tell nothing but the truth)

[PacificFlights]

Originally Posted by randy8876

The fact that so far most people answer that list of questions the same shows an unusual trend.

Don't read anything into the lack of answers. Many may just find your whole argument and statements stupid and boring and simply are ignoring you. The lack of opposing views to your beliefs, don't mean we agree with you, it means its not worth wasting energy on responding to some wacked out thinking.

[bradykp]

Originally Posted by PacificFlights

Don't read anything into the lack of answers. Many may just find your whole argument and statements stupid and boring and simply are ignoring you. The lack of opposing views to your beliefs, don't mean we agree with you, it means its not worth wasting energy on responding to some wacked out thinking.

yeah, i'm done here. let this one die. lol

[lollykoko]

Originally Posted by bradykp

to the second point - yes, population growth limits the benefits of the gains. but without the gains, we'd be far worse off. the point is...there's no reason to be only at 40mpg now. my computer science teacher said once that if the combustion engine evolved at the same rate as the microchip, we'd be driving 300 miles on a thimble of gasoline...that was around 14 years ago that he made that statement. lol

Is everyone aware that gasoline started out as a byproduct without a use? Cars were originally designed to run on alcohol of the type that you could brew up in the back shed using various types of plant products. But a wily capitalist with some petroleum to spare saw a way to make a few more bucks.

Rockefeller, Ford and the Secret History of Alcohol

[randy8876]

Originally Posted by PacificFlights

Don't read anything into the lack of answers. Many may just find your whole argument and statements stupid and boring and simply are ignoring you. The lack of opposing views to your beliefs, don't mean we agree with you, it means its not worth wasting energy on responding to some wacked out thinking.

It's wacked out because it doesn't follow specific ideology.

As far as evidence, I'm not sure why you choose to ignore every website that offers studies to back the views of overpopulation. I can only guess it's the shoot the messenger mentality.

OPT has extensive studies:
Optimum Population Trust: Ecological footprinting: Living Planet Report 2002

I prefer OPT as they examine numerous aspects that could be limiting for population size. There are three files to download and review.

OPT gets info from
WWF - WWF in Brief

I'm sure you will try to discount them as well.

I've already listed this site that you feel isn't valid:
WOA!! World Ovepopulation Awareness

This website has a short section about overpopulation, and it specifically lists the US:
Overpopulation

Here's some info from National Geographic (another untrusted source):
National Geographic: Eye in the Sky--Overpopulation



And if you choose to disregard 100% of everything else, take a look at the second chart:
Population Numbers, Graphs, and Data - SUSPS - Support US Population Stabilization - Support a Comprehensive Sierra Club Population Policy

The only reason for our rampant population growth is our insane unsustainable immigration policy. If it wasn't for the poor change in the late 1960's our population would be closer to 250 million. And in 2050 we would be at 250 million, instead of 400 million.

There is no amount of conservation that can offset the burden of 150 million extra people.

In the end conservation is only 30% of the equation. Even if we go all out with it, 30% is still failing.

[plaidmom]

[Beretta]

This thread has gone way off topic and has run its course.