Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I came from a family of 9 kids, but we only had 3. It had nothing to do with the environment, simply being financially responsible, and seeing no reason to have more. In order to sustain the population over the long run, there needs to be more children born to make up for the huge numbers retiring and dying off in the next 20-30 years. Currently the trend is less children but also waiting longer to have them. What good is a clean environment if there are no humans to appreciate it? On the other hand, there are many other countries making up for the lower birth rate here, and many of them are coming here with their kids to pick up the slack.
No, we do not need more people. It is not about there being more humans, but there being fewer species. We are not the only ones who appreciate a clean environment. We do not need to sustain our population, we need to sustain our planet.
No, we do not need more people. It is not about there being more humans, but there being fewer species. We are not the only ones who appreciate a clean environment. We do not need to sustain our population, we need to sustain our planet.
Yes, of course. But I was hoping to have a discussion about people who claim to be focused on green living for the well-being of the environment/planet (and their future children and later generations) and who still can rationalize increasing the populations.
The biggest problem, far and away, for the environment is loss of natural habitat. People tend to sterilize the land they inhabit (kill off predators & pests, pave over viable soil, etc). Interestingly, the Latin word for "devastation" is "populatio."
One could make the argument that living in densely populated cities is better for the environment than living in a less dense, rural setting: concentrate population on less land, leaving more natural habitat.
A few facts to put population in perspective: 12 Billion people could all tread water at the same time in Lake Superior.
- 50% of our current 7.4 B people live within 50 miles of an ocean, ie- there's a heckuvalot of space left for the rest of us.
-agronomists tell us that American food production could be increased by 25% if all farmers simply made full use of proper field drain tiles. African food production could increase by 50% if all farmers would plant in rows instead of the ancient technique of broadcasting seed, ie- plenty of food for an increased population.
- 70% of the planet is covered by water. There's plenty of water-- it's just not all potable or distributed where the people are. Modern desalinization can easily solve that problem. Israel is doing it and producing excess water that they are selling to other mid-east countries. The Peoples Democratik Republik of CA could be doing it too, but restrictive "environmental" regs make it economically unfeasible.
- I challenge anyone to come up with a natural resource that is in danger of becoming depleted in the next 500 years.
No, we do not need more people. It is not about there being more humans, but there being fewer species. We are not the only ones who appreciate a clean environment. We do not need to sustain our population, we need to sustain our planet.
Actually, we're finding new species faster than we're losing species. (Is that an argument in favor of Creationism? ) The natural history of a species is to go extinct in ~1M yrs. If you do the simple arithmetic, you'll find species loss to be proceeding at just about it's natural pace.
OTOH- local species loss due to loss of habitat is, as you correctly allude, a problem. As we are separated from Nature, we seem to develop less appreciation for it. That's a shame.
"- I challenge anyone to come up with a natural resource that is in danger of becoming depleted in the next 500 years."
The resources that are in most danger are ones that people don't recognize as rare or unusual. Without plans to recycle or recover those, some of them could be effectively lost in the waste stream. Lithium and some of the rare-earth minerals come to mind. The redistribution of some more common materials can make recovery next to impossible. One of the components of fertilizers has the potential of becoming rare enough for pricing to skyrocket.
"- I challenge anyone to come up with a natural resource that is in danger of becoming depleted in the next 500 years."
. Lithium and some of the rare-earth minerals come to mind. .
Good point, Harry. In fact, I was considering adding "with the exception of rare earths." I didn't because they are used mainly in fancy-schmancy electronic devices that nobody really needs.
Fertilizer? Haber Process fixes atm N & CH4 (NG) into NH3. Good supply of each. As long as we don't kill off all the nitrifying bacteria in the soil, we're good to go.
Good point, Harry. In fact, I was considering adding "with the exception of rare earths." I didn't because they are used mainly in fancy-schmancy electronic devices that nobody really needs.
Fertilizer? Haber Process fixes atm N & CH4 (NG) into NH3. Good supply of each. As long as we don't kill off all the nitrifying bacteria in the soil, we're good to go.
As that Wiki article states, P supplies can be argued. The pessimists say it will run out soon; the optimists give it hundreds of yrs. Here in WI, fertilizer with P is banned. We probably in general don't need as much P in fertilizer as is currently being used and improvement in application techniques will also decrease it's wasteful use to extend the supply's life.
BTW- most growth phenomena follow the logistic curve. Hubbert's Pimple- that famous graph of "peak oil"- is just a graph of the derivative of the logistic curve.
True. What is somewhat interesting is that the cases of P and oil and a few other resources are really cases of humans speeding up entropy, where the high density/high energy sources are spread so thin that the energy/resource is effectively lost. Distribution of invasive plants and animals are somewhat similar, in that the highly successful species are given a boost by humanity in the takeover of the environment. Milfoil, kudzu, giant hogweed, McDonalds, etc. have had their ranges expanded tremendously.
Overpopulation is a myth. Technology will be able to change our living standards. The only places where population is growing rapidly and have large families are Africa and the mideast. The rest of the world has around r2-3 babies per women now. Asia is the most recent area to do so. 90% of all First world nations have had rates below 2 kids for several decades. Due to low birthrates, population decline is already occurring in a few countries. As time goes on more and more countries are going to experience population decline.
Ideally all families should have at least 2 kids to replace mom and dad. 3 or 4 kids is best. Its selfish not to give your child a sibling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) The natural history of a species is to go extinct in ~1M yrs. If you do the simple arithmetic, you'll find species loss to be proceeding at just about it's natural pace.
