Organic farming environmental disaster! - Page 5

1069 · 05-10-08, 11:59 AM

There are too many people in the world.
And Americans- although less prodigious breeders than people of third world nations where reproductive choice is unavailable- are guilty of egregious conspicuous consumption.

I don't see that there is any real solution at this point, beyond extreme population reduction- perhaps there will be a convenient new virus that wipes out 30-40% of the earth's people, or perhaps these latest food shortages will create a global famine that will kill almost everyone- and an extreme reduction in the conspicuous consumption-fueled lifestyles of industrialized nations, with the US being the most flagrant offender.
In short, the third world needs to disappear, and the first world needs to begin living more like the third world.
Or, alternately, the first world could disappear, and then the third world could just keep on truckin' and not change a thing.
But since the first world is wealthier and more powerful than the third world, it seems a foregone conclusion that we'd wipe them out before we'd voluntarily exterminate ourselves.

These two options outlined above are the only possibilities, as I see it, for the long-term survival of the human race.
We cannot go on much longer at the rate we're reproducing, and we cannot go on much longer at the rate we're consuming.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though.
We should try everything we can think of, and if it fails, oh well. At least we tried; that's better than doing nothing.
At the very least, we may succeed in prolonging the inevitable for a few years, decades, perhaps even centuries.

But the fact remains: there are simply too many people.

mikhail · 05-10-08, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

There are too many people in the world.
And Americans- although less prodigious breeders than people of third world nations where reproductive choice is unavailable- are guilty of egregious conspicuous consumption.

I don't see that there is any real solution at this point, beyond extreme population reduction- perhaps there will be a convenient new virus that wipes out 30-40% of the earth's people, or perhaps these latest food shortages will create a global famine that will kill almost everyone- and an extreme reduction in the conspicuous consumption-fueled lifestyles of industrialized nations, with the US being the most flagrant offender.
In short, the third world needs to disappear, and the first world needs to begin living more like the third world.
Or, alternately, the first world could disappear, and then the third world could just keep on truckin' and not change a thing.
But since the first world is wealthier and more powerful than the third world, it seems a foregone conclusion that we'd wipe them out before we'd voluntarily exterminate ourselves.

These two options outlined above are the only possibilities, as I see it, for the long-term survival of the human race.
We cannot go on much longer at the rate we're reproducing, and we cannot go on much longer at the rate we're consuming.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though.
We should try everything we can think of, and if it fails, oh well. At least we tried; that's better than doing nothing.
At the very least, we may succeed in prolonging the inevitable for a few years, decades, perhaps even centuries.

But the fact remains: there are simply too many people.

This has been said numerous times throughout history technology will find a way.Its looks like eventually the population will level off.

This post is quite a downer on human beings as a species.

gunner · 05-10-08, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

There are too many people in the world.
And Americans- although less prodigious breeders than people of third world nations where reproductive choice is unavailable- are guilty of egregious conspicuous consumption.

I don't see that there is any real solution at this point, beyond extreme population reduction- perhaps there will be a convenient new virus that wipes out 30-40% of the earth's people, or perhaps these latest food shortages will create a global famine that will kill almost everyone- and an extreme reduction in the conspicuous consumption-fueled lifestyles of industrialized nations, with the US being the most flagrant offender.
In short, the third world needs to disappear, and the first world needs to begin living more like the third world.
Or, alternately, the first world could disappear, and then the third world could just keep on truckin' and not change a thing.
But since the first world is wealthier and more powerful than the third world, it seems a foregone conclusion that we'd wipe them out before we'd voluntarily exterminate ourselves.

These two options outlined above are the only possibilities, as I see it, for the long-term survival of the human race.
We cannot go on much longer at the rate we're reproducing, and we cannot go on much longer at the rate we're consuming.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though.
We should try everything we can think of, and if it fails, oh well. At least we tried; that's better than doing nothing.
At the very least, we may succeed in prolonging the inevitable for a few years, decades, perhaps even centuries.

But the fact remains: there are simply too many people.

I,d say if the first world [Americans] cut back abit from there all you can eat $5 breakfasts this may give the third world a chance. I doubt theres much chance of changing the 4x4 25 stone gut busters changing there ways though

I quite looking forward to the freak show when i visit

would you like more soda in that bucket sir

paul.

Scucca · 05-10-08, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikhail

This has been said numerous times throughout history technology will find a way.

Its easy to discount the tabloid version of Malthusian panic. But technical innovation in capitalism also has its limitations (see, for example, the post-WW2 US reliance on public sector funded military "spin-offs"). At least show the odd nervous tick

tryreading · 05-10-08, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikhail

This has been said numerous times throughout history technology will find a way.Its looks like eventually the population will level off.

This post is quite a downer on human beings as a species.

The population has quadrupled since 1900, will be 7 billion by 2012, and should double about every 50 years according to projections:

LiveScience.com :

This should be a downer on us. We will use and use until there are shortages of all of the basic things we need, like oil and water, and won't change our rate of consumption until we are forced to by lack of things, like money or resources. This is information we could learn from, and we could make some changes before the fact, but we won't.

Scucca · 05-10-08, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryreading

We will use and use until there are shortages of all of the basic things we need, like oil and water, and won't change our rate of consumption until we are forced to by lack of things, like money or resources.

This is an example of Malthusian panic (although to be fair Malthus was more than the tabloid understanding of him and Malthusian analysis remains a crucial element of growth analysis). Whilst demands will continue to rise, our understanding of scarcity changes even daily.

tryreading · 05-10-08, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

This is an example of Malthusian panic (although to be fair Malthus was more than the tabloid understanding of him and Malthusian analysis remains a crucial element of growth analysis). Whilst demands will continue to rise, our understanding of scarcity changes even daily.

Doesn't involve panic, just simple fact. Unless availability of resources increases with the requirement for them, there will be big global problems. That's just common sense.

Scucca · 05-10-08, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryreading

Unless availability of resources increases with the requirement for them, there will be big global problems. That's just common sense.

As has already been mentioned, we have technology changing. Resources are essentially magnified via technical progress

tryreading · 05-10-08, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scucca

As has already been mentioned, we have technology changing. Resources are essentially magnified via technical progress

That's fine, but eventually, if our population continues to grow at the same rate, our needs will eventually overtake our resources.

Another problem is we tend to let our effluent fall to wherever gravity takes it, to places like the Gulf Of Mexico, the Floridan aquifer, etc. That's another example of the fact that we don't look very far ahead, and consider what problems we create for the future.

Scucca · 05-11-08, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryreading

That's fine, but eventually, if our population continues to grow at the same rate, our needs will eventually overtake our resources.

There is a lot of assuming going on there! First, you have to assume that population growth is independent of technical progress (rather unlikely, as technical progress increases income and higher income tends to reduce birth rates). Second, you'd have to assume that technical progress will fail to keep pace with this independent population growth. That is inconsistent with our economic histry.

Quote:

Another problem is we tend to let our effluent fall to wherever gravity takes it, to places like the Gulf Of Mexico, the Floridan aquifer, etc. That's another example of the fact that we don't look very far ahead, and consider what problems we create for the future.

Market failures always occur. This only describes the weakness of the approach adopted by the free marketeer and the need to pay attention to government interventionism