In my view, the statement in the OP that the poor are poor because of the rich (or something to that effect) disqualifies his conclusions. I think Paul should stick to bugs.
We are approaching carrying capacity for the earth, there is not much wiggle room between food supply and demand. We just have to hope technological advances related to agriculture continue to keep pace with the rate of growth, if this does not occur then we will be faced with a population crash, and one not of our choosing.
And yes I am against child quotas or other means of enforcing population control, but I also know that overpopulation is a looming threat, and if and when we hit carrying capacity it will not be a pretty picture as the overpopulation problem self corrects.
When a system get pushed to it's limits, the weaknesses start to show themselves.
Our ability to transport and distribute goods, is what keeps about 80% of the population alive.
If the overall system becomes compromised, look for bad things to happen.
Mother Nature is not a kind odds maker!
I've got a good idea. I suggest that all of the people who think the world is overpopulated do something about it by committing suicide.
this thread reminded me of Borlaug who -shortly after the writing of the population bomb - was credited with starting the "green revolution" which allowed India and SE Asia to produce enough crops to stave off disaster due to overpopulation at the time. Here is a quote of his and a link to an interesting read on the topic (wikipedia article about Borlaug)
Norman Borlaug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAccording to Borlaug, "Africa, the former Soviet republics, and the cerrado are the last frontiers. After they are in use, the world will have no additional sizable blocks of arable land left to put into production, unless you are willing to level whole forests, which you should not do. So, future food-production increases will have to come from higher yields. And though I have no doubt yields will keep going up, whether they can go up enough to feed the population monster is another matter. Unless progress with agricultural yields remains very strong, the next century will experience sheer human misery that, on a numerical scale, will exceed the worst of everything that has come before"
I saw Erlich speak while at school in the early seventies, and since the time of his book (which I also read), the world's population has just about doubled.
Since the world's resources are finite, and the ecological systems are fragile, it should be obvious to anybody with a functioning brain that our population can continue to double every 40 years.
Now, the rate of growth is certainly slowing, and in many of the more developed countries, the birth rates have actually fallen below replacement level. What many people fail to recognize is that the slowing of growth in these devloped countries is due, at least in some part, to public awareness of the dangers of unbridled population growth as publicized by people such as Erlich and the ZPG movement. Other factors have to do with women's rights, educational levels, culture and various other factors.
As to whether or not the population bomb is real, the better question is how to deal with a world where the population is still increasing in the underdeveloped world and decreasing in the developed. This is resulting in a shift of human resources from the undeveloped to the developed, as a shrinking labor market in the developed becomes more and more pronounced. To me, that is the real issue in today's word rather than the raw numbers of world population.
"you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos