Switch-a-roo in Mexico !

[C(-)ris]

mrbigstuff wrote:
[quote=C(-)ris]
Good! Global population growth needs to slow. There are too many people here already. Even better would be a net population decline. Only way to do that is to have less kids.

I have yet to read anything truly serious that corroborates this statement. Wild-eyed environmentalist literature does not count (and I consider myself a conservationist (except for the multiple vehicles)). For individual countries and regions, yes, for the earth as a whole, not really.
Um, it is common sense that more people = more resources used. Since we are not using 100% renewable resources, and there is a limit on the total resources, then it is a given that less people is better over the long term. Population growth is exponential. Anywhere you can have less people is generally better overall.

True, there are areas that could sustain more growth, and others that need a severe decline. But from a resource perspective, less people is always better.

[haikuman]

I agree with C(-)ris and I hope we can create a list of people we can live without *(:>*

miley-shocked003:
Perhaps on da udder side

[cbelt3]

Sticking strictly to the scientific element, the concept of 'the limits to growth' (Report to the Club of Rome, circa 1972, was based on computer modeling. The model has been systemically updated (I actually had a tiny hand in some of the original code when I was in high school.. FORTRAN was cool !). The original model missed a lot of things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

Malthus also wrote a similar essay on the same dynamics in 1798.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on...Population

Ultimately these models missed the element of human ingenuity. Remember all the starving children in the 1960's and 1970's ? Human ingenuity produced crop yield increases that made starvation primarily a political tool (sub-saharan Africa... populations forbidden from migrating produces what are essentially political famines).

Energy limits ? Yup.. conservation, new energy sources, etc...

Lebensraum ? Again, no biggie, as long as you don't want to live in a McMansion.

Disease ? Human ingenuity is dealing quite handily with that normal reducer of over-concentrated populations. The newest killer, MES, is the latest concern, and the Saudis have issued health rules for all those participating in the Haj, which should help a lot.

War ? Nowhere near as bad as it used to be. Yes, the 3rd world peoples die more handily in warfare, while first world peoples kill electronically from a continent away. But huge wars, with the real killer (disease) are back in the 20th century.

Arguably we're heading into a new Limit situation with CO2, but I expect human ingenuity to resolve that.

Net result ? The planet can handle a lot more people... biomass wise human beings are still a teeny bit of the biome.

[haikuman]

Are you speaking Engrish cbelt ?

[D. Lawson]

haikuman wrote:
Are you speaking Engrish cbelt ?

It's quite intelligible to those whose minds and ears are open to it.

[haikuman]

D. Lawson wrote:
[quote=haikuman]
Are you speaking Engrish cbelt ?

It's quite intelligible to those whose minds and ears are open to it.
I have been personaNLLY advised we are headed down a very dark road

ymmv

[cbelt3]

h'man... where you live you're closer to the mega population problem. Sea level rising, another big Tsunami, or Del Toro's big old monsters and robots would put paid to most of the urban population on the Island. Not to mention you're also in the tropical disease factory zone. And of course you're in the 'second world'... things look different from closer to the ground.

I'm more speaking at a meta level... Bad Stuff can always happen. First World nations are not replenishing their populations. Second World are hanging in there. Third world... mucho babies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...rowth_rate

Interesting list. Looks like there are a lot of Virgins in the US Virgin Islands (growth rate -0.51 )

[haikuman]

cbelt my attorney has advised me not to reply *(:>*


"Interesting list. Looks like there are a lot of Virgins in the US Virgin Islands (growth rate -0.51 )"

[DeusxMac]

cbelt3 wrote:
...but I expect human ingenuity to resolve that.

Said this in another thread, but could be applied here as well;

Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

[goosegunner]

cbelt3 wrote:
PUPPIE (Poor Urban Professional People.. usually social service professionals, teachers, etc..)..

Isn't it amusing that now, especially here in Wisconsin the PUPPIE is blamed for the economic woes of the state.

gg