echidna

What ? Another optimist ? How unfashionable.

Actually I’m quite attached to this rock myself.

But I’d caution against too much optimism for alternative energies. I don’t have data, but I suspect even the most optimistic estimates are only in the order of 10% of our total energy bill ever coming from wind, solar, tide, etc.

We have just way way too much cheap fossil fuel (which of course allows us to drive to work, light our houses, run our fridges, and fly overseas periodically).

Who is actually willing to pay 50% - 100% more for each of these things & put their money where their mouths are ?

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

echidna

Non-drivers (that is those who do not drive by CHOICE, not financial concerns) are excluded from the following question, and also given a round of applause.

Who drives a Toyota Prios consuming only 4 - 5 litres / 100 km ? No ? Does this mean we’re not yet wealthy enough ? What does it mean that we don’t buy Prios’s ? Environment : luxury not necessity ?

I have a friend who drives one, but she bought that with ratepayers’ money, never her own of course.

Polly Flinders

Most overpopulated species suffer a population crash when overpopulation causes problems. In other words, they don't stay overpopulated. Could the pessimists here explain why that has not happened to man, even in underdeveloped countries?

cheetah

Because humans are able to manipulate their environments more than any other species that ever existed on this planet. Although we should quite possibly be experiencing something like that, we are able to prevent it artificially. Some examples are the great medical advances humans have made, or improvements in liviing conditions. If it was just us vs nature, I bet we would have had a population crash. But, we have a lot of artifical, man-made stuff separating us from nature and that's what has helped us to maintain and grow our population beyond what nature would otherwise support. Unless there is something sudden and severe from nature, I think humans will be able to continue to avoid the population crash for a while. But, it will continue to be less and less pleasant, and eventually, we'll hit the wall and realize that the decreasing ratio of land (for farming) to humans will no longer work. I, however, have no idea how long that will take.

Rhea

Everyone keeps ignoring the fact that some people don't WANT to live shoulder-to-shoulder, cheek-by-jowl just because they can be fed and technology will make it happen.

Who's going to be the one to finally address it?

To finally address the fact that they intend to just breed willy-nilly with no regard for the fact that people OWN LAND and perhaps DON'T WANT TO GIVE IT TO YOU TO BREED ONTO.

So.

Answer the question.

What is your plan for IMPOSING your population preference over mine? How are you planning to take my land? (And GW Bush's, among others)

cheetah

Good question, Rhea. I would also point out, in conjunction with my last post, that another indication of overpopulation and hopefully and impending population crash is people like me. Usually organisms are driven by the need and deisre and main goal of reproducing as much as possible and caring about the success of their species, and more specifically of their own genes. When populations get too heavy, some organisms voluntarily or coercively (usu. for reasons of food) reduce their populations. This has not happened in great number with humans YET. HOwever, I would contend that people like me that are not going to have children and have less care for the survival of every member of their species and every one of their own genes are a NATURAL result of overpopulation. So, I'll kindly ask all those who are shocked by what we say or just don't know how we can "like animals better than humans" to lay off. We are exhibiting much more natural behaviros that it may at first appear!

Rhea

Well? The silence is deafening.


Can you defend your "no population problem" stance (based on "there's plenty of land to feed everyone") or not?

Polly Flinders

Rhea, I think you're setting up a straw man to knock down when you talk about people living cheek to cheek. The world will never get that overpopulated. What would they eat and what would they breathe when all the oxygen-producing plants have been replaced by humans? My criticism of environmentalists is that they sometimes try to solve problems in ways that are harmful to people. The best and most humanitarian way to reduce population is to give underdeveloped people better technology and help them to develop. As the infant mortality rate drops, the birth rate will also drop. It won't happen because people have been threatened by something negative, but because they have been rewarded with something positive. Life, that is, the best thing that anyone can be given.

Pomp

Polly Flinders,

Rhea, I think you're setting up a straw man to knock down when you talk about people living cheek to cheek. The world will never get that overpopulated. What would they eat and what would they breathe when all the oxygen-producing plants have been replaced by humans?

Obviously the cheek to cheek comment was an exaggeration, but her point is valid. As various posters have pointed out since this thread began, the opposition to population growth is not motivated by the notion that that it will be technically unfeasable for a large human population to survive. The objection is that a larger population aggravates many other social and environmenal problems. Follow the link I posted to ZPG's site back on page 1.

My criticism of environmentalists is that they sometimes try to solve problems in ways that are harmful to people.

Some of them. Don't paint all environmentalists, or all of us who object to population growth (and are not necessarily environmentalists) with that brush.

The best and most humanitarian way to reduce population is to give underdeveloped people better technology and help them to develop.

Agreed.

As the infant mortality rate drops, the birth rate will also drop.

Sure, but I don't think this has much to do with overpopulation. Having ten kids of which 5 die is no different, from a population standpoint, than having five kids, all of whom live.

It won't happen because people have been threatened by something negative, but because they have been rewarded with something positive.

I don't know. The carrot and the stick seem to work well in combination.

Ms. Siv

Good post, Pompous Bastard.
I agree wholeheartedly.

- Sivakami.