6 billion?

I agree with dhanson that overfishing of wild stocks is, and will doubtless remain for some time to come, a genuine problem. Of course, aquaculture is more than making up for this problem, as the UN FAO report on the state of world fisheries and aquaculture shows.

It is important to note demographics is a subject which the vast majority of self-styled “environmentalists” have not mastered. The UN population projections for 1996 state:

(emphasis added). We also note in the same report that 2.4 of claimed 4 billion (60%) would be added to world population by 2050 under this scenario. Thus, it must be concluded that calls for immediate “population control policies” are either:
[list=1][li]An implicit admission that the speaker doesn’t know what he’s talking about; or[/li][li]Thinly disguised demands for mass slaughter[/list=1][/li]We might well ask, however, what policies are to be adopted in place of either the genocidal murder that “environmental” organizations advocate, or the ecological collapse that they fear. Surprisingly, these policies are already in place, and functioning to our desires. In the U.N.’s Long Range Population Projections, we read:

and, more importantly,

Thus, we see that in fact the scary tales of the world being overrun with people, or even of world population growing to 10 billion in 50 years, are based on outdated and misleading statistics.

Where is this leading us? To a wealthier, environmentally stabler, freer world where mother hunts by the minions of the Fertility Board will not be conducted, because there is no need.


“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

tracer]]]]]I’d just like to mention, at this juncture, that last weekend I learned that most salmon sold in U.S. grocery stores is farmed freshwater salmon, rather than wild ocean salmon.
We now return to your tirade already

Yes, most, if not all, of the salmon we eat is farmed and mass produced. Isn’t salmon a river fish, not an ocean fish?

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

Akats]]]]]]]It is important to note demographics is a subject which the vast majority of self-styled “environmentalists” have not mastered. The UN population projections for 1996 state:

quote:
If all couples of the world had begun to bear children at the replacement-fertility level in 1995 (about 2 children per couple), the growth momentum of the current age structure would still result in a 67 per cent increase in the world population, to 9.5 billion by 2150.

Didn’t the UN predict 4 billion more by 2050, raising the total to 10 or 10.5?

You might also take note that overfishing, which dhanson and I have pointed out to you, is just one area of the eccology that is affected by the need to feed more billions. What you seem to want is an artificial world of fish farming and desalination plants. How costly do you think that would be?

I can’t understand why you persist in ignoring the problem, or even admitting that there is one. If your home State, for example, were to increase population by 25 million you would see a marked difference in quality of life and depletion of water. How much of the Colorado do you think can be diverted?

The link between population growth and environmental impact is obvious, more people consume more resources, damage more of the earth and generate more waste. Humans are a force of nature. Hello! As nations develop, they increase consumption.


"A very small proportion of the population consumes the majority of the world’s resources. The richest fifth consumes 86% of all goods and services and produces 53% of all carbon dioxide emissions, while the poorest fifth consumes 1.3% of goods and services and accounts for 3% of C02 output. (1)

· Per capita municipal waste grew 30% in developed nations since 1975 and is now two to five times the level in developing nations. (1)

· An average American’s environmental impact is 30 to 50 times that of the average citizen of a developing country such as India. (1)

The need is to balance the requirements of a growing population with the necessity of conserving earth’s natural assets.

Human action has transformed between one-third and one-half of the entire land surface of the earth. We have lost more than one-quarter of the planet’s birds, and two-thirds of the major marine fisheries are fully exploited, over-exploited or depleted. (2)

· Every 20 minutes, the world adds another 3,500 human lives but loses one or more entire species of animal or plant life - at least 27,000 species per year. This is a rate and scale of extinction that has not occurred in 65 million years. (3)

· Spreading deserts and declining water tables in a third of the planet are contributing to famine, social unrest and migration.

· Two thirds of the world’s population lives within 100 miles of an ocean, inland sea or freshwater lake: 14 of the world’s 15 largest megacities (10 million or more people) are coastal. Their impacts include growing loads of sewage and other waste, the drainage of wetlands and development of beaches, and destruction of prime fish nurseries. (4)

Technological advances can mitigate some of the impact of population growth, and market mechanisms raise prices for some diminishing resources, triggering substitution, conservation, recycling and technical innovation so as to prevent depletion.

But market systems often subsidize industries such as logging, mining and grazing without tallying environmental costs. No market considers commonly held resources such as groundwater levels or atmospheric and ocean quality. Nor do markets consider earth’s “services,” such as regulation of climate, detoxification of pollutants or provision of pollinators, much less questions of human equity and social justice. When water quality is degraded, well-off people can buy bottled water, for example, but poorer people cannot…

· A world conclave of 58 national Academies of Science agreed in 1993 that unchecked consumption and rapid population growth are likely to overwhelm technological improvements in affecting the environment. (5)

Clearly, the greatest environmental threat comes from both the wealthiest billion people, who consume the most and generate the most waste, and from the poorest billion, who may damage their meager resource base in the daily struggle to avoid starvation. In addition, the billions in between are doing their best to increase their standard of living, in part through increased consumption.

· Although the world’s supply of water remains constant, per-capita water consumption is rising twice as fast as world population. Humanity now uses more than half of the available surface fresh water on earth (2); at least 300 million people live in regions that already have severe water shortages. By 2025, the number could be 3 billion. (6)

· The world’s forests have shrunk from 11.4 to 7.3 square kilometers per 1,000 people since 1970. The loss is concentrated in developing countries, mostly to meet the demand for wood and paper by the industrialized world. Wild species are becoming extinct 50 to 100 times faster than they naturally would. (1)

· Over the last 50 years, 17% of the planet’s soils have been severely degraded. That’s nearly 2 billion hectares, the size of China and India combined. (1)

· The global emission of carbon dioxide, a “greenhouse gas” most researchers say causes global warming and disruption in weather patterns, has quadrupled since 1950, largely from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. The atmosphere now contains 30% more CO2 than at the beginning of the industrial revolution. (2) Where the industrialized world produces 60% of it today, the developing world will be producing 60% of it by 2015.(1) "

Sources: (1)United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 1998 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); (2) Jane Lubchenco, past president, American Association for Advancement of Science, speech: “Women, Population and Science in the New Millennium,” Dec. 1, 1998, AAAS, Washington DC. (3) Ken Strom, Population and Habitat in the New Millennium, National Audubon Society and The Global Stewardship Initiative (Boulder CO 1998); (4)Population Action International, Why Population Matters (Washington DC: PAI, 1996); (5)Report, Population Summit of the World’s Scientific Academies (Washington DC: The National Academy Press, 1993); (6)Simon, Paul, Tapped Out (New York: Welcome Rain Publishers, October 1998). Developed by World Population Foundation and the Communications Consortium Media Center, with editorial contributions from the U.S. NGOs in Support of the Cairo Consensus.

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

John John asks:

I would have hoped that everyone, particularly those who cut and paste Sierra Club handouts, knew that salmon are anadromous, i.e., they spawn in fresh water, and the fry make their way to the ocean to mature.
No doubt such things are difficult to learn in this environmentally-sensitive age. Fortunately, the engineers who built fish ladders around dams were of an earlier, hardier, and more knowledgeable breed.


“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

What Akatsaumi and Tom fail to point out when they say, the Sahara desert can house a few billions- bingo! no more desert - or deslaination plants can replace fresh water, is the cost of all that technology. Yes, we have the technology to feed more billions BUT THE COST IS PROHIBITIVE. Only the wealthy can eat and drink then?

The world would then favor the wealthy who could afford the costly fruits of that technology. Think about that.


“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

John John, has it occurred to you that perhaps the answer then lies in making people around the world wealthier? They could then afford the technology to improve crop yields, desalinate their water, etc.

Insofar as the Sierra Club’s new, Luddite philosophy impedes wealth creation, it becomes part of the problem and not part of the solution.

BTW, to answer your other question about the Earth’s population in 2050 - the U.N. medium variant model in 1994 predicted that it would hit 8.9 billion, on the way to stabilizing at around 11 billion by 2100. That number has now been revised downwards several times. I believe the current ‘best guess’ is for a population of about 7.5 billion by 2050, stabilizing at around 9 billion by 2100.

On the other hand, perhaps the low-variant model is more accurate, since the medium variant seems to get revised downwards every couple of years. The low-variant model has the Earth’s population maxxing out at 7.5 billion on the way to an overall decline to 3.6 billion by 2150.

Does that sound terribly alarming to you?

Even if the medium variant is correct as it stands, we’ll only grow to about 9 billion in the next century. Do you really think that we can’t manage to feed that amount of population increase? An increase of 3 billion over 100 years. We increased 2.7 billion in the last 30 years, and world famine levels have decreased and resource reserves have increased. Just what is there about this trend that is catastrophic?

It doesn’t surprise me in the least that an acknowledeged Sierra Club member and ‘protector of the environment’ wouldn’t know that a salmon is an anadromous fish.

Most of my interaction with the deep ecology movement confirms that their actual grasp of biology and ecological principles is based on political concerns and what they wish to be true rather than reality. And what they wish is for this world to be going to hell in a handbasket so that their message can be stronger.

Their desire to improve the world is certainly noble. You think I don’t want to see the world a better place? That’s why I studied biology. I grew up on Ranger Rick, National Geographic, and haven’t looked back since.

But when one’s desire to save the planet runs counter to actual ecological principles; well that is when the politics come in. Despite what one may think, organizations like the Sierra Club, Earth First!, Greenpeace, etc… are mainly political organizations. Sure there are biologists on board, but take a tally at an organizational meeting. How many biological degrees are represented? How much does that person who hands out pamphlets actually know about the subject vs. what they think they want to know, based on the ‘message.’

This is not to say that people from all walks of life can’t get involved (they should, and more power to them); only that the message is driven by “action now!” rather than learning the truth about how our natural world works.

The message of such groups depends on capturing public opinion. That entails getting loads of media attention. So they offer up their apocalyptic scenarios and make simplified, dramatic statements, and ignore or downplay any good news.

You may not want to believe this J-J, but I am an ecologist. My sense of decorum does not lead me to post my creditials, but I will if you ask. I will let you know, however, that I work with the Endangered Species Act every day. I work with the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act on a regular basis. I write Biological Assessments, and the biological portions of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. (I am not a demographer–I’ll leave that to the others who are doing so well).

It is so very frustrating to me to see people with very little grasp of ecology try to save the planet from us humans.

I was involved with a battle in Arizona trying to protect a particular endangered plant. The actions of several groups, including Forest Guardians, and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity (whose leader is a dentist IIRC) made sure that this species was not going to make it. Of course, their intentions were to save the species, but their ignorance of general ecological principles and plant biology prevented them from seeing reality, even when real biologists/ecologists
tried to tell them over and over that their efforts were counterproductive.

I see this over and over again. People who want to ‘save the planet’ latch on to any political movement and doomsday theories they can to try to get a message out to the people. And they just don’t know jack shit about it.

John John asserts:

Oh?

California has a population of about 32 million, and uses about 35 million acre-feet of water (as the Teeming Thousands will know, an acre-foot is the amount of water that will cover an area of one acre to a depth of one foot, or about 1,233 m[sup]3[/sup]). That total usage, then, is about 4.3x10[sup]10[/sup] m[sup]3[/sup]. (I hate these conversions between metric and customary units, but that’s another thread).

The population of the U.S. is about 270 million, so, assuming that U.S. water usage is proportional (it is probably less, as California is the #1 dollar value producer of agricultural stuffs, mostly in a climate totally unsuited to that use), the total U.S. usage would be about 3.7x10[sup]11[/sup] m[sup]3[/sup].

Now, Santa Barbara has built a desalination plant that produced potable water at about USD2,000/acre-foot, or USD1.70/m[sup]3[/sup]. Assuming that the entire water usage of the U.S. were produced by desalinization, and that all of the water must be purified to potable standards (neither assumption is true, but I may as well push this to absurdity), it would cost about USD6.3x10[sup]11[/sup] to carry out this task annually. The last time I looked, the GDP of the U.S. was about USD9.6x10[sup]12[/sup], so we are talking about consuming roughly 6.6% of U.S. GDP in this incredibly costly, inefficient, and highly unrealistic way of getting its water.

But wait, you say, that’s just the U.S., arguably one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest, countries in the world. Very well, let us look at the rest of the world. As we know from this thread’s title, world population is 6 billion. I shall assume for purposes of calculation that everyone uses water at the same rate as Californians do. (This would probably mean that they are approximately as wealthy as Californians, which we know is not the case. Perhaps the Rwandans left their toilets running, however.) Then, piling a Pelion of absurdity on an Ossa of meaninglessness, worthy of a Greenpeace press release, I shall assume that every drop of water that is used by people is purified from sea water to potable standards. Then, world water usage would be 8.1x10[sup]12[/sup] m[sup]3[/sup], and cost about USD1.4x10[sup]13[/sup] to produce annually. GWP is on the close order of USD3.8x10[sup]13[/sup], probably (a lot of countries are cooking the books on these figures, and, in the early ‘90s, we were apparently a trade deficit of USD1x10[sup]11[/sup] with Mars), so, assuming that we were stupid enough to actually carry out this plan, we would have to spend a whopping 36% of GWP on it.

(The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, incidentally, claimed that it can beat this price by 60%, but, surprisingly enough, I tend to look a wee bit askance at as-yet-unbuilt technologies.)


“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

John John, you are asserting one argument and backing it with evidence for another, IMO. Like this:

Hypothesis: There are too many people.
Proof: Many people don’t have enough to eat. (evidence) As a result, overharvesting of food organisms is threatening them. (evidence)

There may be a problem of current or future overpopulation, i.e., too many people for the world to support, no matter how resources are allocated. I think evidence has been adduced that population growth is not the problem it was viewed as in the past.

So we turn to the problem of people with inadequate nutrition. There are numerous steps that can be taken to attempt to resolve this. Something as obvious as jojoba crops in desert areas (it’s xerophytic and grows well with minimal water supply, though it obviously needs some) can begin to help resolve the problem. There are large amounts of rural (not wild) America that lie fallow and overgrown, and could be cropped if the market permitted.

The fisheries question is obviously one for a competent marine ecologist to essay, not for me. But I have noted that in general, whenever there is a resource to be harvested, there is (1) a quick in-and-out process that leaves the ecosystem hurting, and (2) a process that requires more effort than the in-and-out but not only leaves a healthy ecosystem but also obtains more of the resource than the other and is more economical in the long run. (There is also a (3) do not harvest the resource in order to “save the Earth” option.) I make no claim this is always the case, but I suspect that someone like Divemaster could examine the situation and come up with a functional system that would meet the criteria of my (2) above.

In short, we are not looking at Standing on Zanzibar, and probably will not need any color of Soylent, if we just apply some common sense to solving the problems.

John John again writes:

Yes, they did. They also admitted that they wrong. Why haven’t your predictions based on those incorrect numbers also been admitted to be wrong. Is it because the correct numbers wouldn’t lead to scaring as much money out of the pockets of the people at your “Save the Earth” rallies?

First off, JJ, whilst I don’t claim to have total knowledge, I think that dhanson might not appreciate being mentioned in the same sentence as you.

Second, you may notice that both he and I raised the question and specified solutions to it before you had done anything more than paste a Sierra Club press release into the thread. In fact, both of us concluded that the Paleolithic harvesting regime for wild fish was absolutely untenable.

What you seem to want is a world where all of the trout streams and hiking trails are reserved for the Greenpeace BoD, and the rest of us are conveniently dead. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

Already answered that one.

Now, you have repeatedly screamed that what the worlds needs is “policies”. Let’s hear some of those “policies”. Remember, however, that they will be rejected, not only by me, but the vast majority of people (other than you and Carl Pope), if:
[list=1][li]require mass murder (no “First we’ll reduce the population of the world to 2 billion by next Wednesday”)[/li][li]attack problems that aren’t occurring (the population isn’t increasing exponentially)[/li][li]are based on outdated information (don’t tell what the birth rate in 1950 was; tell me what it is now)[/li][li]show a complete ignorance of grammar school arithmetic and basic scientific facts (get a flipping wildlife biologist who knows where salmon come from to draw up your fisheries policy).[/list=1][/li]The ball’s in your court, now.


“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

dhanso>>>>>>Does that sound terribly alarming to you?

No, if true and accurate.

Has it occured to anyone that perhaps the reason that births are declining in the industrial nations is because of the alarms that have been sent out since the 60’s?

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

Akats>>>>>>>I think that dhanson might not appreciate being mentioned in the same sentence as you.


Try speaking for yourself.


“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

polycarp>>>>>>>>>>There may be a problem of current or future overpopulation, i.e., too many people for the world to support, no matter how resources are allocated. I think evidence has been adduced that population growth is not the problem it was viewed as in the past.


From the material I’ve read we are heading towards global overpopulation that will cause many catastrophes in the future, if nothing is done. So, no, I do not agree that a few more billion[remember, we went form 5 to 6 in one decade] will not pose a major world problem.

Global overpopulation really needs more attention then I’ve seen demonstrated by the lackadasical Akats.


“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

John John attemps a save by asking:

No, because that doesn’t explain why:
[list=1][li]Birth rates were declining for twenty years before that, and[/li][li]Birth rates have declining in the non-industrialized world for the same period of time[/list=1][/li]Has it occurred to you that the reason that birth rates have declined everywhere might be because people are smart enough to figure out that they no longer need to have five kids in order to have a reasonable probability that one will live long enough to support them in their old age?


“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

Akats>>>>>>>>>California has a population of about 32 million, and uses about 35 million acre-feet of water (as the Teeming Thousands will know, an acre-foot is the amount of water that will cover an area of one acre to a depth of one foot, or about 1,233 m3). That total usage, then, is about 4.3x1010 m3. (I hate these conversions between metric and customary units, but that’s another thread).
_____________________________________________You might want to change the battery in that calculator, Akats.

"When The Well Runs Dry Population pressures threaten global water supply will face similar shortages, affecting more than 2.8 billion people, 35% of the world’s population.

While our fresh water supply accounts for less than 3% of the water on the earth’s surface, experts contend that the water crisis does not result from an actual decrease in water supply. Surprisingly, in fact, the earth has virtually the same amount of fresh water as it did when dinosaurs roamed the planet. According to Joel E. Cohen of the Rockefeller University Laboratory of Populations, “Our planet has more than enough fresh water for every living person, it is often just in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

As with most natural resources, water supply distribution is uneven. Approximately two-thirds of the world’s population live in areas that receive only 25% of the planet’s rainfall, while much of the world’s fresh water is inaccessible because, for example, it is trapped in polar ice caps. Additionally, most countries do not have the capital to invest in necessary technology, such as desalinization plants, which would make ocean water potable. As one Swedish water engineer observed, “There may be more than enough fresh water for every thirsty person, but for many people it is hard to get.”

What’s the role of population growth in all this? Distribution problems are aggravated by global population growth and excessive water consumption by affluent nations. As population grows, the average amount of renewable freshwater available to each person declines. When certain ratios of human numbers to renewable fresh water supplies are exceeded, water scarcity becomes inevitable. In recent decades these ratios have been exceeded in more than two dozen countries.

Middle Eastern countries live with the dangerous ramifications of water scarcity. Serious international tensions between Turkey, Syria, and Iraq have surfaced as a result of disagreements over water rights to the Euphrates River. The Euphrates River is seen as a lifeline in this arid region and is a primary source of water for millions of people. The river supplies the water for irrigation, hydropower generation, and individual and other domestic needs. Although conflict between the three nations with regard to the river continues, these tensions have been exacerbated recently, in part due to Turkey’s rapidly growing population and the proposed dam project of the Turkish government. In an attempt to ensure access to this valued resource, Iraq and Syria have threatened military action.

Nearly two and a half centuries ago, America’s wells were overflowing with safe, clean water. Today, however, America’s water supply is being exploited by both poorly planned consumption and contamination. Agrarian practices and industrial waste have been the primary sources of pollution of our waterways and groundwater, rendering many sources useless. A paramount example of such pollution was the pollution of the Mississippi River, often called the mightiest of the waterways. Though the Mississippi no longer receives raw sewage, Robert H. Meade, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey reports that the river has advanced into a greater state of contamination. Meade attributes much of the contamination to herbicides and insecticides used in farming.

In addition to water contamination, the United States has also seen its share of conflict over water supply. Many states, from California to Maryland, are seeing lawsuits filed to ensure access to a safe, clean water supply. Baltimore, MD, recently threatened to take legal action to gain unfettered access to the Susquehanna River for the region’s drinking needs.

********Diminishing water supplies have forced many cities and farmers in the arid southwestern region of the United States to siphon water from the Colorado River. The river seldom reaches the Gulf of California—as it did prior to this siphoning. **********

Over a century ago Benjamin Franklin wrote, “When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.” Those words have been prophetic. With world population slated to reach the 6 billion mark this year and with current water consumption rates rising twice as fast as the world’s population, the global water supply faces some dangerous challenges. Personal responsibility and commitment to reducing consumption of water, coupled with effective policy initiatives (such as the U. S. Safe Drinking Water Act and Israel’s agricultural, drip-irrigation procedures) may be the only way out of the downward spiral that our current water crisis presents.

Sources
Parfit, Michael, “Sharing the Wealth of Water.” National Geographic Special Edition, Vol. 184, National Geographic Society: 1993.

Engleman, Robert and Pamela LeRoy, “Sustainable Water: Population and the Future of Renewable Water Supplies.” Population Action International:1993.

Hinrichsen, D., “Solutions for a Water-Short World.” Population Reports, Series M, No. 14, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Population Information Program: 1998.

Wheeler, Timothy, “Planet’s Thirsty, Not Drowning” Baltimore Sun, September 11, 1998.

Reid, T.R., “Feeding the Planet.” National Geographic Magazine, October 1998.


“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

John John attemps a save by asking:
quote:

Has it occured to anyone that perhaps the reason that births are declining in the industrial nations is because of the alarms that have been sent out since the 60’s?

No, because that doesn’t explain why:

Birth rates were declining for twenty years before that, and SOURCE?

TWENTY YEARS BEFORE THAT WAS THE WORLD WAR II ERA- MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS WERE KILLED, LESS PEOPLE. AFTER THE WAR POPULATIONS EXPLODED. SO, WHERE DO YOU GET THIS MISINFORMATION?

Birth rates have declining in the non-industrialized world for the same period of time. NOT TRUE

THAT IS NOT THE INFORMATION THE SIERRA CLUB HAS
Has it occurred to you that the reason that birth rates have declined everywhere might be because people are smart enough to figure out that they no longer need to have five kids in order to have a reasonable probability that one will live long enough to support them in their old age?]]

YOU WOULD THINK SO BUT THAT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE THE CASE IN THE THIRD WORLD.

BIRTHS RATES HAVE NOT DECLINED EVERYWHERE.

My use of caps is not shouting but to disassociate the text.

“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

]polycarp>>>>John John, has it occurred to you that perhaps the answer then lies in making people around the world wealthier? They could then afford the technology to improve crop yields, desalinate their water, etc.


Well, that’s a more difficult question to answer because it would mean economic relativism, kind of. Prices would increase along with wealth. If everyone in the world had a minimum of a million dollars, let’s say, then those with hundreds of millions-billions- would be wealthy and those with just one million would be considered poor. You must remember that prices for things would increase proportionaly.

I think what you mean is educated, which I agree with.


“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

I don’t think anyone here will argue that raising the standard of living lowers the birth rate of a country. Solution: raise the standard of living in poor countries.

However, per capita, it seems that citizens of developed countries have a greater impact on the environment than poor countries. We (speaking for those of us in rich countries) create much more pollution per capita than any citizen of a poor country. What will happen when everyone in the world has the same western standard of living? Even if there is only 7.5 billion in 2050, won’t the impact be greater than the 700 million or so now from North America/Western Europe?

I’m not trying to troll into an already raging debate; these are questions myself and coworkers have asked before. How sustainable is the western lifestyle, especially if applied to the world population?

Ed, you raise excellent points. The impact on the envirnoment of a world population of technologically Americanized people, using resources and dispelling waste, is very frightening indeed.


]]]I don’t think anyone here will argue that raising the standard of living lowers the birth rate of a country. Solution: raise the standard of living in poor countries]]]]

That is a very good point and one that would bring results in a short time.

Ed, I do not view this as a “raging debate” but rather and exchange of ideas and information. I would agree that one poster left upset and frustrated because his views were not adopted as gospel and in fact challenged as inaccurate. I think that is to be expected.


“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon

Brille

John John says yet again:

Repeating from my first post on this topic: Birth rates have been declining (developing countries: from over 6 children/couple in 1950 down to 3; developed countries: from 3.3 to 1.6).

I am not the only one keeps telling you this; is it no wonder people get frustrated with you? Repeating inaccurate information, even in all caps, does not make it true.

You may be able to point out pockets of regions where the birthrate is increasing, but the overall trend even for the third world is a decline so significant that it surprised many demographers.

On the subject of water availability, J-J posts (look for the one with the ‘literature cited’ section) various quotes and opinions concerning water availability. Did you not notice that the problem, even as stated by your supporting quotes, is mainly one of politics and distribution?

This is the point several of us have been making from page 1. Politics and distribution are the major forces in play concerning water and food availability, not resource abundance and population size. Go back and read the first two pages again, if this point has escaped you. Heck, read your own quotes.

This is not to say there is not a problem. Sure, people may fight, argue, and even kill each other over a resource. Less powerful nations will always be at the mercy of those with more military or political strength.

One could make the argument that new policies should be adopted to make sure the less fortunate are not left in the wake of the more fortunate; but it it not really a question of birth rate as postulated in the OP. Why don’t you start a new topic over the politices of resource distribution, instead of trying to place the problem at the feet of a growing population?