# U.N.:World can't afford rich China

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-world-cant-afford-rich-china/189106>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [July 17, 2003, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-world-cant-afford-rich-china/189106 "2003-07-17T09:40:42Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\
**Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-world-cant-afford-rich-china/189106/81 "2003-07-23T02:16:24Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by kniz \*  
> \*\*This is a very good thread and I have enjoyed reading every post. I don’t know anything that I have to add, except for this thought. If this discussion was going on 15 years ago, it would be about Japan. \*\*

Japan is a good example.

Japan has an ecological footprint of 5,403,896 km2, compared with an available 1,131,048 km2 of biologically productive space. [Cite](http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/ranking.htm)

Thus Japan needs five times as much area of the size of the country to **sustain** the countries level of consumption. Much of the land needed to sustain Japan would be in China and USA, since they are their main trading partners.

I appreciate that consumption is not directly proportional to standard of living, although there is an obvious correlation.

According to the study cited here, India, China and Pakistan are countries that (in 1997) consume at a level that can be supported by their productive land.

Don’t forget that land needs to be set aside to maintain biodiversity. Not all potentially productive land can be used as farmland. Biodiversity is not only essential for our survival, but is is also a contributor to standard of living.

**xtism** _“stuff that replaces hydrocarbon based fuels”_. I agree that alternative fuel sources will take over from fossil fuels. Even vehicles running on biofuels, require productive land to grow the biofuels.

So it looks like western countries must reduce their consumption levels if we are to give people from deveoloping nations a fair go.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![errata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/839c29/32.png) [@errata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/errata)\
**Post date:** [July 23, 2003, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-world-cant-afford-rich-china/189106/82 "2003-07-23T05:41:52Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \*  
> Let’s be clear about what it means when prices rise. It does NOT mean that standards of living must fall. It also does not mean shortages.
> 
> What it means is that the allocation of resources in society change. Values change. Behaviour changes.

The question is how fast the change happens, whether society will be ready for it, and if the costs of energy and raw materials will rise dramatically.

Try something besides aimless speculation to support your case.

> [@](#):
>
> Alternatives will appear.

My you are blessed with a lot of faith. Do I have to click my ruby slippers before the alternatives “appear”?

> [@](#):
>
> The U.S. could make ten times as much food as it currently does, if it wanted to.

cite please. Also please explain why this is relevant to China and the future world population.

> [@](#):
>
> And while the increasing cost of energy may take a bit out of our wealth, it doesn’t mean that we’ll get poorer - it means that the rate at which we get richer may slow down.

What does that mean?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/u-n-world-cant-afford-rich-china/189106.md?page=4)