[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> Ah, I see your point. Mass executions are indeed hideous. I was thinking >> about population control from the breeding side. And I have indeed >> attempted to lead by example. I was sterilized at age 20, and have no >> children. Mind you, I do think that either we rein in population size, >> or a lot of people die on other hideous ways. Is it a whole lot better >> to avoid mass executions so that we can have mass starvation, or mass >> plagues, or mass wars? >> > > I'm not sure what rein in means. You know that the world is rapidly > approaching the ZPG fertility rate, right? At the moment, the world > fertility rate is 2.5 (CIA Factbook 2008 estimate). In developed > countries, the replacement rate is 2.1. In underdeveloped countries it can > range from 2.5 to 3.5. For the world at large, it's about 2.33. > Considering the fact that the fertility rate in the 70s was between 4 and > 5, we are extremely close to ZPG fertility rates now. I'd expect, unless > there is an overwhelming reversal in trends, that we'll be under ZPG > fertility rates in 5-10 years (we were at 2.8 worldwide in 2000). Does > this count as rein in? > > If not, why do you think that the present level of population is > unsustainable? In the US, at least, farms are much more productive and are > farmed in a far more sustainable manner than they were 50-100 years ago. > Indeed, my father-in-law's old farm has been gaining topsoil over the last > decade or so as a result of improvements in soil management. > That is good, but you yourself have made very persuasive arguments with respect to global warming that there is no feasible way to cut back on carbon emissions per capita. With a large population, that means climate change is pretty much unavoidable. When I look at other indicators, such as the collapse of fisheries due to overfishing, and shortages of fresh water pretty much every place we look, to name just a couple, it seems to me that the common factor in all of these is a population that is above sustainability.
For example, the so-called bread basket of the U.S. used to be called the great desert. What changed that was to drilling of wells to tap the Oglala aquifer, turning places like Kansas and Nebraska into prime farm land. The problem is that we are essentially mining this resource in a non-renewable manner. The water in this aquifer was collected over millions of years, and we are using it up in decades. When it is gone, Kansas and Nebraska will return to being desert, and what happens to food supplies then? If you look globally, water supplies are strained just about everywhere. This is one example of a bottleneck factor. To me it seems obvious that the present level of population is higher than the environment can support sustainably in the long-term. Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux User #333216 "There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about." -- John von Neumann _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
