At 05:37 PM Tuesday 9/16/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote: >On Sep 16, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > > > No, it's just what I ask _everybody_ who suggests that "approaching 7 > > billion" (or whatever the current world population happens to be) is > > "too many" people: where _specifically_ do you suggest that the > > needed reductions be made, and if you personally are not at the head > > of that list, how do you justify putting anyone else ahead of you? > > > > > > . . . ronn! :) > >The fact that deciding which of the existing 6-7 billion should be >allowed to live is an extremely thorny ethical and moral question (and >one I wouldn't even begin to be qualified to answer) doesn't take away >from the fact that a population of 6-7 billion is far in excess of >what this planet appears to be able to support on a sustainable basis, >nor does it address the problem that the moment anything improves on >the supply side, the population immediately accelerates growth to more >than wipe out those gains on the demand side. (In other words, saying >it's a potentially insoluble problem doesn't make the problem go away.)
Which is why I feel it is appropriate to point out to all of those who make arguments about overpopulation that ultimately what they are saying is that there are too many people alive and they need to face that that is what they are saying and say how they plan to address that matter. . . . ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
