ADVERTISEMENT

The biggest environment concern

TUMe

I.T.S. Legend
Dec 3, 2003
23,249
2,203
113
77
Man's biggest impact on the environment can be summarized in a number: 7 billion.

Decades ago, there was a good deal of talk about the "Population Explosion." You don't hear much about it today, but the world's population has passed or will soon pass 7 billion. I haven't counted them all myself. America was roughly 180 million and now is roughly 300 million.

What is good for the individual is not always good for the species. Every morning most take a dump and it winds up, even properly treated in our rivers and streams. Most of us would like to eat today. Most backward countries would like to advance. Yet all we hear about is CO2. Stop the CO2 and you still have Los Angles and Las Vegas fighting over dwindling water damned up from the Colorado. You still have cut and burn agriculture crowding out rainforests. You still have ocean fishing grounds being depleted.

The individual, is, for the most part doing well. We have had smaller wars than World War II, people live longer and modern science has kicked many diseases to the side of the road. No Black Death and smallpox is contained to local problems. In this country the biggest epidemics are obesity and smoking. The average person wants more stuff, not less. Going back to the pre-Industrial age, I should be dead twice. Most people didn't survive losing their appendix or get stents.

Population probably can't be controlled. Eight billion, ten. At some point there will be more than the planet can absorb. The Earth has had, at least, three major mass extinctions and some smaller ones. If God is coming he needs to be here before then. Let's all meet somewhere and have some chili cheese fries and beer and talk about it.

PS: I'm not being negative at all...the Earth always recovers given a couple of hundred million years.
 
Bingo!

But the tradiional american family isn't creating that spike right now. Its those that live outside that family structure and mostly outside the USA.

Ehrichs "Population Bomb" scenario has always been a threat to mankind, imo, but something we seem powerless to do anything about. Or maybe its just that we don't have the will.

What I'd like to see is a balance of morality, humanity and practicality in dealing with the problem. If we hope for wars, famine, govt regulation of marriages and strict population control, we are dangerously playing with another dynamic imo.

The world shouldn't reward every unwed mother with more govt stuff and by doing so, encourage more baby creation. But we shouldn't encourage more abortion either since that jeopardizes the health of the mother (something the father can just walk away from) and certainly brings into question whether that (abortion) is, in some form, murder, since noone has or can prove when life truly begins. There needs to be a balance.

Here's a solution that might help in most countries with stable govts. Force every deadbeat "creator" to pay up and support the kid or go to prison for fraud. No court battles. No lawyers involved.

Having one male filanderer running around "creating" 20 or more children he'll never support is a crime on society and there should be consequences. If he can't support the child, he goes to prison, period. That way, he no longer can have his fun and hurt the mother, his and her family and most importantly, the child - certainly not from a prison cell. But you'd have to consider the "act" consequentially a form of "rape" AND "fraud". Now thats getting serious about the problem. Society may someday demand this kind of punishment, unfortunatly.






This post was edited on 5/1 11:03 AM by rabidTU
 
My point was that their probably is no solution.
 
Originally posted by TUMe:
My point was that their probably is no solution.
Didn't mean to hijack the thread, but to "expand" it a bit.

This is the kind of crossfire that we need more of. IMO
 
Originally posted by rabidTU:

Originally posted by TUMe:
My point was that their probably is no solution.
Didn't mean to hijack the thread, but to "expand" it a bit.

This is the kind of crossfire that we need more of. IMO
Not a problem. Open board.
 
Good stuff.

UN statistical analysis (for whatever that is worth) shows the world population growing to about 10.2 billion by 2065 and remaining stable at that point. It is worth noting that no population forecast has been accurate thus far (see Malthus for some fun with numbers and population density).

Population growth primarily threatens fresh water resources. Roughly 80% of fresh water use is for agriculture followed by sanitation. We already see the results of unsustainable populations (based on location more than numbers) with the Colorado River and Ogallala Aquifer. Cities downstream of the mountains with limited natural fresh water sources (Las Vegas for one) basically suck the Colorado dry. Cities in Arizona, Nevada and California have major issues when it comes to fresh water. The problem is so bad that Hoover Dam could be unable to generate electricity in a few more years. (Please note that this is not a function of "global warming" or "climate shift" but instead one of demand versus supply. We had plenty of water at 200 million people but the growth of urban areas in the west and a population in excess of 320 million is causing all sorts of problems.)

Given the adage that "wars are fought over population pressure and natural resources" it should be interesting to see how the US handles the situation in Las Vegas and other urban areas with no or limited local water supplies and rainfall.

Thanks!
 
In 1960, the US population was slightly less than 180,000,000. Today its over 320,000,000. That was only 50 years ago. If the tradtional american family has "evolved" away from the family that elected JFK, or has been mostly eliminated through societal change, then we may be on the downslide as a society. In my view, population has made us a stronger economy overall simply because we are greater in number, but also a more dangerous one with the risk of creating a society more Orwellian, dystopian.

For the younger crowd who never lived in that 1960 america, they have no gage on how free freedom should be and how safe and secure americans used to live.

As long as our politicians make decisions for their own political gain and not whats best for the nation in the long run, we are at jeopardy. We need better leadership.

imo
 
The biggest environment concern
----------------------

All the hot air spweing about "Global Warming" and its our fault.



"Climate Change" happens. It's been happening on Earth long before man was here.
 
You couldn't have been more wrong the Ehrich.

Yet he is a distinguished Professor at Stanford I believe.

That guy is the poster child for doomsday scenarios.

In my opinion his theories are laughable.

It can be used as a cautionary tale for many projections when we think about CC.

No problem with the CC folks but this stuff is not simple very difficult to project outcomes, I love the science research that is being developed for the solutions.

GO TU!!!
 
Originally posted by Tu Geo:
You couldn't have been more wrong the Ehrich.

Yet he is a distinguished Professor at Stanford I believe.

That guy is the poster child for doomsday scenarios.

In my opinion his theories are laughable.

It can be used as a cautionary tale for many projections when we think about CC.

No problem with the CC folks but this stuff is not simple very difficult to project outcomes, I love the science research that is being developed for the solutions.

GO TU!!!
It's not science. Science describes nature and it's forces. This is computer projections. Darwin described evolution, he did not predict how we could evolve in the future.
 
Originally posted by TUMe:

Originally posted by Tu Geo:
You couldn't have been more wrong the Ehrich.

Yet he is a distinguished Professor at Stanford I believe.

That guy is the poster child for doomsday scenarios.

In my opinion his theories are laughable.

It can be used as a cautionary tale for many projections when we think about CC.

No problem with the CC folks but this stuff is not simple very difficult to project outcomes, I love the science research that is being developed for the solutions.

GO TU!!!
It's not science. Science describes nature and it's forces. This is computer projections. Darwin described evolution, he did not predict how we could evolve in the future.
Bingo!
 
Originally posted by TUMe:
Originally posted by Tu Geo:
You couldn't have been more wrong the Ehrich.

Yet he is a distinguished Professor at Stanford I believe.

That guy is the poster child for doomsday scenarios.

In my opinion his theories are laughable.

It can be used as a cautionary tale for many projections when we think about CC.

No problem with the CC folks but this stuff is not simple very difficult to project outcomes, I love the science research that is being developed for the solutions.

GO TU!!!
It's not science. Science describes nature and it's forces. This is computer projections. Darwin described evolution, he did not predict how we could evolve in the future.
OK edit the word Science.

By the way World populations will be decreasing by the mid to late 21st Century. Too bad Ehrich won't live long enough to see his hypothesis proven utterly wrong.

GO TU!!!
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT