Just sayin’, you know…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7974995.stm
I’ve thought this for some time now; it odd, we discussed it all the time in the early '70s.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we have population controls put on the USA similar to those of China in our lifetime. Its getting out of hand.
Bush’s fault!
Why does the US secretary of state need a science and technology advisor?
we are not at population limits.
if we all lived like rural chinese except for a few geneticists and chemists and engineers to keep the farming efficient we could handle LOTS more
Why does the US secretary of state need a science and technology advisor?
I’m much more concerned about the nominee to be her top lawyer…
Why does the US secretary of state need a science and technology advisor?
perhaps she is having problems syncing up her blackberry with MS Outlook?
Nature has it’s own way of dealing with population issues. Man keeps trying to “fix” natures “mistakes”.
As soon as Obama has his total control of health care system the population will go down.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we have population controls put on the USA similar to those of China in our lifetime. Its getting out of hand.
To counteract the obvious push to let more and more people into the US?
I thought the push was to seal the border?
To counteract the obvious push to let more and more people into the US?
if all the edible food produced on the planet went to feed humans instead of cattle, we could deal with a lot more population easily; on the other hand a meat-centered diet has a way higher environmental footprint compared to others, and more and more of the world switching to it is surely making things worse.
well then, it sounds like you’ll be passing on the steak, so want to trade my salad for your steak? yummy!
if all the edible food produced on the planet went to feed humans instead of cattle, we could deal with a lot more population easily;
ignoring of course the other challenges of accommodating a lot more people.
the don’t eat meat argument just leads to even MORE people and even MORE problems.
at some point we really would be better off if we CHOSE to limit our population rather than letting one or more resource constraints do it for us.
To counteract the obvious push to let more and more people into the US?
Not sure if you are talking about latinos or educated immigrants. Nevertheless, I don’t think most crowds take the crowding problem very seriously. I’ve heard arguments on this forum as well with people in person. The feeling is “more is better”…often heard is the argument of a pyramidal shapedpopulation to support the elderly.
Well, I often ask how much is too much. 12 billion? We’ll be there in a few decades. 36 billion? 100 years or so. 200 billion? That ain’t very far around the corner either.
The Earth isn’t expandible.
I’ve never understood this “We’ve reached the limit” of population idea.
In ever possible case that I can think of once a “Population” has exceeded the limit, that excess dies off.
If people are so stupid as to keep producing more people then eventually we will reach some limit and no surprise people will die off.
So far we’ve done a pretty good job at producing more food, increasing quality of life and with an increased population.
Granted resources are finite and there is a limit, but doesn’t make sense to me to make efforts, laws and regulations to control something that will without doubt control itself.
One could make the same argument for global warming. The difference as I see it is the “turn around” time. We can cut the population from 7 billion to 0 in one generation without expending any additional resources. We can’t reverse the effects of global warming so quickly without spending significant resources.
~Matt
The argument is that if we voluntarily limit our population to say, 500 million or so, we could all live lives as opulent as the average american for thousands of years. Science and art could progress, people could be free and healthy, and so on.
Or, we keep exploding in population until it resolves in food riots and starvation and madness, and periodically bounce back and forth over the malthusian limit. The world might be less pleasant that way.
Granted resources are finite and there is a limit, but doesn’t make sense to me to make efforts, laws and regulations to control something that will without doubt control itself.
~Matt
we are not at population limits.
if we all lived like rural chinese except for a few geneticists and chemists and engineers to keep the farming efficient we could handle LOTS more
You’d have to give up your tri bike and “gasp” your rear disc. Takes too much resources to produce that stuff.
JJ
I think the tri bike and disc cover I would be ok to keep
the car and laptop would have to go
and house
and air conditioning
and electricity
You’d have to give up your tri bike and “gasp” your rear disc. Takes too much resources to produce that stuff.
JJ
the other question is Darwinian selection and its role (or non-role) in human expansion…
I gotta go…