should U.S. start controlling population growth?

[HappyScrappy]

while the third world countries are currently doing most of the polluting (it costs more to put in more efficient and less polluting systems) - they also will do some of it b/c they can make big bucks doing it.
the states has lots of people here protesting if we use XYZ that is bad for the enviroment, so we farm it out to some 3rd world nation that needs/wants the money and then we take the end result (paper is a big one that comes to mind). that way "somewhere else" is the place getting fucked up and not our home soil - so it makes the companies here look better, yet they are still funding off soil pollution and environment destruction.

all about the benjamins.

 

[HappyScrappy]

and the standard of living is the number one control of population. if you are a poor country, then there are few skilled labor jobs and more just pure labor tasks that pay less. it benefits to have a family of more children b/c they can then go work and bring more money to the table.
whereas if your standard of living is higher, you have no need for this and the money you make can go towards relaxation or the accumulation of material goods.

 

[the nature boy]

excellent point HS. plus the labor is cheaper in 3rd world countries.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

another question for you.. regarding oil and pollution and what not.. how much of an impact do you think the automobile and petroleum industries have on the economies of the world? when pollution as a result of both of these industries begins to force us to find other means of travel and other sources of industry.. what is going to take over? will it be able to support the economy as well as these two industries do? or will economies the world over crumble?

Auto and petroleum industries can be replaced by a nuclear energy industry and a new transportation industry. How's "big steel" doing these days? 100 years ago, it was king of industry. Now, it is a relic. What about the railroads? Another relic. Who would have thought phone companies would be in trouble? Yet the Internet threatenes to reduce their role in the economy.

Technology will spawn new industries: a nuclear industry, a transportation industry to replace autos, as autos replaced rails...read a history book.

ok... so you're saying that the amount of farmable land has not decreased in the previous 50 years? sorry bud.. but you're the ignorant one here.

This would be a real crisis....if farming hadn't changed over the last 50 years. We don't use the same inefficient, destructive techniques we used back then. We have genetically altered crops to produce more crop yield. We have irrigation to create arable land that previously was not, and there are techniques to grow food without any soil. When you finish the history book, read a science book.

did you know that in the 1700's 95% of ohio was covered with trees.. and what is it today.. maybe 20%?? do you think that the loss of those trees from ohio alone has had no impact on the amount of oxygen in the air? did you know that those trees were cleared to support a growing population? how much longer until there are no trees? no oxygen?

Nothing like some good old speculation and guesses.

3. this is what we must fight..

We need to fight bozo's like you throwing all this crap around about overpopulation....did you just read a book about it and now you're all excited? First book on the subject sir?

Have you looked into what some newer technologies can do to reduce trash and pollution problems? Have you considered the role of Nature in all of this? the countries with the biggest overpopulaiton problems are China, India and much of Africa. It is no coincidence that they have the highest mortality rates among infants/young people, and the biggest problem with AIDS.

Do yourself a favor: look into nanotechnology and how it applies to overpopulation. The Rice University homepage is a good place to start. of course, go there after you read a few books.

 

[decem]

1. Auto and petroleum industries can be replaced by a nuclear energy industry and a new transportation industry. How's "big steel" doing these days? 100 years ago, it was king of industry. Now, it is a relic. What about the railroads? Another relic. Who would have thought phone companies would be in trouble? Yet the Internet threatenes to reduce their role in the economy.


2. This would be a real crisis....if farming hadn't changed over the last 50 years. We don't use the same inefficient, destructive techniques we used back then. We have genetically altered crops to produce more crop yield. We have irrigation to create arable land that previously was not, and there are techniques to grow food without any soil. When you finish the history book, read a science book.

3. We need to fight bozo's like you throwing all this crap around about overpopulation....did you just read a book about it and now you're all excited? First book on the subject sir?

1. the area i live was one of the largest producing areas of steel and it's economy fueled solely by the steel industry.. since the steel industry has went south.. laying off tens of thousands in my area.. this region is economically depressed to say the least.. not only that.. but as soon as the car industry, which is the only other industry in this area, dies.. and nothing comes to take it's place.. there will be a mass exodous to

2. sorry.. i didn't mean it that way.. guess i worded it wrong. i meant to bring up the fact that where there were once open, fertile fields or forests packed with 300 year old trees.. there are now housing complexes, gas stations, factories, and parking lots.. and this is increasing.. and if you really think that the amount of open land that's available for recreation and the land for the remaining wildlife, the animals that humans have yet to kill of that is, isn't disappearing at an alarming rate.. then you gotta screw loose buddy.

3. i don't know why you gotta go throwing names around.. i'm simply presenting a topic and my views on it.. and this topic has resulted in a much more interesting discussion than the usual fare of "look at the picture of my dog" and "i went to a club last night." and, yes.. i did actually just read a book on it.. it was my first book on the subject.. and you better call me sir you little bitch.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Decem

I can tell you just read a book on it. It's obvious by the way you throw around the opinions of the author as if they were your own. It is clear that the author made a few conclusions , supported them with advantageous data (statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want) and turned you into a believer before you did any thought of your own.

Was the name of the book "No one ever dies of overpopulation"? That's one you may want to look into.

If you want to actually learn something, read some conflicting views and make your own decision, instead of passing off someone else's conclusion as your own. It;s obvious and it makes you look stupid.

Economic sectors don't die out, they evolve. The steel workers are displaced because their skills were obsoleted by technology. The steel worker of yesterday who is unemployed is the displaced IT guy of today whose job was rendered unnecessary by software.

Today's energy sector will eventually be replaced by something else. How do you think carriage manufacturers responded to Henry Ford?


Decem - put what you are saying in perspective, and please address why Nature's remedies are not enough.

 

[decem]

they really are MY opinions..

look.. matt.. i do have a little more integrity than that..

i'm not frickin passing anyone's opinions but my own.. and i actually didn't read a book on it.. i just started an environmental geology course and the instructor talked for about 10 minutes on the subject. and really.. the only things he pointed out were the population numbers and the growth rates.. as well as the facts i stated about ohio's wooded areas, non-renewable resources, and carrying capacities..

besides the facts.. everything that i said were theories, speculations, and conclusions that i came to myself..

believe or not matt.. it is possible to one to come to such conclusions and develop such opinions on your own when you have a little bit of a brain.

so again.. everything that i've said.. besides the facts.. is already in my own words..

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

so you're saying we don't pollute as much as the 3rd world? how can you prove that? Who creates more trash and toxic and radioactive waste? Do you know? Freon is just a minor cause of ozone depletion?. Animals used for food consumption are more harmful to the ozone anyway. And who consumes more food and uses animals for food than the industrialized world? Who uses more pollution causing energy?

Also, while the 3rd world does cause pollution, they are not able to afford such anti pollution measures as the industrialized world. They have a hard enough time competeing as it is. Sadly the only way to rectify that matter is for the industrialized world to help. But that won't happen if we are to keep our economic advantage.

ignorant. yeah right.

Captain,

The third world has FAR more peopel than the "modern world". They don't have rules like "zero emissions" on cars. They don't have restrictions on what land can be used, etc.

The freon thing was just an example....there are dozens of others. there are no restrictions on checmical use, on fluorocarbons, on dumping and polluting water supplies (and consequently, food supplies)....the US and other nations are regulated to the teeth to control pollution.

You made a good point about 3rd world countries lacking the technology to control pollution.

They are the true polluters.

 

[danielson]

This would be a real crisis....if farming hadn't changed over the last 50 years. We don't use the same inefficient, destructive techniques we used back then. We have genetically altered crops to produce more crop yield. We have irrigation to create arable land that previously was not, and there are techniques to grow food without any soil. When you finish the history book, read a science book.

unfortunately

genetic engineering has flaws. we would be mass producing plants with a 'stagnant' gene pool, meaning if some nasty lil bug decided to attack them all we'd lose all our crops at once. plus long-term research hasnt been conducted on it yet, no matter how safe scientists think it is

The crop yield may increase using genetically engineered crops. however they have yet to produce a plant which can fixate its own nitrogen as this requires something like 20 different genes to be spliced onto the new plant. as a result, intensive farming methods are still a necessity which is harmful to the environment near by, and requires huge industrial efforts to produce fertiliser on a large scale. it also doesnt make any allowances for the decreasing levels of trace elements found in soil, meaning minerals etc are now being added artificially in some cases (i.e. selenium). increasing UV levels also mean some plants are much more at risk to being fried....genetic engineering might be an answer but it would alsomean all our foods would change colour...

also there have been huge problems with irrigation in that they temorarily turn bad soil into nice soil, but result in salination of the soil. its been a problem all over the world, US included

growing food without any soil would be very expensive. on a scle large enough to feed the worlds population (6 billion)....very hard

still with all this i guess this is where all the stuff you said about nature sorting itself out comes in.

 

[hayjay]

unfortunately

genetic engineering has flaws. we would be mass producing plants with a 'stagnant' gene pool, meaning if some nasty lil bug decided to attack them all we'd lose all our crops at once. plus long-term research hasnt been conducted on it yet, no matter how safe scientists think it is

The crop yield may increase using genetically engineered crops. however they have yet to produce a plant which can fixate its own nitrogen as this requires something like 20 different genes to be spliced onto the new plant. as a result, intensive farming methods are still a necessity which is harmful to the environment near by, and requires huge industrial efforts to produce fertiliser on a large scale. it also doesnt make any allowances for the decreasing levels of trace elements found in soil, meaning minerals etc are now being added artificially in some cases (i.e. selenium). increasing UV levels also mean some plants are much more at risk to being fried....genetic engineering might be an answer but it would alsomean all our foods would change colour...

***COULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW CURRENT FARMING PRACTICES ARE HARMFUL TO THE ENVIRONMENT? CURIOUS. ALSO, YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT GENETIC ENGINEERING IS USED TO PRODUCE EXACTLY IDENTICAL PLANTS IS INCORRECT. MOST GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PLANTS ARE NOW RESTRUCTURED TO RESIST DISEASE, BUGS, HERBICIDES, ETC. I CAN SEE WHAT YOUR SAYING IF IT TURNS TO SOLE PRODUCTION OF THE FOOD SUPPLY.


also there have been huge problems with irrigation in that they temorarily turn bad soil into nice soil, but result in salination of the soil. its been a problem all over the world, US included

***MY EXPERTISE IS ONLY WITHIN CALIFORNIA. IRRIGATION IS NOT THE CAUSE OF SALINATION. ON THE CONTRARY DEPENDING ON GROUNDWATER DEPTH IRRIGATION CAN LEACH SALT THROUGH THE SOIL STRATA THEREBY ALLOWING FARMING TO OCCUR.

growing food without any soil would be very expensive. on a scle large enough to feed the worlds population (6 billion)....very hard

still with all this i guess this is where all the stuff you said about nature sorting itself out comes in.