posted June 22, 2012 08:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
The earth is not overpopulated and can easily accomodate 10 times its current population or more. The problem is resource allocation, not space. - randall

that is your opinion, randall, to which you are entitled. i agree, resource allocation is the priority.

however, not knowing your age i don't know if you have seen the space shrinking all over the world. sure, huge empty spaces - which we need if we are to have animals and vegetables survive with us (and until we invent good replacements that is essential) - but i remember when the world was about half as crowded as it is now.
...

---

If space and land use is what you wanted to debate you should have mentioned that not overpopulation.

Population has controls in place, its the same controls in nature.

Look at how many acorns there are and watch the Squirrel population explode the next year.

Only to decline once they outstrip there food source.

The human population is the same, yes the world population is steady growing. However we aren't at the tipping point yet.

Below is a population pyramid:

A near perfect population pyramid whould have a high population <1 at the bottom and low number of people >99.

This means as people get older they pass away and are replaced by a younger generation to replace them.

But, if you look at the US and Mexico population density together as a whole they just about balance out.

The American population will be made up of retires that will pass away and Mexico will have lots of young generation to replace the old lost.

Of course economical that means problems for both countries as one struggles to find economical medical care for an older population and the other tries to educate and find employment for a mass of young people.

I'm not hear to discussed economics, just point out how the population balances out.

Thats one control, starvation and disease in Africa is another.

If we were at a point were the earth could not sustain itself, the population should have collapsed a long time ago.

The earth can still sustain an increase population until at least 2030.

katatonic,

Its simple human geography there will places that will experience overcrowding,drought, disease and poverty.

Regions with high birth will be overcrowded.

While, other regions in the world that don't have these problems and will be underpopulated.

The real world is an unfair distribution.

Land usage is a different topic for example converting substitutable farm land to commercial properties and I think thats more of issue you should be debating, not population.

I have no disagreements on that topic there aren't any clear priorities on effective land use.

Maybe you should live in Greenland?.

Low population density and because there are glaciers, sufficient water.

Glaciers and aquifers is where 90% of the clean drinking water comes from.

Getting efficient water is a problem everywhere, doesn't matter where you live.

I think most Californians take for granted the amount of effort used to transport water in to the state.

posted June 23, 2012 01:22 PM            

buckminster fuller had plenty of designs to make life livable and sustainable - trouble is, getting everyone to agree that something needs to be done.

spOOl i am not so naive as to think people can grow indefinitely in population without starving to death. however you are being overly objective when you say "it will sort itself"..and we should just wait till billions starve rather than act more consciously and not CREATE max population in the first place? sorry, it may be the way it will go but i don't think it is the WISE way to go. there is a difference between being realistic and being indifferent.

the way the pro-lifers are going, WE will be as crowded as india before the tide turns. is that your desired future? because then we WILL have death panels, or just plain poor people starving in the streets and jails...i am pro-life too but i believe in taking a little control over one's reproductive system and not overdoing it.

posted June 23, 2012 02:17 PM            

we are not so important. i don't think you have read fuller, somehow, randall. he was very clear that as far as destroying the earth, we don't have a chance! he made incredible models that showed quite plainly how insignificant we are in respect to the planet's survival. however we can destroy it for our own survival quite easily.

i don't fancy living in a bladerunner environment, or having to hang my garden in the window because there is no groundspace outside. i need space and places that are not full of people.

he also created floating cities, a car that could park in a straight sideways move, go 90 mph and get 30 mpg in the 30s when such things were unheard of...but he didn't make it cute or pretty.

posted June 23, 2012 07:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
It's the loony overpopulation theorists who are coming up with all kinds of "solutions" for a problem that doesn't exist. Some of their population control solutions are quite macabre. The earth is not being destroyed, we are not running out of room, the ozone will never be depleted, and the earth will never burst into flames from rises in carbon dioxide.

---

People who believe these crazy theories seem like they don't use the noggin the good Lord gave em

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 25, 2012 01:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
....spOOl i am not so naive as to think people can grow indefinitely in population without starving to death. however you are being overly objective when you say "it will sort itself"..and we should just wait till billions starve rather than act more consciously and not CREATE max population in the first place? sorry, it may be the way it will go but i don't think it is the WISE way to go. ....

---

no, its not right at all and it isn't the wise way at all. But what is the definition of humanity anymore anyway?.

Nature is cruel, animals compete to survive and humans are no different. The only problem is with humans its much worse.

Sometimes doing the right thing leads to consequences and sometimes you'll never get caught doing the wrong things.

I'm sure if we had a confessions section, I'm sure you will be surprised what people would confess to and be surprised they have never been caught.

For every 10 people, 2 are naturally evil 2 are good souls the rest are in the middle.

Put your self out there that your a good soul and you'll get trampled on.

Have you seen videos of the Fall Of Saigon or Orleans after Katrinia? What happen to all the good people in that chaos?.

Thats why good people exist but are hard to find. They have to protect themselves, because the "evil people" will undermine them trying to do good.

Katonic,

Take it as a complement, your one of a kind.

AcousticGod,

I know your from California. The best source of alternative energy for California would be Geothermal, Not Solar.

Its re-new able and best of all it works great!!!.

Its been working in Iceland for years and the ground surface in western US is far warmer than the eastern US because the Lithosphere is thinner and closer to the mantle.

If you do a surface heat map you'll see the warmest areas starts at the Cascade volcano range in Washington State, even into parts of British Columbia, all the way down to California and Arizona.

Nevada has some Geothermal power plants.

posted June 25, 2012 08:57 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted June 25, 2012 05:23 PM            

A surprising aerodynamic innovation in wind turbine design called the 'wind lens' could triple the output of a typical wind turbine, making it less costly than nuclear power.

posted June 26, 2012 07:45 PM            

awareness is key..