Global Warming?

[susanann]

Where is the sense in continuing to waste this precious resource?

Because it is the best way to "fuel" a population explosion.

If you want to overpopulate as fast as you can and if you want to transform every farm and woodland into subdivisions, then you must overuse our world's natural resources.

As long as over population is your goal, you will destroy the environment and our world.

 

[susanann]

Still if each person could reduce their fossil fuel usage by half now, (an easy target) then that gives us plenty of time for waiting until the population doubles. We might also work at a more sustainable growth rate if we wanted to.

No. because population increases are not "additive", they "multiply".

and besides, we have already doubled our population in my lifetime - there is no time left.

It is not an "easy target" for the simple fact that everyone who wants our population to multiply ( the majority) also does not want to reduce anything.

The basic premise of wanting to explode your population is with the intention to Increase comsumption - not decrease it.

When you increase our population from 75 million, to 150 million, to 300 million(current), to 600 million, to 1.2 billion, consumption of oil and all other resources grows even faster.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Because it is the best way to "fuel" a population explosion.

Why is that a good thing? Why is that sensible? Overconsumption of resources can take place within a declining population as well as a growing one. If you look at country by country stats much of the growth in the worlds population takes place in third world countries where consumption is low and people live more of a subsistence existence. Flying strawberries half way round the world just isn't an option for a lot of people. In the US population growth is higher than most developed countries, many people put this down to immigration and the tendency for immigrants to have larger families. I haven't researched this so I don't know how accurate that is.

If you want to overpopulate as fast as you can and if you want to transform every farm and woodland into subdivisions, then you must overuse our world's natural resources.

The current population of the world could fit into texas with a thousand square feet of land each, and there would still be 1300 billion square feet left over. We have a long way to go before we reach the kind of population numbers that we would need before we ran out of space.

http://tennesseerighttolife.org/human_life_issues/human_life_issues_over-population_myths.htm

In 1996 the US was consumeding an average of 33% of natural resources produced, and produced 50% of total hazardous waste. Yet they constituted only 5% of the overall population. This is a bigger problem than any idea that we may be reaching a population ceiling.

http://www.susps.org/overview/art2004jan.html

Whose goal is overpopulation?

Consumption is much simpler to fix than population growth.

 

[ScottishJohn]

No. because population increases are not "additive", they "multiply".

and besides, we have already doubled our population in my lifetime - there is no time left.

We are not going to double in the next decade. That is plenty of time. There are more than enough resources to support the current population if we change the way we consume. World population is projected to be 9 billion by 2050, thats still not double. That gives us quite a while. Still, provides some extra motivation to get consumpion down in the west.

http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html

It is not an "easy target" for the simple fact that everyone who wants our population to multiply ( the majority) also does not want to reduce anything.

What is this? Some kind of multiplication conspiracy? I am unaware of anyone promoting population multiplication.

Over consumption and and increasing population are two different things. They may affect one another and feed into the same shortages but they have different solutions.

The basic premise of wanting to explode your population is with the intention to Increase comsumption - not decrease it.

Well in europe we are doing our bit and being criticised for it. We are in decline.

http://www.popco.org/press/articles/2004-1-myers.html

When you increase our population from 75 million, to 150 million, to 300 million(current), to 600 million, to 1.2 billion, consumption of oil and all other resources grows even faster.

Well you might want to sort that out too. It is however a seperate problem. If you have 1.2 billion (in whatever year you reach that mark) and are still trying to consume at the same rate you will be using four thirds of the worlds annual resources. If you cut your consumption by 50% (which is easy) you would only be consuming 2 thirds! (In reality you could cut consumption much further without cutting quality of life).

 

[Moros]

Is there, or is there not - a gigantic hole in the ozone layer?

 

[gal4God]

The Earth is warming, humans are partly to blame. according 2 stupid sceince its happend b4 humans were on the earth

 

[susanann]

If you have 1.2 billion (in whatever year you reach that mark) and are still trying to consume at the same rate you will be using four thirds of the worlds annual resources. If you cut your consumption by 50% (which is easy) you would only be consuming 2 thirds! (In reality you could cut consumption much further without cutting quality of life).

With our current immigration rates, we are projected to have 1 billion people living in the USA by the end of the century, and 1.2 billion shortly after that.

As far as "cutting consumption", we are increasing consumption (both per capita and in aggregate), not decreasing it.

Nobody is cutting anything, nobody wants to cut.

 

[susanann]

There are more than enough resources to support the current population if we change the way we consume. Still, provides some extra motivation to get consumpion down in the west.

Nobody is going to change the way they consume - except to consume more - not less.

Who wants less?

What "extra" motivation??????? there is no motivation for anyone to have, or to consume: less.

 

[susanann]

We are not going to double in the next decade. That is plenty of time.


.

You dont need to double in population in order to use twice as much of the world resources.

China has not doubled in the past 20 years, but it is using 10X the number of resources that it used 20 years ago.

It only takes a 50% increase in US population to cause it to use 100% more of the worlds resources.

In other words, however much you increase your population, you will use a greater increase in the worlds resources.

By the end of the century, the US is projected to triple its population to 1 billion.

When a billion people are here, we wont be using up 3X the number of resources that we now use, but substantially MORE than 3X the number that we now use up.

Our consumption patterns will continue to use increasing amounts of energy as they have for the past 30 years. We are not going back to the horse and buggy, but rather will continue to get more complex and more energy consuming.

It wont just be raspberries that we will be flying in each day from the other side of the world, and we wont need just 3X the number of rasberries,but more like 5X or 6X.

 

[ScottishJohn]

With our current immigration rates, we are projected to have 1 billion people living in the USA by the end of the century, and 1.2 billion shortly after that.

Well thats easy to fix.

As far as "cutting consumption", we are increasing consumption (both per capita and in aggregate), not decreasing it.

Nobody is cutting anything, nobody wants to cut.

Exactly - this is why so many people demonise the US when it comes to environmental issues. Cutting consumption is not difficult to do. Persuading people to do it is difficult. It is a problem which will continue to grow until it is dealt with.

 

[susanann]

Quote Originally Posted by: susanann

It is not an "easy target" for the simple fact that everyone who wants our population to multiply ( the majority) also does not want to reduce anything.

What is this? Some kind of multiplication conspiracy? I am unaware of anyone promoting population multiplication.

The US wants it population to double every 40 years or so.

When it doubles, it is increasing its population by a greater amount each time it doubles.

we dont add 150 million each time, but an inccreasing multiple of 150 each time.

The current double is 150 million which took us to our current 300 million.

The next double will increase it to 300 million.

The next double 600 million people.

The next doulbe 1.2 billion people (end of the century)

The next double 2.4 billion.
etc.

It is not a "conspiracy", it is openly advocated by nearly everyone, republicans, democrats, etc.

Ameicans are under the current belief that an ever growing population that consumes more and more per person, are needed to support the endless increasing social security recipients, and are wanted by businessmen to buy more and more from our retail stores.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Nobody is going to change the way they consume - except to consume more - not less.

Who wants less?

We have. In the way we shop I consume less fuel in terms of the sources of the food we buy, that doesn't mean I eat less food. In fact it means I eat the same amount of food, only it is better quality. Quantity remains the same, quality improves, I consume less. Easy.
There are dozens of ways of consuming less raw material without cutting back on lifestyle. Fuel for instance. Lots of people in the US drive huge gas engines which are particularly inefficient. They could get the same power, with more torque and better offroad capability from a diesel engine, which would consume 30-40% less fuel. Thats quite a reduction. Plus you can run diesel engines on biodiesel and vegetable oil. For those who take this route that is a 100% reduction in the amount of fossil fuel they are using for transport.
Thats two of may solutions. Those two alone would make a major impact on US consumption.

What "extra" motivation??????? there is no motivation for anyone to have, or to consume: less.

That is ridiculous. There is loads of motivation. It helps solve a serious problem, in the case of the food you get a better product, in the case of transport you get a better engineering solution, a cleaner solution in environmental terms, and you save at least 30-40% on your fuel costs. More if you make your own biodiesel, or use waste oil from restuarants. There is no end of motivation for consuming less.

 

[susanann]

Quote

Originally Posted by: susanann

Because it is the best way to "fuel" a population explosion.

Why is that a good thing? Why is that sensible? Overconsumption of resources can take place within a declining population as well as a growing one.

It is easier to over consume our resources with huge increases in population rather than a declining population.

Good thing? The American voter thinks it is a good thing. It means more development, more people paying social security taxes. More people buying more from our gas stations and other retail stores - which means more profits.

 

[susanann]

In the US population growth is higher than most developed countries, many people put this down to immigration and the tendency for immigrants to have larger families. I haven't researched this so I don't know how accurate that is.

Yes, it is true.

All of the population growth in the US since 1970 has been due to immigration.

Native born women have been below Zero Population Growth since 1970.

The highest birth rate in the US of any demographic group is among immigrant women.

 

[susanann]

Quote Originally Posted by: susanann

What "extra" motivation??????? there is no motivation for anyone to have, or to consume: less.

That is ridiculous. There is loads of motivation. It helps solve a serious problem, in the case of the food you get a better product, in the case of transport you get a better engineering solution, a cleaner solution in environmental terms, and you save at least 30-40% on your fuel costs. More if you make your own biodiesel, or use waste oil from restuarants. There is no end of motivation for consuming less.

Facts are facts.

There is no motivation.

The US is consuming more energy and more natural resources per capita, not less.

You are confusing what Americans "could" do , as opposed to observing what they are actually doing.

 

[ScottishJohn]

You dont need to double in population in order to use twice as much of the world resources.

Thankyou - I believe that was my initial point - we need to deal with excessive consumption as a more immediate problem than any future increase on population.

China has not doubled in the past 20 years, but it is using 10X the number of resources that it used 20 years ago.

Yet they still have not reached the per capita levels of consumption that you have in the US. Something has to give. The sooner we face up to this problem of excessive consumption and waste the sooner we are likely to find a solution.

It only takes a 50% increase in US population to cause it to use 100% more of the worlds resources.

Unless you change consumption practises. At the end of the day you will have to. The US population will increase by 50% by 2050 according to the link I provided, and you cannot have more than 100%. This is the root of the problem excessive consumption by a minority of the worlds population. It cannot continue. It is just barefaced greed.

In other words, however much you increase your population, you will use a greater increase in the worlds resources.

Nonsense. If your population doubles, and you halve consumption your share of the resources remains the same.

By the end of the century, the US is projected to triple its population to 1 billion.

When a billion people are here, we wont be using up 3X the number of resources that we now use, but substantially MORE than 3X the number that we now use up.

As has laready been pointed out that is not possible as it would mean using more resources than actually exist.

Our consumption patterns will continue to use increasing amounts of energy as they have for the past 30 years. We are not going back to the horse and buggy, but rather will continue to get more complex and more energy consuming.

No you won't because eventually you won't be able to afford it. Noone is advocating a return to the horse and buggy, but the gas V8 is an unnecessary and expensive luxury which can easily be replaced with other technology which delivers BETTER results for less money, and consumes less resources.

It wont just be raspberries that we will be flying in each day from the other side of the world, and we wont need just 3X the number of rasberries,but more like 5X or 6X.

You won't be able to get them. It is just not possible to continue to consume at that rate. It is not necessary, it makes no sense, and in any case by then China will probably be in charge and they will no doubt want the raspberries. You will have to have homegrown fruit in season, and you will discover what a joy it is - full of taste and sweetness, the satisfaction of having waited for them to ripen - that will be a comfort to the good people of the US while the Chinese devour their tasteless watery out of season artificially presevered, produced and enhanced forced fruit from halfway around the world.

 

[ScottishJohn]

The US wants it population to double every 40 years or so.

When it doubles, it is increasing its population by a greater amount each time it doubles.

we dont add 150 million each time, but an inccreasing multiple of 150 each time.

The current double is 150 million which took us to our current 300 million.

The next double will increase it to 300 million.

The next double 600 million people.

The next doulbe 1.2 billion people (end of the century)

The next double 2.4 billion.
etc.

It is not a "conspiracy", it is openly advocated by nearly everyone, republicans, democrats, etc.

Where?

Ameicans are under the current belief that an ever growing population that consumes more and more per person, are needed to support the endless increasing social security recipients, and are wanted by businessmen to buy more and more from our retail stores.

But more population also equals more social security and more retail store owners. If the system doesn't work now, it still won't work when you have twice as many people.

 

[ScottishJohn]

It is easier to over consume our resources with huge increases in population rather than a declining population.

There are plenty of countries with larger and faster growing populations than the US, yet they consume less. The problem is in the waste in US. Resouces are wasted at every step. 50% of all food in the US gets binned. Your fuel consumption is crazy. These are easy problems to fix without having to do anything about your population size.

Good thing? The American voter thinks it is a good thing.

That is far from offering proof. The American voter elected Bush. QED.

It means more development, more people paying social security taxes. More people buying more from our gas stations and other retail stores - which means more profits.

The point is that it is not sustainable. The economics just don't add up.

 

[susanann]

Quote Originally Posted by: susanann

Ameicans are under the current belief that an ever growing population that consumes more and more per person, are needed to support the endless increasing social security recipients, and are wanted by businessmen to buy more and more from our retail stores.

1. But more population also equals more social security and more retail store owners.


2. If the system doesn't work now, it still won't work when you have twice as many people.

1. Actually, we have less and less store owners. Walmart alone, has put tens of thousands of business owners out of business while multiplying its own profits.


2. That is why when you have 30 million more recipients getting social security, you increase your population to have 100 million more people to support them, etc. That is what they say, and that is what they are doing.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Facts are facts.

There is no motivation.

Nonsense. There is plenty of motivation - better quality food, cheaper fuel bills, doing your bit to releive a problem, reduce dependance on unstable areas of the world etc etc etc. The facts are that these are strong motivators. Many of the US population may currently be resisting them, but eventually they will no longer be able to. In the most recent sotu address Bush recognised this and made it a goal to reduce fuel consumption in the US.

The US is consuming more energy and more natural resources per capita, not less.

You are confusing what Americans "could" do , as opposed to observing what they are actually doing.

No you are the one confusing what could happen to what is happening. I have been talking in terms of what is possible all through this conversation - I am well aware of the current resistance to do anything that might mean eating better food, spending less on fuel helping the environment and helping national security in the US. I just can't see it continuing for a great deal longer becuase as I have said over and over it is not sustainable.