Population Growth Makes Life Worse

[Anti-Racism]

Population growth is the ever expanding denominator that gives each person a shrinking share of the resource pie. It contributes to water shortages, cropland conversion to non-farm uses, traffic congestion, more garbage, overfishing, crowding in national parks, a growing dependence on imported oil, and other conditions that diminish the quality of our daily lives.

More people require more of everything, including water. In our highly urbanized society, we fail to recognize how much water one person uses. While we drink close to a gallon of water each day, it takes some 500 gallons a day to produce the food we consume. The U.S. annual population growth of nearly 3 million contributes to the water shortages that are plaguing the western half of the country and many areas in the East as well. As water supplies tighten, the competition between farmers and cities intensifies. In this contest, farmers almost always lose.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2006/Update59.htm

[false_creeds]

Have you ever flown in a plan over the US?

We are not overcrowded. I think the problem is that we navigate toward cities and many of those aren't exactly in great places for water.

I once read not too long ago that you could fit every American, in the same density as NYC, into the state of Texas.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

If population growth is the problem, does that mean we should rank each human by inherant worth and dispose of them in reverse order?

[Anti-Racism]

I once read not too long ago that you could fit every American, in the same density as NYC, into the state of Texas.


If people didn't need food, clothing, shelter or water, that would be true.

But each person needs a certain number of acres to support them.

And we want to leave unbroken land for nature.

Do you see now why your reply might be seen as a non-sequitur?

[false_creeds]

I once read not too long ago that you could fit every American, in the same density as NYC, into the state of Texas.


If people didn't need food, clothing, shelter or water, that would be true.

But each person needs a certain number of acres to support them.

And we want to leave unbroken land for nature.

Do you see now why your reply might be seen as a non-sequitur?


I was simply throwing out an interesting stat.

Somehow NYC is able to eat and drink and they don't have the acreage, but I'm not expanding that previous idea out to the whole country becoming that densely populated either.

The earth really isn't that overpopulated, and what we have isn't likely to grow that much as it has been predicted by alarmists for centuries. We should all either be dead, or in a world where 40 billion people walk around if they were right.

I am on the opposide side. I truely believe that the low fertility rates across the developed and civilized world will end up harming the world more than overpopulation will ever be able to do.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

And we want to leave unbroken land for nature.



I don't, and I am willing to bet I'm not alone in that.

[Anti-Racism]

And we want to leave unbroken land for nature.



I don't, and I am willing to bet I'm not alone in that.


Your personal opinion can be wrong.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

And we want to leave unbroken land for nature.



I don't, and I am willing to bet I'm not alone in that.


Your personal opinion can be wrong.


So can yours.

Many people only care about nature in the abstract. I know plenty of people who are happy to make a nice housing development out of a worthless forest.

[Anti-Racism]

I know plenty of people who are happy to make a nice housing development out of a worthless forest.


There are many (some would say most) out there who are misguided. Your non-sequitur... is it here to substitute for debate, or?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

There are many (some would say most) out there who are misguided.


You mean the enviromental whacko's who put dirt above human life?

[Anti-Racism]

What do most humans do that's so important?

[Nemo]

We are living in a Malthusian nightmare; but there seems little that the world can (or will) do about it. Charles Darwin held out hope that man would evolve into a more perfect species, but feared that he was already doomed to self-destruction before getting there. Certainly, we are no better for following the commandment to “Be fruitful and multiply. . . .� Genesis 1:28 (KJV). Ours has not been a history of good husbandry. Man may be master on this planet, but we are rapidly laying waste to the land and the sea on which we depend for life's subsistence; for when this goes, then, as surely as the earth turns, so shall we go also.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Anyone who feels that they are the one person too many can fix that by ending their life now.

By living despite your claims that you care about the dirt and want it to remain untrodden, you prove what you say is of no importance to you, and therefore your opinion can be easily dismissed.

[Nemo]

The solution is Soylent Green?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

The solution is Soylent Green?


No, there is no food shortage.

If you claim there is a population problem you have it in your power to do your part.

[Nemo]

That is not correct.Â*Â*See Article "IMPACT OF POPULATION GROWTH ON FOOD SUPPLIES AND ENVIRONMENT" at
http://dieoff.org/page57.htm

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

That is not correct. See Article "IMPACT OF POPULATION GROWTH ON FOOD SUPPLIES AND ENVIRONMENT" at
http://dieoff.org/page57.htm


There is no food shortage, and that paper doesn't show there is. I suggest you actually read it.

[Nemo]

Indeed, the world is only one crop failure away from starvation - and, very possibly, human extinction.

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

Indeed, the world is only one crop failure away from starvation - and, very possibly, human extinction.



Not even in the slightest, crops fail all the time yet there is no food shortage or extinction.

[Nemo]

Do you have any fact to support your argument; or are you just spouting off?

[Flea_Bit_Monkey]

What facts are you ignorant of that you need sourced?