There are now ~6.93 billion humans (The Link ) in 1970 there were ~3.9 billion. Too many people? Depends on what kind of a world you want to live in.
I wasn't disagreeing about Paul Ehrlich...he sounds like a first rate nutjob. I'm talking about the proposition that the human population isn't mirroring bacterial growth.
It truly takes a special kind of stupid to jump on the malthus/ehlric over population bomb. What makes it even more frightening is that the "solutions" to the non-existent problem are draconian to the point that they would make des fuhrer blush. Tis truly amazing to suggest wiping out large segments of the worlds population when we probably need more people. In the last year I've driven everywhere from florida to alaska from a hme base of tejas. Most of what I've seen is mile upon mile of empty space. The fact that malthus is anything other than universally mocked after 350 years of seeing him discredited by the real world and data perplexes me. Agreed with the poster who talked about dead cpital. The biggest problem is we aren't maximizing all of these births bc of problems of access. How many einsteins, fermis, newtons etc have been wasted bc they were born and lived in slums their entire life. Finally GT, "mr trust science" on this board is hypocritical in the exteme on this subject. Isn't part of science, oh, I don't know, looking at and analyzing data. Or evaluating hypothesis. Your work on this thread convinces me that you neither know nor care one whit for science, rather you are a political hack. Been a long time since I've been on horn fans. Glad to see the wm hasn't changed. I went round and round on this subject about a year ago. For anyone interested I'd recomend a fantastic popular economics bool titled "more sex, safer sex". Dealt with a fascinating treatment on this very subject.
No, I'm not an only child. Also, I have no aversion to empty spaces. I like to see the world and do much of that on the road. I've been to 47 states (most of the time driving) and10 countries and most of what I've seen in this world is lots and lots of empty space. Its funny to me that you mock the cred of an economist who is looking at the data but can trot out laughably discredited nonsense from malthus. I didn't accuse you of advocating genocide either, but pray tell hoiw the hell do you get to a worldwide population of a billion or two from where we are at. Just read a fascinating article from 2000 talking about earth day and where we are at 30 years later (70 was original earth day) Not only was our population going to be starved, diseased and at war, nbut we (by 80) were going to have to wear gas masks when we go out in thecity, the us would have 85 percent of its species extinct by 00 and the earth was going to cool 9 degrees. Malthus was ill informed, ehlrich is a crank and anyone propping them up is a fool not worth wasting any firing synapses arguing with. Your posts on this thread gt are good for mockery and pointing and laughing. You've made my list of political hacks to ignore from now on. Wash- nice to hear I was missed. Getting ready to start teaching school full time after selling the practice. Even going o coach girls soccer which is funny in and of itself. Life is better for me then its been for years.
None of you answered my question - Is an expanding population necessary for a healthy capitalist economy? Wulaw, you can ignore this since you're not talking to me anymore.
GT WT, The only one in this thread that is a science-denier is you. I think that comes from the fact that you do not understand what science is. "We should put sterilizing agents in the water so we'll have fewer babies" is not a scientific observation; it's a policy prescription. That you can't see the difference is telling. Moreover, this isn't about "recognizing the problem of overpopulation." Your deeply held religious faith tells you that that is the case. That's fine. The evidence, however, tells a different story. People of your ilk have been spouting the same nonsense for hundreds of years. Each time, their predictions are proven laughably wrong. Fact. That's what needs to be "recognized," and everyone in this thread - including others who share your concerns about overpopulation generally - recognizes that Ehrlich is a hack who was wildly off the mark, except you. Since the dawn of the Agricultural Revolution, the trend has been toward more, and denser, population. Population centers and networks of people lead to connecting the minds and work of innovators and have thus led to an increased standard of living for all. We're seeing this now. Some economists from the U of Toronto have done some great work on current population dynamics in the US. Basically, the current and future innovations happen in cities, and especially, in clusters of cities with large, dense populations easily connected (the East Coast megalopolis is the greatest example, but think SF-Silicon Valley, the Texas cities, the Atlanta-Charlotte-Raleigh corridor). Lots of innovators in different fields flock to these places and create a sense of vibrance and creativity. The people that will solve our current challenges, including climate change, water issues, etc. , are likely in those cities. If you and Ehrlich had had your way, many of them would never have been born. So, I'll go with the data over your, "We've been totally wrong about this for hundreds of years; the same trend has existed for 13K years, but trust me, damnit, catastrophe is just around the corner if you don't listen my dire ravings, and if you don't you're a science denier" screed any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Show me your science Laphroaig, I'm willing to be convinced that the earth's carrying capacity for humans is well above 7 billion. I'm willing to be convinced that your economists from the University of Toronto say what you say they do and know what they're talking about. Provide a link. Provide links to any population biologist who believes human population pressure isn't the root cause of fishery collapse, biodiversity declines, pollution, deforestation, and most of the other crises faced by man. Show me the science. I'll be holding my breath.
