Re: Overpopulation a Hoax

Fred...you are clearly attempting to establish valuable points of concern
but do so in such an alarmist and frankly, completely false manner that it
110% undermines the value of your position.

Ex/ I live in CA (about midway between L.A. and San Diego, in a beach town).
Previously, I've lived in Manhatten (as in, NYC) and have much in the way of
family there. New York city's water and supply is phenomenally good.
Statements like; "California, which is preparing to pave over its most
fertile cropland...", give one the impression that you are a paranoid
shut-in with a pyschiatric disorder of some kind.

In one of your prior posts, you falsely attempted to draw an analogy between
1950's China population and the US today. Completely erroneous numbers. The
environment IS a critical, important aspect of human life and as a social
system operating within a democracy vs. capitalism's excesses, we need to
manage our utilization of natural resources. I for one, ascribe to Chief
Seattle's 1854 observation "The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to
the Earth".

Having established that, PLEASE go back to your piano dabbling or learn
something here about amplifiers, gear, guitars and MAYBE occasionally some
music theory or music history, even contemporary productions. Otherwise,
your thoroughly humorless echoing into an
empty can here is, well, pathetic.

Regards,

Marc Mulay

Fred Elbel wrote:

> On 11 Nov 2003 09:11:15 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dez Akin) wrote:
>
> > Economic growth solves all these problems; This is fundamentally an
> > economic problem, not a population problem. New York has an incredible
> > population density, yet clean water is plentiful.
>
> Dez, you really should take a course or two in ecology.
>
> New York City draws water from upstate NY using an old (and leaky)
> aquaduct system.  Similarly, it draws food supplies from other states,
> particularly California, which is preparing to pave over its most
> fertile cropland.  Its wastes are disposed of not in the City, but
> miles away.
>
> In other words, the ecological footprint of New York is magnitudes
> larger than the area of the city itself.
>
> Similarly for Los Angeles.  It draws down water supplies of rivers
> such as the Colorado, which now reaches its destination as only a
> trickle.
>
> Regarding economic growth, there is no ameliorative magic in such
> growth. It will not reduce the ecological footprint of NYC or LA very
> much at all, if any.
>
> Rather, economic growth facilitates increases in population numbers,
> along with commensurately increased demands upon the natural
> environment.
>
> And therein lies the crux of the problem.  The natural environment is
> finite.  We just want to believe it is not.
>
> Fred Elbel