Re: Overpopulation a Hoax

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:53:57 GMT, RonSonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> Good. Most of So. Cal's farming depends on irrigating an arid region and it is
> wasteful of water that would be more valuable in other applications. If the land
> is more valuable if put to another use then that's fine, it should be put to
> another use.

Where, then will the crops that were grown in S. California be grown?
Clearly not S. California, which is excellent farmland but little
water of its own.



> >Its wastes are disposed of not in the City, but
> >miles away.
> 
> There's a legitimate problem, but it's one that increasing prosperity and
> technological advancement can cure. 

Specifically how will technological development eliminate the need for
waste dumps?  

 
> These are all economic issues. 

Water diversion to the point of drying up complete rivers, paving over
of natural habitat and cropland, massive waste dumps are economic
issues?

I suppose your next irrational statement will be that the environment
is an economic issue and that it should be disposed of whenever there
is economic gain to be made.


 

> >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.  
> 
> Yes it does, greatly. Compare NYC to say Mexico City for ecological footprint.

Cite, please.



> >And therein lies the crux of the problem.  The natural environment is
> >finite.  We just want to believe it is not.
> 
> The more efficient our use of that environment the better, the potential there
> may not be infinite but we are a very long way from pegging that meter.

Many are of the opinion that the meter needle has been wrapped around
the pin for several decades now.