Re: Overpopulation a Hoax

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 06:32:57 -0700, Fred Elbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:33:07 GMT, RonSonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>> That immigration is entirely up to us. 
>
>Agreed.  We have the opportunity now to return mass immigration
>numbers to traditional replacement levels.  Then in 3 decades - due to
>population momentum - our population will eventually stabilize,
>probably between 400 million and half a billion.
>
>
>> Like I say, we get to decide where we
>> want to be in terms of population and land usage.
>
>Agreed.  The problem is that because of population momentum, we need
>to look into the future and determine what population we want at that
>time.  Then take actions now to achieve it.
>
>
>
>> If it's any consolation to
>> you, all those people being in the USA will pollute a lot less than they would
>> have in Mexico.
>
>Actually that's probably a wash at best.  We bring in Mexico's rural
>poor.  When they come here, they tend to buy cheap, old cars with
>probably the same levels of pollution as cars they drive in Mexico.

It's been awhile since I spent time in Mexico, as of ten years ago that simply
wasn't possible. They were getting cars with no pollution controls at all.
Serious 1960s technology, mostly the Brazillian Beetle.

>But they come here aspiring to acquire more material goods.  These
>goods must be produced, which takes resources and produces waste.  So
>actually, the ecological footprint of those who come here from Mexico
>is probably much greater in the U.S. than it was in Mexico.  The same
>can be said of those who come from any less developed country.

I think you underestimate the impact of subsistence farming as usually practiced
and I'm sure underestimating the difference in how we build things compared to
the third world.

>> That [carrying capacity] alarm has been sounded so many times it does fall on deaf 
>> ears now. I'm not
>> 50 and have lived through many of these malthusian panics that seem never to
>> turn out. 
>
>Ok, we can just wait and see.  
>
>But there is one question you can respond to right now.  That is:  how
>many people do you want in the U.S.?  150 million?  Our current 292
>million?  Half a billion?  A billion?  

My own 'druthers would be many fewer than now, say 150M max. Unfortunately, it
isn't about what I want, is it. 

>> >Recreational use is *not* the same as keeping an ecosystem in its
>> >natural state.  And unfortunately, our economic system does not value
>> >keeping an ecosystem in its natural state.
>> 
>> Then you'll have to show up with some cash and buy the stuff to set it aside. 
>
>Precisely.  And that is the failing of our economic system.

Nah, that's the beauty of it. If people want something it's available to them -
they just have to ante up. The good news is that those lands are available cheap
and the American people are usually happy to set aside large tracts.

>
>
>> Yeah, and we've returned a lot of land to the wild over the last century. 
>
>Uh, we have?   I suspect that in aggregate, the amount of land
>converted from wild to human use has been significantly greater than
>the amount of land returned to the wild.  If you have cites to the
>contrary, please post them.

I'll have to dig. It's worth it for this one.  A tremendous amount of farm land
has been retired since the 1920s, less land is needed. The forestry service
projects a about a 3% reduction in forest land between now and 2050. I'm not
ready to panic. 

>
>
>> >However, family planning assistance has indeed helped.  And many
>> >developing countries have indeed lowered their fertility.
>> >http://www.overpopulation.org/
>> 
>> The thing is modernization causes that to happen as a consequence. I'm fairly
>> familiar with our family planning exports - won't call it a bad thing - just
>> don't see it as doing the job until the rest of the 20th Century package is in
>> place. 
>
>Unfortunately, it will be impossible to export America's level of
>consumption to developing countries.  For example, we've used about
>half of the petroleum on the planet in the last 100 years.  Continuing
>at the same rate of consumption, we'd have another 100 years left, or
>perhaps less as the marginal costs of extraction mount.

Then that will be reflected at the pump and with much grumbling everyone
converts to whatever makes more sense under the circumstances. Unless something
cheaper and more convenient comes along first. Remember the whale oil crises of
the 1800s? 

>But the U.S. is projected to double this century.  And the population
>of all countries combined is projected to increase by about 50%.  So
>the rate of consumption will increased markedly.

If it starts to outstrip supply then the price goes up and people do things
differently.

>>From another perspective, the U.S. is drawing down not only our own
>resources, but also the resources of other countries.  This doesn't
>bode well for long-term sustainability of current high levels of
>consumption.

All of that assuming that nobody adapts or plans or changes. That isn't how
people do things. Read an article today on microbial fuel cells?!?!?! 

People will find answers.

Ron