Something to think about...You can't add or remove water from a
closed system (like earth). You can't add it. You can't
get shipments of water from another planet or outer space when the population
grows and you need more fresh water.But there is a way to get more
fresh water. Use water already here but unusable because it's sequestered
for ions in ice layed down in past last ice-ages. Miles deep in some places.68.7 percent of earth's fresh water is currently locked up in ice
(google it).More water than exists in all the lakes, the rivers, the
air, the clouds, reservoirs, etc, combined) exists currently in solid form
locked up waiting to be released.Could this be part of some plan?
By someone who knew the population of earth was going to grow? And more water
would be needed.I don't know. Just something to think
about.It's kinda interesting that nature itself is kinda taking
care of this problem we puny humans can't fix (the lack of water for our
growing population).Maybe ice melting is not totally a bad thing.Not all of it, but maybe some of it?
@Redshirt wrote,"Also, according to NASA, as the earth warms, we
get even more farm land opened up."No, NASA did not say we would
get even more farm land opened up.If you drive through southern
Wyoming or southern Idaho, (away from the Snake River), you will find plenty of
"warm farm land". But nothing, , aside from some very hardy sagebrush,
will grow there, because there's one thing missing.Water.And scientists are predicting heavier rains (and more severe flooding)
in the currently wet regions and even worse droughts in the drier ones. Perhaps it will take a hurricane wiping out Mar-a-Lago before our
Tweeter in Chief pays attention.
RedShirt, the idea that people will have fewer children if they can't
afford to raise them is nonsense. People will have fewer children when they
have the means to control their fertility--i.e. access to contraception--and
when they are reasonably sure that their children won't die before they are
five years told. Neither is the case in Sierra Leone or Malawi or Uganda. The only contraception available to most women in Mali is a condom.
Tell me, seriously, if a woman already has six children under eight and her
husband refuses to wear a condom---is she going to decline to have sex because
she thinks she can't afford more kids? Particularly when she knows, from
experience, that he'll beat her if she refuses?
RedShirt wrote, "Why not let the market drive the birth rate? As
food becomes more expensive, people will have fewer kids because they can't
afford them."So you are saying that a now-pregnant 17 year old
girl decided to have unprotected sex because she a) wanted to have a child, and
b) knew she could afford to raise one. Right?
To "The Real Maverick" you opinions are the same. According
to actual scientists, using current technology, we have not yet reached the
maximum population of the earth. Also, according to NASA, as the earth warms,
we get even more farm land opened up.Why do we have to implement
birth control measures. That sure sounds like the Eugenics program that Hitler
wanted.Why not let the market drive the birth rate? As food becomes
more expensive, people will have fewer kids because they can't afford them.
Do you really think any government could reasonably control birth rates? Look
at China, they force women to get abortions, and commit other atrocities. Is
that what you want?To "Ranch" so you say you know more about
what the earth can sustain than God?
@a bit of reality "We need to reach an equilibrium with our environment,
and that means achieving a steady state population--not an exponentially growing
one. "I don't think capitalism in its present state of
development can handle "steady state."
Re: "Nobody's trying to stop us all from having kids. They're just
saying think about it first"...---Anna,Who in the
world doesn't think about it before having kids?I think most
people think about it first.
RedShirtHarvard says:"According to scripture, the earth contains
sufficient resources for whatever population will be on the Earth."--- Okay, that one made me laugh!! As if "scripture" knew anything
about anything at all. Hah!
The fertility rate in the United States has been at or below replacement since
the early 1970s and so why has the U.S population exploded from 300 million in
2006 to over 320 million today? The reason is the flood of legal and illegal
migrants, primarily the poor from Mexico, Central America, the Middle East, and
Africa. Western Europe has about the same problemThese migrants
moving from poverty stricken regions often use more than 10 times the natural
resources that were available to them in their country of origin than in the
U.S. They get cars, and far larger homes, that require the resources. So, those
that are in favor of flooding countries with a high standard of living with poor
migrants, can't possibly be at the same time be worried about the
environment. Either they are hypocrites or emotionally they can't
understand the problem. Flooding the U.S with poor migrants will never reduce
the environmental problems.
@ RedshirtYour opinions, are not based on fact or evidence. Garbage
in garbage out.Third world countries primarily located in north and
central Africa are breeding out of control. With that breeding comes crime,
malnutrition, and disease. We cannot maintain the same level of ignorance on
sexual education and birth control. Here in the states, the states breeding out
of control are those red states who refuse to implement comprehensive sex
education and refuse to make birth control easily available. If we
want to preserve the long-term well-being of our planet, we need to implement
smart and evidence-based fact driven education (comprehensive sex education) and
make birth control readily available. Sticking our heads in the sand
and refusing to do anything productive, is the conservative way. Ignoring
problems don't make problems go away.
John Charity Springs, you completely missed her point.
There is no population explosion in the developed world. It's third world
countries where the population is exploding. But there are signs of hope. For
one example, fifty years ago Mexico had a third world birth rate, today there
birth rate is not much higher than ours. Giving women education, opportunity,
and access to birth control seems to be the solution.
The single biggest factor, world wide, in slowing down population growth has
been empowering women to have a voice in their lives. Careers, education,
leadership all have had a positive impact. As far as I remember we have yet to
have a female despot anywhere.
To "Ranch" the only people I see using resources with reckless abandon
are the liberal elites.The commoners don't have the financial
resources to over-consume or waste resources.Tell us, what do you
see out there that you consider reckless abandon?According to
scripture, the earth contains sufficient resources for whatever population will
be on the Earth.However, when you have people like Al Gore with his
multiple mansions and fuel guzzling aircraft, I have to wonder about the people
you choose to follow.
RedShirtHarvard says:"To "Ranch" actually, the Bible
does tell us to have children and to use the earth and its resources. It
doesn't say to use them reckless abandon, but it does say to use
them."-- The problem is that most people (especially religious
people) can't distinguish the difference between "use resources"
and "use resources with reckless abandon", the latter being their
@JCS"The one child policy has done nothing to spare the environment,
and has frankly made it worse."The reason China is the largest
carbon emitter is because they have over a billion people and industrialized. If
they didn't have the one child policy their population would be even larger
and more polluted because of the increase in population."The
world's problems are caused far more by substance abuse, immorality, and
the glorification of violence"Some other problems are more
caused by that sure, but not climate problems. These three things (arguments
about whether pollution regulations being lax is immoral aside) have nothing to
do with pollution problems. I don't think family size is ever accused of
being a violence or substance abuse cause.
Well it varies around the world. Like birth rates in Japan are really, really
low, and in Western Europe they're pretty low, and as the population ages
that causes problems with the payer:payee structure of healthcare systems for
the elderly. But globally population is still going up. Of course
studies do show that the most effective thing one can do to reduce their climate
impact is to have fewer children but no law is needed for that, people are
already choosing that as a general population since birth rates have been
declining for decades. It'll be a while before some other countries drop to
low enough birth rates that the global population stabilizes but that tends to
be 3rd world countries which have much lower carbon emissions.
@ John Charity Spring China has an environmental problem because
they have about 1.4 billion people that are quickly climbing out of poverty and
thereby consuming more natural resources. If they didn't have the 1-child
policy, either by government mandate or the personal choices of the people, the
population there would be closer to 2.8 billion. Doubling the number of people
means doubling the amount of smog pumped into the air and doubling the amount of
trash being produced.Fortunately, because of access to birth control
it looks like our species is willing to limit its own population by the
voluntary choices of individuals. If this weren't the case and if the
government didn't enforce population control, then the doomsday scenario
described by Ehrlich would necessarily happen.We need to reach an
equilibrium with our environment, and that means achieving a steady state
population--not an exponentially growing one. If a couple has the means and
desire to be great parents, they should have as many kids as they want. However,
that only works if there are enough others who choose to have zero or one child
so that in aggregate, the population remains stable.
To "liberal larry" that is wrong. The earth does not have a limit for
the number of roads, or houses.We may have to change materials or
building methods, but the earth has sufficient resources for our needs for a
good long time.To "Ranch" actually, the Bible does tell us
to have children and to use the earth and its resources. It doesn't say to
use them reckless abandon, but it does say to use them.
The left-wing environmental extremists would lock up every vacant field and
stream from the use of man. Indeed, they would go one step further and remove
man from the equation altogether by imposing strict restrictions on child
bearing. Anyone who thinks that restrictions on family size are the
answer to any perceived problem need look only to China. The irrefutable fact is
that China has become an environmental disaster, with the world's highest
rates of pollution. The one child policy has done nothing to spare the
environment, and has frankly made it worse.The world's problems
are caused far more by substance abuse, immorality, and the glorification of
violence than they are caused by family size. Society must stop chasing the
chimera of family size and must address the true causes of the problem.
We the earth is definitely overpopulated! The problem is not space, or food,
or even water, the issue is quality of life. Traffic, pollution, and habitat
destruction are all related to the increase in population.For every
human that lives we replace other species. It looks like our grand children
will live in a world without any large animal species. Its a zero sum game, the
earth can support only so many living organisms.We can keep
increasing world population, but no matter how you slice it everyone gets a
smaller piece of the pie!
But God commanded us to Multiply and CONSUME all the resources on the planet.
At least that's what most Christians think the bible says.