George Bush

[the protector]

[quote]50 years ago the earth could support 60 billion people using existing farmland. [/quote]
Where did you find that stat? It sounds ridiculously high to me. In their book "Limits to Growth", the [url="http://www.clubofrome.org/"]Club of Rome[/url] said that if the food supply was evenly distributed, and production was de-centralized, the planet could support around 8 billion at most.

Either way, it is not all about food. What about infrastructure, jobs, clothing, medicine etc.? Lou Dobbs reported last night that in a few decades, the US will need twice of what is has now in houses, hospitals etc. What the enviromental impact of 60 billion people? Look at the impact of 6 billion people. According to [url="http://www.foet.org/JeremyRifkin.htm"]Jeremy Rifkin[/url] Us Americans account for about 22 billion Chinese in terms of consumption and enviromental impact.

[quote]The world will not become overpopulated.[/quote]
The world IS overpopulated. We have been able to fight some of the effects of overpopulation because of cheap, abundant energy from oil. Energy staves off entropy. Thermodynamics. Do you really want to challenge the laws of physics?

Leibig's Law: whatever necessity is least abundant, relative to per-capita requirements, sets the environment's limit for the population of any given species.

Did anyone of you even bother to click on the link?

We are approaching a point where cheap oil will be in decline. What do you think will happen when the source of energy which fueled the growth in population?

The birth rate has slowed from historically of about 2% to 1.2 %.

[quote]And if abortion is necessary to save the planet, why not just legalize murder to help "save the earth"?[/quote]
Hey, wow, something I never said. Next.

[quote]In fact, with great decreases in fertility rates (number of children per woman) in much of the world, the population will likely begin decreasing within this century! (Even the pro-population-control U.N.'s latest population report concedes this.) There is evidence that the decrease will come sooner and be steeper than the U.N. predicts. It has already begun in Europe.[/quote]
What about those other 6 billon and counting? Is population in the third world declining? Due to immigration, even population in the US in not set to decline.

[quote](I've always found it odd that none of these environmental extremists who keep howling about human population have voluntarily commited suicide "for the planet's sake." In fact, many of them do not even make sacrifices in lifestyle to use less resources.) [/quote]
The Hollywood liberals don't, that's for sure. But what are you any better to tell people that it is a sin for a couple to limit the number of children they have? Are you totally oblivious to the limits of this planet?

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Dec 17 2004, 01:26 AM'] Republican Catholics are AMERICANS then CATHOLIC. [/quote]
Have to take exception to this. I am a Catholic first, then a Texan, then a Republican.

Broad statements like yours assume a lot.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Dec 17 2004, 03:26 AM'] War is a morality issue, an ethical issue. The Pope PUBLICLY stated his beliefs on it, doesnt that make it binding on all catholics? and even if its not, are you a supermarket catholic? Oh the popes says this, but I want this, oh the pope says this, but my President says that.

Republican Catholics are AMERICANS then CATHOLIC. [/quote]
WRONG!!

Being Catholic transcends EVERY OTHER BOND.

First you are Catholic, everything else comes after.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Phatmasser777' date='Dec 17 2004, 02:26 AM'] Republican Catholics are AMERICANS then CATHOLIC. [/quote]
[img]http://members.lycos.co.uk/thematrixd/YouJack1.gif[/img]

[luciana]

[quote name='the protector' date='Dec 17 2004, 01:43 AM'] Either way, it is not all about food. What about infrastructure, jobs, clothing, medicine etc.?

......


[/quote]
He was refering to an unequal distribution of ALL resources; food is the one people obviously think about when we think of poverty.

[quote]The birth rate has slowed from historically of about 2% to 1.2 %.[/quote]

Even a little change in this number in reality is a big change. Look at the population skews that are happening in Europe whre the population is not replacing itself.

[quote]Due to immigration, even population in the US in not set to decline.[/quote]

Immigration is the ONLY reason that the US still has a population rate that is not in sharp decline like Europe.

[quote]The Hollywood liberals don't, that's for sure.  But what are you any better to tell people that it is a sin for a couple to limit the number of children they have?  Are you totally oblivious to the limits of this planet?[/quote]

You can't compare limiting consumption to limiting the number of a couple's children.

[the protector]

[quote]Immigration is the ONLY reason that the US still has a population rate that is not in sharp decline like Europe.[/quote]
Yes, it is going to double. We will need twice of what we have now, and that is just in the US. In terms of consumption, the US is the most overpopulated country in the world.

[quote]You can't compare limiting consumption to limiting the number of a couple's children. [/quote]
This is from one of the mods at peakoil.com, who has thirty years experience in ecology.

[quote]Even if we instituted zero population growth starting today(a couple replaces themselves, it would take 50 years to reach no net growth. Why is this? Because of population demographics. At any given time their is a ceratin amount of humans in their prime reproduction years. Today 45% of the entires world's population is 15 year so of age and under. Over the next few years, they will all move into reproduction, swelling the earth's population, just like the baby boomers did in the 1960's. Most of this growth will take place in third world countries, but also in developing countries like China and India. Can you imagine the increase in energy demand that this will create? This is the "overshoot." No conservation method or new energy source can ever hope to meet this demand, and, provide a net increase of energy into the system.[/quote]

[quote]He was refering to an unequal distribution of ALL resources; food is the one people obviously think about when we think of poverty.[/quote]
Yes, those things require more time, energy and resources. All of which we are running short of. Given the current political and cultural climate, how do you propose we distibute all of these before oil production begins to decline?

[quote]Even a little change in this number in reality is a big change. Look at the population skews that are happening in Europe whre the population is not replacing itself.[/quote]
What about the rest of the world? The third world? What about countries like India whose population is increasing, along with consumption levels?

Once again, I would like to invite you to offer your opinions on the peakoil.com forums. Just remeber, I took the time to present my opinions in hostile territory.

Edited December 18, 2004 by the protector