World, Writing, Wealth discussion
Wealth & Economics
>
If there were just enough food for the entire humanity..
Would you say that that contraception and abortion on demand is mandatory for women to have equal rights?
Scout wrote: "Would you say that that contraception and abortion on demand is mandatory for women to have equal rights?"Contraception, yes. Abortion only up to so many weeks. (We can debate the number, but I do not think if the woman has kept it for 30 weeks there should be such a right.)
As a male I don't believe I should have any say in the matter. Another reason I don't like some of the current legislation with nearly all male religions and all male legislatures dictating what a woman should or should not do.Contraception should be an equal responsibility but again the consequence is on the woman not the man (except where financial consequence is enforced)
Education teaches women about the options whilst encouraging independence.
we have a tendency in the West to think that the rest of the world follows our moral and cultural stance - but they don't. Attitudes in much of the world are anti-equality and unsurprisingly this affects fertility rates
The wider debate on fertility is also driven by the education element in that educating girls in many societies and religions is restricted or of a second nature.
Should government even be involved in a personal decision like abortion? It certainly shies away from the topic of birth control, which seems to me to be as relevant.
After a certain week of pregnancy a fetus is believed to be a human being, so at this stage the government should have a saying in protecting one that can not protect him/herself. Before that week - I guess it should be completely up to a woman's discretion.
I guess Nik's view carries the problem of defining when. My daughter's ward (Wellington hospital, neonates) has managed to let an accidental 22 week delivery/miscarriage survive, so I would say it is technically survivable in the third trimester. (This 22 week was a bit of a technical achievement, and is not by any means guaranteed.) So maybe that is the definition of the time
Hi All,Latest report from Our World in Data provides a nice overview.
"One of the big lessons from the demographic history of countries is that population explosions are temporary. For many countries the demographic transition has already ended, and as the global fertility rate has now halved we know that the world as a whole is approaching the end of rapid population growth."
REF: https://ourworldindata.org/world-popu...
Relevant to this conversation is this report from NASA in 2016."From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25."
REF: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/...
Add that data point to this data point re
"Elevated CO2 and temperature increase grain oil concentration but their impacts on grain yield differ between soybean and maize grown in a temperate region"
REF: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...
This indicates an increasing food supply from CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere and (moderate) increasing temperatures.
Hi, Graeme. "Approaching the end of rapid population growth" doesn't mean that population isn't growing. And doesn't a growing population mean more waste products, more consumption of natural resources, more destruction of rain forests, more trees cut down for building and for growing crops? I could definitely be wrong on this, but aren't trees necessary for the planet's survival?
Trees are rather important because (a) the hold carbon, and (b) they hold up water in storms, and lead to less erosion. They also ameliorate climate extremes, and of course provide ecosystems for a number of species.
Hi Scout, have a look at the first link in my last message.The biosphere is greening. We're all carbon based life forms and the presence of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing plant productivity.
Hi Graeme,Yes, plants are benefiting from increased CO2 levels, PROVIDED CO2 was what was limiting their growth. In certain places, that will be true for algae, but the usual limit is water, nitrogen, potassium or phosphate. A further issue is temperature; most plants grow within a certain temperature range, and change that and things do not go well.
I'm almost to the point of giving up on my argument that there's a limit to the population Earth can comfortably support; that a growing population consumes ever more natural resources and that those resources are finite; that destroying rain forests for cropland is irreversible; that a growing population produces growing waste that negatively affects our environment. Almost, but not quite. Because I'm making sense.
I don't know why you are giving up, Scout, because as far as I am concerned, you are right.
Hi Scout,Please don't give up.
I'll have a go at explaining my position again.
[1] Technical advancements are the key to modifying the safe and sustainable carrying capacity of planet Earth.
[2] Advancing economies naturally produce social and economic forces that reduce the desire to have children - suppressing human fertility by choice.
[3] By the time the human population tops out at around 10B to 11B later this century, human fertility rates will be below replacement level (2.1 children per female) and the population will begin shrinking and will establish some new level below 10B to 11B.
[4] This process, in the presence of improving technology, will mean that the human population will be experiencing a level of wealth of between 2x and 10x what we have now by the end of the 21st century without running the Earth out of resources.
It is my experience that everyone who maintains a 'we are doomed,' by over-population does so by ignoring, or down-playing points 1 and 2 above.
Look at the classic case of Thomas Malthus - he could hardly conceive the level of technical advances that would occur, or that people would choose to have far fewer children subsequent to him writing his famous essay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...
Better than Soylent Green, and with protein productivity that's off the charts...(No joke): https://nationalpost.com/news/world/m...
Yum...
This makes me think that just maybe I am better off living now than in another 200 years :-)
Me, too, Ian!! I get your points, Graeme, but quality of life is more important to me than how far we can push "the carrying capacity of Earth." Of course, the population will naturally decline because people won't want to bring children into a bad situation. Sure, technology can help the planet carry more people, but at the cost of quality of life, which you don't address.
From the CDC. Latest data for 2018.
The general fertility rate declined for all three race and Hispanic-origin groups in 2018.
The general fertility rate for the United States declined 2% in 2018 to 59.1 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 from 60.3 in 2017 (Figure 1).
Fertility rates declined for the three largest race and Hispanic-origin groups from 2017 to 2018, down 2% for non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic black women and 3% for Hispanic women.
In 2018, the fertility rate was highest for Hispanic women (65.9), followed by non-Hispanic black (62.0) and non-Hispanic white (56.3) women.
REF: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/dat...
2%, 3% drops in a year...
Mark my words - 20 years from now, 'overpopulation,' will be in the dustbin of discarded ideas and 'fertility,' will be one of the top level issues.
Sounds good to me. I know it's not good for the economy, but fewer people equals less pollution and waste, and less stress on the environment, maybe rain forests not disappearing and climate change reversed or at least held steady.
The Amazon is burning because people need more farmland. The Amazon is a needed resource for oxygen and for healing plants. This seems to me to be an argument for limiting population. More people equals more trees cut all over the world, not only for farmland but for housing and business. Trees provide oxygen we need to survive. What the heck?
Ther is plenty of land in Brazil without forests. The problem with the Amazon is the land is essentially free.
[1] I'm curious about this notion of "Amazon produces O2," as if this is significant.Where does that idea come from?
Any ecosystem that's long lived is net zero for O2/CO2 production and consumption. Otherwise, one would dominate and both are toxic when out of balance.
[2] On the topic of the current fires.
A good resource about fires in the world in this one. https://www.globalfiredata.org/analys...
It has data from 1997 to 2014 and Africa is on fire every year.
And for the Amazon is this one. https://www.globalfiredata.org/foreca...
The key takeaway from the Amazon data is that the big fire year was 2005. What's happening right now is similar to an average year for the region.
Ian wrote: "Ther is plenty of land in Brazil without forests. The problem with the Amazon is the land is essentially free."So, and ownership or tax issue?
Graeme, it is more an ownership issue. Much of the land in Brazil is placed in large unproductive ranches. As I wrote somewhere else, I once had some considerable drives around the Sao Paolo region, and down to the coast with some knowledgable locals, and there are vast tracts of land that are unused, mainly because someone owns them and doesn't care.The Amazon is a significant oxygen producer. What you say is true, but only for a closed system. There are plenty of other places that consume oxygen. On the other hand, what you probably meant say is also true - fires in the Amazon will make negligible difference to the overall oxygen supply but they will make a significant difference to CO2 emissions, and they are our biggest problem right now.
Graeme, you're right about 02, according to this source: Source: https://www.bustle.com/p/how-much-oxy...
"The true consequences of the Amazon burning, though not related directly to oxygen loss, are still extremely significant. According to Vox, one major consequence of these fires could be a disruption of rainfall patterns across the globe; trees play a large role in rainfall patterns, the publication reports, because they absorb water and send it back up into the sky through a process called evapotranspiration.
To put it into further perspective, a report by George Mason University and the National Institute of Science and Technology for Brazil revealed that the Amazon generates approximately half of its own rainfall. So when a forest as large as the Amazon burns, it could dramatically impact the rainfall patterns in the area, leading to agricultural and cultural devastation.
What's more, if enough of the rainforest is destroyed, then the area will change entirely in terms of climate and become a savanna, according to The New York Times. This will also impact weather patterns, not to mention the amount of carbon in the Earth's atmosphere, the publication explains, since there will be no trees to take in the carbon."
So, plenty of environmental reasons to worry about Amazon fires.
According to this site https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/28/20...
An unprecedented number of fires have raged throughout Brazil in 2019, intensifying in August. There have been more than 74,000 fires so far this year, the most ever recorded by the country’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE). It’s a roughly 80 percent jump compared to the number of fires the country experienced over the same time period in 2018. More than half of those fires are taking place in the Amazon.
Experts say deforestation and a practice called slash-and-burn are to blame for most of the flames. People cut down patches of forest, allow the area to dry out, then set the remains ablaze to make room for agriculture or other development. They might also set fires to replenish the soil and encourage the growth of pastures for cattle. Brazil is the world’s top exporter of beef, according to the US Department of Agriculture.
So, Graeme, the current fires are unprecedented and caused by people for agricultural reasons, to support a growing population. Natural resources are finite. The environment won't sustain an infinite number of humans. I don't understand your position. This planet is fragile and precious and being destroyed. It's our home.
One of the underlying issues of the row btw France & Brasil (apart from personal remark) is a patronizing approach. Can we (the West) tell Brasil: "Don't do what we already did"?
If to rely on Wikipedia's summary "Europeans had lived in the midst of vast forests throughout the earlier medieval centuries. After 1250 they became so skilled at deforestation that by 1500 they were running short of wood for heating and cooking." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defores...
BTW, the Russian language version of the same article mentions that most of the remaining forests are concentrated in 3 countries: Russia, Canada & Brasil.
Of course, I'm against destroying forests anywhere, be they in S. America, Africa or Siberia , but I think it would be fair to ask how do I deal with past and present deforestation in my own country first and then to strive to achieve consensus and incentive elsewhere?
Nik wrote: "One of the underlying issues of the row btw France & Brasil (apart from personal remark) is a patronizing approach. Can we (the West) tell Brasil: "Don't do what we already did"?
If to rely on Wi..."
Simple answer is to plant trees. The UK has some plans but very slow to implement and will take decades to achieve. As I've previously posted if you cut down one old tree planting a sapling does not replace its eco-system nor the insects, spores, bugs or birds that lived in it. I've mentioned Borneo before and my shock at the cutting down of rain forest for Palm Oil. Jobs for the locals. Some improvement in living conditions but most of the money goes to the same elite. Meanwhile the wildlife is destroyed - for ever
Just because Europe in the last millennium did this does not mean we can't learn the lesson elsewhere. In our own countries we should massively encourage the growing of trees - not rapid growth for paper and furniture but long term species. You can take part in schemes or just stick one in your garden if you are lucky enough to have one. Plant it for your great-grandchildren
Philip wrote: "Simple answer is to plant trees. ... Plant it for your great-grandchildren"Undoubtedly - all around good advice!
Agree that learning from mistakes of the others is smarter than from your own and the lesson can indeed be derived.
Let Arbor day last longer and encompass more countries -:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbor_Day
Natural burials (biodegradable coffins, trees instead of gravestones) are becoming more popular. I quite like the idea of nourishing a tree after I'm gone.https://www.beatree.com/
Fiona wrote: "Natural burials (biodegradable coffins, trees instead of gravestones) are becoming more popular. I quite like the idea of nourishing a tree after I'm gone.https://www.beatree.com/"
There's another carbon impact i.e. incinerator or cremation. More humans more ash and burning in the air (like a rainforest) where as burial rots back to nature i.e. let the worms have us.... trouble is not enough space for burial grounds. Soyent Green all over again...
Graeme wrote: "Any ecosystem that's long lived is net zero for O2/CO2 production and consumption. Otherwise, one would dominate and both are toxic when out of balance...."Not really. The O2/CO2 levels have been shifting since the earth was first formed. In fact, the entire climate change argument has at its core that humans are increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
I think more to the point of the Amazon, is that the O2 produced by that forest offsets the O2 consumed somewhere else. If the amazon is razed, then we don't have that offset against CO2 producing activities elsewhere.
As I see it, and this is along the lines of the arguments Republicans have against efforts like the Paris Accord, the world is placing an onus on Brazil for protecting that 20% oxygen production. Europe stripped its forests for its own development, and the US harvested much of the massive forests in the East Coast in the last 400 years, but we're pressuring Brazil and telling them they're not supposed to do the same with the Amazon. We're not expecting them to make the decision on their own, we're trying to push it on them, and that runs contrary to the idea of sovereignty. I couldn't agree more with Brazil's president when he told Europe to reforest their own continent if they were so concerned about the overarching issue.
J.J. wrote: "Graeme wrote: "Any ecosystem that's long lived is net zero for O2/CO2 production and consumption. Otherwise, one would dominate and both are toxic when out of balance...."Not really. The O2/CO2 l..."
I agree the imperial statements don't help the issue. Hence I fully support tree growing on a massive scale in Europe as stated above. I'm not as familiar with US East Coast deforestation having enjoyed the tress in the Blue Ridge Mountains but perhaps there are areas that could be re-seeded. Personally we can all help by creating green spaces. That concrete or wood deck put some tubs with plants on it or better still plant a full tree. Let that hedge grow a little bigger.
CO2 levels are increasing whatever the cause, how can we as individuals reduce that increase. Pollute less, grow more.
Hi Scout, because of the number of interlocking ideas present in your comment above (#139) I'm going to break my response down into a number of posts over a number of days.From the get go, I'm going to state,
[1] That we have a paradigm conflict where your 'philosophical or theoretical framework,' for interpreting events and statements relating to subjects like the environment, over population, resource usage, etc is literally different from mine - which leads to you expressing the true and reasonable statement that 'I don't understand your position.' on these topics.
[2] From my teenage years to deep within my adult life I was a card-carrying member of the same belief system that you are in right now. A system of belief I now call the 'Scarcity Paradigm.'
Feel free to correct me on anything that I say, this is an open conversation to explore ideas.
The Scarcity Paradigm has the following key features/belief statements.
[1] Life is a zero sum game. For every winner there is a loser.
[2] The human population will (unless forcibly checked) grow exponentially until it runs out of resources and crashes catastrophically.
[3] Resources are finite.
[4] Resource availability limits are a pressing issue right now, or will be a pressing issue in the near future (within the lives of people alive today).
[5] There are no real solutions apart from actively limiting human population to a level far below our current population (i.e Instead of 7+ billion there should 200-500 million people.)
[6] Human society/civilization is marching straight toward a major catastrophe of its own making in the near future (within the lives of people alive today).
How much of that rings true for you?
It certainly used to ring true for me.
Hi Scout, Post #2 (re MSG 139).You wrote,
"Graeme, you're right about 02, according to this source:
Source: https://www.bustle.com/p/how-much-oxy...
"The true consequences of the Amazon burning, though not related directly to oxygen loss, are still extremely significant. According to Vox, one major consequence of these fires could be a disruption of rainfall patterns across the globe; trees play a large role in rainfall patterns, the publication reports, because they absorb water and send it back up into the sky through a process called evapotranspiration.
To put it into further perspective, a report by George Mason University and the National Institute of Science and Technology for Brazil revealed that the Amazon generates approximately half of its own rainfall. So when a forest as large as the Amazon burns, it could dramatically impact the rainfall patterns in the area, leading to agricultural and cultural devastation."
Noting that within the same article we have this gem.
"According to Scientific American, the majority of the oxygen on Earth actually comes from the oceans; specifically, from tiny plant matter called phytoplankton that live at the bottom of the ocean."
Either the author of the article is misquoting Scientific American, OR both Scientific American and the author are complete idiots to put in print the statement that 'phytoplankton (who - being plants - are utterly reliant on sunlight to live) that live at the bottom of the ocean.
How could anyone write that line and not realize the inanity of the statement.
I'm sitting here rubbing more forehead - the stupidity of the author burns....
As it turns out, some of her statements are perfectly sensible - as per her statements regarding evapotranspiration, but my confidence in her ability to think through anything she actually writes is at rock bottom.
Please Scout, I'm not having a go at you at all. I have tremendous respect for you. But the author of the article you linked to is at best lazy.
This highlights the difficulty of finding clear, rational, well-established information wrt what's happening in the environment.
A challenge for all of us.
To my mind, a key group articulating the Scarcity Paradigm would be the Club of Rome, as stated within the The Limits to GrowthFurther referenced on Wiki at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lim...
Another key work would be The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich.
These groups, works and writers encapsulate the core elements of the Scarcity Paradigm.
Graeme wrote: "Hi Scout, Post #2 (re MSG 139).You wrote, "Graeme, you're right about 02, according to this source:
Source: https://www.bustle.com/p/how-much-oxy......"
Did the scientist state that or the writer of the article interpret what the science report had said?
One article or report does not make fact or disavow the statement that they are critical for CO2 management on the planet
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/fea...
Likewise the Amazon may only be 20% of Carbon capture but I would not like to live in a world without that 20% (I doubt I could live in such a world - physically)
So how much reduction is acceptable. We have treaties to prevent harm to countries by actions of another. We have the UN to coordinate world action.
If Brazil was to decide to burn the entire forest would that be OK?
If Australia decided to dig up the Barrier Reef would that be?
When does a nation's issue become a world issue?
Hi Philip.If Brazil was to decide to burn the entire forest would that be OK? No.
If Australia decided to dig up the Barrier Reef would that be? No.
When does a nation's issue become a world issue? That's a good question.
hi Philip,WRT Did the scientist state that or the writer of the article interpret what the science report had said?
One article or report does not make fact or disavow the statement that they are critical for CO2 management on the planet
The journalist misrepresented SA. But the point I'm making there is that the journalist lost me in the first two minutes by making a howler about phytoplankton living on the bottom of the ocean.
One she doesn't know anything about phytoplankton. Two, she doesn't fact check what she writes - and it's presented as 'facts.'
When, in fact, it's garbage. Some of her other info may well be entirely factual but it's mixed in with lazily/ignorantly inserted rubbish that requires the reader to fact check what she's saying which is frankly a complete waste of time for the reader.
Why can't the author of the bustle piece fact check her own writing?
Graeme wrote: "hi Philip,WRT Did the scientist state that or the writer of the article interpret what the science report had said?
One article or report does not make fact or disavow the statement that they ar..."
Unfortunately we have a lot of bad journalists and bad politicians - it was probably always the case but just more obvious now
Here is an interesting paper from Phys.org.The situation for tree cover is more nuanced than expected.
A team of researchers from the University of Maryland, the State University of New York and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center has found that new global tree growth over the past 35 years has more than offset global tree cover losses. In their paper published in the journal Nature, the group describes using satellite data to track forest growth and loss over the past 35 years and what they found by doing so.
There has been a growing consensus in recent years that because humans cut down so many trees (most particularly in the rainforests) that global tree cover is shrinking. In this new effort, the researchers have found that not to be the case. They contend that global tree cover is actually increasing.
To track global tree cover changes, the researchers studied data from advanced very high-resolution radiometers aboard a series of 16 weather satellites covering the years 1982 to 2016. By comparing daily readings, the researchers were able to see small changes occurring regularly over a relatively long period of time—which added up to large changes. Over the entire span, the researchers found that new tree cover had offset tree cover loss by approximately 2.24 million square kilometers—which they note is approximately the size of Texas and Alaska combined.
The researchers report that most of the new tree cover occurred in places that had previously been barren, such as in deserts, tundra areas, on mountains, in cities and in other non-vegetated land. They further report that much of the new growth came about due to efforts by humans (such as reforestation efforts in China and parts of Africa) and because of global warming—warmer temperatures have raised timberlines in some mountainous regions, and allowed forests to creep into tundra areas. Other areas of new tree growth resulted from large farm abandonments in places like Russia and the U.S. The researchers report that their calculations showed that human activities have directly caused approximately 60 percent of new global tree growth. They suggest their technique for monitoring tree cover could be used to predict tree cover changes in the future due to global warming.
REF: https://phys.org/news/2018-08-global-...
Graeme wrote: "Here is an interesting paper from Phys.org.The situation for tree cover is more nuanced than expected.
A team of researchers from the University of Maryland, the State University of New York and..."
Very interesting however, when a 600 year old tree is cut down planting a sapling even a 40 year old one does not replace it nor its own eco system. The fact that trees are climbing mountains and tundra thanks to global warming is not a side effect that is positive. Likewise the descriptions of ice flows returning (thin ice) replacing 1000s of years of a glacier or melted ice in winter is not the same although an ice cover map might give the appearance that it is
Noting that a couple of billionaires are making the same point as I am.REF: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/30/elon-...
Not that Billionaires are anything special for understanding anything - this report goes to the thin edge of the wedge for the growing awareness of the problem.
As I've said earlier. The concept of over-population as a problem will die, and will be replaced by the concept of low-fertility as a problem.
The shift has already begun.
Looking at the Club of Rome and the model they got from MIT REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lim...States,
"The model was based on five variables: "population, food production, industrialization, pollution, and consumption of nonrenewable natural resources".[1]:25 At the time of the study, all these variables were increasing and were assumed to continue to grow exponentially, while the ability of technology to increase resources grew only linearly.[1] The authors intended to explore the possibility of a sustainable feedback pattern that would be achieved by altering growth trends among the five variables under three scenarios. They noted that their projections for the values of the variables in each scenario were predictions "only in the most limited sense of the word", and were only indications of the system's behavioral tendencies.[11] Two of the scenarios saw "overshoot and collapse" of the global system by the mid- to latter-part of the 21st century, while a third scenario resulted in a "stabilized world"."
My bold above.
This model is wrong on so many levels.
[1] Population is not growing exponentially - it's following an 'S,' curve, i.e. it will peak and then drop to a lower level.
[2] Food production - (increasingly) dependent on technology.
[3] Industrialization - dependent on technology. Industrialization in 1970 is not the same as industrialization in 2020.
[4] Pollution - extreme dependency on the technology used
[5] Resource consumption - extreme dependency on the technology used
[6] Technology is developing in a linear way - No, technology is growing exponentially and brings about paradigm shifts that can change this whole equation in powerful ways.
Fiona wrote: "Natural burials (biodegradable coffins, trees instead of gravestones) are becoming more popular. I quite like the idea of nourishing a tree after I'm gone.https://www.beatree.com/"
Great idea. My preference has always been to be planted beneath a tree, not cremated, and in a pine box, but laws prevent choosing this kind of burial. I want to be cremated because this option isn't available where I live. If it were, this would be my choice.
Graeme, I like you, but I still disagree with you :-) Can you agree or disagree with the following statements?No matter how many trees are planted elsewhere, the Amazon ecosystem cannot be replaced. Do you agree or disagree?
The Amazon is being destroyed because of population growth. Agree or disagree?
Based on numbers alone, world population is increasing. There are more people on the planet today than there were yesterday. Agree or disagree?
The number of people on the planet has a direct correlation to resources used and the amount of waste produced. Agree or disagree?
The earth is a closed system with finite resources. Agree or disagree?
Scout wrote: "Graeme, I like you, but I still disagree with you :-) Can you agree or disagree with the following statements?..."Cool!
Scout wrote...
No matter how many trees are planted elsewhere, the Amazon ecosystem cannot be replaced. Do you agree or disagree?
Agree. The Amazon needs to be protected.
The Amazon is being destroyed because of population growth. Agree or disagree?
The primary cause is poverty. If Brazil was a developed economy (like the US or Australia), the Amazon would be protected.
Based on numbers alone, world population is increasing. There are more people on the planet today than there were yesterday. Agree or disagree?
Agree. I expect world population to increase for some time but undershoot the mainstream UN population model in this century due to falling fertility rates. I.e < 11B max total.
The number of people on the planet has a direct correlation to resources used and the amount of waste produced. Agree or disagree?
Agree - but highly qualified by the technologies used.
The earth is a closed system with finite resources. Agree or disagree?
The Earth is an open system due to sunlight and the availability within the 21st century of resource extraction from the solar system.
But, even if we restrict ourselves purely to terrestrial sources consider these three technologies deployed on an industrial scale.
[1] 4th Generation Nuclear Power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generat...
[2] Extraction of Uranium from Seawater: https://newatlas.com/nuclear-uranium-...
[3] Generation of Liquid Fuels from Air: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/ne...
Points [1] and [2] provide effectively bottomless and abundant baseload electric power that could be deployed world wide lifting all societies above the 10K USD Per capita threshold that enables women to shift from large families to small families.
The availability of abundant electricity enables the industrialization of [3] resulting in effectively endless and renewable liquid fuels.
The availability of effective solutions means that over-population is a solved problem, energy resource depletion is a solved problem.
The main problem we have is a policy and governance problem.
Thanks for your reply, Graeme :-)You say, regarding destroying the Amazon, that "The primary cause is poverty. If Brazil was a developed economy (like the US or Australia), the Amazon would be protected." You agree that the Amazon should be protected. What do you see as a solution to this problem?
You very effectively address the energy problem. But there are other problems not addressed.
Agree or disagree? A growing population requires a growing need for natural resources. Water. Wood products. Crop production. Clean air. Finite resources necessary for survival.
Agree or disagree? The extinction of species is due to human encroachment on their habitat.
Finally, I'd like to hear your thoughts on waste caused by human consumption. Does waste increase proportionately to population?
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
An Essay on the Principle of Population: The Future Improvement of Society (other topics)The Children of Men (other topics)
Make Room! Make Room! (other topics)
The Population Bomb (other topics)
An Essay on the Principle of Population (other topics)
More...
Add education, access to contraception (and yes abortion on demand). You can add in more from the "Rights" discussion e.g. right to vote, right to own property. These rights are still denied if not by law but by culture and especially religion