Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 03/09/2007 8:38:31 AM PST by westcoastwillieg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: westcoastwillieg
No population can live beyond the environment's carrying capacity for very long.

Um, that's why we have large farms that grow crops.. I thought this person would actually speak intelligently about water availability, which is the true limiting factor in places like Las Vegas or Los Angeles, but that is more a basis on what residents are willing to spend for a gallon of water, rather than not having any water to spare.

Why is it that this loser wants us to revert back to the stone age?

Why am I limited to 12 acres???

37 posted on 03/09/2007 9:03:43 AM PST by Experiment 6-2-6 (Admn Mods: tiny, malicious things that glare and gibber from dark corners.They have pins and dolls..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg
The average American's "ecological footprint" (the demands an individual endowed with average amounts of resources, i.e., land, water, food, fiber, waste assimilation and disposal, etc. puts on the environment) is about 12 acres

My foot print is 56 Acres ... kewl.

Find yours here : Earth Day Nazi Ecological Footprint calculator

38 posted on 03/09/2007 9:03:48 AM PST by Centurion2000 (If you're not being shot at, it's not a high stress job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg
Of course we have an overpopulation problem. Look at the traffic jams, the scenic areas and gorgeous one of a kind homes are destroyed for parking lots, our historic battlefields turned into tacky housing developments. Just looking at the what has been happening with the Civil War battlefields is shocking.

Anyone who thinks overpopulation is not a problem should stop sticking his head in the sand take a look around the country and compare to what it used to be.

Tom Wolfe has an excellent chapter on this topic - "Sliding down the behavioral sink" and already in the 1960s or 70s people such as the Rienows pointed out the problems. I can no longer afford to buy homes in the kind of neighborhoods my parents lived even though relatively speaking they made a lot less money.

42 posted on 03/09/2007 9:10:03 AM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg
Good morning.

So we really should round up those 30 million illegals and send them back across the border, along with a few million open border advocates and fellow travelers, just for good measure.

Michael Frazier
44 posted on 03/09/2007 9:10:35 AM PST by brazzaville (no surrender no retreat, well, maybe retreat's ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg
Here's a fun website that deals with the population issue.
50 posted on 03/09/2007 9:20:47 AM PST by Disambiguator (If it sounds to good to be true, it's probably sarcasm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg

The cities are already there. The last time I looked, it was the burbs that are growing so fast.


57 posted on 03/09/2007 9:29:55 AM PST by showme_the_Glory (No more rhyming, and I mean it! ..Anybody want a peanut.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg

Too many useless eaters in cities. It's that simple. Too many sucking money out of the taxpayers wallets.


68 posted on 03/09/2007 9:53:33 AM PST by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg

With the troubles that Western Europe faces due to the last several generations reproducing at well below replacement levels (2.1 children per couple), anyone in America who spouts this "population bomb" propaganda clearly exposes himself as trying to undermine America by reducing our reproduction rate. As it is, we are just barely squeaking by. They want to replace through immigration those with rooting in America with foreign nationals. France and "the French" are disappearing before our very eyes.


70 posted on 03/09/2007 9:56:38 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg
Not this crap again? How many times do Malthus and Ehrlich have to be proved wrong before people will finally believe it???
73 posted on 03/09/2007 10:01:42 AM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg

Nah, I've read on FR many times that you just can't have too many babies. I reckon the problem is over-concentration of undesirables in the cities, not overpopulation.


74 posted on 03/09/2007 10:10:30 AM PST by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg; All

WHERE WILL THE WATER COME FROM TO SUPPORT THIS GROWING POPULATION?


76 posted on 03/09/2007 10:33:31 AM PST by wolfcreek (Semi-Conservatism Won't Cut It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg
Carrying capacity refers to the number of individuals who can be supported in a given area within natural resource limits, and without degrading the natural social, cultural and economic environment for present and future generations.

This is advanced as a objective, rigorous definition of a supposedly scientific term, carrying capacity. Upon closer examination, however, we see that the term is neither exact nor rigorous. The qualifier "and without degrading the natural social, cultural and economic environment for present and future generations" makes the whole thing very subjective indeed. Our friends on the Left would likely have a different idea of what is meant by a a degraded social, cultural, or economic environment.

The carrying capacity for any given area is not fixed. It can be altered by improved technology, but mostly it is changed for the worse by pressures which accompany a population increase. As the environment is degraded, carrying capacity actually shrinks, leaving the environment no longer able to support even the number of people who could formerly have lived in the area on a sustainable basis. No population can live beyond the environment's carrying capacity for very long.

The meaning of the bolded clause is not clear. Is the author saying that population increases usually reduce the carrying capacity? This would not seem to accord with any reasonable definition of "capacity." (Does the capacity of a 1-liter bottle change when a liter of liquid is placed in it?)

Or is the author saying that the carrying capacity of the earth has historically declined as population increases? That does not appear to be true.

77 posted on 03/09/2007 10:53:18 AM PST by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg

I did my part - I left nyc! :-)


83 posted on 03/09/2007 11:59:42 AM PST by HitmanLV ("If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do suck seed." - Jerry 'Curly' Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg

I would have said, hate-filled, left-wing extremists were destroying the cities.

It's not like immigrants started showing up here last week.


86 posted on 03/09/2007 12:27:56 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg
The amount of energy we require is largely a function of population.

No it isn't. It's a direct function of economic growth.

91 posted on 03/09/2007 1:06:15 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg
[.. Cities at the tipping point - overpopulation destroying major U.S. cities. ..]

True but democrats love and need VICTIMS..
The odds of that changeing under democrat political control is very remote..

92 posted on 03/09/2007 1:22:13 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg
I thought "sprawl" is the problem?

Can't keep the trends of disaster straight any more.

96 posted on 03/09/2007 1:43:53 PM PST by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg

The biggest threat to large U.S. cities is liberal RAT city politicans!


97 posted on 03/09/2007 1:46:06 PM PST by wjcsux (There is no end to the good, that do-gooders will do, with other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg

There are areas that are populated, but this story makes it seem like we are running out of room. That is just not true. Every state has a lot of empty space to build on. Rhode Island which is the smallest states has a huge amount of land to build if they really wanted to. I don't think this should be a major issue to worry about with everything else to worry about these days.


103 posted on 03/09/2007 2:09:54 PM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: westcoastwillieg
While some may quibble with the method used, the math is irrefutable.

While some may eat bananas, a two legged stool may work.

104 posted on 03/09/2007 2:13:55 PM PST by rattrap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson