Posted on 06/18/2008 2:27:29 PM PDT by The_Republican
THOMAS MALTHUS has been dead for 170 years, but the Malthusian fallacy - the dread conviction that the growth of human population leads to hunger, shortages, and a ravaged environment - is unfortunately alive and well:
America's congested highways are caused by "population growth wildly out of control," the group Californians for Population Stabilization laments in a new ad. So are "schools and emergency rooms . . . bursting at the seams." And with every additional American, immigrant or native-born, "comes further degradation of America's natural treasures."
In a new documentary, Britain's Prince Philip blames the rising price of food on overpopulation. "Everyone thinks it's to do with not enough food," the queen's husband declares, "but it's really that demand is too great - too many people."
Overpopulation is "very serious - very, very serious," the Dalai Lama tells a crowd of 50,000 in Seattle. Somewhat inconsistently, he also proclaims that "children are the basis of our hope," and that "our future depends on them."
"Is our planet overstuffed with human beings?" asks columnist Johann Hari in The Independent. The "overpopulation lobby," he decides, has a point. "How can you be prepared to cut back on your car emissions and your plane emissions but not on your baby emissions? Can you really celebrate the pitter-patter of tiny carbon-footprints?"
Like other prejudices, the belief that more humanity means more misery resists compelling evidence to the contrary. In the past two centuries, the number of people living on earth has nearly septupled, climbing from 980 million to 6.5 billion. And yet human beings today are on the whole healthier, wealthier, longer-lived, better-fed, and better-educated than ever before.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
My theory is that some people have a gene for wanting children ... not just wanting to do the things that can lead to having children.
As time goes on those people who want to have children will outnumber those that don't.
After a drop in population the population will start to recover once the children of children-loving humans start to have children themselves.
“Overpopulation is “very serious - very, very serious,” the Dalai Lama tells a crowd of 50,000 in Seattle. Somewhat inconsistently, he also proclaims that “children are the basis of our hope,” and that “our future depends on them.””
Hey, I have traveled Tibet — there is lots and lots of room. There is only a couple of million ethnic Tibetans. I have heard that starting very soon Beijing plans to relocate (through generous incentives) millions of Han Chinese into Tibet.
Guess that will make the whole question of Tebetian independence totally moot.
If 5 billion can live comfortably in Texas (1,200 or so sq. ft per person), and Earth’s surface is 752 times larger than Texas, then 3.7 trillion for all of Earth (including oceans with floating cities), would seem to be the maximum.
Leave the FLDS people alone and they will fill in the gap in population left by Christians who ignore the Bible and have no children or just one or two.
Yes, mainly in the countries with the lowest birth rates. Take China for instance. Indeed, their huge population is much better off by standard measures, than it was a couple of generations ago. But look at the intense program to curb births that went along with that.
Make a map of the world with each country labelled for its birth rates, per capita income, and life expectancy, and I think you'll see that more babies does indeed translate into more misery.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
For the first time in history, people who have no desire to have children can choose not to.
Those who don’t want to breed don’t.
This problem is probably going to be corrected in a single generation. Baby Boomers averaged 1.5 kids. Those who had children think 2-3 is ideal. The TFR (Total fertility rate) has started rising, and will probably continue to do so.
Huh? You put 5 billion in Texas and the first to be eaten will be the pets, then each other in short order. A cup of water would cause riots.
These analogies are nice...
However, the fact remains, the desirable areas, those can sustain jobs, economies, those that have weather that won't kill you, natural harbors, rivers, good soil and available water are all but full or reserved for crops.
America’s congested highways are caused by “population growth wildly out of control,” the group Californians for Population Stabilization laments in a new ad. So are “schools and emergency rooms . . . bursting at the seams
So..... these guys are all for closing the border down under lock and key and preventing all new immigrants from migrating here simply for gross material benefit?
yes? No?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
LOL!
Good question. All of our major cities are all but full up.
The reason these traitors want endless immigration, legal or illegal is for votes, and pushing their government agendas of mass socialism, making government all encompassing, all powerful.
Ya cram enough people in, they'll tell you to stop using so much water, gasoline, electricity, etc etc. Then they'll cram everyone onto government public subsidized transportation, they'll limit independent travel etc etc.
Wait! We're all ready being told this daily!
Yet the welcome mat is still out!!
The real problem is that a good amount of the world isnt utilizing the land to its maximum potential instead some areas have regressed like in Zimbabwe where modern farming techniques were stolen from the white farmers and small farms were given to people who don’t know what they are doing, instead of being taught the proper maximum way of utilizing the land idiot liberals go in and teach sustainable agriculture which is only good for feeding on the small scale and not the large scale.
That's there problem. My concern is with the U.S. and our problems, right here.
It's time these other countries work out their own problems, just like we should be doing.
One might study Japan to grasp a nation that finally has accomplished “population control”, now they wonder who is going to care for the elderly and do the work of the nation.
They may have “controlled” themselves out of existence.
I know people from Japan, living here and there, and I never heard any of them being concerned about controlling themselves out of existance by not having enough people in that small country.
The congested highways, etc., are not the results of population growth. This is a result of stacking people on top of each other with no elbow room. We have a lot of space that is not fit for agriculture that can be used for peaceful habitation. Modern technology can support more urban life. My town has 1,081 happy, friendly folk, two traffic lights and nine churches.
I can’t remember where I saw the study, but Mexican immigrants to the US averaged 3.5 kids where those that stayed in Mexico averaged 2.8. Thus from a pure population perspective, it is better to keep them in Mexico.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.