A Breath of fresh air

[Peter]

Chris it is a real problem now! The UK is extremely congested (especially in the south) with a population set to reach 71 million by 2033 - we are only 93,800 sq miles compared to 3,717,813 sq miles for the US. The roads are a nightmare, the countryside vanishing fast (95% meadows destroyed in the last 30 years).

Global population has more than doubled in the past 50 years and according to UN predicitions the world's population will rise from 6.5 billion to 9.1 billion by 2050. Populations will at least triple in some of the poorest nations -- Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger and Uganda.

As things are, one billion people do not have access to clean water, so if we are having problems now dealing with famine, wars, disease, pollution, destruction of the natural environment and natural resources - how on earth can we cope with more?

[EternaLisa]

Again you can't generalise about all billionaires - don't forget that millionaires create jobs and some billionaires are doing a lot of good, take the Bill Gates foundation for example. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

Dont forget: the creation of jobs rest squarely on the anvil of the thinking machine that is [kettle drum roll]: "The Inventor". I'm willing to Betsy that alot the success of Bill Gates is really owed to the sweat of research and development teams that is convenient to his lovely fingertips and that he is able to "fund" these



The remains of Tesla grins from ear to ear in his 6 feet below bedrest whle humming: "You got the money, honey, I got the time"

[Sorrano]

Dont forget: the creation of jobs rest squarely on the anvil of the thinking machine that is [kettle drum roll]: "The Inventor". I'm willing to Betsy that alot the success of Bill Gates is really owed to the sweat of research and development teams that is convenient to his lovely fingertips and that he is able to "fund" these



The remains of Tesla grins from ear to ear in his 6 feet below bedrest whle humming: "You got the money, honey, I got the time"

Not to mention some of the technologies that Microsoft "swiped" from other companies, especially in the early going.

[PDG]

I suspect that the rich "help" the poor for two reasons:

1. They want to be 'popular' or 'liked' among the common man, to avoid number 2, thus:

2. They offer their crumbs so that should the 'Revolution' be just around the corner, they will be spared.

They won't. Nor should they be...

[Chris]

Chris it is a real problem now! The UK is extremely congested (especially in the south) with a population set to reach 71 million by 2033 - we are only 93,800 sq miles compared to 3,717,813 sq miles for the US. The roads are a nightmare, the countryside vanishing fast (95% meadows destroyed in the last 30 years).

Global population has more than doubled in the past 50 years and according to UN predicitions the world's population will rise from 6.5 billion to 9.1 billion by 2050. Populations will at least triple in some of the poorest nations -- Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, East Timor, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger and Uganda.

As things are, one billion people do not have access to clean water, so if we are having problems now dealing with famine, wars, disease, pollution, destruction of the natural environment and natural resources - how on earth can we cope with more?

The problem is not that we don't have enough resources for everyone. We do, and many more. The question is whether or not everyone will share them fairly. But that's always the problem. It is not a high population that causes poverty. I'm confident in our capacity to deal with a far, far higher population on earth. What I'm concerned about is the people who want to "control" the population by killing off the sick, the elderly, the young, and the poor. The potential atrocities committed in the name of population control terrify me.

[Preston]

I suspect that the rich "help" the poor for two reasons:

1. They want to be 'popular' or 'liked' among the common man, to avoid number 2, thus:

2. They offer their crumbs so that should the 'Revolution' be just around the corner, they will be spared.

They won't. Nor should they be...

I think those are two good reasons why the rich "help" the poor. They do usually publicize "their great humanitarian efforts". I am not saying they are the only reasons, as I don't think you are, but I think they are two good reasons. I think another reason could be they may be in great despair for all of the blood-sucking atrocities they have done throughout their life.

The bottom line is, imo, they take too much money when they should not - therefore, leaving others in despair and starvation, terrible environments, etc. Take a piece but don't take the whole pie.

No, they should not, at all, imo.

[Preston]

The problem is not that we don't have enough resources for everyone. We do, and many more. The question is whether or not everyone will share them fairly. But that's always the problem. It is not a high population that causes poverty. I'm confident in our capacity to deal with a far, far higher population on earth. What I'm concerned about is the people who want to "control" the population by killing off the sick, the elderly, the young, and the poor. The potential atrocities committed in the name of population control terrify me.

Chris, I have heard from philanthropists that the Earth can sustain around 8 billion 'overall'. Though, I completely disagree with that. Resources are running dry. The oceans, animals, plant-life, etc. are dying and being wiped out. Species are becoming extinct. The Earth is dying.

Then, you have to think about over great periods of time. I think around 2 billion, though when living with less consumption and less pollution, the planet could live until the end of its days (which I think is around 5 billion more years!) The number 2 billion is a completely astronomical number, unimaginable, incomprehensible, etc. because it is so, so very much.

The population is completely out-of-hand. Schools in America are packed, there are not enough teachers and money, the roads need fixed but cannot be, etc. - it is just too much to maintain, and greatly in the end.

The amount of consumption and wastefulness is horrifying. I heard that America alone consumes more resources than China! Which has around 3 times the population.

As Robert said about Earth in present day:

Its like some hideous parody of the natural world...

[Preston]

I KNOW FAR TOO LITTLE. REALLY NEXT TO NOTHING.

I KNOW FAR TOO LITTLE. REALLY NEXT TO NOTHING.

I am wrong. I am being too stereotypical, I think. The rich do take more than their share, it seems. Though, that does not make them worse, BY ANY MEANS, than some of the poor. I think things are far more diverse than stereotyping rich and poor. I really need to think on this more, much more. It really comes down to the individual. It does seem wrong to take those amounts of money, though, there are sins worse than money.

Please excuse these videos. Though this is what I am talking about.

HOW CAN THIS NONSENSE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCkNxuepBW8

BE BETTER THAN THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBepTorG7IU

IT CANNOT.

[Preston]

Anyway, I apologize. I am very confused.

[Peter]

The problem is not that we don't have enough resources for everyone. We do, and many more. The question is whether or not everyone will share them fairly. But that's always the problem. It is not a high population that causes poverty. I'm confident in our capacity to deal with a far, far higher population on earth. What I'm concerned about is the people who want to "control" the population by killing off the sick, the elderly, the young, and the poor. The potential atrocities committed in the name of population control terrify me.

Chris I can't agree - just take the destruction of the rain forests. They cover only 5% of the Earth's surface, but contain more than half of all the plant and animal species on the planet. Every year, 15 million hectares of tropical forests are cleared. At that pace, almost all the world's rainforests will be lost in 50 years. It is estimated that 137 species of plants and animals are wiped out every day!

With the terrible poverty, the famine, lack of clean water and appalling social conditions that billions already experience I'm puzzled as to how you imagine not only that we are coping, but that we will cope with an extra 3 billion in 30 years time, especially as most of those will be in the poorest countries that are already struggling?

I'm not advocating a policy of 'killing people off'! What is needed is education - it has been shown that where people are better educated they voluntarily choose to have smaller families.

[Quijote]

I suspect that the rich "help" the poor for two reasons:
1. They want to be 'popular' or 'liked' among the common man, to avoid number 2, thus:
2. They offer their crumbs so that should the 'Revolution' be just around the corner, they will be spared.
They won't. Nor should they be...

Not sure about that, PDG. I'm sure we have all read of the UK couple who recently won 161 million €s on the "Super European Lottery" or something. What wou you (plural) do with such a sum, if were you so lucky?
For me : buy a good-sized house here in Alsace; one modest summer home in Spain; one new car (nothing ostentatious, i.e. not a Rolls Royce - far too vulgar); a Steinway; a new 'cello, tailor-made to my requirements; a million €s each to close family members (let's say 20). That still leaves probably about 130 million €s to play with. What on earth would I do with such a remaining sum? OK, I'd probably set up a fund at a couple of Universities, help finance needed infrastructure projects in poor countries (a hospital, perhaps?), maybe "adopt" several children (in the sense of providing funds for their education and living expenses in situ).
Anyway, as the dictum goes : "you can't take it with you" when the time comes to shuffle off the mortal coil.

[Chris]

Chris, I have heard from philanthropists that the Earth can sustain around 8 billion 'overall'. Though, I completely disagree with that. Resources are running dry. The oceans, animals, plant-life, etc. are dying and being wiped out. Species are becoming extinct. The Earth is dying.

Species go extinct. They were going extinct before man ever started building a civilization. That's the way of the natural world. That's no indication of overpopulation. But we can make more than enough food, water, and energy for everyone that lives on earth and far more. And we are developing ever-better technologies. We can harness energy directly from the sun, and soon, right from the oceans.

The population is completely out-of-hand. Schools in America are packed, there are not enough teachers and money, the roads need fixed but cannot be, etc. - it is just too much to maintain, and greatly in the end.

I think America is doing pretty well. Some areas seem very densely populated, but then, you take a drive. You drive for hours and hours and days. And you see absolutely nothing. There is much of this country with hardly anyone in it. Remember, just because people choose to huddle together in big cities doesn't mean they have to. Some say urban life is poisonous to the human spirit, and maybe that's true.

The amount of consumption and wastefulness is horrifying. I heard that America alone consumes more resources than China! Which has around 3 times the population.

That's true. There are certainly people who consume more than their fair share, and there is surely much waste. Those problems will eventually be solved, if not by choice than by necessity. I imagine there will be a wake-up call for quite a few people in the future in this regard.

[Chris]

Chris I can't agree - just take the destruction of the rain forests. They cover only 5% of the Earth's surface, but contain more than half of all the plant and animal species on the planet. Every year, 15 million hectares of tropical forests are cleared. At that pace, almost all the world's rainforests will be lost in 50 years. It is estimated that 137 species of plants and animals are wiped out every day!

But we don't have to cut down the rain forests. The world population isn't forcing us to do that.

With the terrible poverty, the famine, lack of clean water and appalling social conditions that billions already experience I'm puzzled as to how you imagine not only that we are coping, but that we will cope with an extra 3 billion in 30 years time, especially as most of those will be in the poorest countries that are already struggling?

Because there was terrible poverty, famine, lack of clean water, and appalling social conditions when the population was much smaller too. People seem to have this idea that if we just had a smaller population, more advanced technology, or something, poverty would vanish. But it won't. The causes of poverty are more complex than that. We have more than enough resources to care for every single person in the world today. No one needs to be hungry. But unfortunately there is much hunger.

I'm not advocating a policy of 'killing people off'! What is needed is education - it has been shown that where people are better educated they voluntarily choose to have smaller families.

Yes - TOO small. Such that the population cannot even be maintained! Of course no sensible person is in favor of killing people off. But it's never presented like that. I'm sure most Germans were not in favor of putting Jews in concentrations camps and killing them off by the thousands. But it happened anyway. And while we all love to think that we are so much more intelligent and enlightened than all the people who lived before us, that just isn't true. We can be as cruel and as stupid as anyone who lived before us. All it takes is one person with charisma and a "crisis" that he is able to solve for us to bring about the most horrific of solutions. It's happened before. It's happening NOW, in fact.

[Quijote]

Species go extinct. They were going extinct before man ever started building a civilization. That's the way of the natural world [...]

Good point. Apropos species, here's an interesting little article about it :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ate-scientists

[Quijote]

But we don't have to cut down the rain forests. The world population isn't forcing us to do that [...]

Another good point, but rather begs the question "why"? Has it not something to do with certain idiot consumers wishing to have rare-wood furniture (such as teak, for example)? I refuse to buy non-sustainable wood products, and whilst pine is rather boring, I don't wish to deplete the "lungs" of our planet earth.