Problem With Zero Population Growth.flv

There is a movement among the left and among environmentalists that claim that there simply are too many people on the Earth and that we need to limit population growth through government action.

The goal of the limitation is "Zero Population Growth". But they lie as to their real goals and dismiss the facts that clearly prove them wrong.

The Earth is far from being over populated. There is tons of room left on the Earth and it is able to feed vastly more people then live here today.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Population
• Earth
• Growth
• Zero
• Liberal
• Environmentalist

[markgobbin]

ok but how about extra fuel to use the farming technology, peak oil (soon), minerals and fresh water, generated human waste and how much land is required to neutralise it fast enough, factories to clothe and mainain everything else that humans need and do. Also look up the exponential function

scientist tell us this because they spend years learning how it all works, it's much more complex issue than "how many people can i physically fit into a space and feed".

[Hunterkirk]

@markgobbin You keep moving the bar. Once one of your concerns are debunked you make up another and on and on. Still to debunk you latest concern there are massive amounts natural gas that can be used. Furthermore if you trust your environmental allies solar power and wind power will become an endless source of energy after all the when the sun is used up our population numbers will be the least of our concerns.

[bouligab]

Then I ask the question of the value of life in a world where we would live on the extreme limits of the Earth's carrying capacity, AND on the extreme limits of what we need to survive. That would be an extremely fragile, and generaly unpleasant and uncomfortable situation.

As for eventual "better farming practices", we probably reached a peak. Chemical fertilizers won't always be available, and they already cause significant environmental damage.

[Hunterkirk]

As for the housing and farming, I would also point out a massive resource that goes largely unused, The Oceans. Floating cities are very possible as are floating farm or highly controlled and efficient in water fisheries. There has even been a lot of study in the field of underwater cities. To take it one step further you have space and Mars or colonies on other planets and terraforming, although admittedly that one is likely a ways off.

As for what is or isn't desirable, that is subjective.

[bouligab]

@Hunterkirk "that is subjective", but there is no way around it.

Btw, we already over-exploit oceans. Fisheries around the world see their catch lower.

Anyway, even with technical solutions to the problem of supporting extra-population, our responsibility is to make these solutions applicable - i.e. addressing all these economic-politic problems - before we find ourselves overcrowded. And in fact, we already are, considering our inability to feed 1 human being out of 6.

[Hunterkirk]

You misunderstand we "hunt" the oceans we do not "farm" them, I am referring to farming.

"we already are, considering our inability to feed 1 human being out of 6."

I know certain groups are believing this is a problem and their "solutions" a largely fundamentally flawed. There is plenty of food out their (barring us turning our food stocks in to fuel). The problem as I outlined is with corrupt governments, war , and infrastructure.

For some they use this as a political tool to other ends.

[Hunterkirk]

@bouligab Yes the final question could be worded as "what kind of world do you want to live in". If you are a lover of individual freedom then you have to ask "do I have a right to force my world vision on others". If you love state planned and controlled populations the question is "How do we make people do what we want to create our world vision". If you are a nature focused person the question becomes "how can we limit human influence on Nature".

I

[bouligab]

So, population reduction or stabilisation may not be, as of now, an absolute necessity, but population continued growth does not appear to be desirable, be it for the sake of the humans of tomorrow, or for the human race as a whole.

[Hunterkirk]

@bouligab The calories per acre number is based on the current mixture of food stocks. So that includes meat and plants. But you are right the assumption is that ALL the arable land is used for food production. That would mean forests and jungles and what not would be replaced with farms.

What is not taken in account in my math is how much more food would be produced with better farming practices. That is a unknown by in history it has increase dramatically.

[bouligab]

And that human beings can eat only rice or other cereals, and no fruits, meat, vegetables, etc. because they don't yield as much calories as cereals, per acre. Besides, this will result in an incomplete regime: we need fats, vitamins, nutrients, etc., not just "pure calories".

Ah, and if we get to 22 billion people, all the trees on earth are likely to be cut down. All fish is likely to be catched. All things you can think of are likely to be exhausted, in fact. This is a complex problem. Think