zornzorn

Werecow is implying that I'm uneducated. Whenever I hear a person resort to an Ad Hominem fallacy, I am sure that I have won the argument. I accept your capitulation. Do you agree that less people would use less energy and thereby less CO2 and pollutants would be generated? Do you agree that less people would consume fewer manufactured products and thereby require less mining, oil use, etc? Do you agree that less people would use less fresh water, generate less sewage and produce less trash? Do you agree that less people would mean a lower population density and thereby lower the spread of infectious disease. Do you agree that less people would mean less ecosystem destruction as people (particularly South Americans) slash and burn rainforests to create croplands that are temporarily arable. And would that not lead to fewer species driven to extinction. I could go on and on. It is all well and good to divide the surface area of the US by the population of the Earth, but can you grow enough food to support yourself on 1/4 of an acre? Who will live in Death Valley, on the steep side of a mountain, in the everglades or in northern Alaska? And yes, if the population were 1/6 th of what it is now, all other things being equal the size of the world economy would be smaller. But the standard of living would higher; the per capita income would be higher and those people inhabiting the Earth (1 billion people) would be far more likely to die of old age rather than from war, famine and disease. The Earth’s population did not exceed 1 billion until the 1800s. I’ll end this by asking two questions. What is the optimal number of people on Earth, 6 billion, 12 billion, 40 billion? Is there a point where our civilization will collapse under its own weight? http://desip.igc.org/mapanim.gif

Hey Werecow, after reading your post further up, I think you've misconstrued the cause of war. War is about resources. I uploaded a brief eBook that you should read (if you haven't already). Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus

Did I say we should kill anyone? NO! Didn't I suggest a motive of being humane? YES! Good God you all are touchy. Is increasing the death rate the only way you can think to lower the population? Decreasing the birth rate works just as well. If we could use our vast wealth to pay people not to have children (sort of like how we pay people not to grow crops) it would be money well spent. It beats the hell out of spending money on war. Now we are paying people to have children through the tax code (sort of) and in social welfare programs. Is it any wonder we're getting more children. It is a failure to proactively control this geometric growth that will lead to huge numbers of deaths. Doing nothing is the surest path to self-destruction for our civilization.

There is no shortage of water, food or oil. There are simply too many people on Earth. Isn't it about time we decides what the optimal number of people on Earth should be. At what number will we still advance at an acceptable rate, yet still have plenty of everything. A billion seems like a nice number. War is primarily driven by desire for natural resources. CO2 production is population dependant. Most of these problems that seem insoluble can be cured by decreasing the population. We can do this ethically and humanely or we can continue to make war, tolerate famine and wait for a superbug to mow us down by the millions. Both the problem and the solution are clear.