Overpopulation

[aloha918]

Haiti is 48% people under the age of 15

[crusader1234]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 3 2005, 05:00 AM'] Contrary to what your mother may have told you, there is no direct correlation between the food Americans eat and people starving in Africa. [/quote]
If you're responding to my post - I disagree. I don't mean to say that not cleaning your plate is an insult to the kids in Eritrea or where have you, but rather that the money fat people waste on excess food could (should) be going to these cases. World Vision always says 'for the price of a cup of coffee a day'. Now, with the rampant obesity and over-eating in North America, I suspect that people could free up a lot of cash.

[argent_paladin]

aloha918:

The reason why the median is so low (15) in Haiti is not because there are so many births (fertility rates continue to drop) but because life expectancy is so low because of the prevalance of AIDS. Life expectancy in 1950 was about 36 years. So very few made it to middle age. Therefore, most people would be very young. Today, life expectancy is about 50.

Crusader, that is very idealistic of you but you ignore several crucial factors. First, why isolate food consumption? 30% of Americans are obese and one can be obese by eating only 500 more calories per day than you use. Most obese people eat too much junk food. A double cheesburger is 460 calories and costs $1. So, that would be about say, $500 saved and sent to say, Burundi. World Vision has an efficiency rating of 85%, very good. So, that $4 billion becomes 3.6 billion. That's 5 times more than current revenue. But let us suppose that they can aborb it. So, good.
But, are you simply suggesting that if people gave more to charity the world would be better? Or are you suggesting that government coerce citizens to do this? If the latter, then efficiency plummets and corruption increases. I am all for private charity and for WorldVision. I am not for contempt for the overweight, stereotyping them as selfish, nor am I for government coercion of charity, because it can get corrupt.
Why not target other forms of consumption? SUVs? Alcohol consumption? Going to parties? Traveling for pleasure? Buying novels? If people stopped doing any of these activities and donated money to charity it would undoubtably do great good as well. But are you in a position to force your choices on others, infringing their freedom?

[aloha918]

well i think the problem with it is that having so many children right now isnt bad.....it is when the reach child bearinig years.......

[argent_paladin]

You have fallen for the biggest misconception. There are about half as many babies per 1000 in the world as there were only 30 years ago. We are definitely not "having so many children". The reason why the population is increasing is because people are living longer and longer. So, they won't be having children.

[Monoxide]

CONGRATULATIONS !!!!!!!!!! May God bless you and your family, keeping you in strength and happiness

[Ash Wednesday]

Congrats on the new bambino!

I worry about how much humanity taxes the health of the planet. I am wary of saying "the world is overpopulated" however -- in the sense that it would justify artificial birth control and abortion, because that is wrong. If people honored sex the way God intended, people perhaps wouldn't even feel the need to raise questions regarding the balance of life.

However, I do think that when God gave us stewardship over the planet, in a sense it not only means control, but CARE of it and balancing quality of life with sustainability. God created science and the web of life, and we have to honor that. It's the food we eat, the air we breathe, the water we drink, and what we leave for our children and grandchildren.

So I voted that I think the big problem with ecology lies in selfishness and overconsumption, particularly in the industrialized west. Ironically, I think the contraceptive mentality reinforces that.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Feb 8 2005, 09:07 PM'] Congrats on the new bambino!

I worry about how much humanity taxes the health of the planet. I am wary of saying "the world is overpopulated" however -- in the sense that it would justify artificial birth control and abortion, because that is wrong. If people honored sex the way God intended, people perhaps wouldn't even feel the need to raise questions regarding the balance of life.

However, I do think that when God gave us stewardship over the planet, in a sense it not only means control, but CARE of it and balancing quality of life with sustainability. God created science and the web of life, and we have to honor that. It's the food we eat, the air we breathe, the water we drink, and what we leave for our children and grandchildren.

So I voted that I think the big problem with ecology lies in selfishness and overconsumption, particularly in the industrialized west. Ironically, I think the contraceptive mentality reinforces that. [/quote]
Actually, wealthier countries are often in better environmental health than poorer ones. Richer countries can afford better technology and more efficient agricultural and foresting techniques. People in poor counties are often reduced to such practices as slash-and-burn farming to survive.

For details, read Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist. It explodes many myths concerning the environment, such as that that technology and economic development are at odds with environmental protection.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 8 2005, 09:19 PM'] Actually, wealthier countries are often in better environmental health than poorer ones. Richer countries can afford better technology and more efficient agricultural and foresting techniques. People in poor counties are often reduced to such practices as slash-and-burn farming to survive.

For details, read Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist. It explodes many myths concerning the environment, such as that that technology and economic development are at odds with environmental protection. [/quote]
Of course, technological and economic development doesn't have to equate ecological meltdown. But I think what you're saying ties in with what I mean -- when I mean overconsumption I do mean in part the gross differences between wealthy and poor.

Brazil -- good example of a country that, the last time I was there, in part had terrible environmental programs in everyday life because as you pointed out, they couldn't afford it.

[argent_paladin]

Right. So the last thing you want to do is impose regulations that will slow economic growth. We want to encourage economic growth so that the country can afford the luxury of a clean environment. In addition, the freer the country, the better the environment. The USSR and satellite states were notoriously horrible environmentally. So is China (three Gorges dam). Free trade and low regulation is the way to go for the best environment.

[Socrates]

Michael Crichton, in [i]State of Fear[/i] , put it this way:

[quote]I conclude that most environmental "principles" (such as sustainable development and the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute imperialism toward the developing world.  It is a nice way of saying, "We got ours and we don't want you to get yours because you'll cause too much pollution."[/quote]

Edited February 9, 2005 by Socrates

[yiannii]

I am very concerned about the environment and have decided to do my bit. When I finish studying at University and get my degree, start working full time etc - I plan to ditch my car and move into the city where I won't need to drive (one less car on the orad). I will not buy a plot of land to build a house (one less bit of land cleared in the outer suburbs).

I believe that in the large cities urban sprawl should be halted and we should make the best use of the land we have already cleared, instead of clearing more and more for the sake of "comfort". The further we sprawl the more land cleared and more roads needed and consequently the more petrol burned to get people from A to B.

If we condense the land already taken we can focus on building more farms and planting more trees in the outskirts of the cities.

Melbourne is a great example - in the next 15 years an old dockland in the city will be converted into a dense residential zone - creating over 8000 apartments and housing over 20 000 residence. Because this is a dense residential zone there can be sufficient transport planning (e.g. busses and trams - the most important) and because of the dense planning all utilities will be close by.

That is over 8000 less plots of land cleared and roughly (lets say) 10 000 less cars on the road.

Just some thoughts.

[MichaelFilo]

Have more babies...


With that said, overconsumption of resources is a problem. We live in so much excess that we can't be leaving things unharmed. We still destroy habitats to have new areas to build, and all that good stuff. It's clear animals do go extinct and such, and it's all because of excess, not over population. 10 people can live in the same apartment, or have 10 houses each with his own 10 acres. The problem is, those 10 acres aren't being used wisely, they are excessive. So, personally, we need more children, but more management of what we do use, so that habitats aren't destroyed. We won't die of starvation, but we are destroying things.

God bless,
Mikey