Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
What do you hope to accomplish by using that condescending smiley? You're destroying any chance at a reasonable discussion, but then again you don't seem terribly interested in one.
Anyway, you said:
But anyway, as for your question: It depends on what you mean by "sustain". If it just means the maximum amount of people who can live without dying of hunger, thirst, lack of shelter, etc. and just manage to live a bare-necessities existence, then the Earth's carrying capacity could be pretty high. If on the other hand you mean the maximum population that could live comfortably with, say, the average American standard of living, that number will be much, much lower, and the Earth cannot support 7 or 8 or 10 billion people living that wastefully, which is unfortunate because the population is increasing rapidly and everyone wants to lead a First-World lifestyle.
This site might help: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/
Now, that does not mean that I support slaughtering 6 billion people. That's absurd. I want a healthy environment because it provides innumerable benefits for people, because I want people to lead happy and healthy lives. Killing them won't make them happy or healthy, but neither will overextending the demand for resources until all future generations suffer from the destruction that it causes.
Because the Earth cannot sustain billions upon billions of people living as wastefully as Americans, I would like to see two main things:
One, that people everywhere aspire to a lower standard of living than the current Western one, including the Westerners themselves. We will all have to be a lot less wasteful. Drive less, waste less water, recycle more, pollute less, live in smaller homes, eat a lot less meat and seafood, and so on. It's not exactly a return to Paleolithic days. It may be inconvenient at first, but it is less inconvenient than seeing rising sea levels threaten coastlines, pollution that kills hundreds of thousands a year if not more, rising temperatures that see the spread of malarial mosquitoes, severe famine and drought, and other threats. Countries like India and China seriously need to keep pollution and consumption in check or it will harm everyone, which is rather counterproductive. Countries like the US and Canada need to make their lifestyles more efficient. Everyone must give up a few luxuries if they have any intention of avoiding problems that will hurt everyone.
Two, that population growth be voluntarily reduced. Note very carefully that I'm not proposing killing billions. I'm proposing that birth control and sex education be more easily available to reduce the amount of accidental pregnancies, and that people put off on having more than a child or two if they can help it. Adoption would benefit everyone, because kids would find homes, families would find kids, and population growth would be reduced. Rising standards of living in countries with high birth rates would also help; however, this must be carefully balanced with maintaining an efficient lifestyle, because if the population growth slows down by, say, 50% while average resource consumption per capita increases by 150%, then things will be worse than before.
Now that doesn't sound very genocidal or fascist, does it?
I took pains to write a polite and informative post, and I tried not to use strawman arguments or to leap to conclusions regarding your beliefs. Please do the same, if you're interested in discussing this seriously.
Anyway, you said:
, implying that I want 6 billion people to die. I don't, and you have no evidence that I do. The objection to the deaths of massive amounts of poor Third World denizens is ironic, because when I stated that I worried that said people would be hit the hardest by climate change, you said
The following only applies if you really meant that the aforementioned poor Third-World inhabitants should die for their poverty. Ignore it if it was some kind of tasteless joke.
Spoiler :
But anyway, as for your question: It depends on what you mean by "sustain". If it just means the maximum amount of people who can live without dying of hunger, thirst, lack of shelter, etc. and just manage to live a bare-necessities existence, then the Earth's carrying capacity could be pretty high. If on the other hand you mean the maximum population that could live comfortably with, say, the average American standard of living, that number will be much, much lower, and the Earth cannot support 7 or 8 or 10 billion people living that wastefully, which is unfortunate because the population is increasing rapidly and everyone wants to lead a First-World lifestyle.
This site might help: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/
Now, that does not mean that I support slaughtering 6 billion people. That's absurd. I want a healthy environment because it provides innumerable benefits for people, because I want people to lead happy and healthy lives. Killing them won't make them happy or healthy, but neither will overextending the demand for resources until all future generations suffer from the destruction that it causes.
Because the Earth cannot sustain billions upon billions of people living as wastefully as Americans, I would like to see two main things:
One, that people everywhere aspire to a lower standard of living than the current Western one, including the Westerners themselves. We will all have to be a lot less wasteful. Drive less, waste less water, recycle more, pollute less, live in smaller homes, eat a lot less meat and seafood, and so on. It's not exactly a return to Paleolithic days. It may be inconvenient at first, but it is less inconvenient than seeing rising sea levels threaten coastlines, pollution that kills hundreds of thousands a year if not more, rising temperatures that see the spread of malarial mosquitoes, severe famine and drought, and other threats. Countries like India and China seriously need to keep pollution and consumption in check or it will harm everyone, which is rather counterproductive. Countries like the US and Canada need to make their lifestyles more efficient. Everyone must give up a few luxuries if they have any intention of avoiding problems that will hurt everyone.
Two, that population growth be voluntarily reduced. Note very carefully that I'm not proposing killing billions. I'm proposing that birth control and sex education be more easily available to reduce the amount of accidental pregnancies, and that people put off on having more than a child or two if they can help it. Adoption would benefit everyone, because kids would find homes, families would find kids, and population growth would be reduced. Rising standards of living in countries with high birth rates would also help; however, this must be carefully balanced with maintaining an efficient lifestyle, because if the population growth slows down by, say, 50% while average resource consumption per capita increases by 150%, then things will be worse than before.
Now that doesn't sound very genocidal or fascist, does it?
I took pains to write a polite and informative post, and I tried not to use strawman arguments or to leap to conclusions regarding your beliefs. Please do the same, if you're interested in discussing this seriously.
