tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post3243852893080013422..comments2024-03-26T07:51:43.186+00:00Comments on Mabinogogiblog: Population Problem: is it all down to consumption patterns?DocRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-64082283198543347682010-01-21T20:51:09.116+00:002010-01-21T20:51:09.116+00:00Doc said:
"Population numbers will inevitably...Doc said:<br /><i>"Population numbers will inevitably come down; the question is will we do it by choice or will Nature do the job for us?"</i><br /><br />My money is on Nature, which means I won't collect my winnings.weggishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04651722712995395981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-74788341472196239832010-01-21T19:08:49.966+00:002010-01-21T19:08:49.966+00:00Hi Pete
Many thanks for commenting. I had a look a...Hi Pete<br />Many thanks for commenting. I had a look at your excellent website, and it deserves more study. <br />Regards<br />RichardDocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-7138903610716013172010-01-21T13:32:25.027+00:002010-01-21T13:32:25.027+00:00The biggest obstacle we face in changing attitudes...The biggest obstacle we face in changing attitudes toward overpopulation is economists. Since the field of economics was branded "the dismal science" after Malthus' theory, economists have been adamant that they would never again consider the subject of overpopulation and continue to insist that man is ingenious enough to overcome any obstacle to further growth. Even worse, economists insist that population growth is vital to economic growth. This is why world leaders continue to ignore population growth in the face of mounting challenges like peak oil, global warming and a whole host of other environmental and resource issues. <br /><br />But because they are blind to population growth, there's one obstacle they haven't considered: the finiteness of space available on earth. The very act of using space more efficiently creates a problem for which there is no solution: it inevitably begins to drive down per capita consumption and, consequently, per capita employment, leading to rising unemployment and poverty. <br /><br />If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit my web site at http://PeteMurphy.wordpress.com. <br /><br />Pete Murphy<br />Author, "Five Short Blasts"Pete Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16549342862438864973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-24705256342305387232010-01-20T13:38:07.352+00:002010-01-20T13:38:07.352+00:00Phil
Too true. It is one thing to deplete a non-r...Phil <br />Too true. It is one thing to deplete a non-renewable resource, but to deplete a renewable resource requires a PhD in mindless stupidity. <br /><br />Population numbers will inevitably come down; the question is will we do it by choice or will Nature do the job for us?DocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-1751473241409497092010-01-20T13:17:47.817+00:002010-01-20T13:17:47.817+00:00In the mid 1970s Prof David Pimentel was estimatin...In the mid 1970s Prof David Pimentel was estimating a sustainable population of 1 billion; more recent writings of his suggest that 2 billion might be sustainable in favourable conditions.<br /><br />I think his former figure is the more likely. We're already doing massive ecological damage with our current population levels.<br /><br />Overfishing is one area which should put the lie to the "its our material consumption, not population" myth. Fish aren't used to produce consumer toys, they're used for food. And we're overfishing. Draw your own conclusions.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05789761931551673481noreply@blogger.com