Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister
Actually I think you and I are on the same page.
I doubt it. I seem to be a bit more sensitive to the planet. I don't think we can add more people without doing more harm to the planet and you said a while ago, basically, we should use it all up and move on. We can agree on a few things, I have no doubt, but definitely not in attitudes towards our crib.
Quite obviously it would be in the interests of humanity to manage its resources more efficiently.
Without screwing up any more of the planet, I agree.
I'm playing a little bit of devil's advocate simply because so many doom and gloomers have been wrong before.
Is that what I am? You don't think I am being realistic in my attention to how we treat our planet?
I expect that one day you will be right but only if humanity is too stupid to do anything about using resources more efficiently. I happen to be optimistic enough to think that this will happen eventually.
One day I might be right? lmao I think it's blatantly obvious we can't sustain the present population, let alone a bigger one. Fresh water is becoming scarcer. People around the world are starving. We are still polluting as if it doesn't matter.
To answer a couple of your questions - yes several nations are net food exporters. They would have to exist or the world would already be starving. The list includes Canada which produces considerably more food than it consumes. The fact that Canadians choose to import many foods that won't grow here like oranges does not mean that it cannot feed itself.
My questions were rhetorical. There are countries that CAN'T feed themselves and have little to contribute to the rest of the world.
The ability not to harm other species is more difficult as the more people there are obviously the more space they take up. However, nations like Britain, France, Germany, Spain and even Japan still have large areas of wilderness where native flora and fauna flourish.This is due party to a deliberate decision on the part of these nations to preserve natural areas
Exactly. And what species are left are a small fraction of what used to be.
and also the fact that these nations are highly urbanized. Most people are squeezed into cities which take up relatively little space. The same urbanizing trend is now occurring in nations like China and India making it possible for these nations to preserve natural areas as well provided they choose to do so. Currently Africa is the continent least able to do this as much of its population is still rural, however, even Africa is rapidly urbanizing.
Yeah. So people prosper as we continually degrade the planet. So? Eventually we will have to smarten up or adjust to the idea that we will eventually disappear. Earth's resources are limited. Using them up more efficiently is still using them up and it's a simple fact that the more people there are, the less other stuff there is. Earth's mass is pretty much a constant.
You are quite right to point out that water is a problem. However, water does have one thing going for it. It is a resource that can be continually cleaned and reused. It is simply a matter of practicing better water conservation. Currently the biggest users of water in North America are the large agricultural establishments which tend to use water rather inefficiently. Using appropriate water conservation techniques as practiced in countries like Israel would solve much of these problems.
No shyte, Sherlock.
Living on other planets I suspect is rather far fetched and you are right to suggest that we solve our problems here rather than depend on some far-fetched and unproven technology to get us to other planets, most of which are uninhabitable in any case.
Ya think? lol