Will Earth Expire By 2050? 1638
_josh writes: "Will overconsumption force humanity off this planet in less than 50 years? It may sound sci-fi, but according to the WWF in this story at the Observer, it's entirely possible. Maybe now I can convince my brother not to buy that SUV ..." Take with as large a grain of salt as you think appropriate.
Bah... (Score:2, Interesting)
If they really want to be taken seriously, quote the actual usage of arable land per person in each country. Countries like Ethopia and Burundi will be astronomically high, while the US will be very low comparatively. The truth is that those countries are overpopulated based on their own resources and require outside assistance from countries like the US.
Overall, if worse comes to worse, don't fret for the Earth. Nature is self-regulating and will find a way to keep man's progress in check. More likely, if such a scenario is possible, man will make himself extinct before the effects can jeopardize the world.
Maybe Malthus was right (Score:2, Interesting)
In a related story... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Another option? (Score:5, Interesting)
some resources are nonrenewable (Score:2, Interesting)
However, the energy we are adding to the troposphere by burning fossil fuel [bovik.org] does not look like it is going to stabilize any time soon. Note the r^2 > 0.98, meaning that over 98% of the variance is predicted by a four-parameter sigmoid (resource consumption) curve.
The solution to the problem is likely to involve genetic modifications to seaweed [slashdot.org]. Seaweed such as kelp, also known as nori (e.g., sushi nori), is a delicious and nutritious snack, being very rich in magnesium [bovik.org], which, as the relative cardiopulmonary health of the Japanese can attest to, is a good thing [bovik.org].
denying the statistics, preaching to the choir (Score:2, Interesting)
Taking public transport (or a bike) doesn't hurt me. Neither does using 40W lamps in stead of 60W. Or turning off televisions and monitors in stead of using the stand-by feature.
I know America (and Russia for that matter) isn't that happy with anti-pollution measures, but together the two nations are good for 50% of the CO2 (and other exhaust) production in the world.
Please don't say that because I'm from Europe I'm a tree-hugging freak. Europe also produces pollution. I know. But why are companies like Shell, Q8, Esso and Texaco looking for other alternatives and what is wrong with that?
But think of this before you mod me down: The effect of acid rain isn't local. Forests all over the world have to suffer the effects. Importing oil, wood and other products from the 3rd world leaves THEM with the effects while we have the products.
And even if, in 50 years the statistics turned out to be wrong, at leas it is good to be aware of the (possible) consequences of our lifestyle.
Hmmm... perhaps a bit overblown. (Score:3, Interesting)
1) The highest per-capita consumption occurs in the first world. (see below)
2) The population of the first world is rapidly shrinking, and will amount to a small fraction of the total world population by 2050. (According to the UN. See this link [bbc.co.uk] for details.)
3) By 2050, even the 3rd world population is expected to reach equilibrium, so that the entire world population will actually begin to decline.
Taken together, it seems unlikely to me that the conditions stated by the WWF may actually come about, unless the 3rd world population increases its consumption dramatically, or the UN study is substantially incorrect. This is because, even though the world population is expected to increase from 6 billion to 9 billion by 2050, that additional growth will occur almost exclusively outside of Western nations. Significantly, the population of the first world will actually diminish. Now, the report itself states
"America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources."
So if indeed the third world consumes a large factor (an order of magnitude!) less "footprint" than the Western nations, it would seem to me that the world might actually be better off by 2050 : they are, quite simply, more efficient at using existing resources.
Bob
Re:Past predictions were all wrong, why believe th (Score:1, Interesting)
it just may be that there isn't enough food for everyone.
This economist accurately predicted the current population of the earth, 200 years ago - thats pretty impressive i wouldnt discount his theories so fast.
Take it with a grain of salt (Score:5, Interesting)
Only catch is, each person would have 12 cubic feet, or six feet by two feet by one foot. Now imagine that you're at the bottom of the cube.
What is overlooked time and time again in the "you can fit x people into ____" argument is that just because you can fit a population into an area doesn't mean that area can support it. The most common example is Texas, at least in America. But what about arable land? As for space, let's say people will be transplanted to Mars by 2030. The world population will be 8.1 billion by then (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html). In order to maintain current population levels, we would have to devise methods to transplant 2 billion people within thirty years. At a round trip of two years to get to Mars at the optimal revolution of the planets around the sun, with 50,000 people making the trip each time, you would need to make 40,000 trips before you could transplant 2 billion people, over the course of 80,000 years, at which point you might see H.G. Wells and his time machine where London once was.
What's my point? Look for answers close to home. Keeping your head in the clouds can be fun, but not always productive. Rather than trying to find solutions to the effects of overpopulation, one should try to find solutions to the causes of overpopulation.
For those interested, let's say we started sending people now and wanted to make sure we were at 6 billion people in 2030; the number of trips that could be made is 15, at 133 million people per trip. The maximum number of people to send at today's capability per ship is about ten. That's 13 million ships being sent every two years, plus enough food and water to feed people for the ten to twenty years it would take to allow for food to be grown on Mars. Put the cost of sending each ship at 20 billion dollars (http://www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/world/360734
Re:Another option? (Score:3, Interesting)
The food is there, and will continue to be there. Oil, coal, wood (fuel & construction) and clean, fresh water are where the shortages will be. There are going to be large problems, especially as poorer and less stable nations become nuclear powers. It's going to be an interesting century- maybe more so than the last.
Re:No. (Score:3, Interesting)
Populations, however, do not reach the line by steadily growing in number and tapering off, treating the carrying capacity as an asymptote. Think of the line as a horizontal line on a graph, the horizontal axis representing time, the virtical representing population. Population grows with an exponential function until it overshoots the carrying capacity, then it starts to die off until it is below the capacity. The population level oscillates around this level with a logarithmic function, looking somewhat similar to a sine wave, and as time goes to infinity, the oscillations become smaller and closer to the carrying capacity.
This is a fact of nature. It happens with mice, antelope, fish, bacteria, and apes. Why would people think it wouldn't happen to humans? Sorry, creation scientists, we're animals too, and though we use different resources, we're not immune to laws of nature because of divine providence.
Some interesting things to note: The carrying capacity is not always constant, it changes, for example, over seasons. More animals die off in winter because of this function.
Also, animals that take better care of their young grow the population graph somewhat slower - as it takes time to care for and train an offspring, you produce less offspring. Introduce a pair of mice to a situation where they are far below the carrying capacity of the environment, and they will reproduce extremely rapidly, overshooting the line by quite a lot.
But, anyway, the long and short of this is that one, people have been predicting this for years, since at least the 50's. It hasn't happened yet. And so what if it does? It's a fact of nature. Live goes on, or the cycle of life does. I am unconcerned.
My girlfriend is an animal science major, pre vet. We have some interesting conversations.
~Will
Re:No. (Score:2, Interesting)
They song birds are going away. (Score:2, Interesting)
The bigest natural competitor to a typical songbir id a pigeon. I've been told (by someone who does research on penguins) that every pigeon tends to displace at least 20 native birds in Australia.
Pigeons where brought here because the sailors used to drink their boold as a cure for scurvy but now they idiots feed them in the parks and their populations are growing.
Its interesting that cats are getting a major blame for the decreasign numbers of songbirds when the pigeons are teh major cause.
Re:some salt, some truth (Score:4, Interesting)
Some sample problems:
- Resources are not constant. Some replenish themselves. The amount of wheat that I consume is a virtually irrelevent point, because that amount of wheat can be grown again. Much the same goes for many other products, such as wood and any chemical that can be produced by a lifeform.
- Resources are not a constant. Resources can be recycled, re-used, and re-allocated. We may not be doing the best job of this... or are we doing such a horrid job? The true answer is difficult to ascertain and cannot be done with such a limited analysis.
- Resources are not constant. Improved extraction and refining techniques effectively increase the amount of any given resource that can be extracted from the Earth. Linear analysis can not correctly predict this. Remember how we were supposed to run out of oil by 19x0? Well, we did, we just found more. It may not be reasonable to suppose an infinite supply exists, but again, it's not reasonable to project linearly, either. There may be enough to last us two hundred years, assuming the population growth is slowing as it seems to be in some ways. Or there may not be enough, in which case the economy will throw significant non-linearities into the equation as it raises the price of oil. Linear analysis can not correctly predict this.
- Resources are not constant. Any space activity in the next few decades completely throws everything off. More realistically, any new refining technique increases resources, any new genetic engineering technique increases resources, any new drilling technique or location technique or recycling technique increases resources. As technology improves, so does efficiency, the moreso if anybody cared. Linear analysis can not correctly predict this.
- As a consequence of much of the above, resources are created, not found. Oil no longer wells up out of the ground, and all the easy resources are long gone. The US may use a 'disproportionate' share, but by being the technology leader, it also produces a vastly disproportionate share of the world's resources, both directly and indirectly. Better oil-finding technique benefit many people, not just the US, and the agricultural research done in the US benefits Third World countries astoundingly. Arithmetic analysis does not lead to understanding this issue. Linear analysis can not correctly predict the effects of this.
It's going to take some catastrophic change that impacts the U.S. directly to get us to wake up.We have woken up. Personally, I worry more about everybody's use of linear or God help us all, constant projection techniques in understanding these phenomena. We'll stupid ourselves into the cosmic grave yet...
Re:All the 'used' resources are still here (Score:5, Interesting)
But hold on, how are you going to build them if all the energy you need for the launch vehicles has been used up already?
This is a bootstrapping problem. You have to invest energy to get more. If you don't have the initial amount of energy to invest, then you're stuck.
If we burn all our fossil fuels in SUVs etc., and not in building the solar power stations, that's it, game over.
We live in a unique period in history. We can either invest the energy we have easily available at the moment to ensure a large future supply - and perhaps have some generations of hardship while that's happening - or we can go on using up the local resources living a good life, and sealing the fate of future generations. This takes conscious planning, and is not something that a blind 'market solution' is capable of, because that always works on a much shorter timescale.
I don't see anyone taking this long view and doing something about it, so by 2050, we may be stuck on this planet forever.
Now that's a believable solution to the Fermi Paradox.
Re:No. New SUV? Bah!! (Score:2, Interesting)
On second thought. Perhaps he should get an SUV, when you hit a pedestrian or motorcyclist you want to make sure they are dead, no pesky civil suits.
Death of the West... (Score:2, Interesting)
Relying upon the most recent UN population studies, Buchanan declares:
By 2050, only 10% of the world's people will be of European descent. One third of Europe's people will be over 60, and one-in-ten over 80. Involuntary euthanasia has already come to Europe.
Between now and 2050, Asia, Africa, and Latin America will grow by three to four billion people -- 30 to 40 new Mexicos! -- as Europe will lose the equivalent of the entire population of Germany, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland.
By 2050, 23 million Germans will have disappeared along with 16 million Italians and 30 million Russians.
Russia will lose Siberia and the far east to China and be pushed out of the Caucuses and Central Asia, where Islamic populations are exploding while Russia's is dying.
Either Europe must effect a radical cutback in pensions and health care for seniors, or Europe must import scores of millions of Arabs and Africans to care for the elderly and pay the taxes to sustain their welfare states.
The 4.2 million Palestinians in Israel and on the West Bank and Gaza will explode to 9 million by 2025, and 15 million by 2050, when Palestinians will outnumber Israel's Jewish population two-to-one.
America's "Dual Containment" policy in the Persian Gulf seems unsustainable. In less than 25 years, Iraq will have 42 million people and Iran 94 million people, more than any European nation except Russia.
The Islamic invasions of Spain and France in the eighth century, and of the Balkans and Central Europe from the 14th to the 17th centuries, will be reenacted in the lifetime of most of those now living. Islam has already surpassed Catholicism as the largest religion on earth.
It is the Christian nations -- Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox -- that have begun to die. In a chapter titled, "Where Have All the Children Gone?" Buchanan explains why, and why it is unlikely the West can solve the demographic crisis before it leads to The Death of the West.
In his chapter La Reconquista, Buchanan contends that an invasion of the United States is taking place and that America now harbors a "nation within a nation."
There are 30 million foreign born in the U.S. today, and between 9 and 11 million illegal aliens, or as many undocumented aliens in the U.S. as there are people in Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Mexico is exporting its poor and unemployed for U.S. taxpayers to employ and educate. Radical and militant Hispanics and Mexican leaders alike believe this will lead to the cultural and demographic recapture of the Southwest from America, reversing the results of The Mexican War.
By supporting open borders, the GOP is committing suicide. First-time Hispanic voters chose Clinton 15-1 over Dole. Of the seven major immigration states -- Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Texas and Florida -- Mr. Bush lost five, and perhaps six. Of the 10 states with the smallest share of immigrants, Bush won all 10.
European-Americans are a minority in America's most populous state, California, and by 2004, will be a minority in Texas.
The political agenda of California Hispanics includes race welfare for illegal aliens, racial preferences, bilingual education, open borders, dual citizenship, Cinqo de Mayo as a California holiday, and, in one case, replacing a statue of an American hero of the Mexican War with the Aztec god Quetzacoatl.
White Americans are fleeing California at the rate of 100,000 a year.
MeCHA, the student organization that claims chapters on hundreds of campuses has a program that reads like a Mexican version of the agenda of the white-supremacist Aryan Nation.
In 2001, an Office for Mexicans Abroad in Mexico was providing survival kits with everything from dried meat to anti-diarrhea pills to condoms to Mexicans setting off to break in to the United States
As of 2000, there were 8.4 million foreign born in California, as many foreign born as there are people in New Jersey, a primary cause of the state energy and schools crisis.
Among Third World immigrants, poverty rates and incarceration rates are double and triple what they are among native-born Americans.
Shooting up the flares and waving the flag, Buchanan argues that the 1960s "counter-culture" has become America's dominant culture, and the iconoclasts of that counter-culture are systematically demolishing America's history and heritage.
Under Political Correctness, America's greatest heroes -- soldiers, explorers and statesmen from Columbus to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson -- are under savage attack as genocidal racists and exploiters of indigenous peoples.
The history books of American public schools are being rewritten with the old heroes ignored or trashed and Western civilization disparaged and demeaned.
When Mel Gibson's film, "The Patriot," came out in 2000, it was savagely attacked for presenting black Americans as fighting patriots in the Revolutionary War.
With the assault on Confederate books, symbols, flags, heroes, and holidays almost complete, the attack is now proceeding against the Puritan fathers, soldiers who fought in The Mexican War, and, in New Jersey, even against the Declaration of Independence itself.
In some school districts, Mark Twain, Flannery O'Connor, and any realistic portrayal of the America South, including Harper' Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, are now forbidden.
Even the great museums on America's Mall, to introduce school children to the greatness and glory of America's past, are being used to indoctrinate children in how wicked and evil our forefathers were.
In his chapter, "The De-Christianization of America," Buchanan argues that the death of the Christian faith in Western countries is a primary cause of their dying populations. Whenever faith dies, the people die. A new atheistic civilization is arising, he argues, and is using its dominance of the culture and the courts to drive Christianity out of the temples of our civilization.
Secular Humanism, widely mocked and disparaged, a few decades ago, is now the dominant faith of the nation's cultural elites. The moral tenets of humanism are replacing those of Christianity in our public life.
Even Christian churches are rewriting their hymnals to make them acceptable to the dominant culture.
Anti-Catholic films and filthy and blasphemous anti-Christian art are the deliberate insults of a triumphant pagan and secularist faith.
He does bring up very valid points that we can all use to change our lives. He stresses faith, family and a return to a more moral society. His right wing ideals shine through on some points but others are applicable to all beliefs.
Culminating these two sources, the future does not look very bright. But humans have always evovled to survive their elements, and I think we will continue to do so.
production of wealth (Score:2, Interesting)
Good question. The answer is not domestic product, as letxa2000 incorrectly assumed.
The abundance and cost of goods and services is known as the cost of living, and is a combination of the costs of food, clothing, shelter, utilities, and represented as a 'typical' basket of goods and selection of services (e.g., bread, milk, cerial, shirt, shower, haircut, etc.)
If you were to divide CO2 [bovik.org] production by the cost of living in the various areas, you would have a more reasonable basis with which to barter emissions allowance.
You do want to apply market forces to achieve the solution, do you not? In order to do so, you must learn to keep your units consistent.
no, not 50 or 5000 years, try 10-30 years (Score:2, Interesting)
As for the claim that more fuel is being found, it is simply not true. Oil discovery peaked in 1960 and has been steadily declining ever since. The current rate of consumption exceeds new discovery by a margin of 3:1 and demand is increasing at a rate between 2 and 3 percent every year. New technology does not solve this problem, at a certain point the laws of thermodynamics kick in and standard economic paradigms fail. at some point, it takes more energy to recover the oil than the oil contains. after that, there is no longer any point in trying to recover more oil.
In 1956 a geologist named M. King Hubbert published his prediction that U.S. Oil production would peak by 1970. Most people in the petroleum industry ridiculed him, but he was right. Oil production in the U.S. has been declining since 1970, Dr. Hubbert was spot-on in his predicition. Recently Dr. Hubbert's theory has been applied to estimated worldwide reserves. One study estimates that global oil production will peak by 2010. This study has also taken some heat from the establishment, but even if you accept the most wildly optimistic estimates of the people doing the ridiculing, peak oil production is only pushed 20-30 years into the future. After the peak, production declines every year, until it becomes uneconomical to produce more oil. When production peaks, demand will exceed supply permanently, a situation that will get worse every year from then on. For a good example of what happens to prices when demand for a commodity exceeds supply, check out the prices for real balsamic vinegar these days. Prices would skyrocket so quickly that the average person would no longer be able to afford to run a vehicle, not even a hybrid one.
What about alternative fuels and energy sources? What about them? they aren't being developed. politicians pay lip service to alternative energy, and cut funding. We don't need them right now, oil prices are still cheap. The killer here is that oil prices stay cheap, right up until it becomes clear that production is decreasing. after that oil prices climb. So does the price of everything else. Suddenly, the economy is too weak to support the development of other energy sources, even if we wanted to.
What about coal? there's like 1000 years worth of coal left. What about natural gas? Well, the 700 million automobiles in the world today don't run on coal or natural gas. neither do the airplanes and railroads. and neither does the equipment used to mine and transport the coal and natural gas. heh heh.
Our economy is based on oil. in a very real sense, at this point in human history oil is food. oil is everything. and it's running out. there is no good substitute for it, and we don't seem all that interested in finding one. we're all gonna die. really. it's probably too late already, so no point in worrying about it now.
Fundamentally flawed argument.... (Score:1, Interesting)
For example, in a communist country (and in under-developed countries also), it is quite possible to operate an economy without any "wealth" (in the USD sense) being generated. The government runs the farms and factories, and provides food, lodging, services and benefits to workers. All without 'money units' changing hands between the agencies concerned. Foreign currency is acquired through trade as needed, but this is not "necessary".
Despite the absence of 'money units' in the "economy", growth and consumption are still taking place and people are working and being fed.
This said, it is completely inappropriate to use an arbitrary American 'money unit' to determine the "contribution" or efficiency of a communist or under-developed nation. The only reasonable comparison of nations in this arena is "per-capita consumption rates", as indicated in the original article.
So, sorry.... "Bzzzzzzzzzzt".... wrong answer, letxa2000.
If you want something without bias ... (Score:2, Interesting)
"Twelve per cent or 1 183 of birds and nearly a quarter or 1 130 mammals are currently regarded as globally threatened."
"Just under a third of the world's fish stocks are now ranked as depleted, overexploited or recovering as a result of over-fishing fueled by subsidies estimated at up to US$20 billion annually."
"The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that forests, which cover around a third of the Earth's land surface or 3 866 million ha, have declined by 2.4 per cent since 1990."
Not all news in there is bad. In fact, a lot of it is good. But it should be better, a lot better.
Anyway, I strongly suggest reading the full report. It's very educational.
As George Carlin so aptly put it (Score:3, Interesting)
The earth isn't going to go anywhere (to die), WE are.
The earth will not "expire", though many invaluable species will die, invaluable habit will be destroyed, and so forth. What WILL happen is the human population will crash in a very ugly way. The 3rd World would be less affected by a collapse as they are already close to rock bottom. It is the developed nations, with the US at the pinnacle, that are going to have a very nasty crash.
It is unacceptable to waste/consume/waste resources at the rate we in the US do and it will lead to irreparable harm on the overall world ecosystem BUT the ultimate, and much deserved, outcome will be collapse of human "civilization". The human population will drop precipitously (maybe not by 2050 but it is absolute certainty that without substantially change in practices it WILL happen in the not distant future), below preindustrial levels, because the environmental damage and depletion will support much less and it will take a long time for earth to recover...perhaps longer than the human species lifetime because evolution will act to reproduce a new biodiversity without regards to what is best for us. Empty niches, depleted and descimated by human overconsumption and greed, will be filled - that is what evolution and life does, it fills available niches. It will take a long time and I believe that humans will not recover to anything remotely like today's tech levels before it all comes to a end (there are two articles out there - can't presently find the refs - dealing with the "useful" lifetime of earth. One gives life 1 billion more years before the oceans are fully subsumed into the earth's mantle based on the current rate of ocean water loss due to subduction. Complex life like horses and dogs and humans will be dead LONG before the last oceanic water is lost to the mantle. Another study gives the earth 2 billion years tops based on the changing sun - it gets hotter and hotter all the time and LONG before it goes Red Giant stage, the earth will be rendered dead).
This may be why we detect no radio signals from advanced tech alien lifeforms in the galaxy. By the time they are approaching the means to be able to do this, they have totally screwed up their own nest (like us) and drive themselves into ignomie instead.
Re:Flamebait? (Score:2, Interesting)
I saw a great example of this on "The Education of Max Bickford", a CBS TV series of all things. Some ultra-conservative who was the worst of Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern and David Duke all rolled up into one was invited to speak by the campus conservatives club. Naturally, every left winger on campus objected, and some of them tried to stop him. Max, being an old school Liberal, detested the guy himself but spent the whole show trying to bang into their heads that by definition free speech means just that. If any self-righteous group assumes responsibility for deciding what is and what isn't allowed, the whole concept is lost. The ruling authority could call anything they object to 'hate speech'. The speaker did make it to campus, and the protestors made their point by attending the speech, then walking out and leaving him with a nearly empty auditorium.
THAT is the essence of passive resistance. Attempting to crush the opposition under your boot-heel is never looked upon favorably in the long run, and you'll soon find out with horror that your methods have suddenly turned you into the 'bad guys'.
Re:denying the statistics, preaching to the choir (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Balderdash (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, you should more carefully look at the wars you describe. I am being honest, you however are kidding yourself about a great many things. The stronger merely means one thing, those who can survive by overpowering others will. It is that simple. It is not right or wrong. You have constructed a false sense of morality that is a) not practical b) a tool of keeping the masses content as slaves. Socialism and religion are these tools. There will be a breaking point, the only question is when. At least I do not foolishly think we can provide for all people indefinitely.
You sound like you've read too many Ayn Rand books, so let's get this out of the way first:
Socialism != morality
behavior != need
As much as I admire Ayn Rands work, it is nothing more than pulp philosophy. Morality is in itself, a false construction. More than anything else, it is a tool created by the strong to trick the masses into devoting their pathetic lives to the service of their masters. You will find the vast majority of control is not exercised through death... Most people do not live because their blood is spilled, their minds are warped from the moment of birth to believe their place in life is to serve the state, their comrades, or a god.
All human behavior is motivated by one thing, the will to power. It is all governing, and omnipresent all the time. The Socialist enjoys his control over others, the feeling of superiority he gets at naturalists like myself. The theists fullfills his desire for power every time he gifts an eloquent speech in defense of his god, and condemns heathens such as myself who consider him a quack. The bully on the playground, a little lad, fulfills his will to power every time be forces others to do whatever he wants them to do. The artist, free of political bullshit, experiences the will to power when he performs a brilliant piece of music on a violin or completes a beautiful painting. For those who lack the strength or ingenuity to do what they want, artificial constructs of morality are created. It is a tool of, for, and by slaves to overcome their masters. It is their attempt to experience power. But, because they know not what it is, they always fail. It is the slaves who will draw blood when the food runs out, not I. It is not right or wrong, it simply will happen. The Will to Power is human nature.
If you have taken the time to read Ayn Rand, thats great. But I suggest you move yourself to the next level. I once thought as you, but it times to get rid of this morality system to which you hold dear. Nietzsche will provide you with a greater understanding of life.
"Nature doesn't do anything. Let's go over it again--nature is a reified idea which you've obviously gotten confused about. Life does not exist without death, that much we agree about, but that's not "nature."
Think about it for a second: populations force shortages upon other populations, or environmental conditions force shortages on populations. The detail is the key. To arbitrarily group these two distinct causes into something called "natural" is the fault of your logic."
I cannot believe I am reading this in this condescending tone. This is the old nature or nurture argument. It has been going on for at least 200 years. Not even the sickest mind controlling communist will completely dismiss human nature. I suggest you analyze yourself and others before you make such dismissive comments, especially faulty logic. Nature does not "do" anything you are right, but it is a system of behavior of living things. All living things strive to grow. Try not eating or fucking for a week. First, you will eat until satisfied, then you will fuck. You won't be able to think of anyhting else. Your little mind that you perceive to be completely under your control is hardly so. Your body's first goal is to survive, then to reproduce. The goals are acheived by you striving to be better than anyone else. Happiness only occurs when you acheive superiority to others. A pack of wolves operates in the same fashion, a school of fish, or any other species. Even plants will grow until there is nowhere left to grow. Nature does not create food shortages, that is not my point. I apologize if that is the case. Human nature, and the nature of all living things, is to reproduce as much as possible, until all means of sustinence are used up. It is the excess reproduction of living things that causes food shortages.
It is unfortunate you do not see that the population problem is simply humans behaving like every other living thing.
Also Vietnam is an exception, but at the time, the French cared about Vietnam due to its abundant supply of natural rubber. One of the many factors of Germany's demise in WWII was its dependency on natural substances for military clothing and boots after the American liberation of the south east asia. A cynic such as myself would argue that Vietnam was about intangibles such as propoganda. A popular tool of masters going back for all of written history is to rally the people behind some war cause, if not for natural resources, than to at least keep them quiet and give them something to do. The more they hate some other group, the less they hate their own masters.
Once again, in my defense against the socialist onslaught, I am not a Nazi, I personally do not belive in the taking of anything from anyone or the killing of anyone. What I do believe, is others will find ways to do this within their artificial morality. Socialists will steal from the rich. Fascists will steal from their neighboring countries. When push comes to shove, there will be a lot of stealing of food going on. But, not by me. It is important for all you wonderful socialists to understand NAZI is an acronym for the National Socialist Party. The Nazis WERE socialists. Germany of 1940 is just like Germany of today, without the antisemitism. Same corporate control by the state, same wealth redistribution, same lack of freedoms.
Socialism is no different than nazism. They both steal, they both keep people chained in bondage to the state. The sooner we throw away our vicious tools of control, the sooner we can live a more peaceful life on this planet.
Re:Another option? (Score:2, Interesting)
More so, land IS a finite resource,but, unless you eat dirt, what humans consume is the PRODUCT of land, and that has been incrasing for centuries.
The fact is, crop rotation, fertilizers, agricultural mecanization, and now bioscience have increased the productivity of land at a much rapid pace than population.