Maven wrote:There are other issues as well. The entire issue of overpopulation is massively un-politically correct. Climate change will never have much of an impact. Fact is,
Ok, beside the "fact" I disagree with some of what you assert, climate change is an indirect consequence of population growth. And it will have consequences.
In the 16th century, forest were barely enough to sustain consumption in Europe, and it was still mainly for cooking and heating fires.
Coal "saved" European forest (in Japan, it was the Shogunate that saved forests by enforcing conservation laws) but at the price of starting the current situation: a society that relies on polluting means to strive (and CO2 emission is pollution).
Population control in ancient Japan was not done by samurais (they were merely mercenaries and bodiguards) but by father strangling the unwanted babies with their foot. In ancient Rome, they were simply dumped in a garbage pits.
Also, killing murder convicts is beside the point. Would that make any difference ? Wars, assassinations and death penalty have been the norm for the last 15000 years, and it didn't make any difference: we are 6 billions, and it's not because we stopped doing those things (World War rings a bell ? Gulag ? Holocaust ?).
The problem is simple: as long as food production/life expectancy increases, global population will increase.
The one and only one parameter that can change the trend is the average number of birth per woman.
It is below 2 in most European countries, Russia, China, Japan, and maybe others. Their population still increases because of a delay effect and life expectancy increase, but they will eventually stabilize.
On the other hand, countries with very high population growth happen to have the lowest carbon emission and pollute less, by head and in absolute numbers. Besides, their pollution is mainly caused by western firms coming and exploiting the resources in unsustainable ways, or in trading wood, furs, etc. so that local people are lead to unsustainable behaviors in order to enhance their life for a short term.
Additionally food trade sustains a higher population than the local environment could cope alone. Then people start to hack&burn forest, dig the ground, erode or pollute the soil, exploit their country in an unstainable way (since their food doesn't come from it, it's ok) and grow in population. Then when they have depleted their resources, their society collapses. That's what happened in Rwanda in a schocking way, that's what happening to Africa as a whole and in some Latin american countries and Asia/Pacific countries.
So what's the real problem ? The real problem is a bad mix: worthless resource management by local governments (and corruption), irresponsible capitalism, and lack of birth regulation.
Am I definetly against trade, or a filthy communist ? No. I guess a regulated world trade would be the best. Planned economy doesn't work that well. But I am disillusioned: politics follow money, not people, because the possibility of a violent uprising is low. And money comes from banks, big companies and other short-term interest lobbies.
In the very place a reasonable capitalism could be born, Europe, the European commission is at the hands of the most dogmatic ultra-capitalist in the world, which apply the free-trade idea to every little aspect of society.
I doubt, but I still hope.
WOW! Thats some can of worms you opened here Gambit. I presume thats as intense as it gets on these forums?
).