Humans: We are about to destroy ourselves, and not with a nuclear bomb.

Earth: What a beautiful and mysterious place.

The only known planet to have multiple distinct climates: from tropical paradises, to frozen wastelands, to unabated deserts. It may be the only planet of its kind in the Universe (although that is quite doubtful, given the odds).

The thing about the Earth is how many different species it is home to. I wouldn't have the patience to count that high.

The most amazing race, and intriguing in my eyes, is the Human race. I could list the reasons, but that's not what this post is about. Some of you might realize this, others of you might not have even thought about it: The children of the next generation will probably be the first generation in our history whose lifestyle is not greater than that of their parents. Frankly, I'm distraught.

Whether you're an evolutionist that believes in the big bang, someone who believes in creation, someone who believes in something else, or someone who believes a combination of the theories of how life began, one thing remains the same. Homo sapiens (Humans) have been around for about 300, 000 years -- so that's when we started to look different from apes; when God decided to create us; whatever.

Human life was originally very scarce. If we did evolve from apes, obviously the transition was from one very particular breed, because there are still lots of monkeys around today. If God did snap his fingers, Adam and Eve were the only ones around.

From 300, 000 B.C., it took until 1800 A.D. for the Human race to achieve a population of 1 billion. It was a cause for celebration -- and celebrate we did, because I think somebody got a little too drunk, and screwed a few too many girls. From this time, just 200 years ago, Human population has risen to roughly 6.6 billion.

To make a graph of Human numbers, you would see a radical J-shape, which only gets steeper. Human population tends to grow geometrically, while the resources available to support it tend to grow arithmetically -- or in lames terms, Humans multiply faster than our food can. We can't die fast enough to match the number of us being born.

By 2050, it is expected that Human life will reach 10 billion. This is the comfort limit. At 10 billion, our cities become cramped to the point that traffic bursts at the seams. Any more, and we lose 'comfort'. Theoretically, the Earth can support 10 billion people comfortably.

Soon, we hit 15 billion. This is the survival limit. Theoretically, this is the maximum number of Humans that lower-level species on the food chain can sustain. According to how much planet life we believe the Sun is capable of producing on Earth, all life on Earth will be devoted to sustaining the health of the Human race. Forget zoos, forget the Amazon, forget saving plant species for their own good. We use EVERY morsel of life on the Earth to live. Of course, this estimate may be high or low, give or take 2 - 3 billion people.

Once we begin to pass 15 billion, the famine starts. There are no longer enough resources on Earth to feed the hungry, not enough fresh water to tame the thirsty -- people begin to die. Not by the millions as is the case today, but by tens of millions. As we continue to multiply, hundreds of millions will die each day. The undeveloped world starves and becomes savage; cannibalism may be a possibility. The "civilized" world begins to fight over resources and land, slowly becoming more and more savage.

It may not seem like a serious problem today, but it slowly affects us every day. As a direct result of Humans even existing, an average of 1 species of bird per years vanishes. They are extinct because of us. Obviously, 6 billion is a number that already begins to taint the balance of things on our planet.

I believe that there is one way to fix this problem, and the idea is absolutely preposterous. It may be absolutely necessary to survive, however, sadly, we Humans grow in number faster than we grow in mind. I believe it may be time to instate a unified, world government. No more countries with their own laws. It would be made illegal for a family to have more than 2 children; this will ensure that Human population does not grow any larger. Third babies are to be aborted, and teenage pregnancy would be resolved by throwing the mother and father in jail, and aborting the baby. Cruel and unusual? Perhaps. But as I've said, it may be necessary for us to survive.

Now, I'm not some environmental geek that dedicates my life to saving the world, nor am I a protestor or anything like that. But this is something I've been realizing over the past months. And although you and I will be long dead when the events I've described begin, how many of you want your children and grandchildren to live like animals, fighting every day just to survive a few more hours... risking their lives just to get enough food to fill their stomachs for a few hours?

I know world government may not be possible -- at least not yet. I know that Humans live to fight amongst one another and kill each other. I know that a girl can't bomb a cafe without Israeli tanks mobilizing and blowing everything to shreds in her home country.

I know that people cannot go about their daily lives without having airliners smash into their cities.

But what I do know, is that it is NOT okay to have 8 children. "Just because I can" is not a reason. Other species have litters of 3, 7, 10, babies, whatever. Their excuse is that's how many come out. Human mothers only pump out one kid at a time.

I know unified world government and the law I've presented might be as difficult to maintain as they are to instate. But I also know this: either we prevent unwanted life, or we destroy it, and ourselves in the process.

Just my two cents. Feel free to reply if you want to say anything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Malthus resurrected

You seem to be Rip van Winkle, waking up after a 300-years-long sleep. Had you been been awake, you would have heard about Reverend Thomas Malthus, who published the same idea you have, back in 1795 in his <i>"Essay on the Principle of Population, as It Affect the Future Improvement of Society"</i>. He worked for the British Eastern India Co. --the same one that introduced the opium to China that started the boxer revolt. Your proposal for population control is child's play when compared to Malthus proposal:
<blockquote>
<i>"All children born beyond of what would be needed for sustaining population to a desired level, will necessarily perish unless some room is made for them by the decease of adult persons. Instead of foolishly and vainly try to prevent them, we should facilitate the operations by which nature produces such mortality, and if we fear the frequent apparition of the horrendous figure of famine, we should assiduosly encourage other forms of destruction that we invite nature to use ... Before recommending hygiene to the poors, we should encourage contrary habits. In our villages we must make our streets narrower, cram people in the houses and invite the return of the plague. In the country, the villages should be built close to stagnant swamps, and particularly, encourage the urbanization in every swampy and unhealthy place. But, above all, we must dissaprove specific remedies for devastating diseases and repress all those benevolent, but greatly mistaken men, that have thought to serve humanity through plans for the total eradication of certain diseases."</i>
</blockquote>
As you see, your proposal is not too different from Malthus'. Perhaps with the aid of modern weaponry, biological warfare, and Desert Storm or Anaconda campaigns you can do it much faster than what Malthus believed.

But you made an erroneus claim in you post, as stating that population grows geometrically (or logarithmically) and the food availability does it arithmetically. That is preciselly what Malthus said, so you must have been reading Malthus, you scoundrel!

If we believed Malthus, and knowing the population England had in 1800, we could do some mathematical calculations (extrapolate backwards and forwards from 1880, at a rate of 30 years for each generation) and find that England had 2 persons in the year 1280 AD, and would have 1,4 billion by 2000. Has England more than 40 million now? Take the case of Germany: it has now about 40 million people, extrapolating backwards gives a result of 24 generations until we reach the 2 persons level. That means, 24 generations x 30 years = 720 years. Then, 2002 - 720 = 1282, that is, Germany had no population in 1281, and two saxon invaders started the whole thing. If you start the calculation with 2 people in 1280, and make 24 multiplications by 2, it will give you 33,554,432 people, then add enough immigrants and you have Germany's present population.

Unfortunately for you and Malthus (or whoever told you such absurdity) in the real world things have been different. The amount of food produced today has increased to unbelievable levels, in spite of an enormous reduction on farming land area; that is, today we get today triple amount of food with half the crop area of 70 years ago. And, if people that share your views, would stop their efforts against modern technology, genetically engineered crops, and progress in general, making the modern technologies available to Third World countries, the "sustaining capacity" of the Earth would go beyond 50 billion. There is a huge amount of unpopulated land on Earth. Just take a plane and make a trip --even inside the USA.

But, if you add that allowing developing countries to acquire modern technologies will increase their living standards, you have the remedie for overpopulation right there: western countries of high living standards are presently in a decreasing slope of reproduction, that is, Their birth rate is below the replacement number for the void left by deaths. They have less children, not because there is an epidemics of infertility due to pollution (as some nuts have suggested), but because modern life in western cities makes the affluent to have less children --for the sake of confort, or economy. To have many children his expensive in western countries, so the best anticonceptive is higher living standards. By the way, being poor is much more expensive... and painful.

People in underdeveloped countries --the vast majority of the world-- don't see children as a burden; they see them as helping hands to the task of surviving. Give everybody a better living standard, put a TV on every bedroom, and you'll get a reduction in births never achieved before. There will be no need for murdering children in their mother's womb, nor making war or promote revolutions for killing women in their fertile ages, as some people in the State Department have been promoting in the last 30 years for Central and Sout America countries

So, van Winkle, now that you are awake, start a journey through science and see what's new and helpful for mankind --and the environment too.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Edufer:

Forgive me for needing to ask the question, but, you are not claiming that the State Department has been promoting revolution for population control purposes?

Or has the proposel been bandied about? Do you have proof?

That aside, you miss one more point. If a small population rises beyond carrying capacity, it will level off through starvation. Not a pleasent stabilizing force, but a stabilizing force nontheless.

P.S:

I don't know about 50 billion, there must be limits to what we can do - but right on! Thank you for pointing that out.

We aren't going to prevent famine by shipping organic tofu to third world countries.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

U.S. State Department policies

<b>Richard Elliot Benedick</b>, who negociated the Montreal Protocol in behalf of the United States, spent most of his time at the U.S: State Department as head of the State Department population Office, under whose orders was Thomas Ferguson, in charge of the Latin American desk at the Population Affairs in Benedick's office. Ferguson made these statements about the U.S. State Department in relation to the civil war going on in El Salvador in 1981. According to the interview he gave to <b><i>Executive Intelligence Review</i></b> (EIR) the things were like this, in his own words:
<blockquote>
<i><b>"Once the population is out of control, it requires authoritarian governments, even fascism, in order to reduce it. Professionals don't want to reduce populations for humanitaria reasons ... In El Salvador there is no place for these kind of people. Period. No place."

"Take a look at Vietnam. We studied the matter. That area was also overpopulated and it was a problem. We thought war would reduce the population index, and were wrong. In order to really reduce population rapidly, you must take all males into battle, and you must kill a sufficient number of women in their fertile years. You know, as long as you have a large number of fertile women, you'll have a problem..."

"In El Salvador, a small number of men are being killed and not enough fertile women for making an efficient job on the population. The fastest way of reducing the population is through starvation, like in Africa, or through diseases like the Black Plague. What could happen in El Salvador is that the war could interfere with food distribution. The population could get weaker, and we could have diseases and famines. Therefore, we could build a declining trend in population indexes.. but, otherwise, people keep reproducing like animals."</b></i>
</blockquote>
The level of moral depravation of Mr. Ferguson is not unique among policy makers in the State Department. Listen to William Paddock, an adviser in the state Department during Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance term. In the spring of 1981, Paddock said in a seminar at Georgetown University, that there was the need for eliminating <b>3,5 million out of the 4 million people in El Salvador</b>, and that this could be done <b><i>"if upheavals and civil war could be kept constant, and that is the only solution for the population problem."</i></b>

Paddock went on saying: <b><i>"The United States should support present military dictatorships, because that is what is required ... But we should also open contacts with the opposition, because they will eventually reach the power. When we do that, with must work along withtheir opposition, because we will also need to take them into power again, That is what our policiy is, that is what it must be ... an endless cycle."</i></b> Seeing what the U.S. policy did in Nicaragua, fighting Sandinistas, backing them later, it shows this policiy is still going on.

I would encourage you to look for and read the <b>NSSM 200,</b> (or National Secret Study Memorandum 200): <b>Implications of the World Population Increase for the Security and Overseas Interests of the United States"</b>, wrote by the National Security advisers <b>Brent Scowcroft</b> and <b>Henry Kissinger</b> to his president, Richard Nixon. There it is stated that <b><i>"population increase in developing countries is a threat to the U:S. Security and, therefore, it must be curtailed, as a matter of foreign policy for the United States"</i></b>. Under the signature of this document, the U.S. has been acting internationally in order to stop the increase and global size of population in countries with darker skinned people. An explicit racial policy.

This policy against the Third World, and "less advantaged populations" is being implemented in a scale never seen before, but, as a matter of fact, it is nothing new. The American historian Allan Chaitkin has docummented (1990) that policy makers gathered around Georgw Bush (father), the president's family and the financial Anglo-American establishment behind the Bush Administration, is the same group that led to power Adolf Hitler, and have copied his eugenics policies and set in practice in the U.S. They continue with enacting Hitler's eugenic policies --the purity of the race-- under the new tag of "<b>population control</b>" and in behalf of "<b>saving the environment</b>".

Bush's work regarding population control goes back to the 60s, when he was the first congressman to pass legislation for population control. He was also a conspicuous activist for population reduction when he was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 1971-72. In 1972, pushed forward by Bush and others, <i>The Agency for International Development</i> (AID) began to subsidize the <i>American Sterilization League</i>, for sterilizing non-whites. In the prologue of Phyllis Plotrow's book of 1973, <i>"The World Population Crisis: the U.S. Response"</i>, Bush wrote: <b><I>"... one of the biggest challenges of the 70s will be the reduction of world fertility". </i></b>

Seeing the influence of Kissinger and Bush on U.S. foreing policy, dating back as far as the 1960s, there is nothing new in what I said: <i>"The U.S. State Department promotes and finance open and covert operations in Latin America for reducing its population"</i>. By the way, Colombia was among the 18 countries mentioned in the NSSM 200 as one of the countries where <b>"actions should be taken in order to reduce its population"</b>. They made an excellent job.

That's not news. That happened to Mayans, Ananzasis and people in the Eastern Island. They expanded so much, destroying their environment, that the ecological havoc they produced wiped them from the face of the Earth. This should teach us a lesson: keep the environment in good conditions. And the second lesson comes from seeing that the agricultural technologies Anansazis, Mayans and Eastern Islanders had, were not good enough to keep sustaining them when the population increased. Our case is totally different: we have increasingly new technologies for coping with the problem of food availability and distribution. But must, however, fix the problem of the huge inequality among rich and poor countries, that keep making the availability, storage, and distribution of food difficult to accomplish. The real challenge of the 2000s is to wipe out corrupt politicians --globally, included the U.S., England, Germany, etc, etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PS: would you please translate the Tranfalmadorian quote you have at the bottom of your post? Thanks. Me and Kilgore Trout will be grateful.

 

Edufer: That is truly disturbing. I shall have to continue researching it.

Very true.

P.S:
Tranfalmadorian? Lovecraftian, actually.
The quote is a bit of Cthuvian that translates either as
"Dead, yet dreaming, Cthulhu waits in his palace in R'lyeh."

or "In his house in R'yleh, dead Cthulhu lies dreaming"

 

population control through war? sounds like an excuse for genocide.

 

I've never thought about anything as catastrophic as this. It's a very good thoery, but it's a thoery none the less. But thoeries shouldn't be ignored. With our human nature, war should only decrease the worlds population by a few million, 50 million tops. We're talking billions. A world government is an excellent idea. Maybe, if it does happen, E.T's will see our unified race and come to aid us. It's a long shot, but judging by what you said, we need every chance.

Anyway, we might be seeing a future where Soylent Green is the most profitable company on this planet. Who knows, we can only guess.

 

Population control through expansion into space would be better.

Humanity has grown up. Its time to leave the nest.

 

I wish the comments about the "future" technology could be altered to say "next year's" technology.

Anyway, the only way for the human race to limit population growth is to eliminate thoe obstacles in it's growth - needless deaths by runaway cars, assholes with guns, terrorists, undiscovered viruses, being gored by bulls, etc..

Give me a few hundred acres in the middle of nowhere and I'll talk to you later!

 

Re: Malthus resurrected

This presumes a steady average of 2 children per family as well as a perfect mating of all children (ie. one girl and one boy per family and all children mate to have children of their own)! Can we really assume an average of 2 children per family across the whole timeframe for the entire population under consideration? What of death rates for those periods of time and the effect it would have on population growth rate?

 

You are right, of course, what proves the point I was trying to make: Malthus said the population would increase <b>geometrically</B> (or exponentianly), while resources would increase linearly (or arithmetically) so everybody would be starving in a few more years. He was wrong. He didn't take into account the advances in Science and technology. But this is not only seen in Malthus; you see it everyday when Lester Brown opens is mouth, or Paul Ehrlich, or Al Gore, or any of the famous green nuts that plague the media. In 1969 Ehrlich predicted -"scientifically"-- that the world was going to die of hunger by 1980. In 1980, the Global-2000 report predicted most of the islands in the Pacific would be covered by the rising sea levels. Oil had to be gone by 1995, aluminum was going to disappear by 2000, the forest cover in the world would decrease by 50%, no more whales, no more fish, the smog would be unbearable, the food would decrease to 1900 levels, diseases killing millions (that was true: DDT was banned), and many frighteningh prophecies. Nothing happened. A blooper...

But the Malthus issue must be seen with another perspective --a perspective that takes us right back to our present days. He was an employee of the East India Company, the organization set by the British crown to expand the Empire. In fact, this company was the one who ruled India and Africa during the 18th and 19th centuries, and the one who founded the HSBC (Honk Kong-Shangai Banking & Commerce, the first drug-money laundry bank --and still is) for managing the money coming from the opium trade introduced into China around 1880 (that resulted in the Boxer Wars, with intervention of European nations plus the United States). History is something that keeps repeating itself because people has short memory --or dislike studying history.

Malthus was using a theory advanced much earlier by a Venetian think tank called <b>Giammaria Ortes</B> in the 17th century, ideas that gave birth to the Venetian Party in England in the beginning of the 18th century, ideas that finally built the British Empire. The "venetian" ideas were that a country could be converted into a permanent colony if you subdued it by military force first, and then keep its population down. Why low population? It means a very small internal market, so surplus production (raw materials) can be sent to the metropolis at the lowest prices, and reprocessed by British workers for exporting back to the colony at exorbitant prices.

The danger of growing population is only an economic one: countries with small populations cannot produce at large scale because they have not inner markets large enough. They are doomed to produce a small quota of added-value of goods, allowed by the industrialized countries. Customs barriers, quotas, subsidies, etc, makes impossible to export beyond the quota imposed by the powerful nations.

The wealth of the nations could be summarized in a formula like this:

<b>natural resources + population + productivity + technology = wealth.</B>

Any increase or decrease of those terms will affect the output of the formula. A country that has acquired and developed technology, and has a good sized internal market, and a well trained labor force, it becomes a comptetitor at an international level. Because its internal market allows the country to produce at market scale prices, it becomes competitive. This is not seen with good eyes by the G7 (or G8) because nobody likes competitors more than a tooth ache, and second, because the so called "developing nations" have most of the raw materials badly needed by the higly industrialized nations.

So, the geopolitical reasons for keeping the developing countries down are:

1) If a country with lots of natural resources and raw materials develops a well trained labor force, equipped with technological advances in infrastructure and equippement, it becomes self sufficient first, and a dangerous competitor later.
2) Their raw materials become more expensive because are first used in the local industries for producing goods for export. Their imports are reduced because they start to produce their own goods. Our trade balance looks horrible.

So let's cut down in any of the variables in the formula: bring their population down; or lower their productivity by cutting down on bank loans, or rising the interests; or forbid the export of technology to those countries for whatever reasons. And here is where ENVIRONMENTALISM has been transformed into a powerfull tool (or weapon) for halting the development of "developing" countries. A classical example is the DDT ban that was used to eradicate malaria. The increase in population DDT caused, was due to the increase in health conditions and increase in agricultural yields. Then, DDT was something the western countries had to supress at all costs.

Money talks here (as everywhere else) because the real danger imposed by DDT to humans, animals, birds and the environment was essentially ZERO.

And this brings us back to Rev. Malthus, who plagiarized Giammaria Ortes and wrote a book whose ideas have long been disproved by history and the real world. Even though, the WWF and the rest of the green gangs have this book as sacred words, and all present Doomsayers are inspired in his wrong, eugenicist and genocidal philosophy.

More on this later, if somebody feels like this topic deserves more chit-chat.

Chau!

 

(Side note: isn't it spelled "ciao"?)

Whoa! You're throwing an awful lot of different topics out into a blazing oratory and (I think) losing the context of your argument in the process (basically, I can no longer see the forest through all the trees you keep attempting to knock down

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

On your point about population predictions, what does a population graph for the world (overall and any part thereof) look like for the past couple of millenia? It's obvious that the human population of the world is greater now than it has ever been. Therefore, the graph of population growth will show one of the following:

1. a positive acceleration in growth
2. a zero acceleration in growth
3. a negative acceleration in growth
   [/list=1]
   
   So what has the rate of acceleration been?
   
   With respect to Malthus' and Ehrlich's predictions of resource exhaustion based upon overpopulation, their models, based upon the knowledge of their times, could've easily been wrong. Knowledge is growing, though, so it would seem likely that each new model improves the accuracy of the prediction (ie. the rate of how far out the new date of resource exhaustion moves with each new model will tend toward zero). One of the major unknowns, though, that can affect the accuracy of the models is "innovation". The question to be answered is whether we are reaching a point whereby resource exhaustion due to overpopulation is progressing faster than our ability to innovate new ways of using resources effectively.
   
   Much of the rest of your arguments, I'm afraid, seem driven by anger over perceived wrongs that various organizations (the "greens") have done to you or your country (Argentina, right?). To me, such arguments don't seem apropos to a forum like this.

 

Eh...?

We won't destroy ourselves with a nuclear bomb?!?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

CRAP!!!! And when I was so filled with anticipation, too...

 

BatM, "ciao" is Italian and means "hello", and sometimes "goodby", while "Chau" is the Spanish (originatyed in Argentina) common expression for "goodbye". Of course, it comes from the Italian ciao, as Italians were a big immigration force in the 19th and 20th centuries.

You seem to be right in your concern about the speed of comsumption and the rate of replenishment (or thee speed or innovation). That's a mistery we must solve some day. Some people are afraid of the future and step back; other are braver and keep going. That has been the spirit of mankind: aggression and lack of fear. If the first ape that started to walk erect had scared from the risks in the jungle, and had he gone back to the tree tops, the human kind would not exist.

I am the kind of "walking" ape, that enjoy challenges, faces risks and try to do my best to keep going. I dislike chicken, especially "chicken little".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am having fun.

But I am not angry with the greens because of what they did to my country (they couldn't do much down here, though). I dislike them because they are "chicken littles" that scare people that otherwise could be living better lives. They did more harm to your country than mine. You are paying such an high cost for stupid green regulations that is hard to believe. Perhaps I will give you the costs of Regulations for "each live saved". In some cases they range in the order of billions of dollars. And you are paying for it! (We too, because globalization has globalized problems).

 

I do not wish to seem overdramatic, but I can only conclude from the information that is available to me as Secretary General, that the Members of the United Nations have perhaps ten years left in which to subordinate their ancient quarrels and launch a global partnership to curb the arms race, to improve the human enviroment, to defuse the population explosion, and to supply the required momentum to development efforts. If such a global partnership is not forged within the next decade, then I very much fear that the problems I have mentioned will have reached such staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control.

U Thant,
Secretary General of the United Nations,
1969
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And so we see that even at this date that people were and are concerned with population control, resource management, and enviromental conditions. It does seem the 10 years have passed, yet still we are here. Things have changed and yet they remain the same. We have seen the end of the "Cold War" only to enter the "Terrorism War".

And still we talk of the alarmist version of doomsday and enviromental catastrophe.

 

Ah! Being half-Italian, the first spelling I thought of was "ciao".

Do not assume that mankind does not know "fear". Fear is a very useful emotion. It keeps us from doing dumb things like jumping off cliffs (without a parachute) just to see what it would feel like when we reach the bottom. It also helps us realize that, when there are problems in the world, maybe we should take a step back and figure out why before it's too late. Of course, not everyone answers the call of fear at the same rate of speed. Some refuse to see the headlights until they're hit by the truck.

In my book, the (as you seem fond of calling them) "greens" have brought a lot of truisms to the attention of the world:

• If you kill all the whales, then there will be no more whales to kill.
• Proper fishing technique does not have to destroy fish (and other) species.
• Clear-cutting forests without replenishing them eventually leads to no more forests to log.
• Toxic factories without proper safeguards lead to polluted lands and a sick local population.
• Dump a lot of toxics into the air and you're likely to have "bad air days" in the local, if not global, area.
• There are probably a lot more that could be thought of.

With respect to costs, it's a part of doing business. When the potential return on investment (ROI) is high, the (legitimate) businesses find ways of dealing with the costs. And finding ways to deal with the costs often puts more people to work finding solutions to the problems.

I'm not here to say that all "green" results have been good. Like any other group of zealots, there are going to be missteps. But zealotry is not necessarily a bad thing either -- even (contrary to kmguru's belief

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) amongst those who sit back and point at people trying to deal with the issues and say "ah, they're just crying wolf".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

p.s. I note you didn't address my questions on population growth. Your simplistic numbers may be suggestive of problems with Malthus' model (which I've never seen), but the problem with simplistic numbers is that they don't tell the whole story.

 

So much more than that has happened since 1969 (like the entire personal computer revolution). To paraphrase most every mutual fund prospectus, "past returns are no guarantee of future success".