The majority of the population have such a thorough misunderstanding of reality, and are completely uneducated in math and statistics, specifically, the exponential growth function, that they fail to see that it is the United States, and it's rapacious and unquenchable hunger for natural resources, combined with population growth, that make IT'S economic growth the number one danger to the planets environment and health.

Americans use THIRTY TIMES the resources of the citizens in other countries. In practical terms, what does this mean? It means, that for ever new baby born in America, thirty can be born in China or India for it to have the same impact upon the planet. . . .

The Most IMPORTANT (University Lecture) Video You'll Ever See. . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb3JI8F9LQQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFyOw9IgtjY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQd-VGYX3-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-X6EpvWWu8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3y7UlHdhAU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyseLQVpJEI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoiiVnQadwE

Please discuss if you are intelligent and educated.

Are the intelligent educated people having children...enough to replace themselves???

Of course we use more resources, because we live well. Sure, some starving african with a bloated belly and flys in its eyes uses few resources; but is that your ideal standard for mankind? Fuck that.

We need to raise everyone's standard of living, not decreasse it. There's absolutely no point in going around feeling guilty for success. Our goal should be to raise everyone's standard of living and, as we do it, learn to do things ever more efficiently so that we can make the most of what resourses we have.

Impossible, the resources do not exist to do this. You didn't watch the lecture, you have no concept or understanding of the exponential function. Decreased growth and reduced standards in living are the only way.

Being frugal, having smaller families, living local, less extravagant lives, that is the key. In the century of self, in a capitalist economy where the mindset is the individual, and what ever you can get for yourself, and what ever you can work hard for and earn is all right to have? Then that is all right? . . it's a recipe for disaster. Again, if you don't know what you are talking about, you really can't intelligently comment, can you?

Again, fuck that. What of technological innovation? Fusion, solar power, zero point energy, who knows what the future holds. But if you prefer to bunker down, live in a cave, and have no children, feel free.

By the way, do you realize you're wasting a crapload of resources right now just by being on the internet?

I really liked this one, http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42 . Sums up my feelings about the climate change debate very well.

Our goal should be to raise everyone's standard of living and, as we do it, learn to do things ever more efficiently so that we can make the most of what resourses we have.

wasn't that what Paul O'Neill wanted to do ...but Bush asked him to leave in 2002... so he could really bring in the wrecking ball

This thread would be much better if people would withhold commenting unless they have watched at least the first two segments. It is far from difficult.

I've seen that video. His argument amount to: whoever can present the worst case scenario better wins. Sorry, not convinced. I mean, apply his logic to crossing the street. If you don't cross the street, you can't get to work and might be fired (economic damage). But if you do cross the street, you might get hit by a car and die. Which scenario is worse? Obviously you have no choice but to never cross the street. In fact, you'd better just stay in bed.

Idiotic.

That is a strawman of the case he lays out. He repeatedly states that the sensible solution to the problem is a reasonable use of risk/benefit analysis. Watch it again.

This really has nothing to do with global warming. You didn't view the lecture. Here. Here's a good summation since it's apparent you are too lazy to get educated and watch the original source material.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2rTQpdyCFQ

His whole scenario is a straw man, or perhaps a boogie man would be the better term. He's trying to scare people into taking leave of their senses and agreeing with him. Nothing original or irrefutable about that.

As to the OP links, studies show that world population is going to peak in the next fifty years or so and may even have peaked already. Most first world countries are already at or below zero population growth. There's no emergency. There's no population problem.

Your thread has nothing to do with global warming, but my post does. Because that video was presented by the guy who put up Dr. Bartlett's lecture. I happened to watch it, as well as watching Dr. Bartlett's lecture, and I thought I'd put in a plug for it.

Denial. Link to data on this please?

He repeatedly says that AGW may not be real. His case is that it may be real, and what are the consequences to our choices.

How much preparation are you seeing for a steady state economy? What are you seeing that justifies your optimism? Because I'm not seeing it.

It's not hard to find the data. Here's one source and a quote:

There has been enormous concern about the consequences of human population growth for the environment and for social and economic development. But this growth is likely to come to an end in the foreseeable future. Improving on earlier methods of probabilistic forecasting1, here we show that there is around an 85 per cent chance that the world's population will stop growing before the end of the century. There is a 60 per cent probability that the world's population will not exceed 10 billion people before 2100, and around a 15 per cent probability that the world's population at the end of the century will be lower than it is today. For different regions, the date and size of the peak population will vary considerably.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../412543a0.html

It's predicted that the human population will reach about 9 billion by 2050. Even if it does stop growing after that, enough damage will be done by 9 billion humans, if everyone were to have 'high standards of living' (and even if they weren't, in fact), to wreck enough devastation upon the planet that even if people wanted to increase the population, they wouldn't be able to.

Hi Nyr---

Most of the growth is predicted to come in the developing nations---India and Africa, and likely China if they end their one child policy. The birth rate in the United States is currently at the bare minimum for keeping the population static. Countries in Europe, as well as Japan, face the problem that not enough people are having children, which impacts their social nets/government sanctioned Ponzi schemes (which are based on a certain number of people paying taxes). The current projections of the birthrate in the third world countries also can't predict at what rate that industrialization will change in those countries---for example, the more industrialized a country becomes (i.e., as the turn into first world countries), the more the birth rate typically declines.

Not to say that this isn't all a problem---I just don't know how much the modelers take these things into account.

Here's what wiki has to say:
In the long run, the future population growth of the world is difficult to predict and the UN and US Census Bureau give different estimates. Birth rates are declining slightly on average, but vary greatly between developed countries (where birth rates are often at or below replacement levels), developing countries, and different ethnicities. Death rates can change unexpectedly due to disease, wars and catastrophes, or advances in medicine. The UN itself has issued multiple projections of future world population, based on different assumptions. Over the last 10 years, the UN had consistently revised these projections downward, until the 2006 revision issued March 14, 2007 revised the 2050 mid-range estimate upwards by 273 million.

Whatever be the truth regarding the forecasts, I agree with the Esotericist's original statement: that the product of the per capita ecological footprint and growth rates is a more holistic view of population growth; and in lieu of it, first-world countries have a lot more to worry about, and give the world a lot more to worry about, than developing countries which have higher absolute population growth rates.

As things stand now, I think the USA is over populated . The economy is not well and the nation area is not sufficient compared to many other nations .