As the US Population reaches toward the astronomical total of 40 million persons, we are reaching the limits of the number of people this earth can support. If one were to extrapolate current population growth rates, this country in a hundred years could have over 250 million people in it! Now of course, that figure is impossible - the farmland of this country couldn't possibly support even half this number. But it is interesting to consider the environmental consequences.
It's a crisis, I tell you.
13 comments:
"Is roughly half the human race hopelessly pessimistic?"
I can say with absolute conviction that roughly half have less than average intelligence. I can also state with a probability of certainty of 99.9999 that many who write about the various "problems" facing mankind have a very tenuous grasp of their subject matter.
Well people live in the moment. When they see gas prices triple in about 5 years, it makes them nervous.
The world did not end in the 70's, but it was no fun either.
So I really do not think it is about intelligence, it is about what people are dealing with today. And today oil is up up up.
terrye is generous and nice. rick ballard makes me smile and agree.
knucklehead's link is interesting, almost like a minor timewarp. Have we been here before?
I deal with 'natural hazards' exploring, analyzing and then designing foundations for the proposed buildings. Some hazards are significant but most are minor.
By my observations, People seem to be most worried about what is inconvenient to them or is in line with their perceived level of importance. By that I mean, The person who wants a house with a particular view willingly ignores a certain amount of risk, whether expansive soils, collapsible soils, minor debris flow, minor rockfall, unstable slopes. The view from the house is important, and so are they, up to a point. Different people have different levels of hazard acceptance. At least until the building is damaged and then this engineer was an obvious bum for not disclosing enough.
Now the one who's view will be 'impaired' by the new construction, or the PLANNER (who is the most important one of all) will use any hint of hazard to sandbag the project. No level of hazard is acceptable.
By my observations, It is often the point of view and the perceived level of importance which governs many opinions, private and public. We are running out of oil, food, land, wood, time, good manners, good vibes and patience.
ed:
I live in southern Indiana. We still have lots of coal and lumber. so far.
"But then, why does the president want to reach Mars so badly?"
I'd do just about anything to get away from Democrats too.
City life sucks for some!
Take me, for instance!
Those that argue for unlimited growth tend not to live in high density, average income environments.
Just because people have predicted the end of oil for over a century doesn't mean there will never be an end of oil. The implication of your post is logically false.
In the Seventies. prices went way up way fast and people adjusted by consuming less. This happened in every major developed country.
What's different now is the tremendous new demand coming online from China and India and a number of other lesser but very important countries such as South Korea which were not oil-dependent industrial powerhouses in the Seventies. It's a totally different world today and the price of oil is changing to reflect that new reality.
The shortage of the Seventies was artificially induced, Arab countries flexing their new muscles just to see how much they liked the power. The high prices today are of an entirely different nature--simply supply and demand. The demand from the emerging economies is never going to go away. As the price rises, admittedly, new resources will be found or discovered, but that will only happen if the price rises, which I see as inevitable.
I believe in the 1800's bien pensants warned that population growth in NYC was so great that in a short time the city would be buried in horse dung from all those carriages..That's the problem with straight line projections,,
meaningless 4:17 PM,
Agreed.
Running on 100% refining capacity, and refusing to drill, represent security risks of the first order, also.
MHA:
I hope that there will be some breakthrough or discovery that will help people meet energy needs in the future without such a reliance on fossil fuels.
And I do agree about China's increase in demand, but I think most people don't really feel that way. The rise has been so swift and has come about at a time of such turmoil that I think most feel the increase in price is either an aberration or a product of conspiracy.
The record high profits of oil companies only lend to this perception. I saw a poll online the other day, CNN I think. People were asked why prices were higher, the overwhelming winner by about 3 to 1 was big oil companies. They even beat out SUV's.
I know it was CNN, but I would say that is about right.
Just because people have predicted the end of oil for over a century doesn't mean there will never be an end of oil. The implication of your post is logically false.
Which is why there's no whale oil any more, and we spend out nights in the dark, impotently weeping for the days when spermaceti gave us its warm weak light.
jrh:
I'm pretty sure you're overthinking it. Relax. Enjoy the company. Nobody bites.
'cept terrye.
jrh:
I was referring to your response:
"...but why didn't you say liberals or communists or nazis or feminazis or murderers or rapists or baby-killers or cannibals or hippies or pinkos or terrorists? Why would Democrats be his antithesis? Why would he be the embodiment of Republicanism?"
Carry on thinking, or overthinking, as is your wont. I'm sure I'll adjust.
Post a Comment