duke63 wrote:The size of the world population isn’t the issue but it’s the way a percentage of that population consumes.
Sorry Duke, but that is utter funk. It is the same old argument that is always rolled out by those who prefer to stick their heads in the sand.
The planet has finite resources and ecology has very definite breaking points.
Statistically, yes, it can be proved that we could manage to survive with the current population.
However, do you begrudge the other 80% of the population the quality of life that we enjoy.?
Even with the deprivation & miserable unfulfilled lives inflicted on great swathes of humanity, our consumption is vastly in excess of the balance points.
If every person on the planet was given the same basics that we take for granted,,,,,
(-- Clean water, ample healthy food, secure accommodation, protection by the application of justice, developmental education etc )
,,,,,then it would be far
far greater than our impact already is.
Fwiw I believe that everyone in the world should have every advantage that we experience.
The world has ample natural resources, including hydrocarbon fuel for my motorbike. It can cope with regenerating from my annual flight to the snowy Alps. Plastic is not a curse, rather an awesome & versatile material.
It seems manifestly selfish of us to allow our population to grow exponentially, knowing that inevitably it will result in hundreds of billions living miserable lives of deprivation, desperation & conflict on a dying planet.
It seems preferable that future generations should enjoy the development of humanity & technology with every single one of them afforded the benefits that we enjoy, (and more, much
much more ).
That can be achieved, and the planet can cope (assisted by our technological developments), with a human population level of around 2- 2.5 billion individuals.
Cav wrote:Is it called Hump day because people like to throw depression about the place for others to hurdle?
Sorry mate, I'll zip it for now.
