by yesplease » Wed 06 May 2009, 23:06:41
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'I')f we can have 10 billion w/o the crazy rate of species extinction we see today--if only we had the guts to do the right thing, then why can't you extend your clarion call to population reduction? I mean, why go to such extreme effort to reduce our per capita environmental footprint just to enable our population to expand unrestricted to 10 billion? Wouldn't it be a hell of a lot easier to engineer a comfortable life for, maybe, 4 billion by 2050 and 2 billion by 2100 rather than having to walk a literal tightrope at 10 billion at 2050 and then be left having to make ANOTHER hail mary pass to enable yet another population doubling? If the final goal is sustainability, population must, at the very least, flatline, otherwise humanity is just in kick-the-can mode and will eventually crash down the line.
I don't see much point in reduction because people tend to, sooner or later, reach some sort of balance w/ their environment, so the only thing fewer people will likely bring is greater rates of consumption/pollution/etc proportional to the reduction in population up to whatever limits there are.
In terms of another population doubling at ~10 billion, that's not where population is headed. Hell, w/o GW's change in overseas family planning/BC policy, we probably wouldn't be at 6.77 billion right now. Based on the policy and decline rates in fertility we've had over the last few decades, population will hit ~9 billion by 2050 and ~10 billion by 2150, declining after that. Granted, if that turns around, then we should make to appropriate changes to policy to insure it continues on it's current path, but as they say, so far so good.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!