Human nature does not call for conservation, etc.
tmazanec1 wrote:If we could bring affluence to the planet, our population would stablize and nanotechnology could actually reduce each person's "footprint". It is the Third World that is growing, the West is actually stable except for the US which has heavy immigration. Read Drexler about nanotechnology and the environment. A soft landing does NOT HAVE to mean Soylent Green.
If we could bring affluence to the planet,
The US with less than 5% of the world's people accounts for 25% of energy consumption and 40-50% of resource consumption, and produces 70% of the world's pollution no matter where you find it.
tmazanec1 wrote:The reason we have such an impact on our environment is because our technology is so primitive. My iPod has far less impact on the environment than a collection of several thousand vinyl disks. The reason America has such a percentage of impact is because it is so affluent. I admit we could cut the affluence some, say to Japanese level, and I would still be happy. In compensation, raise the Second and Third World's affluence. And we are having replacement levels of childbirth, but everybody likes to cuss out America but they all want to live here. If we had equal immigration and emigration we would not have that 1% growth rate.
Ludi wrote:If we could bring affluence to the planet,
Where will the resources for this affluence come from? Please answer this question. In your answer, please consider this relevant information:The US with less than 5% of the world's people accounts for 25% of energy consumption and 40-50% of resource consumption, and produces 70% of the world's pollution no matter where you find it.
MonteQuest wrote:tmazanec1 wrote:The reason we have such an impact on our environment is because our technology is so primitive. My iPod has far less impact on the environment than a collection of several thousand vinyl disks. The reason America has such a percentage of impact is because it is so affluent. I admit we could cut the affluence some, say to Japanese level, and I would still be happy. In compensation, raise the Second and Third World's affluence. And we are having replacement levels of childbirth, but everybody likes to cuss out America but they all want to live here. If we had equal immigration and emigration we would not have that 1% growth rate.
tmazanec1 wrote: Primitive technology compared to nanotechnology, yes. The Third World's affluence is what makes it so small, they don't HAVE any significant affluence. The taxes and other cultural measures in western Europe would be a great idea for America, I agree. The energy from nanotech solar can be used to reverse the entropy...that is how the biosphere does it, with leaves. And what is the birth rate per mother? THIS is what determines long term population growth...we are roughly at replacement level, especially if you remember immigrants tend to have larger families.
Tyler_JC wrote:We do NOT produce 70% of the world's pollution. We do not use 70% of the world's resources. A lot of our industry has been moved to other countries. That pollution is now coming from China, Mexico, and the rest of the "Developing" world. Have you seen Mexico City or Beijing recently? Then look at Pittsburgh (which used to be the steel capital of the world), no comparison. America's heavy industry has been moved.
Tyler_JC wrote:In an economic downturn, do the birth rate drop and the death rate rise? I believe that is what happened during the Great Depression. People delayed marriage and put off having children. Poor living conditions lower lifespan for the average person. Even without a mass starvation/die off in the US, wouldn't the population decrease?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests