Home
Lynz wrote:The World is not over-populated with People. When it is, there will be a die-off. The same as with any species that eat themselves out of house and home. Where this point is for us is unknown, but there are no indications we are anywhere near it.
Sustainable growth however, is an oxymoron.
Interesting topic, and I agree with the last comment about 'sustainable growth' being an oxymoron. However, I see the first comment differently. Perhaps like a balancing beam on a fulcrum. I'd liken a horizontal beam to a sustainable global population. This is probably not a good analogy (I've just finished working from 9am) - it's just entered my head - but it might get one point across. When the beam tips to one side (unbalanced) it represents over-population. If it tips a tiny bit, a small die-off of people can restore the balance. When the beam falls off the fulcrum, the earth has reached the point of no-return in that it could never again support a large population. There's a degree of tipping where the beam falling off the fulcrum is a certainty, and its return to balance impossible, but as yet it hasn't fallen off. I think that's where the earth is now. In other words, instead of the population getting a wee bit too big, and a small die-off restoring balance (or sustainability), I think the earth can get very overpopulated but in a way where a proportional die-off (the same size as the over-population) will not be sufficient to fix it. And I think we are already there.
I base this opinion on several things, but one example is the issue of peak oil. Multiple solutions to insufficient oil are being proposed, but at this point in time, it seems they all depend on oil for their development.
Hope that wasn't completely nonsensical.
