Now You've Done It

Then we can all celebrate.

 

what about the resources the extra people will use? where are those coming from?

 

Not true. The areas with the most access to food (America and Europe) have the lowest birth rates in the world.

Umm...I don't know what you mean. I'm of the opinion that everyone living rich and fulfilling lives would be a GOOD thing, not a problem to be solved, but that's just me...

 

Where won't it come from, they can adopt lumber policies like the US, Canada, and Japan. There are more trees now then in 1900, all thanks to better lumbering policies where two trees are planted for every one chopped down.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bot00/bot00090.htm

They can grow there own food mostly on existing farmlands. With the advent of hybrid crops, and considering that almost 1/3 of there existing farmlands are used for transportation and work animals. A carbohydrate economy, which can be phased out.

They can take part of the solar and hydrogen, and eventually fusion economys to meet their energy needs.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66694,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_3
http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,66111,00.html
http://www.hindu.com/seta/2005/02/03/stories/2005020300431600.htm
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65936,00.html

There are infinite resources on earth, and if we refuse to let people starve, we'll have a population stabilizing at about ten billion.

http://www.highyieldconservation.org/articles/feeding_the_world.html

Considering the population growth this century, and the promise of science ahead, that seems pretty manigable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only alternative you've offered is to let billions starve, the choice seems obvious.

 

Very true, in fact.

Fertility rates for industrialized countries
United States 2.0
France 1.9
Australia 1.7
United Kingdom 1.6
Canada 1.5
Germany 1.4
Japan 1.3
Italy 1.2

Total fertility rate is an estimate of the average number of children women aged 15 to 49 will have in their lifetime.

Two for every couple in the US, that means the only reason the populations growing here is immigration.

In these other industrialized countries, the number's are even less.

 

well lodui,


i tried that site and it came up again no problem. by the sounds of it you don't need to read that kind of information anyway. you're pretty set in your beliefs. what i meant by the weather proof product was why should any of us be subject to anything that's not natural. and of course i would not eat it. but i've been in the trade for thirty years and i am sick from toxins in my body. you understand osmosis, don't you? as for going back in time, i wasn't thinking 2000 years ago as someone suggested. a hundred years ago would do me. anyway, you've got a lot of information there. even if i understood it all, i'd still want to drop out. i know first hand that there's a more healthy way of life than the one i'm presently living. and i wont say that you don't have a real clue. we just think differently, that's all

 

I clicked it again... still a 404. I did notice that this was a site by Jonathan Campbell, who promises to cure Hepatitis C with natural cures for only $19.95.

He also warend that nuclear weapons would launch themselves on Y2k... we saw how that panned out.

Granted, I am admittedly, pretty set in my belief on this issue.

Well, on the other hand, some these unnatural things have millions of ways they can let us live healthier lives.

Whats natural by your definition anyway? Arsenic is an element, thats the basic building block of everything... arsenics much more natural then any plant. And many plants are deadly toxic.

Well, no offense, but if you've been at it for 30 years then your probably in your 40's or 50's right? there comes a lot of natural weight on you after so many years, perhaps another factors making you feel sick?

We do think differently. You have a right to live anyway you want. I could argue that by any definition people are much healthier today then in 1900, but you're free to draw you're own conclusions, and live like you want.

However, don't you think it might be better to not try and stand in the way of what the rest of the world sees as progress. Longer lifespans and better water, more food and better education for everyone is possible for us.

You can live how you want, but if you're standing in the way of the proliferation of this life saving technology, I'm going to keep rambling.

 

hey, write a book.

 

100 years ago, the environment was being destroyed at a much faster rate than it is today, and the birth rate was much higher. If environmentalism and overpopulation are the reasons you're opposed to technology, why in the world would you want to back up 100 years? You'd have even more problems and none of the solutions available. You'd still live only half as long as you do today (on average), you'd be less likely to have enough food, and women wouldn't have as many rights because of lack of access to birth control.

We've already climbed over the peak in terms of environmental damage. Why would you want to climb back up the mountain and go down the way you came, instead of just continuing down this side of the mountain into an age of enlightenment through technology?

 

The population of the most developed countries is even starting to fall slightly Germany, France have both dropped slightly. Britain has barely grown at all in the past decade. The population of the world is too high and is growing fast, but in the most developed countries.

 

yer funny, you can't let a person bow out without pickin their last words aprt. gotta prove something don't ya. we traced our family tree back to 1600 and something. the ages of death, decending are 45, 52, 65, 75, 95, 85. so my line started living longer, but i'm not so sure it had to do with technology. and if i was born a hundred years ago, living to be 75 or 95 don't seem too bad. maby you should now tell me that although they lived that long they did not have happy lives. i'm not saying i want to go back a hundred years but i certainly wouldn't mind adapting some of the old ways particularly when it comes to the living on and usage of land. as for the computer. years ago i used to keep in touch with many relatives by written penmanship. these days my penmenship sucks and my wrists are sore and i've lost contact with just about all those people because emailing is such the norm now and they don't have comps. environment and overpopulation are not my reasons for opposing technology. i just think so much money gets wasted on things that we don't need. see that new ad on t.v. "why stretch to clean around your toilet when you can use this product. tech is mostly just a lot of dumb ideas that cost alot of money and make dumb ass lazy fucks out of people. i'd find it more rewarding harvesting my own food than buying it in the store. and if that means i can't eat avocados and mangos and bananas well so what. isn't there something about macro diets. i wouldn't know it all cause i'm lame i guess, or at least i think that is the way you are going to continue responding to me. well, all the power to you, dude. and personally, i have climbed up a few mountains and i'm very tempted to continue on down the other side. in most cases it's pristine and void of any sign of man. haha