It is now perfectly obvious - and without being "left" or "right" about it in any way - we can say that the planet cannot sustain 6.7 billion people living the kind of life currently being lived by today's 'middle classes' in North America and western Europe - nevermind the projected 9 billion world population in mid-century. Either a large part of humankind has to be excluded from the benefits of prosperity or our way of life has to change.
I think all of us here - libertarians, socialists, neoliberals, reactionaries, radicals, whatever - we can agree that, unless we advocate exclusion, there has to be change.
What needs to change?
Originally posted by FMFIts the old argument that there is simply not enough to go around. The funny part is throughout human history, no matter how large or small the populations have been in the past, there is always an element of society that is excluded from the "good life".
It is now perfectly obvious - and without being "left" or "right" about it in any way - we can say that the planet cannot sustain 6.7 billion people living the kind of life currently being lived by today's 'middle classes' in North America and western Europe - nevermind the projected 9 billion world population in mid-century. Either a large part of humankind has ...[text shortened]... gree that, unless we advocate exclusion, there has to be change.
What needs to change?
Originally posted by whodeyJust to be clear: that might be your "old argument" but it is not the argument put forward by my OP. I simply said the planet cannot sustain 6.7 billion people living the kind of life currently being lived by today's 'middle classes' in North America and western Europe which is not the same as your "there is simply not enough to go around".
Its the old argument that there is simply not enough to go around.
I think the Earth can easily harbor 50 billion people living the same lifestyle as people are now. The change to more renewable sources of energy is not so drastic as people might think, there is quite a large reserve of coal and uranium, plenty to fuel the world until nuclear fusion power becomes readily available, after which cars can run on electricity and homes and industries will be renewably fueled. Food production isn't really an issue, either. If you look at how much food Holland is producing on such a small and densely populated (although admittedly fertile) piece of land, it's not hard to imagine the full potential of most other countries is far from being reached.
Originally posted by FMFWe haven't even made a scratch in available resources, no need for the pessimism.
It is now perfectly obvious - and without being "left" or "right" about it in any way - we can say that the planet cannot sustain 6.7 billion people living the kind of life currently being lived by today's 'middle classes' in North America and western Europe - nevermind the projected 9 billion world population in mid-century. Either a large part of humankind has ...[text shortened]... gree that, unless we advocate exclusion, there has to be change.
What needs to change?
Originally posted by FMFI'm not familiar with your posts so please don't be offended (or pleased) if I ask if you are you talking about enforced socialism?
It is now perfectly obvious - and without being "left" or "right" about it in any way - we can say that the planet cannot sustain 6.7 billion people living the kind of life currently being lived by today's 'middle classes' in North America and western Europe - nevermind the projected 9 billion world population in mid-century. Either a large part of humankind has ...[text shortened]... gree that, unless we advocate exclusion, there has to be change.
What needs to change?
The picture you paint is little familliar albeit more localised; normally a large scale loss of human life resolves the situation prior to having to rely on political gravitas or social conscience.
Originally posted by divegeesterNot at all. I am baffled by your reaching that conclusion from the words I typed in my OP, which is about the question of sustainability. It seems odd to be suspected of advocating authoritarianism or dictatorship simply because I had the temerity to as ask the question What needs to change? Presumably you are an American.
I'm not familiar with your posts so please don't be offended (or pleased) if I ask if you are you talking about enforced socialism?
Originally posted by KazetNagorrayeah! wave power ... rectennas ...
I think the Earth can easily harbor 50 billion people living the same lifestyle as people are now. The change to more renewable sources of energy is not so drastic as people might think, there is quite a large reserve of coal and uranium, plenty to fuel the world until nuclear fusion power becomes readily available, after which cars can run on electrici ...[text shortened]... it's not hard to imagine the full potential of most other countries is far from being reached.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ralph_Ehrlich#Predictions_and_Quotes
Predictions and Quotes
"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make, ... The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." Paul Ehrlich in an interview with Peter Collier in the April 1970 of the magazine Mademoiselle.
"By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." Paul Ehrlich in special Earth Day (1970) issue of the magazine Ramparts.
"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines . . . hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death." (Population Bomb 1968)
"Smog disasters" in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles. (1969)
"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." (1969)
"Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." (1976)
"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." (1969)
"By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million." (1969)
"Actually, the problem in the world is that there is much too many rich people..." - Quoted by the Associated Press, April 6, 1990
"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Quoted by R. Emmett Tyrrell in The American Spectator, September 6, 1992
"We've already had too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure." - Quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in her book Trashing the Planet (1990)
"People are welcome to any religious belief they want but I don't want them planning my planet on the basis of ideas that they think can be ascribed to some supernatural monster written down thousands of years ago. That's just silly" [14]