|
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Only a fraction of those have resources - do you know what some of these countries per capita incomes are... they make less than I do, doing nothing and they are starving - meanwhile I don't even need to pay for food I can get it from the woods (for now...).
Point being I have a seemingly higher quality of life here doing nothing than they do in their home countries working for their survival - not always the case, but resource distrobution varies, living circumstances vary.
When you talk about sustaining population it automatically makes me think of the Ojibwe Windigo - fact is people can turn into windigos if they starve but there will always be food to sustain a portion of the population in high population issues - the point is that if the babies don't die and they grow up, some food sources are available - and ther are lots of food resources that are untapped, it is just there are national barries and individual interests that are preventing this. Sadly humans are mean. I'd gladly host a chinese person or two provided they intended to get the food from the thousands of kms of crownland north of my home. Countries like Russia are in this same boat, the land is there waiting to be taped and we can support larger populations but it isn't in our interests to do so because of rules of lordship - that being one must provide for the safety and wellbeing of their subjects.
None the less there are other ways we can sustain the current population, but I think the population forcasts are not right - it CANNOT go up that high - it just isn't a posibility to sustain an increasing population based on current population placement - there is room for it to grow but not that much, because the food doesn't exist and won't exist. Until all the untapped land is used - eg Russia Brazil and Canada for instance actually opening up their land for agroforestry in an efficient way. Eg. bringing in 10 million chinese to plant and harvest. Or even getting the domestic population to do it. I contacted my local Natural Resources Ministry about this type of project that is conducting agroforestry activities planting and cropping etc. but it is the ecosystem right - sure i can gather food for myself but there are hundreds of kilometers of land - seeding by aircraft or otherwise is possible but these arn't the types of projects that the government needs because there is an abundance of food here. Likewise countries in africa arn't seeding by aircraft because they may think it will be ineffective - but the sad fact is there arn't effective enough strategies in place because of resource use.
These issues are able to be solved, but there are more complex rationalities for maintaining these situations. |
you would take all the remaining open space natural habitat on the planet and convert it into farm land just to try and support the continued growth of the human population to its absolute peak potential? in other words condemning to extinction all the tigers, wolves, elephants, giraffes, zebras, bears, apes, frogs, lizards and most other non-agribusiness animals just to replace them and their habitats with more buildings, more farms, more people, more cattle, pigs and chickens? sounds like a bleak, homogenized world and a failure in biodiversity.
the goal here shouldn't be so myopic as sustaining a human population. the goal should be sustaining the richness of life on the planet. being good shepherds and preserving the beauty that we inherited which took hundreds of millions of years to create. if not for altruistic reasons, then for selfish ones. we weren't born here to multiply uncontrollably. that's what tumors do. we weren't put here to destroy our surroundings. that's what viruses do. our aim shouldn't be to suck the planet dry of all its resources. that's what a parasite does.
i don't see the function of humanity as being tumorous, viral or parasitic, though that's what we've been conditioned as a civilization to become. but only because that's what drives power into the hands of the powers that be. like i said, realistically i don't think our world of nation states has the collective will to change our ways in time. too much self-interest is at play. it will take a massive die-off sparked by disease or war or famine to save the planet from our ways.
___________________
  
|
