tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113075.post115834155921182059..comments2023-10-25T07:42:19.214-05:00Comments on LUF Blog: Why Overpopulation is Not a ProblemUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113075.post-46740055567523225342008-05-09T05:48:00.000-05:002008-05-09T05:48:00.000-05:00Actually we wouldn't cut pollution in half if we h...Actually we wouldn't cut pollution in half if we had half the population. This is because there is not any set per person pollution rate because there is not any set coal power plant, car, or factory per person ratio. Most of the worlds pollution comes from highly developed nations with low or negative (shrinking population) birthrates that have alot of electronics, machines and so on. Getting rid of half the wold population would mostly focus on poorer nations that have alot of people but low development (thus most of the people you would be getting rid of are in the low pollution generation range.<BR/><BR/>A major problem with many people who complain about overpopulation is that they never look at the pollution generated by low birthrate nations in comparison to high. And thus they wrongly blame poorly developed nations for things like global warming when it is really mostly caused by wealthy, high resource use, and low birthrate nations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113075.post-63562610421185616112007-05-12T16:43:00.000-05:002007-05-12T16:43:00.000-05:00I couldn't disagree more with the idea that overpo...I couldn't disagree more with the idea that overpopulation is not a problem. If we had half the people in the world, as we do now, it would cut in half the polution, the waste, the resource use, etc. We should conserve, regardless. We should look for new energy sources, regardless. But the bottom line is, if there were fewer people on this earth, it would be cleaner, more pristine. The problem is that there were be less consumers, so manufacturers of all kinds would make less money. And that is why it is seen as a good thing to have more people (consumers). But it's bad for the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113075.post-1162448790044657352006-11-02T00:26:00.000-06:002006-11-02T00:26:00.000-06:00The UN estimates that Earth's population will leve...The UN estimates that Earth's population will level off at 9 billion around year 2050. This is due to more nations becoming modernised and settling for a lower birth rate. Much is due to the status of women, since we have more options than just making babies. Having careers drives the need for stockings and lipstick. Thanks for including my little blog on your roll.L. Riofriohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02692071626849849079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113075.post-1161994218056348242006-10-27T19:10:00.000-05:002006-10-27T19:10:00.000-05:00anonymous writes: Well dont you think al those rep...anonymous writes: <I>Well dont you think al those report speak against you, melting ice,desertspreading, deforestation, greenhousegases and so forth.</I><BR/><BR/>Not necessarily. Those are not problems of overpopulation. They are technological and scientific problems. Those problems you mentioned all have solutions to them. <BR/><BR/>In the book <I>The Millennial Project</I>, OTECs is a solution to global warming, by cooling the surface of the oceans enough to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere. <BR/><BR/>The cutting down of forests has several possible solutions. Hemp is a good replacement for wood. We can also grow trees in large, multi-level structures to use as wood, instead of cutting down natural forests.<BR/><BR/>The problems you mention are often touted as overpopulation problems. But by using advanced science and technological tools, we can grow the number of humans on Earth AND fix those problems you mentioned above.GuruOfReasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07009323912932746458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113075.post-1160337752603377332006-10-08T15:02:00.000-05:002006-10-08T15:02:00.000-05:00Well dont you think al those report speak against ...Well dont you think al those report speak against you, melting ice,desertspreading, deforestation, greenhousegases and so forth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28113075.post-1159235891675806812006-09-25T20:58:00.000-05:002006-09-25T20:58:00.000-05:00Wow. He's exuberant. In comparison, I'm somwhat of...Wow. He's exuberant. In comparison, I'm somwhat of a wet blanket, though I've done some <BR/><BR/>speculating recently on my blog. <BR/><BR/>http://amssolarempire.blogspot.com/2006/09/vernes-cannon-part-i.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>A few comments:<BR/><BR/>I agree totally that overpopulation is barely the problem it's made out to be. <BR/><BR/>Misanthropy, more than anything drives it. No one wants to live around "people". <BR/><BR/>However, for as long as people can produce more than they consume economically, nations <BR/><BR/>will grow <I>wealthier</I> due to population, not poorer. And that trend doesn't start <BR/><BR/>levelling off until you begin hitting actual (not imagined, like most to date) resource <BR/><BR/>constraints. Trade and industry become multipliers to the effect.<BR/><BR/>In any case, I'm all for living as long as ethically possible (not stealing organs from <BR/><BR/>other people, ect)<BR/><BR/>I'm happy to see someone advocating nuclear power. When you evaluate it next to many <BR/><BR/>popular "alternatives", such as biodiesel, it seems the one of the only things that can <BR/><BR/>provide energy anywhere near that degree of scale. (Some would contend solar, but the <BR/><BR/>efficiency still stinks for silicon panels, they're highly energy expensive to <BR/><BR/>manufacture, and you're not paving millions of square miles with gallium arsenide)<BR/><BR/>Earth moving aircraft? Hauling around thousands of tons of dirt is best done on the <BR/><BR/>ground, unless you plan on blowing arbitrary amounts of aviation fuel, and have a <BR/><BR/>tireless maintenence staff.<BR/><BR/>Putting respirocytes in people's blood? In 20 years? He's certainly cutting the work out <BR/><BR/>for the medical community. <BR/><BR/>I'd actually like to see arcologies. It sounds like they could indeed compress a whole <BR/><BR/>lot of city. They'd need to be designed for the actual demands and needs of the city, <BR/><BR/>however, and not according to someones idea of an elegant vision (I can too easily <BR/><BR/>imagine it being turned into an art project about the way people are "supposed" (by <BR/><BR/>whom) to live).<BR/><BR/>"Arrays of hundred-kilometer-wide solar panels put in geosynchronous orbit will give us <BR/><BR/>enough energy to boil all the oceans in the world, if we wanted to." How many arrays <BR/><BR/>would that be, I wonder? I've investigated solar sattelites due to my interest in space, <BR/><BR/>and I guarantee you, any one such sattelite is not going to be that powerful. But that's <BR/><BR/>okay. Only Darth Vader needs that kind of power. :-P<BR/><BR/>"For artificial compounds such as plastics, we can incinerate them in gigantic sealed <BR/><BR/>autoclaves, burying the ash in km-deep caverns carved out for the purpose, or, more <BR/><BR/>simply, only produce recyclable plastics and ensure that the recycling process is as <BR/><BR/>efficient and waste-free as possible."<BR/><BR/>Plastics, being organic (mostly CHON), when incinerated will break down into CO2, H20, <BR/><BR/>nitrogen products, ect. You can save your underground caverns for nuclear waste.<BR/><BR/>I'm a nanotechnology sceptic, as previously explained on my blog. Here you see nanotechnology concieved as magic grey goo that can do anything. Manufacturing without waste? Every single process produces waste of some sort. It's thermodynamic necessity. However, with enough energy to blow, you can recycle most waste products below the level of your primary energy source fuel. (You couldn't use an oil plant to generate hydrogen, for example, or a nuclear plant to undo the atomic decay processes that power it) We could probably do that now, with arbitrary amounts of energy to throw around. And you'd need the same minimum energy, even if you used nanotechnology. <BR/><BR/>Side note: I've always liked the distribution of city lights as you cross the US, how <BR/><BR/>you have that nice non-uniform spacing. It's almost a time-lapse photo of the evolution <BR/><BR/>of our transportation technology. Same with our state boundaries.qwerty182764https://www.blogger.com/profile/08597830467001613248noreply@blogger.com