Re: Dangers of overpopulation by 2004

Posted by lanecove on July 27, 2003 at 06:00:03:

In Reply to: Dangers of overpopulation by 2004 posted by DocN on April 29, 2003 at 09:18:36:

DocN,

As DickT said in another post, much of this list is irrelevant (he said 'phoney', I think) with respect to overpopulation. He also, correctly, pointed out that the main factors influencing things like agricultural production are political and economic.

A rational response to a list like this would be "so what?"

For a start, none of 15 is quantified; how severe - in terms of diminution of quality of life, for how many people - are each of the 15?

Next, there's a certain ironic inconsistency in including #14 (falling human sperm count); surely if the problem is overpopulation, this is a good thing!

What's sad is that the cost of reversing trends #10 (declining tropical moist forests), #11 (rampant over-fishing), and #12 (declining bio-diversity) is small, yet each is pretty much irreversible and we'll probably not know what we've lost until it's gone.

Regards
lanecove

(Report this post to the moderator)

Follow Ups: (Reload page to see most recent)

Post a Followup

Name    :     (Save your login cookie)
Password  :     (Delete your login cookie)
Subject : 

Comments:

(The following are optional.)
Link URL   : 
Link Title : 
Image URL  :