Response from Keith - my words in italics for clarity. Words in bold italics are comments I have added in response to Keith’s arguments.
Howard Johnson wrote: Keith: Yes, education and affluence seems to moderate population growth, but even in the article you sighted, written in 2000, (and which I read, thank you) a world population of about 8 billion is mentioned as a realistic ceiling to be reached in 2030. Does anyone seriously believe this is a realistic, sustainable level considering the headlong drive of third world nations like China and India to enjoy first world lifestyles for their people?
Yes. I do, for one. I think you are enormously optimistic.
If you think we are having a shortage of petro-products now, just watch as those two giants continue to ramp up their consumption.
Petroproducts? A century from now, we'll probably be primarily using nuclear power and space solar power -- one is virtually unlimited and the other truly is. We'll still burn some coal -- we have enough for hundreds of years -- but will have passed beyond oil per se except as a boutique fuel and source for other materials.
I believe liquid fuels derived from renewable, plant-based products will soon replace petro-fuels. (Otherwise Islamic fundamentalists will soon control all the world’s currency.) Burning of any fossil fuel adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and removes oxygen. I doubt we will have a portable power that is not based on liquid fuel for a very long time. A breakthrough - huge advancement - in battery technology could change that. I see combinations of methanol, ethanol and bio-diesel as the energy hope for the future, at least for transport.
What I believe we need to do is certainly NOT "-- destroy India and Africa? And any other third world populations that might be over a number we don't like?" That’s the Muslim fundamentalist goal – kill everyone who disagrees with them. Most thinking peoples of the world would abhor such a policy and certainly not support it.
Agreed. It was not something I was counseling. But since the population explosion is concentrated largely in the Third World, simply restricting it is not a viable proposition, I think. The drafters of the Kyoto Protocol seem to have aimed at punishing the solution while preserving the problem.
My "and no one wants to talk about it."
Many of the people who need to hear it are not speakers of English. And would not likely listen, anyway. Feeding their dictators foreign aid cash does not seem to be working.
“comment may be off the mark as you pointed out,”
I was trying to be gentle. ];-)
but it reflects reactions I get repeatedly to my lecture on population and to several talk radio shows I have contacted. In contrast, have no problem getting an active audience to my efforts on the energy situation. (See the end of this email) From contacts I have made, I find many environmentalist groups have their own, self-serving agenda having little to do with solving environmental problems. They have much to say and do about obtaining grants and donations to expand their influence and study the problems while condemning those who disagree with their agenda in any way. Apparently, they see real solutions as a reason for their dissolution and loss of funding so survival instincts drive them toward complicated solutions in the distant future (the hydrogen fuel-cell people) and away from simple, immediate solutions no matter how effective.
Do you have one of these "simple, immediate solutions"? I suspect that your values of "simple" and "immediate" are different from mine. For example, if we swapped the entire fleet of passenger autos for hybrids over ten years, I'd wager that the fuel usage would be larger at the end then at the beginning. Thus, it is not a *solution* -- it is a delay in the growth rate of the problem. (Disclaimer: I drive a big V8 hot rod -- but I also have a Prius. Each has its uses.)
“Simple solutions” Yes, I have a lot of them collected in a work I call simply, “Solutions.” In compiling these “solutions” and in doing research with many environmental and energy research groups (among others) I was struck by the concentration and effort being expended on obtaining funds to do research on “far-out” “way in the future” solutions to even immediate problems. (the hydrogen fuel-cell people are a prime example)
I propose using nuclear power to generate electricity. (it’s the easiest, but other, non-fossil fuel burning systems could also be used) Use the electricity to generate hydrogen by electrolysis, react the hydrogen with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (or generated as a by-product in producing ethanol) to create methanol, a viable and easily handled liquid fuel. Blended with ethanol it would become a clean, easily handled, relatively inexpensive, clean burning fuel that didn’t add to atmospheric carbon dioxide. I believe we could be completely converted within ten years. Existing engines could be converted to use this fuel quite inexpensively so it would not make existing power equipment obsolete.
“Simple solutions” are not popular for research groups as they don’t have the longevity or require the long-range commitment to research as do complex solutions. That’s the reason so many “natural” cures and medications are ignored by companies that would prefer to manufacture and advertise synthetic products simply because they are quite profitable. How many drug companies would jump on the band-wagon of a new natural drug that was abundant and almost free? I’ll wager it would be ignored even if it were a perfect and complete cure for cancer or AIDS.
Isn’t that precisely how government bureaucrats think?
Yes -- in fact, one could cynically rename these to "The Society for the Preservation of the Society for the Preservation of [cause du jour]."
What we need to do is find humanitarian ways to solve the most serious environmental problems that are already upon us. Sustainability is one goal, but certainly not the only worthwhile goal, maybe not even the primary goal.
One concern is the ability of many places to adopt the squalor and infrastructure requirements of the "big city" -- and yet miss the standard of living increases that typically accompany this. Almost all big cities are new ones arising in the third world now. In the US, we favor suburbs and have high standards of living, and high food productivity. This trick, if it could be exported, would address the people concerns I think.
In my opinion, the first goal should be a serious effort to prevent the annihilation of world wide species diversity in our forests, plains, steppes, mountains and arctic.
Why? The term "annihilation" is harsh, obviously, but this sounds like a rhetorical phrase. Is your goal to stop the conversion of any undeveloped surface on the planet to human use?
My goal would be to “maintain” a level of wild, pristine forests sufficient to prevent any further growth in the detrimental climate change we are now experiencing from deforestation. Prevention of the continuation of the current unprecedented extinctions of species would be part of that goal. Continuing to destroy “wild” environments on land and in the seas, as we are currently doing, will eventually result in the “annihilation” of a large percentage of life and species on the planet. The moa, dodo and passenger pigeon are well known, but the huge number of other species that have recently gone extinct or are near extinction indicate an ongoing, unprecedented annihilation of species. At least since the Permian extinction.
Replacing a diverse forest with deliberate planting of one or two species (as the New Guinea highlanders did) succeeds, but is certainly not a most desired replacement for a diverse forest.
What are the desires in this equation? Who decides? Note that I'm not taking a contrary position, per se, but exploring how one arrives at such decisions.
Maintaining large enough wild environments to sustain viable populations of wild life, both animal and plant and in many diverse environments on the globe, I see as one worthwhile goal. If we don’t find a way to prevent it, large tracts of virgin forests will soon become a thing of the past throughout the world.
Except in, say, the US (and Canada too, I understand). But "virgin forest" sounds impressive -- do the trees we've grown since the 1700s count? - Generally a forest with trees a hundred years or more in age is considered a mature forest even though some trees (giant redwoods for example) may live much much longer. True virgin forest means it has never been logged.
The Japanese preserved their own forests by importing destroyed forests from the rest of the world. The US, Germany and several other nations have been steadily increasing their forest acreage, but most growth has been in small patches isolated by surrounding farmland. What is truly needed are large, connected tracts where forest creatures can move freely.
What percentage of current US forests are in such small patches? I've just been driving some eight thousand miles in the east and south of the US in the past few weeks, and I was very impressed at the raw stretches of forest.
Maintaining sustainable stocks of wild foods - fish, sea creatures, wild animals (bush meat), fruits, nuts and other edibles - should be another. Add to that soil preservation and prevention of erosion damage and air and water pollution. All of this demands rational cooperation of all peoples on the globe - certainly a difficult and possibly unrealistic goal.
It doesn't "demand" that, it just works better. The forests of the US, for example, are not substantially affected by Asian or Brasilian rain-forest conversion -- we'd like to see those preserved, but we can still do our thing.
Might be true of specific locals under control of the inhabitants, but the open ocean is still completely vulnerable. I have no idea how to police agreements already in place - I wish I did. That’s why Kyoto was such a travesty. No teeth in enforcement and it exempted those likely to generate the most carbon dioxide.
Example: With all of the international accord about limiting taking of sea creatures from endangered populations, there are still "rogue" nations with expanding, high-tech fishing fleets harvesting rapidly diminishing and irreplaceable stocks. We are now rapidly diminishing the capability of most fish stocks to sustain a viable population even as our wild fish and sea food harvest grows smaller. This despite use of the latest technology to find and catch creatures in the open sea. Only in areas controlled by nations willing to use force to apply stringent limits to where and when stocks may be taken and where size, species and total catch limits are imposed.
See? Violence CAN solve something. ];-)
Creatures of the open sea are still taken without limit by the previously mentioned, "rogue" fishing fleets. After years of increases in total world catches, those totals are now spiraling downwards as many productive fisheries have crashed and may take decades or even centuries to restore to sustainable levels. I’m still searching for an in-depth university study I read about ten years ago that reported a maximum sustainable population of 3.5 billion at first world consumption levels and 6.5 billion at third world consumption levels.
This represents, it seems to me, a failure of imagination. The same sort of thing that produced the statements in New York City that it was limited to near-1900 levels by the prohibitive size of the infrastructure needed to remove horsemanure. Just a few years later, things changed and the original problem was moot.
I don’t see that as a viable example. Where is the technology to replenish ocean fisheries, restore the damaged sea floor and regrow the tropical rain forest? I prefer not to “hope” for a creative solution, but to work to find one. Of course, should most of humanity die, that change would make the problem moot.
That was before many ocean fisheries crashed. With billions now living at starvation levels and between 6 and 7 billion souls now on the planet, the appeal of a culture that says, "the Western world is responsible for our poverty so let’s kill them all." is unmistakable.
But in fact, the reverse is true. Western education and technology -- including the green revolution -- would do a lot for most of those populations. And has, in some places. I note an article mentioned yesterday that says that, for the first time, more than half the world's population is overweight. I haven't read the article, but it was intriguing.
I certainly don’t see the Muslim world rushing to adopt Western education and technology. Overpopulation has always driven invasion of previously unoccupied territory. When the nearby territory is populated with weak or opulent individuals, the hungry hordes have always invaded and taken over, often with much death and destruction, at least eventually. That is true of most animal species. Ever wonder what happened to Neanderthals? What part of our world has the most population density and hunger? Try the Muslim nations, Africa, and South and Central America. Surely there is a message there.
Expanding terrorism and massive migration from third world nations to first world nations is a pretty good indicator of what’s happening -- right now!
Terrorism has little to do with food supplies. There's a better connection to immigration issues, but it's still indirect.
You mean the Muslim nations are not hungry?
You said, "There are problems, of course. We lack the will in the US to pursue solar power satellites; these would end current concerns about global warming, fossil fuels, pollution from the oil industry, drilling operations, et cetera -- and we'd have to come up with new things to worry about. "We could supply energy and technology cheaply to third world countries; to some, this WOULD be terrible!" I am currently doing a massive update on a little book on solutions to the energy problem that directly addresses your comments. I decided last year to replace the title, "The SUPER Hydrogen Economy" with, "The Tribrid Vehicle Economy" after several important people mistakenly thought I was supporting research on the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. I do not see the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle system as ever becoming a viable, economically feasible system for transport.
You and I have communicated on this topic before. I agree. As cheap energy becomes available from other sources, it can be turned into hydrogen as a "liquid battery" -- but hydrogen is NOT a fuel on Earth. (It is on, say, Jupiter!)
Here are a few links to the project before the current update which is actually a major addition and expansion of the scope of the book, but with very few changes. I believe I made these links available to SFN in a previous email some time ago. Now that I have more time to write, I hope to complete the update by the year’s end and have it published.
New Vehicle Fuels - alternatives - Click Here!
Tribrid Vehicle, The - Overview - Click Here!
Tribrid© Vehicle Economy, The - Click Here!
Let us know when you've done that update!
Factual education is the only answer while political and religious indoctrination (so prevalent throughout the whole world) will only serve to amplify our problems. I hope reality is not the triumph of a single ideology in control of all of humanity.
I'd agree -- but it isn't that a single ideology is inherently *bad*. If chosen by the people, it's fine. But the populations are large enough that some will choose failed experiments, hoping THIS time they'll succeed. The bizarre approach in China to totalitarian capitalism is new ... and probably unsustainable.
Maybe I should have said, “I hope reality is not the triumph of a single ideology driven by political and/or religious indoctrination in control of all of humanity.” I'll certainly let you know when the update is ready and available.
===|================/ D. Keith Howington,
_____________________________________________________
From Gene - 8-15-06
Alternate explanation to "ecocide" for Easter Island - the rats they brought along for food wrecked the environment. Click Here! America Scientist
Mt. Toba, the "doomsday" volcano which devastated the human population many centuries ago... Click Here! Bradshaw Foundation Click Here! Life Science Forces of Nature
The punchline is that humans apparently survived this awful catastrophe. We acquired a definite bonus from it - there are many races of human being. All of them can mutually interbreed, all of them are tough, hardy and have adapted to their local environments. Possibly they have trivial differences which may help them to better adapt, but on the whole we are quite close. We are survivors. Gene
_____________________________________________________
Gene:
Thanks for the info it does put a possible new slant on the Easter Island story. The rats were mentioned in Diamond’s book, but not as the cause of the extinction of the giant palm. That is a definite possibility. Still, it was due to an action of humans.
Never heard of Mt. Toba before. Only goes to show how important some info can be that is missing from one’s memory if you didn’t know about it. Thanks again.
_____________________________________________________
Hey Gene,
In a message dated 8/15/2006 6:50:23 PM Central Daylight Time, gherron@dp.net writes:
“We need to think about this, especially some of you out there who are comfortable with totalitarian governments. A lot of good people got "plowed under" by the Nazis and Soviets. Many of them probably had irreplaceable skills. Go look up a character named "Lysenko" and then reconsider this totalitarian non-sense.”
____________________________________________________
Gene
I get the impression that you thought I was postulating a comfort with totalitarian government. LOL
I was trying to show how impossible I thought a "green earth" government or implementation was to achieve. I use Biblical examples because they often include apparent paradoxes. It's a big book with lots of stuff in it.
I really liked the way you laid out the affect on the average person from a "Green totalitarian government." That was exactly where I was coming from. I believe that 'real' implementation of most of the 'environmental theories' being postulated today, could only be done at the expense of many human individual's lives, livelihood, comfort, lifestyle, ability to procreate, etc.
Just had a thought. Terrorism from anti-population growth environmental radicals. Mass bombings. Plagues. Pollution of food and water with contraceptive substances. Euthanasia. (Enforced life span.) There was a classic book where population control was enforced, conception licensed, and the penalty for unlicensed pregnancy after the first trimester was death. Can't remember the name of it. In every context where terrorism is used, it seems like a stupid plan to me, because it simply inflames those you are trying to influence. Terrorism (mass murders) for the purpose or with the aim of decreasing the population, actually has some logic. Seriously, to truly believe the population is unsustainable, and should be reduced would have to produce a suicidal will that would grow to include massive homicidal desires. Such a cult would suffer a fate of being short lived I fear, but could make for an interesting story.
Seriously, I personally believe that anyone who believes in conservation or the protection of a specific species of fish, etc. should be allowed to do anything they have the funds to do. Purchase the environment from the landholder and protect it. Just don't expect the owner to give up his livelihood for your ideology. Pay for your beliefs. And I also believe this should be the responsibility of the ideologues not the public.
Dave, Literary Junkie
_____________________________________________________
Gene’s comment, “That’s cool.”
_____________________________________________________
Dave:
Terrorism by any group or individual is still terrorism. Whether the terrorist is religious, environmental political, social or just a conquering army, the motivation is always, the imposition of one ideology or belief system on others by use of murder and force. Today’s Muslim extremists are not too different from the crusaders or the early Christian church. Force and terror do work, but are not conducive to a pleasant life style for most people. War is always terrorism, even when necessary.
It would be quite impossible to apply your last paragraph to the world’s open oceans without a huge oceanic police force. Remember, to some people, the policeman making a traffic violation stop is considered a type of terrorist.
Ho
____________________________________________________
Howard Johnson wrote: Keith: Yes, education and affluence seems to moderate population growth, but even in the article you sighted, written in 2000, (and which I read, thank you) a world population of about 8 billion is mentioned as a realistic ceiling to be reached in 2030. Does anyone seriously believe this is a realistic, sustainable level considering the headlong drive of third world nations like China and India to enjoy first world lifestyles for their people?
Yes. I do, for one. I think you are enormously optimistic.
If you think we are having a shortage of petro-products now, just watch as those two giants continue to ramp up their consumption.
Petroproducts? A century from now, we'll probably be primarily using nuclear power and space solar power -- one is virtually unlimited and the other truly is. We'll still burn some coal -- we have enough for hundreds of years -- but will have passed beyond oil per se except as a boutique fuel and source for other materials.
I believe liquid fuels derived from renewable, plant-based products will soon replace petro-fuels. (Otherwise Islamic fundamentalists will soon control all the world’s currency.) Burning of any fossil fuel adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and removes oxygen. I doubt we will have a portable power that is not based on liquid fuel for a very long time. A breakthrough - huge advancement - in battery technology could change that. I see combinations of methanol, ethanol and bio-diesel as the energy hope for the future, at least for transport.
What I believe we need to do is certainly NOT "-- destroy India and Africa? And any other third world populations that might be over a number we don't like?" That’s the Muslim fundamentalist goal – kill everyone who disagrees with them. Most thinking peoples of the world would abhor such a policy and certainly not support it.
Agreed. It was not something I was counseling. But since the population explosion is concentrated largely in the Third World, simply restricting it is not a viable proposition, I think. The drafters of the Kyoto Protocol seem to have aimed at punishing the solution while preserving the problem.
My "and no one wants to talk about it."
Many of the people who need to hear it are not speakers of English. And would not likely listen, anyway. Feeding their dictators foreign aid cash does not seem to be working.
“comment may be off the mark as you pointed out,”
I was trying to be gentle. ];-)
but it reflects reactions I get repeatedly to my lecture on population and to several talk radio shows I have contacted. In contrast, have no problem getting an active audience to my efforts on the energy situation. (See the end of this email) From contacts I have made, I find many environmentalist groups have their own, self-serving agenda having little to do with solving environmental problems. They have much to say and do about obtaining grants and donations to expand their influence and study the problems while condemning those who disagree with their agenda in any way. Apparently, they see real solutions as a reason for their dissolution and loss of funding so survival instincts drive them toward complicated solutions in the distant future (the hydrogen fuel-cell people) and away from simple, immediate solutions no matter how effective.
Do you have one of these "simple, immediate solutions"? I suspect that your values of "simple" and "immediate" are different from mine. For example, if we swapped the entire fleet of passenger autos for hybrids over ten years, I'd wager that the fuel usage would be larger at the end then at the beginning. Thus, it is not a *solution* -- it is a delay in the growth rate of the problem. (Disclaimer: I drive a big V8 hot rod -- but I also have a Prius. Each has its uses.)
“Simple solutions” Yes, I have a lot of them collected in a work I call simply, “Solutions.” In compiling these “solutions” and in doing research with many environmental and energy research groups (among others) I was struck by the concentration and effort being expended on obtaining funds to do research on “far-out” “way in the future” solutions to even immediate problems. (the hydrogen fuel-cell people are a prime example)
I propose using nuclear power to generate electricity. (it’s the easiest, but other, non-fossil fuel burning systems could also be used) Use the electricity to generate hydrogen by electrolysis, react the hydrogen with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (or generated as a by-product in producing ethanol) to create methanol, a viable and easily handled liquid fuel. Blended with ethanol it would become a clean, easily handled, relatively inexpensive, clean burning fuel that didn’t add to atmospheric carbon dioxide. I believe we could be completely converted within ten years. Existing engines could be converted to use this fuel quite inexpensively so it would not make existing power equipment obsolete.
“Simple solutions” are not popular for research groups as they don’t have the longevity or require the long-range commitment to research as do complex solutions. That’s the reason so many “natural” cures and medications are ignored by companies that would prefer to manufacture and advertise synthetic products simply because they are quite profitable. How many drug companies would jump on the band-wagon of a new natural drug that was abundant and almost free? I’ll wager it would be ignored even if it were a perfect and complete cure for cancer or AIDS.
Isn’t that precisely how government bureaucrats think?
Yes -- in fact, one could cynically rename these to "The Society for the Preservation of the Society for the Preservation of [cause du jour]."
What we need to do is find humanitarian ways to solve the most serious environmental problems that are already upon us. Sustainability is one goal, but certainly not the only worthwhile goal, maybe not even the primary goal.
One concern is the ability of many places to adopt the squalor and infrastructure requirements of the "big city" -- and yet miss the standard of living increases that typically accompany this. Almost all big cities are new ones arising in the third world now. In the US, we favor suburbs and have high standards of living, and high food productivity. This trick, if it could be exported, would address the people concerns I think.
In my opinion, the first goal should be a serious effort to prevent the annihilation of world wide species diversity in our forests, plains, steppes, mountains and arctic.
Why? The term "annihilation" is harsh, obviously, but this sounds like a rhetorical phrase. Is your goal to stop the conversion of any undeveloped surface on the planet to human use?
My goal would be to “maintain” a level of wild, pristine forests sufficient to prevent any further growth in the detrimental climate change we are now experiencing from deforestation. Prevention of the continuation of the current unprecedented extinctions of species would be part of that goal. Continuing to destroy “wild” environments on land and in the seas, as we are currently doing, will eventually result in the “annihilation” of a large percentage of life and species on the planet. The moa, dodo and passenger pigeon are well known, but the huge number of other species that have recently gone extinct or are near extinction indicate an ongoing, unprecedented annihilation of species. At least since the Permian extinction.
Replacing a diverse forest with deliberate planting of one or two species (as the New Guinea highlanders did) succeeds, but is certainly not a most desired replacement for a diverse forest.
What are the desires in this equation? Who decides? Note that I'm not taking a contrary position, per se, but exploring how one arrives at such decisions.
Maintaining large enough wild environments to sustain viable populations of wild life, both animal and plant and in many diverse environments on the globe, I see as one worthwhile goal. If we don’t find a way to prevent it, large tracts of virgin forests will soon become a thing of the past throughout the world.
Except in, say, the US (and Canada too, I understand). But "virgin forest" sounds impressive -- do the trees we've grown since the 1700s count? - Generally a forest with trees a hundred years or more in age is considered a mature forest even though some trees (giant redwoods for example) may live much much longer. True virgin forest means it has never been logged.
The Japanese preserved their own forests by importing destroyed forests from the rest of the world. The US, Germany and several other nations have been steadily increasing their forest acreage, but most growth has been in small patches isolated by surrounding farmland. What is truly needed are large, connected tracts where forest creatures can move freely.
What percentage of current US forests are in such small patches? I've just been driving some eight thousand miles in the east and south of the US in the past few weeks, and I was very impressed at the raw stretches of forest.
Maintaining sustainable stocks of wild foods - fish, sea creatures, wild animals (bush meat), fruits, nuts and other edibles - should be another. Add to that soil preservation and prevention of erosion damage and air and water pollution. All of this demands rational cooperation of all peoples on the globe - certainly a difficult and possibly unrealistic goal.
It doesn't "demand" that, it just works better. The forests of the US, for example, are not substantially affected by Asian or Brasilian rain-forest conversion -- we'd like to see those preserved, but we can still do our thing.
Might be true of specific locals under control of the inhabitants, but the open ocean is still completely vulnerable. I have no idea how to police agreements already in place - I wish I did. That’s why Kyoto was such a travesty. No teeth in enforcement and it exempted those likely to generate the most carbon dioxide.
Example: With all of the international accord about limiting taking of sea creatures from endangered populations, there are still "rogue" nations with expanding, high-tech fishing fleets harvesting rapidly diminishing and irreplaceable stocks. We are now rapidly diminishing the capability of most fish stocks to sustain a viable population even as our wild fish and sea food harvest grows smaller. This despite use of the latest technology to find and catch creatures in the open sea. Only in areas controlled by nations willing to use force to apply stringent limits to where and when stocks may be taken and where size, species and total catch limits are imposed.
See? Violence CAN solve something. ];-)
Creatures of the open sea are still taken without limit by the previously mentioned, "rogue" fishing fleets. After years of increases in total world catches, those totals are now spiraling downwards as many productive fisheries have crashed and may take decades or even centuries to restore to sustainable levels. I’m still searching for an in-depth university study I read about ten years ago that reported a maximum sustainable population of 3.5 billion at first world consumption levels and 6.5 billion at third world consumption levels.
This represents, it seems to me, a failure of imagination. The same sort of thing that produced the statements in New York City that it was limited to near-1900 levels by the prohibitive size of the infrastructure needed to remove horsemanure. Just a few years later, things changed and the original problem was moot.
I don’t see that as a viable example. Where is the technology to replenish ocean fisheries, restore the damaged sea floor and regrow the tropical rain forest? I prefer not to “hope” for a creative solution, but to work to find one. Of course, should most of humanity die, that change would make the problem moot.
That was before many ocean fisheries crashed. With billions now living at starvation levels and between 6 and 7 billion souls now on the planet, the appeal of a culture that says, "the Western world is responsible for our poverty so let’s kill them all." is unmistakable.
But in fact, the reverse is true. Western education and technology -- including the green revolution -- would do a lot for most of those populations. And has, in some places. I note an article mentioned yesterday that says that, for the first time, more than half the world's population is overweight. I haven't read the article, but it was intriguing.
I certainly don’t see the Muslim world rushing to adopt Western education and technology. Overpopulation has always driven invasion of previously unoccupied territory. When the nearby territory is populated with weak or opulent individuals, the hungry hordes have always invaded and taken over, often with much death and destruction, at least eventually. That is true of most animal species. Ever wonder what happened to Neanderthals? What part of our world has the most population density and hunger? Try the Muslim nations, Africa, and South and Central America. Surely there is a message there.
Expanding terrorism and massive migration from third world nations to first world nations is a pretty good indicator of what’s happening -- right now!
Terrorism has little to do with food supplies. There's a better connection to immigration issues, but it's still indirect.
You mean the Muslim nations are not hungry?
You said, "There are problems, of course. We lack the will in the US to pursue solar power satellites; these would end current concerns about global warming, fossil fuels, pollution from the oil industry, drilling operations, et cetera -- and we'd have to come up with new things to worry about. "We could supply energy and technology cheaply to third world countries; to some, this WOULD be terrible!" I am currently doing a massive update on a little book on solutions to the energy problem that directly addresses your comments. I decided last year to replace the title, "The SUPER Hydrogen Economy" with, "The Tribrid Vehicle Economy" after several important people mistakenly thought I was supporting research on the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. I do not see the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle system as ever becoming a viable, economically feasible system for transport.
You and I have communicated on this topic before. I agree. As cheap energy becomes available from other sources, it can be turned into hydrogen as a "liquid battery" -- but hydrogen is NOT a fuel on Earth. (It is on, say, Jupiter!)
Here are a few links to the project before the current update which is actually a major addition and expansion of the scope of the book, but with very few changes. I believe I made these links available to SFN in a previous email some time ago. Now that I have more time to write, I hope to complete the update by the year’s end and have it published.
New Vehicle Fuels - alternatives - Click Here!
Tribrid Vehicle, The - Overview - Click Here!
Tribrid© Vehicle Economy, The - Click Here!
Let us know when you've done that update!
Factual education is the only answer while political and religious indoctrination (so prevalent throughout the whole world) will only serve to amplify our problems. I hope reality is not the triumph of a single ideology in control of all of humanity.
I'd agree -- but it isn't that a single ideology is inherently *bad*. If chosen by the people, it's fine. But the populations are large enough that some will choose failed experiments, hoping THIS time they'll succeed. The bizarre approach in China to totalitarian capitalism is new ... and probably unsustainable.
Maybe I should have said, “I hope reality is not the triumph of a single ideology driven by political and/or religious indoctrination in control of all of humanity.” I'll certainly let you know when the update is ready and available.
===|================/ D. Keith Howington,
_____________________________________________________
From Gene - 8-15-06
Alternate explanation to "ecocide" for Easter Island - the rats they brought along for food wrecked the environment. Click Here! America Scientist
Mt. Toba, the "doomsday" volcano which devastated the human population many centuries ago... Click Here! Bradshaw Foundation Click Here! Life Science Forces of Nature
The punchline is that humans apparently survived this awful catastrophe. We acquired a definite bonus from it - there are many races of human being. All of them can mutually interbreed, all of them are tough, hardy and have adapted to their local environments. Possibly they have trivial differences which may help them to better adapt, but on the whole we are quite close. We are survivors. Gene
_____________________________________________________
Gene:
Thanks for the info it does put a possible new slant on the Easter Island story. The rats were mentioned in Diamond’s book, but not as the cause of the extinction of the giant palm. That is a definite possibility. Still, it was due to an action of humans.
Never heard of Mt. Toba before. Only goes to show how important some info can be that is missing from one’s memory if you didn’t know about it. Thanks again.
_____________________________________________________
Hey Gene,
In a message dated 8/15/2006 6:50:23 PM Central Daylight Time, gherron@dp.net writes:
“We need to think about this, especially some of you out there who are comfortable with totalitarian governments. A lot of good people got "plowed under" by the Nazis and Soviets. Many of them probably had irreplaceable skills. Go look up a character named "Lysenko" and then reconsider this totalitarian non-sense.”
____________________________________________________
Gene
I get the impression that you thought I was postulating a comfort with totalitarian government. LOL
I was trying to show how impossible I thought a "green earth" government or implementation was to achieve. I use Biblical examples because they often include apparent paradoxes. It's a big book with lots of stuff in it.
I really liked the way you laid out the affect on the average person from a "Green totalitarian government." That was exactly where I was coming from. I believe that 'real' implementation of most of the 'environmental theories' being postulated today, could only be done at the expense of many human individual's lives, livelihood, comfort, lifestyle, ability to procreate, etc.
Just had a thought. Terrorism from anti-population growth environmental radicals. Mass bombings. Plagues. Pollution of food and water with contraceptive substances. Euthanasia. (Enforced life span.) There was a classic book where population control was enforced, conception licensed, and the penalty for unlicensed pregnancy after the first trimester was death. Can't remember the name of it. In every context where terrorism is used, it seems like a stupid plan to me, because it simply inflames those you are trying to influence. Terrorism (mass murders) for the purpose or with the aim of decreasing the population, actually has some logic. Seriously, to truly believe the population is unsustainable, and should be reduced would have to produce a suicidal will that would grow to include massive homicidal desires. Such a cult would suffer a fate of being short lived I fear, but could make for an interesting story.
Seriously, I personally believe that anyone who believes in conservation or the protection of a specific species of fish, etc. should be allowed to do anything they have the funds to do. Purchase the environment from the landholder and protect it. Just don't expect the owner to give up his livelihood for your ideology. Pay for your beliefs. And I also believe this should be the responsibility of the ideologues not the public.
Dave, Literary Junkie
_____________________________________________________
Gene’s comment, “That’s cool.”
_____________________________________________________
Dave:
Terrorism by any group or individual is still terrorism. Whether the terrorist is religious, environmental political, social or just a conquering army, the motivation is always, the imposition of one ideology or belief system on others by use of murder and force. Today’s Muslim extremists are not too different from the crusaders or the early Christian church. Force and terror do work, but are not conducive to a pleasant life style for most people. War is always terrorism, even when necessary.
It would be quite impossible to apply your last paragraph to the world’s open oceans without a huge oceanic police force. Remember, to some people, the policeman making a traffic violation stop is considered a type of terrorist.
Ho
____________________________________________________
posted by HoJo | 6:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home