Location: Growth

Discussion: populationReported This is a featured thread

Category: Discussion Forum / General Discussion
Showing 4 posts

gg39au
population
Mar 9 2008, 3:58 PM EDT | Post edited: Mar 9 2008, 3:58 PM EDT
Environmental impact = (population) multiplied by (per capita impact)

Much has been said about reducing per capita impact, for example renewable technologies, per capita consumption reduction. But NO amount of reduction of per capita impact will save planet Earth from ruin if the human population never stops increasing.

I’m not suggesting draconian population policies. But we must not be afraid to talk about population issues. Earth can sustainably support between one and two billion people. We have at present over six and a half billion people. Australia must not wait for others to move. Australians must at least be courageous enough to talk about stable human populations.

This will involve redesigning economic thinking. Economies must be steady-state and sustainable. Economic growth cannot continue to be the basic goal.
6  out of 12 found this valuable. Do you?    

Andy38
1. RE: population
Mar 10 2008, 8:10 AM EDT | Post edited: Mar 10 2008, 8:10 AM EDT
"Earth can sustainably support between one and two billion people."

2 billion huh.

*Malthus rolls in his grave.* Do you find this valuable?    

aBetterPlace2be
2. RE: population
Mar 16 2008, 11:55 PM EDT | Post edited: Mar 16 2008, 11:55 PM EDT
If we cannot accept that 2 Billion is the right number, what is the right number? Is it 4 billion or 10 billion ? I am not in a position to nominate, but there must be some authority which can be quoted on this important issue. It would seem any accepted number for maximum population would then require some managment efforts to control our outcomes. Otherwise = disaster, and we can all roll in our graves. Do you find this valuable?    

Posted Anonymously
3. RE: population
Jun 21 2009, 10:11 PM EDT | Post edited: Jun 21 2009, 10:11 PM EDT
"If we cannot accept that 2 Billion is the right number, what is the right number? Is it 4 billion or 10 billion ? I am not in a position to nominate, but there must be some authority which can be quoted on this important issue. It would seem any accepted number for maximum population would then require some managment efforts to control our outcomes. Otherwise = disaster, and we can all roll in our graves. "
u suk Do you find this valuable?    

Related Content

  (what's this?Related ContentThanks to keyword tags, links to related pages and threads are added to the bottom of your pages. Up to 15 links are shown, determined by matching tags and by how recently the content was updated; keeping the most current at the top. Share your feedback on Wetpaint Central.)
Broadband through Power Lines (BLP) Switch to Open Source Re-establish independence from commercial interests
Unite Australia Stop the War on Drugs Enshrine our human rights in our "Constitution"
Take The War On Drugs to the Source 4th place dividends Regulate Mobile Phone Gimmicks Ads
Other Issues