"It has been shown time and time again throughout history that as a civilization modernizes, its rate if increase declines. There are many reasons for this, but the most prevalent is that as a civilization modernizes, it moves from a traditional agrarian society towards an industrial and information-based society. With 'more help on the farm' no longer a motivating factor in having children, the birth rate declines. Also, as a civilization advances, the standard of living increases. As is the case in the US and Europe, it just is not economically feasible to have 5 to 10 children and still live as most of us want to.
The populations of most European countries are actually declining, and have been for some time. Without immigration and a few sub-sections of our population that have a huge birth rate, the US would be experiencing a decline as well. There are actually a handful of coutries that are concerned about loosing too many people over the next half century (Italy and Russia are good examples).
Skoorb, you've made some important points, but you're missing something: the amount of waste produced in the US is declining as well, even though the population overall is increasing. Our water and air are cleaner than any time in the past 50 years, and the trend should continue. With the success of recylcling programs around the nation, our landfills are no longer facing the crises we heard so much about in the 1980's. We may consume more than any other civilization, and we may produce more waste, but the US has learned to deal with these problems, and the situation continues to improve every day.
The only place where the world is facing an overpopulation "problem" is in the developing countries. In the past, medical advances and modernization took place simultaneously, so that as the death rate declined, the birth rate decreased and kept the population stable. In Africa and parts of Asia, the populations enjoy some medical advances that have decreased the death rate, but the civilizations have not modernized and so the birth rate remains at historic levels. As these nations begin to modernize, though, their birth rates will fall into line with the rest of the world.
Don't believe any of this? Compare the Middle East over the first half of last century to the Middle East over the second half to see how quickly modernization can occur, and the dramatic impacts it can have in such a short time period."
Anyone would think you were a lobbyist for the housing industry, Reitz, or that you just keep your head constantly up your arse.
Actually industrialisation is bad for the enviroment - the fact is that even though the US contains less than 5% of the worlds population it consumes at least 20% of the worlds resources. Can yoiu imagine how deverstating the effect on the worlds enviroment would be if the billion Chines & the billion Indians had the same living standards & rate of consumption as Americans have?
Right now in China the vast majority of people can't afford cars & bicycles are the main form of personal transport. Can you imagine what would happen to China if every household had 1 car, it would destroy China. Have you ever been to Bangkok? The car has destroyed Bangkok - the average car commuter in Bangkok now spends 5 hours every morning & 5 hours every evening commuting between home & work (families now socialise by making sure the kids go to school near dads work & mum works near dad, so they can have breakfast & dinner together in the car & kids even do their homework in the car) & all because they want to be like us, its a status thing.
BTW, you say that "Without immigration and a few sub-sections of our population that have a huge birth rate(s)" western societies will decline. Sure gross GDP will decline, but GDP per capita will go up. Do you understand the difference? Italies population is decreasing & their GDP per capita is increasig at much higher rates than the US. Anyway there's no need to have gross GDP growth if population is increasing - really economic growth is half the problem - afterall econimic growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell.
If societies can just make sure that everyone's doing ok by being more equitable & egalitarian, like the Netherlands & the Scandinavian countries where even people on the dole get about double what Americans get on the minimum wage, then there's absolutely no need for economic growth. They just have to make sure there's no decrease, or that the population decreases more than the GDP, & GDP per capita will increase as the population decreases & everyone will slowly be better off.
You say that "the amount of waste produced in the US is declining.....even though the population overall is increasing.(America's) water and air are cleaner than any time in the past 50 years.......the success of recylcling programs(in the US mean) [/i]our landfills are no longer facing the crises we heard so much about in the 1980's. We may consume more than any other civilization, and we may produce more waste, but the US has learned to deal with these problems, and the situation continues to improve every day."[/i], but have you studied things from both sides.
America's "water and air are cleaner than any time in the past 50 years" because of legislation, not industrialisation (the simple fact is they were much cleaner before the industrial revolution occured than they are even now). BTW, recycling has had less than a 2% effect on things, & that's even false - because of the tax incentives to run recycling programs there are now huge stockpiles of used paper trash across the US, but because of the tax incentives to use recycled paper are minimal at the most, all that's happening is that the stockpiles are getting bigger & most of that paper will never make it back into production. BTW, recycling is much more effective in the 3rd world where everything gets used again & again & children comb over the landfils looking for everything of the slightest value (that's why in Asia, virtually everyone wheres those rubber sandles made out of car tyres. It was the same in the west, before the booming 50's - where one put ones milk bottles out to be collected & the milk companies cleaned them & re-used them & products were sold with the masses of packaging that are used today.
Also the landfill problems of the 80's was because of leaching of toxins into the watertable & gases into the air. Which meant there was a shortage of landfills because the local authorities did not want them arround (they feared voter backlash) & pollution legislation & EPPs made it very hard for garbage companies to plan new landfills. But because of new developments those problems have been solved. Instead of lots of little tiny landfills, one in every local area, massive high tech landfills were built in rural areas on the sites of old huge quarries. They 1st sealed them with tar to stop leaching of toxins into the watertable & plumbing was setup to tap the methaine to stop it entering the air. Now instead of garbage going to local relatively small landfills that upsets the neihbours it goes to a local compactors plant where its compressed & then trucked to the huge ones out of town (out of sight out of mind) - I was up at 3AM th other night so I ended up watching an adult education program on the govt TV channel, & guess what, it was about the garbage problens the US had in the 80's & how they were soved & not solved.
BTW, as far as your statement that the US consumes "more than any other civilization.....but the US has learned to deal with these problems, and the situation continues to improve every day." is a bit inaccurate - you arn't taking into account the millions of acres that get cleared every year just to house more people in the USs, & that includes millions of acres of native forest & shrub lands. Plus the destruction that's caused by farmers clearing their pastural leases to crop cotton because of pressure from the banks for short term profit. The clearing of millions of acres of shrubland & open woodland on pastural leases causes the watertable to rise, which within a generation or to causes salination of the topsoil. Also the clearing creats topsoil runoff too.
BTW, Australia is sufering from all these problems too.
Now lets "Compare the Middle East over the first half of last century to the Middle East over the second half to see how quickly modernization can occur, and the dramatic impacts it can have in such a short time period"
Lets start with Egypt where up until about 50 years ago population was relatively static & the enviroment was ok. Egypt is now a disgusting mess where there are 15 million people in Cairo alone. The Nile is now dieing because of the untold effects of both population growth (from the introduction of death control withpout birthcontrol) & industrialisation. The Aswan dam was built because of the huge increases in the demand for drinking water, irrigation water & electricity. Now much of the Nile Delta is silting up, water quality has gone down. The increasing irrigation has caused the watertable to again rise which is causing salination. Really I could go on & on for ever about how the combined effects of population growth & industrialisation has destroyed Egypt's enviroments but there's no need we all know that (except maybe you).
Then there's Isreal which is having huge salination problems because of the boom in irrigation there. They now have to steal water from Syria, the West Bank & import water from Turkey to cope. Also the masive immigration from Europe in the 40's & 50's & Soviet Union inthe 80's & 90's has meant wholesaler clearing of native shrublands & mixed open woodlands, which has called the extinction of many localised species, including many birds that have lost their nesting sites.
Now as far as the rest of the Arab world & Iran is concerned, industrialation has meant the intoduction of death control without the corresponding birthcontrols, which is really fuking up the enviroment as Saudis, etc still have 10 kids each. but now they virtually all survive. This was minimised slightly in the dictorial socialist Baath republics of Syria & Iraq, where the govts decided that 4 children was the optimun rate & allowed & sometimes even 'encouraged' birthcontrol for families once 4 kids were born.
That's enough raving on for now.
Does that count?
Facebook
Twitter