Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  2
Author: Subject: peak oil
Polverone
Now celebrating 21 years of madness
*********




Posts: 3186
Registered: 19-5-2002
Location: The Sunny Pacific Northwest
Member Is Offline

Mood: Waiting for spring

[*] posted on 7-8-2004 at 14:14


I don't know that cessation of population growth is a sufficient or necessary condition for social change. Medieval Europe had very slow population growth (and even times of shrinkage, as during great plagues) but was no bastion of enlightenment. Considerable social progress was made 30-40 years ago in the US, when birth rates were unusually high. Slowing population growth does in fact prompt at least some short-term crises. For example, in Europe, Japan, and the US (on differing time scales), population growth has slowed enough that there will be difficulty paying for the next generation of retired workers by the next generation of active workers.

In the developed nations at least, there is no shortage of resources that would prevent all from having adequate food, shelter, education, and health care. The arguments are over how to distribute abundant wealth, not over who will barely be fed and who will starve. Further, as population growth slows, we'll have an increasing mass of older voters. Such voters are more likely to vote than the young and also less likely to be aggressive or adventurous about finding solutions for problems that will become urgent only after their own deaths.

Greater wealth and education seem to slow population growth more effectively than any bundle of pamphlets or contraceptives, but of course wealthier families may easily consume more natural resources even if they have fewer members. With unlimited time and energy, any natural resource is completely renewable. Time and energy are of course finite. Mineral resources are far easier to recycle than those derived from plants/animals, but plants and animals accumulate far faster than mineral deposits. Living creatures can go extinct, while elements last forever. Mineral deposits don't play as large of a role in the biosphere, so their (clean) extraction has less undesirable impact than the harvesting or clearing of land that once bore a variety of flora and fauna. Determining the best and cleanest way forward is by no means easy.




PGP Key and corresponding e-mail address
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
IvX
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 112
Registered: 14-4-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 7-8-2004 at 15:06


Well if you want to look at it from a global perpective you gotta ignore the (somewhat) parasitic action of the retired.Specially considering it's not the 15th century and retired people can probably work anyway(unless ofcourse it's medical in which it's a compltely diferent matter).

Think about it: In order to have someone look after you like you did for your parents there would need to be a exactly one person born for everyone that died.Since that's impossibl;e you'll just get more.The worlds a big-ish place and all but if they do it and thier children and so forth you get well.. whats hapening now.

Globaly speaking this might seem like an odd perspective but (IMHO ofcourse)the best way is to offer more goods/services or if that fails to raise the cost of living.Cruell solutiobn maybe ut beats us all suffocating :(
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  2

  Go To Top