Humans are consuming and polluting resources – aquifers and ice caps, fertile soil, forests, fisheries and oceans – accumulated over geological time, tens of thousands of years or longer.

Wealthy countries consume out of proportion to their populations . As a fiscal analogy, we live as if our savings account balance were steady income.

According to the Worldwatch Institute, an environmental think tank, the Earth has 1.9 hectares of land per person for growing food and textiles for clothing, supplying wood and absorbing waste. The average American uses about 9.7 hectares.

These data alone suggest the Earth can support at most one-fifth of the present population, 1.5 billion people, at an American standard of living.

These data alone suggest the Earth can support at most one-fifth of the present population, 1.5 billion people, at an American standard of living.

• smaller minds will look toward eugenics / population control. 
• greater minds will look for other solutions like better technology and space.

which way to go? choices, choices...

mucking about in space sounds more fun than eugenics here on earth... 

if mankind is to be a proper virus? we must act like it and spread out among the stars.

  why should we leave the galaxy alone? imagine the chaos and fun we could have... LOL

just sayin :)

if mankind is to be a proper virus? we must act like it and spread out among the stars.

Ah. You should watch that little video I posted in comment #2. It's only 3 1/2 minutes long. Near the end he shows how the resources of three entirely new Earths would only buy us about two more population doublings, if exponential growth is not curtailed, that is.

We're currently doubling about every 50 years (roughly), so three entirely new Earths would only last about a century. If that isn't madness, I don't know what is.

If that isn't madness, I don't know what is.

what is real madness? eugenics.

but hey...  Margaret Louise Sanger supports it. she created planned parenthood for that very reason. having one inside walking distance to every "hood in the usa is no accident either.

but ya know... we are thinking about taking another route. people like sanger are the worthless human beings who should be removed.

I tell every fan of eugenics the same thing... go ahead and save the planet, lead by example, jump off the rock, we promise to follow them only if they are serious... LOL

what is real madness? eugenics.

but hey...  Margaret Louise Sanger supports it. she created planned parenthood for that very reason. having one inside walking distance to every "hood in the usa is no accident either.

but ya know... we are thinking about taking another route. people like sanger are the worthless human beings who should be removed.

I tell every fan of eugenics the same thing... go ahead and save the planet, lead by example, jump off the rock, the sooner the better. 

Your trolling is boring, but you're also wrong.

In response, Planned Parenthood said Carson was not only "wrong on the facts, he's flat-out insulting." Alencia Johnson, assistant director of constituency communications, told NPR:

"Does he think that black women are somehow less capable of making the deeply personal decision about whether to end a pregnancy than other women? ... It's a shame that a doctor, who should understand the barriers black women face accessing high-quality preventive and reproductive health care services, would pander so clearly to anti-abortion extremists on the right."

Your trolling is boring,

such a large reply for such a boring person as me... LOL

 I tend to ignore boring people but hey, to each their own ey?

cheers

what is real madness? eugenics.

Who said anything about eugenics? What an odd thing to bring up, considering that one supposed reason for it was to strengthen then gene pool and make humans more successful. Setting aside the creepy ethical issues involved in deciding who is allowed to reproduce and who isn't, it's still not a solution for overpopulation in and of itself. Removing 'unwanteds' doesn't matter much if the 'wanteds' are still reproducing like rabbits, or even more successfully than before.

unless a voluntary choice made by an individual,

any form of planned population control is akin to eugenics.

• weeding out the poor
• weeding out the genetically weak
• weeding out the "many"

no difference in my book.

and yes, it is an odd thing to bring up

voluntary choice made by an individual

I know it's an uncomfortable truth for some, but voluntary choice by individuals isn't always some kind of miracle-working panacea of good outcomes. Generally speaking, people aren't all that rational, especially when young. Young males in particular tend to think with their you-know-whats more often than not.

Voluntary choice by individuals is kind of what got us into this mess. It's not as if governments in the most crowded countries in the world have been operating breeding centers or something.

A short video with a stark analogy of exponential population growth:

By the way, if the last thing he says in that video sounds like over-the-top, fear mongering hyperbole (the part about already being past the 59th minute), what he means is that we've already passed the last point of doubling. We can't double again without crashing the biosphere, our own life support system.

[...] world numbers are projected to reach 8 billion around 2023, a doubling time of 49 years, and barring the unforeseen, expected to level off around 10 to 12 billion by 2100. This anticipated leveling off signals a harsh biological reality: Human population is being curtailed by the Earth’s carrying capacity , the population at which premature death by starvation and disease balances the birth rate.

That means growth is expected to be halted naturally by suffering and death, not through the intentional, responsible actions of rational people. 

In other words, we're generally not that bright. We tend to avoid altering  behavior until a painful crisis forces us to, even if we can see the crisis coming well in advance.

That means growth is expected to be halted naturally by suffering and death, not through the intentional, responsible actions of rational people.  In other words, we're generally not that bright. We tend to avoid altering behavior until a painful crisis forces us to, even if we can see the crisis coming well in advance.

As long as someone can make money by ignoring it, or it cannot be reduced to a financial amount on a balance sheet, most people won't pay attention to the effects of overpopulation until it bites them in the backside. We have proof of global climate change as well as threats to biodiversity and yet many people say that it doesn't apply to them. Thoughts and prayers of Facebook or happy thoughts aren't going to solve this problem.  

As long as someone can make money by ignoring it, or it cannot be reduced to a financial amount on a balance sheet, most people won't pay attention to the effects of overpopulation until it bites them in the backside.

Especially when the owners of those balance sheets control the government.

The wealthy ignoramus presently occupying the Oval Office actually appointed people to the EPA to undermine it intentionally. Bad for business, you know.

Those wealthy ignoramuses don't give a shit because they got theirs. They are the people that will be holed up in the Castle while the Red Death swirls around them.

But too many of them never finished the story

They have their bunkers, but what happens when the serfs and other lowly folks aren't there to pump the cesspit or scrub their floors?  Are these same oligarchs going to import a bunch of brown people to live with them so they have a ready workforce?  Yeah, I don't think so.  Hope they're prepared to work it out on their own.  Zombie Apocalypse nightmare for these fools.

I would love to be a fly on the wall to watch that scenario play out

It's a known fact that cow flatulence are contributing to global warming.

For some reason, I'm in the mood for a steak. Perhaps that's my contribution to combating global warming: remove a cow from the system, Lol

Actually, BF is not wrong. It's even been studied by our gov. It turns out that the beef industry is an outlet for greenhouse gases. 

Actually, BF is not wrong. It's even been studied by our gov. It turns out that the beef industry is an outlet for greenhouse gases. 

I know he's not wrong (nor did I imply he was), even if my reply was somewhat facetious. 

Ok....but I'm not giving up my rib eyes

It turns out that the beef industry is an outlet for greenhouse gases. 

It's even worse when Cattle are "Finished" on a Feedlot, feedlots feed the cattle corn which doesn't really agree with their digestive systems. They get gassy and heartburn (acidic) so much so that they mix antacid right into the corn feed.

Actually, BF is not wrong. It's even been studied by our gov. It turns out that the beef industry is an outlet for greenhouse gases.

This is true, but in an indirect way, mostly through land-use changes (clearing carbon sinks like forests for pasture and feed farming). They aren't actually adding carbon to the biosphere like fossil fuel usage does. Cows could be produced as part of the existing surface carbon cycle if we were to take care to replace carbon sinks. The real problem is bringing up all that extra carbon in oil and coal (the stuff that's been out of the loop for millions of years), and then burning it off into the air. Take fossil fuels out of the equation and the cow problem is manageable (if we can somehow rein in human population growth at the same time, that is).

Those wealthy ignoramuses don't give a shit because they got theirs. They are the people that will be holed up in the Castle while the Red Death swirls around them. But too many of them never finished the story

There is always the alternative that came to pass during the French revolution. Who will play the part of Madame Defarge?

Ok....but I'm not giving up my rib eyes

You can have my share because I'm not a steak eater.

Now I have to go run to Wiki.....

you're always making me learn something, dammit!

In other words, we're generally not that bright. We tend to avoid altering behavior until a painful crisis forces us to,

Most of the developed Nations are only increasing Population through Immigration not birth rates. It's the underdeveloped countries that are breeding themselves into unsustainability and poverty. The USA could stop it's own population growth just by stopping Immigration and we could feed ourselves (most of our over farming and over grazing is caused by our food exports) but we can't force these underdeveloped countries from their suicidal population growth the only thing we can do is Protect ourselves, let them suffer the consequences of their own actions in their own countries. We do not have to all go down the same road to destruction, in the past many civilizations have collapsed because of drought and famine brought on by overpopulation and it didn't wipe out the whole world.

let them suffer the consequences of their own actions in their own countries.

The thing is, they wont stay in their own countries. What are we supposed to do, build a wall completely around ourselves and line it with machine gun towers so we can murder refugees trying to escape a living hell? What kind of people would that make us?

Wouldn't the better course of action be to continue helping developing nations get population growth under control, and to become more sustainable in terms of industry, agriculture and energy? We can't do that by going insular and just ignoring the problem. Money spent would be an investment in the future, and one of the most important investments we could make, right?

We do not have to all go down the same road to destruction, in the past many civilizations have collapsed because of drought and famine brought on by overpopulation and it didn't wipe out the whole world.

Aside from the selfish and cowardly aspects of turning a blind eye to the suffering of countless others, there's a new variable at play that didn't exist in the past. Some of the most overpopulated countries in the world are also armed with nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan for example. We can't just let the world go to shit around us. A nuclear exchange somewhere could very well spread and spark off that WW3 apocalypse we all grew up fearing in the back of our minds during the Cold War.

We really shouldn't be pretending that isolationism is a viable solution.

Never mind the fact that there really isn't a way to confine the pollution that results from overpopulation to only those countries which are overpopulated.  Even if we managed somehow to eliminate immigration from those countries, air and water pollution will spread.

What kind of people would that make us?

Realistic. Do you really think we can convince them to get their population growth under control ? We can't even get everyone to let us give their children the polio vaccine. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to help them help themselves but that doesn't mean we should allow them to drag us down with them. There is no sustainability at the current population levels in most of the world and even in the USA our current use of our aquafers is unsustainable, the water we're using to feed the world is running out and the same is true in many other parts of the world. The shit is going to hit the fan and you want to give away America's Children's Future so the World can eat for one more day because you're to cowardly to make the hard choices that will have to be made for our children, country, and civilization to survive. It's all well and fine to give a homeless person a few bucks so they can eat but if you give them your rent and grocery money so you end up homeless and hungry too your just stupid. It's unrealistic to think we can save everyone, we can either save ourselves or die along with the rest.

Maybe the best thing we can do is lead by example. If we announce that we are instituting population control in the USA and refuse to allow our population to be increased either by birth rates or immigration so we can create a sustainable civilization maybe the rest of the world will take population control seriously and take a good look at their own situations and make changes.

I'm not saying we shouldn't try to help them help themselves

It looked like that was exactly what you were saying, as well as what you continue to say [see the following].

There is no sustainability at the current population levels in most of the world and even in the USA our current use of our aquafers is unsustainable, the water we're using to feed the world is running out and the same is true in many other parts of the world. The shit is going to hit the fan and you want to give away America's Children's Future so the World can eat for one more day because you're to cowardly to make the hard choices that will have to be made for our children, country, and civilization to survive.

I'm not the one thinking in cowardly terms. Are you under the impression that we can sustain our current lifestyles and levels of consumption solely on the dwindling stock of resources within our own borders? We don't live in a bubble. We can't continue on as we are without material inputs from all over the world. Earnings from feeding the world, as you say, are largely spent buying other things from around the world. Americans consume more of the world's resources than anyone else. WE are the gluttons of the world. We're famous for it. Didn't you know that? If you think we can continue on unabated, in isolation, for "America's Children's Future" or something, you are sorely mistaken.

we can either save ourselves or die along with the rest.

Actually, we can't just save ourselves. We're going to have to be willing to help the world solve this problem, or we'll be dragged down with the ship as well.

Maybe the best thing we can do is lead by example.

There is certainly truth in that, but I think investing largely in sustainability (developing better ways of producing consumables and energy), as well as reducing our intake of the world's resources (finding ways to live and be happy with fewer gizmos and gadgets that often just end up in storage anyway), would be a better start than forced population controls at the moment. Oh, and contraception. Lots of contraception. We'll need to hold on to Planned Parenthood, if not expand it.

Even if we managed somehow to eliminate immigration from those countries, air and water pollution will spread.

Good point. Disease as well.

If we announce that we are instituting population control in the USA and refuse to allow our population to be increased either by birth rates

I cut it off there for a reason. I'm interested in your idea of population control. What methods? Affordable and accessible birth control? Less restrictions on abortion? More liberal use of tubal ligation and vasectomies?

You can have whatever you want I don't care. I don't like abortion but I don't think it should be illegal but I do think the father should have an equal vote (as long as it wasn't rape) since if the woman decided to keep the child he could be forced to pay support. I know most Women think "My body My choice" but as it stands now the father can be forced to work to pay for a choice that he's not free to make (that's enslavement) so either give him an equal voice in the choice or give him the right to abort his Parental responsibilities. Please don't say he made the choice to have sex because so did the woman and she's still allowed to choose to opt out after the fact. I don't know what you mean by "Less restrictions on abortion" they should be available without undue hardship but I've seen very young Preemies and there has to be a cutoff after which you can't get an abortion accept in life threatening situations. As far as Birth Control I think all the governments of the world should chip in what they can afford to a UN program to fund free Birth Control for the whole world, most of the patents have run out so drugs like the pill could be produced for less than a penny a pill. The Problem is the People who most need it won't take it but we can't force them, like they say "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink". Even in America we can't make people use birth control or force the use of certain types but birth rates aren't what's increasing our population in the USA but if it were we could just charge a fine and no tax breaks or government benefits for any third+ child as a deterrent (only if it became a problem because right now the families with one or none make up for the few that have many). We'd need a fluctuation margin of like 2% to allow for death/birth fluctuations but if the Population decreases below that we could allow limited Immigration or allow more births.

Thank-you for your well thought out and reasoned response. I like your idea of a UN fund for birth control. And you're right, you can't force a pill down someone's throat.

Once earned a degree in environmental science. Eventually figured out that I was just kidding myself.

I think investing largely in sustainability (developing better ways of producing consumables and energy), as well as reducing our intake of the world's resources (finding ways to live and be happy with fewer gizmos

I don't think you understand the population is not going to collapse because of pollution, to many cars, or to many gizmos, it's going to collapse from starvation we are going to have massive food shortages. We are going to run out of water in the aquifers that we've been using to water the crops that have allowed the world's population to survive and it's not just in the USA water supplies are dwindling in the "Bread Basket" regions all over the world. Even if we pipe water from the great lakes to the cropland we will eventually run out of cheap Oil that we've been using to make fertilizer, either way crop yields will plummet and prices will skyrocket. Also Fish stocks in our Oceans are already at a critical tipping point. There will not be enough to go around and only those who can afford to eat will eat. At this point it's not "IF" the population will collapse it's "When" and how bad it will be. You don't think we can survive if half the world suffers a massive famine and population collapse but we can and many other countries will even if we don't, if you have food and can defend it you can survive the collapse and all the gizmos and gadgets won't mean a thing. You can hope for a Miracle but we should be preparing for the worst, the sooner we start the better off we'll be but the longer we kick the can down the road the harder the hard times will be. Make no mistake we will not have to fight the whole world to prevent them from stealing our food or invading our shores, most of these Countries Governments will kill their own people just to save themselves because when the chips are down the world becomes a brutal place and it's not like it hasn't happened before. Both China and Russia have diverted food from certain segments of their population and allowed millions to starve so they could feed those they deemed more worthy or the just outright shot them. Even our own Government will if push comes to shove kill off whatever portion of our population it takes to ensure their survival if you doubt it you don't know the Human Nature of desperate people. You think my plan is Brutal but your plan sets us and the world up for a far more brutal future than mine, I say start to prepare now for the inevitable and we will not only be able to survive but we will set an example that others will hopefully follow. If you don't think we can hold back the tide remember we have a hundred bullets for every man, woman, and child in the world (not to mention all our other weaponry) and I have no doubt that when it all goes mad you'll be up on the wall pumping rounds into anyone who tries to take what you have and need to survive as fast as you can pull the trigger.

You think my plan is Brutal but your plan sets us and the world up for a far more brutal future than mine

My 'plan' would be to invest heavily in sustainability in order to avoid disaster. Finding and implementing ways to use much less water in agriculture; regulating for cleaner industry and energy production; getting population growth under control through education and contraceptives; reducing our consumption of non-regenerative resources; halting the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Things of that nature. Where do you see brutality in that? It all seems perfectly rational to me. If we can become sustainable, then the violent chaos of collapse is averted. How could that possibly be considered a more brutal future than the apocalyptic struggle for survival you envision?

We need to put an end to limited life cycle design and encourage products that are to be repaired and reused rather than to be discarded after a 5-10 year lifespan.

rather than to be discarded after a 5-10 year lifespan.

Think of all the electronics and batteries that end up in land fills in much less time than that. Even though proper disposal is always suggested on devices and packaging, you know a lot of it is still going straight to the dump.

And single-use plastic bags. Ugh.

Think of all the electronics and batteries that end up in land fills in much less time than that. Even though proper disposal is always suggested on devices and packaging, you know a lot of it is still going straight to the dump. And single-use plastic bags. Ugh.

It isn't profitable to recover the gold and other metals in electronics. They tend to be shredded and buried. Many electronics have a designed in weak link that will fail within weeks after the warranty expires, so you buy another one.

Many electronics have a designed in weak link that will fail within weeks after the warranty expires, so you buy another one.

Yup. Planned obsolescence.

The most egregious example of this I ever noticed personally was what computer chip manufacturers were doing back in the early 2000's. Remember when they were releasing processors that were just a little more powerful than the last version every 6 months or so, and making such a big hubbub about it? Turns out they weren't actually making real advances and buying new tooling for each. They would develop tooling to produce an entire generation of chips and intentionally manufacture them weak at first, so they could slowly ramp the power up and sell multiple versions of the same chip when they had the ability to make the very best one right from the start. Progress was intentionally released in increments to make people keep buying the latest and the greatest. It made me sick to my stomach when I figured that out. What a waste or everyone's money.

I know that's not the same thing as a built-in flaw to make people buy new stuff after the warranty expires, but it's in the same ballpark.

I haven't been following the industry like I did back then, but it wouldn't surprise me if they still do that.

How could that possibly be considered a more brutal future than the apocalyptic struggle for survival you envision?

Because the whole world is heading full steam towards a cliff and your plan would require the world to do a 180. I don't believe they'll do it in time. All the things you said are great ideas and they may come to pass after the collapse when the people who do survive are rebuilding Civilization. For the last forty years we've been well aware that we're heading for the cliff but instead of putting on the brakes Mankind has done everything they can to pick up more speed and they will not change till it's to late. While your plan is a worthy pursuit it is a long shot at best where as my plan is more realistic given the nature of Mankind and that all the momentum is carrying us to a worst case scenario I accept that the worst case scenario is what's most likely to happen so I think that's what we should prepare for. Besides my plan doesn't prevent your plan from being implemented it's just necessary given that the odds are your plan will fail.

Because the whole world is heading full steam towards a cliff and your plan would require the world to do a 180.

Well, more like a 90. Not so much a reversal as a leveling off. For population growth, anyway.  Before we get to 9 billion or so we need a "The line must be drawn here. This far, no further" kind of thing. 

Even though a full change of course couldn't happen all at once, deviations of smaller degrees in the near term would still lengthen the distance to the edge of the cliff and buy us more time.

I don't believe they'll do it in time.

I don't actually have much faith in people's ability to change behavior until forced to by nature, myself, but I still wouldn't consider steps to try to avoid disaster to be as brutal as the disaster itself.

Besides my plan doesn't prevent your plan from being implemented it's just necessary given that the odds are your plan will fail.

I take it you're a prepper, then?

Maybe the best thing we can do is lead by example.

The example we're currently setting was previously used by Nazi Germany.

7.5 Billion And Counting: How Many Humans Can The Earth Support?

Damn good question. Considering mankind is probably the most destructive species on the planet, 

A true planetary parasite to be sure.

It looks like a dried up, rotten orange

It looks like a dried up, rotten orange

It is, the life that's living on it is mold. A much smaller parasite than man on a much smaller world. 

Get the picture ?

pun intended.

LOL 

I got it

Barring a asteroid or the sun blowing up or a Super Virus that nobody is immune to Humans will suffer a Die Off from over population but it will not kill all of us. We may severely reduce the Biodiversity of the planet but we will never survive long enough to destroy the earth, it will heal and it will do it fairly quickly once our population is severely reduced.

More people,more problems, more laws, more government.

Want smaller government, simple, stop producing more people.

Politicians do not want to acknowledge or address this, It is our biggest problem  

Don't worry about it.  Help is on the way. 

The Trump, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will take away the birth control.  Bibles for every one.

Too many people?  Nah.  America will soon be a nation of 'The Duggers.'  You know, the 20 and counting folk?

Too many people?  Nah.  America will soon be a nation of 'The Duggers.'  You know, the 20 and counting folk?

That might be more prophetic than you think too.

"Jesus loves you," right?

"Jesus loves you," right?

Or so I'm told.

Will Jesus feed all those kids?

God always provides when we let Him

That sounds like a cop out and a way to avoid taking any responsibility for oneself. It's just a pitiful excuse!

oh fer fucks' sake

bugger off

God always provides when we let Him

That is demonstrable bullshit.   

First, God can do whatever He wishes.   There is no 'let Him'.   God makes the rules.   ( Of course I am speaking as if the belief is true. )

Second, consider this :

GLOBAL POVERTY FACTS

Here are some statistics that show the scale of global poverty and its devastating effects.

1) 767 million people, or 10.7 percent of the population, live in extreme poverty with less than $1.90 per day.

2) 2.1 billion people live on less than $3.10 per day.

3) 328 million children are living in extreme poverty.

4) At least 17 million children suffer from severe acute undernutrition around the world. Severe acute malnutrition is the direct cause of death for 1 million children every year.

5) Every single day, 1,000 children under 5 die from illnesses like diarrhoea, dysentery, and cholera caused by contaminated water and inadequate sanitation.

If God provides only when 'we let Him' then God (per you) has the ability to grant all creatures a life without hunger and disease yet chooses to not act to help them.   God is thus sadistic.   Your 'God always provides ... ' platitude is dangerous nonsense and it is a real shame that you teach this to younger generations.    Only people can address these problems.   Pushing these problems off as 'the consequences of not opening one's heart to Jesus' is a convenient excuse to ignore the plight of countless millions.

"God will provide?"  Beginning when?  Should we thank him for cancer too?

Should we thank him for cancer too?

Of course. Don't you know, god gives kids cancer. In fact, according to LFoD, all disease is caused by sin. So clearly, childhood cancer and other diseases is god's punishment.

But he loves us and we should worship him for it. "Dear God, thank you for giving my child cancer. Amen!"  >sarc<

These are the immutable words of an infallible sadist:

God always provides when we let Him

When was the last time that your God fed hungry kids?

1 in 6 children in the United States face hunger.

As you might imagine, hunger is a problem that most often affects low-income families. A common way we measure poverty is the federal poverty level (FPL), a number set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The federal poverty level is the minimum amount of money a family needs each year to afford the necessities of life: food, clothing, shelter and transportation.

In 2016, the federal poverty level was $24,300 for a family of four.

Tragically, a huge number of Americans fall below this line. Over 40 million people (almost 13% of all Americans) lived in poverty in 2016. Of that number, 13 million were children.

Of course, this number is a minimum. Families making twice that much are still considered low-income by most experts, and likely struggle to make ends meet.

Food Insecurity

More than 13 million children in the United States live in "food insecure" homes, according to recent research from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). That means those families don't regularly have enough food to eat, the most basic of all human needs.

 if we do nothing to manage future population growth and total resource use? 

relax... eventually, we move further into space and cause global warming on other planets.

should be good fun

if space is infinite, then by default we have infinite resources and lots of space.

the most populous animal on record, on earth?  let's go for the "universal record and beyond.

with some luck maybe we will become the quote aliens for people on other worlds? how fun would that be?

we can splice some DNA here and there and be called gods.

relax... eventually, we move further into space and cause global warming on other planets.

Or we could just find a hotter planet to settle on and skip the middleman.

Or we could just find a hotter planet to settle on and skip the middleman.

you sir... get a promotion

relax... eventually, we move further into space and cause global warming on other planets.

LOL.. I kinda doubt that many people will ever live off of this planet's surface. Even if the earth no longer substances life. No other known planet is so easy to live on and reproduce on in numbers as this one. 

I don't feel that luck that we have an option of ever starting over.  This is probably it, Our ONLY chance. 

This is probably it, Our ONLY chance. 

cheers

This is probably it, Our ONLY chance. 

I do not even know how to be a fatalist.

I do, when the facts point that way I have no problems seeing what may be.

I see no realistic way our fragel bodys can sustain long term mass inhabitation of any planet much less inhabitable than this one unless we happen to find a twin planet.

Those are not odds I care to base my hopes for all mankind on.

I have no problems seeing what may be.

do ya remember the winter of 2016? against all odds and predictions trump wins.

if the right had given up? been fatalists? believed what was foretold and predicted by everyone? 

hillary would be president today....  the moral of the story?

never back down, never surrender. never give up.  why?

fortune favors the bold. (not all wins are predictable)

do ya remember the winter of 2016? against all odds and predictions trump wins. if the right had given up? been fatalists? believed what was foretold and predicted by everyone? 

Yes I do. You probably dont know but I was one of the people who did not jump on the beast wagon nor did I underestimate trump. I did vote for the beast because trumps personality, and his means and ways of accomplishment I feel are wrong for the country.  (She wasn't much better)  But she wasn't IMO: as good as pulling power to the top so she concerned me less. 

Getting on trump's wagon IMO: was certainly not in line with what even many true financial conservative republicans wanted but it was better than the alternative beast to many. 

never back down, never surrender. never give up.  why?

fortune favors the bold. (not all wins are predictable)

If And when Either the dems or the conservatives get their shit together I'll remember that and may rejoin the masses, Till then I'm staying independent and hopefully sane.

fortune favors the bold. Independant, Boldly so.

lol

7.5 billion and counting: How many humans can the Earth support?

Well not too many more one would imagine. There is already a potable water crisis throughout Asia and Africa (and Flint Michigan) and shortages are emerging worldwide. Malthus stated years ago that over population will be the ultimate cause of our demise.

Think about it, in the 1950's the approx. population of the US was 160-170 million more or less. Sixty years fast forward and it stands at 350 million or so, growing expotentially  into the future..

Yep, another 100 years or so and we'll be grazing on Soylent Green

As a mathematician, I believe reducing birth rates substantially is our best prospect for raising global standards of living. As a citizen, I believe nudging human behavior, by encouraging smaller families, is our most humane hope.

 they say there are up to ten potential babies in every bottle of whiskey. so first, ya have to nudge people into giving up alcohol.

just kiddin... LOL we know that is not going to happen.

as a human...

I guarantee human behavior cannot be "nudged" without force, coercion, and/or subterfuge.

25-30 billion easily.  population scaremongers are just that.

25-30 billion easily.  population scaremongers are just that.

How could the Earth possibly support that many people? How do you grow sufficient food to feed that many people? Where is the fresh water and then treat that much waste, and those are just the basics? There aren't enough trees to clean the atmosphere of that much carbon dioxide that we exhale.

well over 90% of the planet is uninhabited

Fresh water, do like the Israelis and convert salt water

Use waste scrubbers like they do in Norway and Finland

The scare mongering about over population is just that, scare mongering and it's been going on for nearly a 100 years by the left.

How much of that uninhabited portion is covered by water?  How well do you swim?

the current world population could fit in the State of Texas with 1000SF PER PERSON

factslist

Where do you grow enough food and deal with the pollution and carbon dioxide that they create? 

And eat what?

would you want to live like that?

fish, fruits, vegetables, 

would you want to live like that?

He claims to live in the mountains, away from others. His solutions are for everyone else.

absolutely, I live pretty much self sustaining and off grid most of the year

overcrowding will reach you too

maybe 200 years after I'm gone

maybe 200 years after I'm gone

Then start to address the problem now and the solutions will be easier than waiting until the situation becomes critical.  Your children and grandchildren will thank you for it. 

Large scale vertical gardening or Sky Farming can meet the needs of growing populations while not using excessive land space or depleting soil

urbanorganicgardener

theatlantic

eskenazihealth

my grandchildren will be gone 130-140 years before this is even a possibility which I still doubt it ever will be

my grandchildren will be gone 130-140 years before this is even a possibility which I still doubt it ever will be

Unless you expect your bloodline to die out at that time, you will have great-grandchildren and their children.  How do you want them to remember you?

That I stood for liberty and individualism over the tyranny of the state

That I stood for liberty and individualism over the tyranny of the state

We must come together as one to cooperate so large problems can be solved, but you don't want to do that.

Energy Recovery from the Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)

Energy recovery from waste is the conversion of non-recyclable waste materials into usable heat, electricity, or fuel through a variety of processes, including combustion, gasification, pyrolization, anaerobic digestion and landfill gas recovery. This process is often called waste to energy.

Most of those processes add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

No they don't

No they don't

Burning waste material or gas from landfills creates carbon dioxide.

Anaerobic digestion is a collection of processes by which microorganisms break down ... The process produces a biogas, consisting of methane, carbon dioxide, and traces of other 'contaminant' gases.

You don't seem to understand the process. It is captured and recycled. It is not released into the atmosphere.

You don't seem to understand the process. It is captured and recycled. It is not released into the atmosphere.

The methane is captured and burned. Burning the gas creates carbon dioxide.

Collecting and Treating Landfill Gas

Instead of escaping into the air, LFG can be captured, converted, and used as a renewable energy resource. Using LFG helps to reduce odors and other hazards associated with LFG emissions, and prevents methane from migrating into the atmosphere and contributing to local smog and global climate change.

.

Burning methane releases only carbon dioxide and water. Since natural gas is mostly methane, the combustion of natural gas releases fewer byproducts than other fossil fuels. Because this is a chemical reaction, it is also possible to quantify the amount of water produced when methane is burned.

I'm no chemist but even I know that burning any fossil fuel (methane) produces carbon dioxide and water. Any body with a rudimentary high school chemistry background can tell you that

Trash to cash: Norway leads the way in turning waste into energy

For a country blessed with bountiful oil supplies, it may appear incongruous. But  Norway  is importing as much rubbish as it can get its hands on, in an effort to generate more energy by burning waste in vast incinerators.

The Eurotrash business may sound like an unpromising enterprise, but it's one that is increasingly profitable. The UK paid to send 45,000 tonnes of household waste from Bristol and Leeds to Norway between October 2012 and April this year. "Waste has become a commodity," says Pål Spillum, head of waste recovery at the Climate and Pollution Agency in Norway. "There is a big European market for this, so much so that the Norwegians are accepting rubbish from other countries to feed the incinerator."

He refuses to divulge the sums involved, saying only that the market is growing. Spillum is "considering requests" to burn waste from other UK towns. "As a rule we generate about 50% of our income from the fee we receive to take the waste and about 50% from the sale of the energy we create," he says.

Norway is not alone. Waste to energy has become a preferred method of rubbish disposal in the EU, and there are now 420 plants in Europe equipped to provide heat and electricity to more than 20 million people. Germany ranks top in terms of importing rubbish, ahead of Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands. But it's Norway that boasts the largest share of waste to energy in district heat production,  according to Danish government-funded State of Green .

theguardian

That doesn't address the fact that combustion produces carbon dioxide.

Aquaponics Benefits

Aquaponics systems are a great solution for healthy organic food production. Aquaponics provides a great number of benefits compared to traditional farming and hydroponics. But for the purpose of practicality let’s focus on the most important ones:

1. Produce fresh and organic fish and vegetables with aquaponics

2. Plants grow faster and taste better with aquaponics

3. Aquaponic systems are easy to build and cheap to run

4. It requires 6x less space than traditional farming

5. It require 90% less water than classical farming

6. Aquaponic systems are easily expandable for commercial purposes

7. It’s sustainable and eco-friendly way of food production

8. Aquaponics is an efficient way to produce out of season products

9. It’s employing the whole family in sustainable farming

Aquaponics Produces Fresh And Organic Fish And Vegetables

Aquaponic systems are ecologically sustainable systems that produce two healthy organic products: fish and vegetables. In aquaponics there cannot be any pesticides or herbicides used, making the end product healthier and safer.

greenmoksha

25-30 billion easily.

Do you think that is what your god wants for his people?

Yes, He created us to be innovative

and we came up with birth control and abortion, so we are innovative and came up with a solution 

murdering the innocent, yeah that's a solution alright. [deleted]

murdering the innocent, yeah that's a solution alright.

Abortion isn't murder! Try again!

  Hitler and Stalin would love the left in this country

How droll. I'll bet you think you've said something very clever too.

murdering the innocent, yeah that's a solution alright

that seems to be a solution for your God who commits more abortions any human has, yet you condone this wholeheartedly and support it. 

innocent, like the firstborn of Egypt?

innocent, like the firstborn of Egypt?

The great flood,  Sodom and Gomorrah, among many others religious atroticies.

25-30 billion easily.  population scaremongers are just that.

We can't feed the 7 billion that are here now. More people means more people needing places to live, which means less land available to use for growing food. How people cannot understand that basic concepts never ceases to amaze me. 

Hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, not scarcity. For the past two decades the rate of global food production has increased faster than the rate of global population growth. The world already produces more than 1 ½ times enough food to feed everyone on the planet. That’s enough to feed 10 billion people, the population peak we expect by 2050.

commondreams

"We have two or three times the amount of food right now that is needed to feed the number of people in the world," said Joshua Muldavin, a geography professor at Sarah Lawrence College who focuses on food and agricultural instruction.

cnbc

The Middle East has been a leader in desalination so far.  Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Israel  rely heavily on desalination as a source for clean water. Israel gets  40 percent of domestic water   from desalination. These countries also have hardly any groundwater or fresh water sources so desalination is a case of innovation by necessity. These countries make up the one percent of the world currently relying on desalination to meet water needs. But the  UN predicts that by 2025 14 percent of the world  will rely on desalination to meet water needs.

globalcitizen

Those are all very small counties by population and the water cost is very expensive. That would not work on a large scale.

California is currently building 17 desalinization plants

California is currently building 17 desalinization plants

With how much state funding? You know, what you call stolen and redistributed money?

How many of the things you've been posting about would require government funding, or at least regulations or tax policies to encourage their creation, in order to be implemented on large enough scales to make any real difference? All of them?

How many of the things you've been posting about would require government funding, or at least regulations or tax policies to encourage their creation, in order to be implemented on large enough scales to make any real difference? All of them?

He'll fund them with donations, bakes sales and Wednesday night bingo games, after he repeals the 16th Amendment and Article one of the US Constitution. He'll fund the DoD the same way.

Wait....isn't bingo gambling?

Utilities should never be owned by government at any level

Repeal the tyrannical 16th and replace with the FAIR tax and excise taxes

why would I want to repeal Article 1?  I just want them to actually comply with it

Utilities should never be owned by government at any level

Why, exactly?

Also, should government offer as services (public services)?:

• Law enforcement (e.g. police, FBI)
• Security (e.g. Homeland Security)
• Public safety (e.g. the EPA)
• Postal services
• Roads and highways

I presume you hold that government should provide military so you are not against the very concept of public services.   By what criteria do you draw the line between public services and private services?

Note, by 'government' I mean federal and/or state government.   Not intending to draw a line between state vs. federal but rather public vs. private.   

Anything beyond what is absolutely necessary for the Constitutional requirements for governance only gives the opportunity for power over others and corruption 

National defense, military and Coast Guard, currency and regulation of securities, executive office negotiating treaties and trade

interstate Highways which Eisenhower implemented for National Defense

“One of Eisenhower's enduring achievements was championing and signing the bill that authorized the Interstate Highway System in 1956. [124] He justified the project through the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 as essential to American security during the Cold War . It was believed that large cities would be targets in a possible war, hence the highways were designed to facilitate their evacuation and ease military maneuvers.

Eisenhower's goal to create improved highways was influenced by difficulties encountered during his involvement in the U.S. Army's 1919 Transcontinental Motor Convoy . He was assigned as an observer for the mission, which involved sending a convoy of U.S. Army vehicles coast to coast. His subsequent experience with German autobahns during World War II convinced him of the benefits of an Interstate Highway System. Noticing the improved ability to move logistics throughout the country, he thought an Interstate Highway System in the U.S. would not only be beneficial for military operations, but provide a measure of continued economic growth. The legislation initially stalled in the Congress over the issuance of bonds to finance the project, but the legislative effort was renewed and the law was signed by Ike in June 1956”

en.wikipedia

I oppose our DOJ and FBI as well as DEA and ATF as government thuggery to control the citizenry

the courts have ruled that there is NO Constitutional right to police protection 

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);

Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations;

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) ((O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.);

Anything beyond what is absolutely necessary for the Constitutional requirements for governance only gives the opportunity for power over others and corruption 

I figured you would simply defer to the Constitution.   The question is public  vs. private services.   You seem to think that only public services have the opportunity for power over others and corruption.   Do you believe private sector services are free of corruption and the exploitation of power??   

... interstate Highways which Eisenhower implemented for National Defense

I am aware of Ike's initiative and motivation.   That is deflection from the question I asked you.   Should roadways and highways be private services?   Why?

I oppose our DOJ and FBI as well as DEA and ATF as government thuggery to control the citizenry the courts have ruled that there is NO Constitutional right to police protection 

You then seek anarchy.   Without law enforcement criminals will flourish.   How do you propose to manage crime?

Note you did not answer my question.   All you did was repeat your views.   I asked you to state the criteria you would use to determine what should be public vs. private offerings:  

TiG @20.1.6:  By what criteria do you draw the line between public services and private services?

You tossed up the CotUS which at best is a vague answer and only for the federal side of the equation.   

When I stated whatever is necessary for Constitutional governance that principle should flow down to state and local levels. State and local should only do the minimum that is necessary for order.

yours is a common misrepresentation of limited government, trying to equate it with anarchy.  If I only had two choices, what we have now or anarchy, I would choose anarchy. But we aren’t faced with that dilemma.

as to law enforcement, it should be a combination of private community security and the natural right to be armed for self defense

State and local should only do the minimum that is necessary for order.

So what specifically does that entail?   

... yours is a common misrepresentation of limited government, trying to equate it with anarchy.

I am just responding to what you write.   I have not defined limited government so I could not possible misrepresent it.   But when someone argues that law enforcement should not be part of government (federal or state) then that individual is arguing for anarchy.    

If I only had two choices, what we have now or anarchy, I would choose anarchy. But we aren’t faced with that dilemma.

Well there you go.   I read your words and noted that your wishes sounded like anarchy.   So if not anarchy, what, specifically, do you have in mind?   Do you have specific ideas or just vague notions based on the (good, by the way) principle of limited government?   From what you have written it seems to me you have not thought this through even to the point of being able to articulate the basics of the socio-economic/political system you desire.

Utilities should never be owned by government at any level

I'd rather the utilities be owned by the local or state government or a worker-consumer co-op than they be run as a for-profit capitalist corporation. 

Repeal the tyrannical 16th and replace with the FAIR tax and excise taxes

A flat tax is an economic disaster. There is a reason that conservatives and the rich support it because it would mean a huge tax cut for them.  Why do you continually support what is not in your own economic best interest?

The 16th was passed and approved as an amendment, as the US Constitution requires.

I was really hoping you would answer TiG's question and explain why privately-owned utilities would be free of 'the opportunity for power over others and corruption', especially considering that they would necessarily be for-profit entities, whereas public utilities aren't (and thus have less of an inherent motivation to screw people over).

Any chance of you expounding on that?

The fair tax is a national sales tax, not a flat tax

Because they are a compulsory monopoly and eliminate competition 

because they are usually unionized and taxpayers suffer for it

for example I have a friend who retired from LA dept of Water and Power as a field supervisor with 35 years service. He draws a retirement pension of $150,000 per year plus free medical paid for by taxpayers.  

Many public employees retire and then get hired (at least in CA) by another public entity and double dip.

The fair tax is a national sales tax, not a flat tax

A sales tax is even worse because it puts the tax burden on poor and middle-class people who spend more of what they earn instead of people who may spend 10% or even less of what they earn. Did you ever stop and think that there may be a reason why rich people love these tax ideas and that it isn't in your economic interest to support it if there is? 

We are a consumer economy and if that is going to work then you must make sure that the consumers have more money to spend to drive the economy. The 10% rich don't spend enough to drive the economy, so it stagnates.  The universal basic income idea works because it puts money in the hands of consumers who spend it and that spending drives the economy.  This is a basic macroeconomic theory.

for example I have a friend who retired from LA dept of Water and Power as a field supervisor with 35 years service. He draws a retirement pension of $150,000 per year plus free medical paid for by taxpayers.   Many public employees retire and then get hired (at least in CA) by another public entity and double dip.

He worked 35 years for that pension. Why do you have a problem with middle class people working and getting the pension that they were promised? Would you rather some billionaire get another 10 million tax cut instead?   It is very expensive to live in LA, so its not the same as living on $150K in backwoods Iowa or Nebraska.

A sales tax is even worse because it puts the tax burden on poor and middle-class people who spend more of what they earn instead of people who may spend 10% or even less of what they earn

Thats a BS argument.   Or course they are going to spend a bigger percentage of what they make than rich people.   They make a lot less money.

It's also convenient that you exclude how much more money the rich will pay on the things they buy.   Since they do buy a lot more that would be sales taxed than poorer folks do and there would be no write off to get past it.

No problem, then he shouldn't be able to get a second job and double dip.   The 150k and paid healthcare should be more than enough.

MORE than enough!

That said IME public retirement plans are WAY out sync with private plans.   In this case its good to remember that the private sector, pays for the public sectors retirement plans.   Not the other way around.

The 10% rich don't spend enough to drive the economy, so it stagnates. 

The only other option is to put heavy sales taxes on luxury goods but eventually the wealthy stop buying as many luxury goods if they know they're going to be taxed an extra 20-30% so luxury sales suffer and the economy stagnates once again.

I'd be fine with getting rid of tax brackets and having everyone pay a 20% income tax. But that would be on everything anyone makes, capital gains, investment profits, with no caps on total amount of taxed incomes. If you made $1 billion in total income from all sources, you pay $200 million in taxes. You make $30k then you pay $6k in income taxes. The only offsets would be the standard individual or married deduction and child credits. No more tax shelters, no more corporate loopholes, no more capital gains exclusions. If we did that we could afford to balance the budget, get out of debt and still have enough left over to fully fund social security and offer Medicare for all.

Wrong, it shows you’ve never bothered to research

1.  The payroll tax is eliminated under the Fair tax which affects lower and middle class families

2. Families and/or individuals are given a monthly rebate equal to the poverty level resulting in ZERO tax rates for lower income households 

Under the FairTax, all Americans consume what they see as their necessities of life free of tax. While permitting no exemptions, the FairTax (HR25/S122) provides a monthly universal prebate to ensure that each family unit can consume tax free at or beyond the poverty level, with the overall effect of making the FairTax progressive in application. There is no marriage penalty as the couple gets twice the amount that a single adult receives.

While everyone pays the same tax rate at the cash register, the prebate results in effective tax rates (annual taxes paid divided by annual spending) that increase as the level of spending increases a progressive tax rate structure. For example, a person spending at the poverty level has a 0% effective tax rate, whereas someone spending at twice the poverty level has an effective tax rate of 11.5%, and so on.

www.fairtax.org

I don’t have a problem with middle class people getting a pension.  But I do when that pension and benefits are paid by taxpayers. Now you are paying taxes to pay the current employee and the one drawing the pension

i feel the same about pensions for Congress and past presidents 

Why should singles subsidize those that marry or can't keep their peckers in their pants?

"The standard deduction for single taxpayers and married couples filing separately is $6,350 in 2017, up from $6,300 in 2016; for married couples filing jointly, the standard deduction is $12,700"

The "married deduction" is just double the individual deduction, you're not subsidizing anyone. As for the child deductions, children are an expense meaning parents spend money on them that stimulates the economy and helps small businesses. They're an expense that generates no income for a family until they're adults. While it's not meant to be an incentive, it's to help offset some of the extra cost having children can have on a family.

I don’t have a problem with middle class people getting a pension.  But I do when that pension and benefits are paid by taxpayers. Now you are paying taxes to pay the current employee and the one drawing the pension

Why would public employees not get a pension when they worked 20 years?  You still refuse to see yourself as part of a much larger society and that you must work together.  You seem to think that you are one of 250 million individual people and you are outside the society. You are living the "can't see the forest for the (individual) trees" syndrome.  

If they work the required years to be vested then they get have earned that pension. Many vets do 20 years and then work another 15-20 in the private sector so they get both a military and a private pension, plus medical benefits. Why would I want to take that away from them?

i feel the same about pensions for Congress and past presidents 

They get years of service and medical benefits that they earned. Members of Congress don't deserve lifetime pensions when they served 2x 2/6year terms.  We could put the medical benefits to an end with universal healthcare.

Wow....   can you denigrate others any more blatantly? And then you wonder why some despise people like you.  Your ARROGANCE is appallingly apparent.

Who am I denigrating?

Who am I denigrating?

Apparently stating that living in L.A on $150k isn't the same as living in "backwoods Iowa or Nebraska" is offensive. Either it's offensive to say people in Iowa or Nebraska make $150k or he's objecting to calling them "backwoods". Maybe people who live in the backwoods don't like being reminded of that? It's not like he can argue that the "backwoods" don't exist, it seems something many from the south and Midwest are eminently proud of.

Have you forgotten your own words so quickly?

 backwoods Iowa or Nebraska.

Where do you think that I live? It's not in LA or NYC. 

Most people who visit this area come to gawk at a sect of religious people who refuse electricity and cars. 

Apparently stating that living in L.A on $150k isn't the same as living in "backwoods Iowa or Nebraska" is offensive. Either it's offensive to say people in Iowa or Nebraska make $150k or he's objecting to calling them "backwoods". Maybe people who live in the backwoods don't like being reminded of that? It's not like he can argue that the "backwoods" don't exist, it seems something many from the south and Midwest are eminently proud of.

I've never earned $100K per year in my life. I grew up in the corn and soybeans fields of north-central Ohio. My daughter/SiL live in a village in South Dakota where the distances are measured in hours. 

No problem, then he shouldn't be able to get a second job and double dip.   The 150k and paid healthcare should be more than enough. MORE than enough!

Since when do you get to decide what someone earns when they are putting in the effort 8-5p? $150K in LA is far from the lap of luxury.

That said IME public retirement plans are WAY out sync with private plans.   In this case its good to remember that the private sector, pays for the public sectors retirement plans.   Not the other way around.

Public employees are paid a lower salary than the private sector.  The pension and medical benefits make up for it.

Wait....isn't bingo gambling?

The Catholic church does not seem to have a problem with it on every third Wednedsay evening.

gsparish

Because they are a compulsory monopoly and eliminate competition 

They do that anyway. Utilities are so capital intensive that they are essentially natural monopolies. The cost vs. return analysis of laying out new infrastructure tends to severely limit competition, and you end up with a private monopoly that has to be regulated anyway. 

Many public employees retire and then get hired (at least in CA) by another public entity and double dip.

Double dip from what? Utilities are generally supposed to be self-financing, right? Their money is supposed to come from rate payers, not taxpayers, many of whom wouldn't even be receiving their services.

If you're worried about people double dipping from actual taxpayer money, then how do you feel about people retiring from the military after only 20 years and then doing another 15 or 20 in a G job and ending up with two totally taxpayer-funded pensions? The U.S. military is probably the biggest state monopoly on the planet, with a total monopoly on defense, but you don't think it would be a good idea to privatize the U.S. military, do you?

If you're worried about people double dipping from actual taxpayer money, then how do you feel about people retiring from the military after only 20 years and then doing another 15 or 20 in a G job and ending up with two totally taxpayer-funded pensions? The U.S. military is probably the biggest state monopoly on the planet, with a total monopoly on defense, but you don't think it would be a good idea to privatize the U.S. military, do you?

Dwight Eisenhower made a career of doing exactly that.  I have a relative who did 20 years in the USAF and then went to work for a government contractor.

Since when do you get to decide what someone earns when they are putting in the effort 8-5p? $150K in LA is far from the lap of luxury.

I never said i did but like you i have an opinion and mine is for you to stop trying to sell that shinola.   A quick google search reveals the average wage in the LA - Long Beach - Glendale Metro area to be about $27 an hour.   The translates to about 56k a year.   A 150k pension with fully paid healthcare is a kings ransom  by comparison.   Stop trying to sell the BS that its not.

Public employees are paid a lower salary than the private sector.  The pension and medical benefits make up for it.

Yeah, thats the story the public unions would like us all to believe.   Again, try to sell it to someone who doesn't know better.   Insinuating that a 150k+ pension with fully paid healthcare  is not an upper level salary ..... even in LA .... is absolutely ludicrous.

The Catholic Church has never had a problem with sin. How do you think they make so much money?

Indulgences

They do that anyway. Utilities are so capital intensive that they are essentially natural monopolies. The cost vs. return analysis of laying out new infrastructure tends to severely limit competition, and you end up with a private monopoly that has to be regulated anyway.

My electricity and telecom are co-ops, not publically-owned entities.  My electric service is great - few outages, and they're generally handled pretty quickly.  But my internet service sucks, and there's no other ISP in my county.  When I had their cable TV, it sucked, too.  I've had a tech out to my house twice in the past two weeks, because my internet keeps dropping signal, and I sometimes have to reset my modem and WiFi router 4 or 5 times in an evening.  The first one finally said I should just upgrade to cable internet instead of DSL, which is the best that has been available at my house until just the past few weeks.  In fact, I can't get anyone from the telecom company to tell me whether I can even get cable service.  They laid cable this past summer, and there's signal at the pedestal, but nobody seems to know whether they're able or willing yet to connect the houses in my subdivision to it.  And nobody cares, or even needs to care, that they're incompetent or outdated, because there is no competition.

Yeah, thats the story the public unions would like us all to believe.   Again, try to sell it to someone who doesn't know better.   Insinuating that a 150k+ pension with fully paid healthcare  is not an upper level salary ..... even in LA .... is absolutely ludicrous.

$150K with covered healthcare in LA is solidly middle class.  You need $75k to just survive in that city.  SF, Boston, and NYC are even more expensive.  The situation is much different outside the coasts. In my part of the country, $150K per annum is upper management.

Your size-adjusted household income and the cost of living in your area are the factors we use to determine your income tier. Middle-income households – those with an income that is two-thirds to double the U.S. median household income – had incomes ranging from about $45,200 to $135,600 in 2016. Lower-income households had incomes less than $45,200 and upper-income households had incomes greater than $135,600 (all figures computed for three-person households, adjusted for the cost of living in a metropolitan area, and expressed in 2016 dollars).

My electricity and telecom are co-ops, not publically-owned entities.  My electric service is great - few outages, and they're generally handled pretty quickly.  But my internet service sucks, and there's no other ISP in my county.  When I had their cable TV, it sucked, too.  I've had a tech out to my house twice in the past two weeks, because my internet keeps dropping signal, and I sometimes have to reset my modem and WiFi router 4 or 5 times in an evening.  The first one finally said I should just upgrade to cable internet instead of DSL, which is the best that has been available at my house until just the past few weeks.  In fact, I can't get anyone from the telecom company to tell me whether I can even get cable service.  They laid cable this past summer, and there's signal at the pedestal, but nobody seems to know whether they're able or willing yet to connect the houses in my subdivision to it.  And nobody cares, or even needs to care, that they're incompetent or outdated, because there is no competition.

My electricity comes from a city-owned utility and they also do a good job. My internet is from a company out of western PA and they set new records for incompetence, while raising their fees almost every 90 days. They have no competition so they have no reason to get better. if you want service you pay what they ask or put up with a slow DSL service from Centurylink.  Its a scam and everyone knows it.

Nope, you're still clearly wrong and here is more proof.

Average salary in LA

In fact, not one of the jobs shown on this link maxes out near 150k.    150k a year is clearly a upper tier wage, even in LA.

In fact, not one of the jobs shown on this link maxes out near 150k.    150k a year is clearly a upper tier wage, even in LA.

He worked 35 years for that so why shouldn't he enjoy it? When that money is spent it boosts the economy so what is the problem?  Do you think if we cut pensions your taxes will be cut?  Most Americans do not understand macroeconomics, the theory of how money works in a society. 

Be happy to answer your questions of deflection but lets clear one thing up first.   Do you now agree that that 150k is not middle class in LA?   And if not, what factual data do you have to support your position.  

Because so far ..... you've got nothing.

This is comparable to an end-of-career salary, so why do you have a problem with retirees have a comfortable income when they worked for it? Should they all get $1500 a month from Social Security and live in a crappy apartment?  You seem jealous.

glassdoor

BTW, where is your source for this claim because I'm coming up with libertarian think tanks who have an obvious bias against public unions.

Your link doesn't work but no worries.    You don't need to answer the question since you are clearly wrong.  So i won't bother answering any of yours.    Except this one

Jealous?   Hardly.  

Realistic?   Very!

upgrade to cable internet instead of DSL

That is probably best bet with that company.  Mine got much better after doing that and I could drop landline, but I think you have to get their cable, but I already had that.  

The tech said I don't have to get their cable.  I'm in a contract with Directv, so I'd just stick with crappy DSL, if they tell me I have to have their cable TV.  While the tech was here, he called the office to see if they're ready to start hooking up houses in my subdivision, and nobody could tell him, either .  I'd have to have an electrician run a coaxial to the spot where I keep my computer before they could hook me up, anyway.  I don't want to have an electrician punch holes in my house until I know it's for a good reason.

Many public employees retire and then get hired (at least in CA) by another public entity and double dip.

what is wrong with that?  (also they do that in Virginia)

That water is very expensive and the fuel it requires has to come from somewhere. They you must determine how to deal with the very salty brine that is created. It's not an easy solution. 

Modern-day facilities that desalinate seawater use the process of reverse osmosis through high-pressure treatment systems . If high-pressure doesn’t ring any bells, think of how high your water bill is when you take a 30-minute shower every day. Simply put, it takes energy to move something that wants to stay still.

Not only does the environment suffer from the energy expenditures of desalination plants, but so does the economy. Just one plant in California cost 1 billion dollars and provides about 7% of drinking water to the city of San Diego. California has plans for more plants, which means more money has to be accounted-for from the state.

Unlike California, other areas and governments are hesitant to build desalination plants because of the cost. However, due to the amount of fresh water it brings to areas surrounded by seawater, such as islands, they may be forced to build a plant anyway.

You seem to be typical of the left who only moans about the problems without any positives about technology finding solutions.  We don't even know what the technology will be in 2030 much less 2100

You seem to be typical of the left who only moans about the problems without any positives about technology finding solutions.  We don't even know what the technology will be in 2030 much less 2100

We need to address the worldwide birth rate and the human's consumption of the earth's resources.  Education is the most obvious answer, plus effective birth control.  Educated people have fewer children.  If every couple has 4 children, over 4 generations we spread like rats and the earth cannot tolerate the population explosion. Countries with a higher standard of living use an unequally more amount of resources and create much more pollution, so if that happens to South America, India, SE Asia, and Africa we will reach the tipping point in under 2 generations. We might have already passed the tipping point for the climate. 

We don't even know what the technology will be in 2030 much less 2100

True but, IMO: even with technology the planet can only probably sustain so much human life. What that number is or will be is also an undetermined  amount depending upon a multitude of variables,

Considering at this point in time we have No other planet to inhabit I'd say the intelligent bet would be to do all we can to save the one we are on as long as we can.

Overpopulation Is already a problem, Left unaddressed I doubt i gets better on its own. If problems did that I wouldn't work to fix the ones I have. 

Considering at this point in time we have No other planet to inhabit I'd say the intelligent bet would be to do all we can to save the one we are on as long as we can. Overpopulation Is already a problem, Left unaddressed I doubt i gets better on its own. If problems did that I wouldn't work to fix the ones I have. 

I'd like to know what is the downside of addressing overpopulation and climate change? It would create jobs and we would live in a cleaner planet with less poverty. I'm not sure if the people opposed to it are afraid of change or that they have been brainwashed to oppose the solutions by those at the top who are the beneficiaries of polluting and overpopulation. Maybe they are just trolls with nothing of substance to offer the discussion. 

I'd like to know what is the downside of addressing overpopulation and climate change?

I'd say a combination of all the sectores you listed and more. With Greed being the leading contributor. 

Good old fashion GREED and immaturity. 

Fuck tomorrow I want it all and I want it Now ! At Any cost... waaa

I think people will always be greedy.

I think you are correct. I also think greed is a natural thing  but when greed is left unchecked it ultimately leads to self destruction.

Greed is actually "the accumulation of"  wealth, power, materialism. A good example of unchecked greed leading to destruction is found in looking at a hoarder's environment. These poor folks accumulate to the point of actually destroying their own home, life and usually their own family to a degree. 

Greed checked , builds businesses, responsible governments, societies and the capitalist system. 

Thus why so much checks and balances were built into the constitution. The need to contain greed. 

Especially the greed of power. No one man shall have too much power IS the mainstay of our constitution for a damn good reason. 

As long as the Earth exists we will continue to have dramatic climate cycles and mankind can’t do anything about it

the notion of world overpopulation is ludicrous. It merely reflects the love of the left for infanticide and selective genocide of those groups they don’t like

the notion of world overpopulation is ludicrous

Resources are finite.    

Human overpopulation is among the most pressing environmental issues, silently aggravating the forces behind  global warming ,  environmental pollution ,  habitat loss , the  sixth mass extinction ,  intensive farming practices  and the consumption of  finite natural resources, such as fresh water, arable land  and  fossil fuels , at speeds faster than their rate of regeneration. However, ecological issues are just the beginning...

Read more:  Overpopulation Effects - Everything Connects  

the notion of world overpopulation is ludicrous.

I highly disagree. any place or host can only sustain so much life. Limited by space if nothing else. Here were talking necessary resources as well. I'd say there is a limit of humans that any space can hold including the earth. While we may not be shoulder to shoulder the necessary requirements of our life are also limited more than the space. 

We may be able to artificially enhance the amount of our natural available resources such as water but at some point the planet can only and will only hold so much life. Space wise if nothing else.

Not to mention artificially enhance the amount of our natural available takes time, effort and money along with people cooperating to do it.

While overpopulation may not be a technical problem I'd say it  is a human problem.

More people, more problems, more laws, more government, less control of the masses and the government.

IMO: If humans continue to multiply like unthinking cockroaches sooner or later we won't have a world any of us want to life on or in. 

As long as the Earth exists we will continue to have dramatic climate cycles and mankind can’t do anything about it

The problem is, mankind contributes to and exacerbates it.

the notion of world overpopulation is ludicrous.

The notion that there is no overpopulation or that a large population is sustainable is ludicrous!

It merely reflects the love of the left for infanticide and selective genocide of those groups they don’t like

And that's a ludicrous statement which has nothing to do with the issue and is also a sweeping generalization.

You seem to be typical of the left who only moans about the problems without any positives about technology finding solutions.

Technology is nice and it can be used to find solutions to problems. But it is also a double edged sword: it's technology that allowed the population to grow so large worldwide, through life extending and life saving measures.

the notion of world overpopulation is ludicrous.

Livefree, I can see your view point, there is much empty land and yes we can artificially enhance the amount of natural resources such us food and water. We could also learn to and take the necessary steps to polluting our own environment less and we will. But sooner or later everything has limitations including how much human life this one planet can sustain. no matter how many billions or trillions it is.

However mankind itself will ultimately fail if we do not take better control of ourselves, our actions, our pollution and our breeding practices.

Which unfortunately takes much cooperation and in many ways I see the exact opposite of much of this at this time. 

IMO: Bred like rats and cockroaches likely the environment you will create will be a reflection of that sooner or later. 

As long as the Earth exists we will continue to have dramatic climate cycles and mankind can’t do anything about it

Here again I agree in part.Yes the planet does have dramatic climate cycles but it also makes common sense that when we darken our atmosphere with our pollutants  it warns the planet , just like when we throw black plastic over something in the yard gets hotter. 

we dont care. Doesn't change it.  Neither does avoiding that fact to earn more money or negating cleaning it up sensibly.  

We are stewards of our own environment and in my opinion we kinda suck at it. 

Mankind is the mos t destructive species on earth.  

So, How many more of us do we need ?

Thanks, Live free, I've had my say. Have a great day  !!

That is an opinion not fact

No, it's fact.

That is an opinion not fact

Which part is opinion?   Your response is a vague platitude, devoid of any rebuttal other than 'nuh uh'.    

Wrong

This quote from you is subjective opinion not fact

Human overpopulation is among the most pressing environmental issues, silently aggravating the forces behind global warming, environmental pollution, habitat loss, the sixth mass extinction, intensive farming practices and the consumption of finite natural resources, such as fresh water, arable land and fossil fuels, at speeds faster than their rate of regeneration. However, ecological issues are just the beginning...

Of that particular quote, I would want to investigate the part I put in blue:

Human overpopulation is among the most pressing environmental issues, silently aggravating the forces behind global warming, environmental pollution, habitat loss, the sixth mass extinction, intensive farming practices and the consumption of finite natural resources, such as fresh water, arable land and fossil fuels, at speeds faster than their rate of regeneration. However, ecological issues are just the beginning...

The rest is fact.   There is no question that human population consumes resources and pollutes the planet.   The debate is about the degree to which this happens, not that it happens and is significant.

Resources are finite.   Apparently you disagree with that.

yes I do.  And with the example of fossil fuels, we keep doubling and tripling the known reserves.  We have far  more known reserves now than we did 60 years ago or 20 years ago.

yes I do. [ disagree that resources are finite ]

Well that is quite an incredible position to hold.   I think you might be the first person I have encountered who thinks planetary resources are not finite.   

And with the example of fossil fuels, we keep doubling and tripling the known reserves.  We have far  more known reserves now than we did 60 years ago or 20 years ago.

Are you arguing that fossil fuels is an example of an infinite resource?   

No, right! You certainly haven't proved him wrong. You haven't even offered anything resembling a rebuttal.

the notion of world overpopulation is ludicrous. It merely reflects the love of the left for infanticide and selective genocide of those groups they don’t like

Who mentioned either of those ideas?

yes I do.  And with the example of fossil fuels, we keep doubling and tripling the known reserves.  We have far  more known reserves now than we did 60 years ago or 20 years ago.

Burning those fossil fuels is destroying the environment.

the notion of world overpopulation is ludicrous. It merely reflects the love of the left for infanticide and selective genocide of those groups they don’t like

That entire statement is insane. What a warped reality you must live in.

What a warped reality you must live in.

You're talking to a guy who thinks disease was caused by sin. What does that tell you?

I never used the word infinite. But we have well over 100 years reserves which allows ample time for new technologies

I never used the word infinite. But we have well over 100 years reserves which allows ample time for new technologies

Why would we want to continue to burn coal and oil when it is damaging the environment?  Weren't you taught to be a good steward of the land and leave it better for those who follow you rather than to relegate them to live with the repercussions of your short-sighted policies? 

The core idea of environmentalism is explained with this idea;

We can learn about it from exceptional people of our own culture, and from other cultures less destructive than ours. I am speaking of the life of a man who knows that the world is not given by his fathers, but borrowed from his children; who has undertaken to cherish it and do it no damage, not because he is duty-bound, but because he loves the world and loves his children…

What about food and water. Those are very finite. In fact, water is an issue now in parts of this country, never mind the world.

In fact, water is an issue now in parts of this country, never mind the world.

The inventor of 5 hour energy drinks is working to solve that problem. Really fascinating video about the behind the scenes work this guy is doing. 

I never used the word infinite.

   ( I greatly dislike intellectually dishonest tactics .)  When you disagree that the world's resource are finite that means the same as 'infinite'.   The world's resources are either finite or they are infinite.  There is no third option.   You have to pick one.   So which is it?   Finite or not finite (aka infinite)?

But we have well over 100 years reserves which allows ample time for new technologies

First that is an optimistic estimate.   Think more like about 50 years .   Second, even 100 years should cause you to realize the point I actually made: Earth's natural resources are indeed finite and we are pushing the envelope .  

So, back to the original point, a primary reason why continued population growth is a problem is because (as I noted @ 21.1.8 - ' resources are finite ').   This, by the way, was in response to your unsubstantiated and irresponsible exclamation:

livefreeordie @ 21.1.7  - the notion of world overpopulation is ludicrous

Not ludicrous at all.   Damn serious in fact .   And according to fact .   Also, by resources, I am referring to critical resources (air, usable land, fresh water, food, fuel, ...).

No- there is a 3rd option which is NOT Knowable.  Back in the 70's the left told us we had hit peak oil and we had maybe 40-50 years reserves left.   That turned out to be patently false as we keep discovering more reserves, in fact a lot more.

[deleted]

Again, there is NO evidence that we have over population in the world or that our resources are in a critical condition.

[deleted]

Food especially is not finite. That shows a lack of knowledge about food production and new technologies.

There is no shortage of water, in this country

I'm reminded of a conversation with a small business owner in Northern California during a camping trip two years ago.  She remarked and correctly so that there is no drought in Northern California

And in my recent travels in the Northwest and Canada what I observed was an abundance of water resources, rivers, streams, and lakes

There is no shortage of water, in this country I'm reminded of a conversation with a small business owner in Northern California during a camping trip two years ago.  She remarked and correctly so that there is no drought in Northern California

The Ogallala aquifer in the midwest is being drained down much faster than it can be replenished.  Central California is experiencing subsidence because of all of the groundwater that is being extracted. 

phys

ca.water.usgs

There have been numerous proposals to build a pipeline to take fresh water from the Great Lakes to other parts of the country. 

news.wbfo

that has no relevance to the facts I listed.  There are bountiful water resources that technology and trade agreements can resolve

No- there is a 3rd option which is NOT Knowable. 

Then instead of making an assertion (as you did) the proper response would have been 'I do not know'.    

Just to illustrate how ridiculous your last rebuttal is, here is the exchange:

TᵢG  @ 21.1.18  - Resources are finite.    Apparently you disagree with that.

livefreeordie  @ 21.1.19  - yes I do .  And with the example of fossil fuels, we keep doubling and tripling the known reserves.  We have far  more known reserves now than we did 60 years ago or 20 years ago.

When you write " yes I do " you are explicitly stating that you disagree with my claim that resources are finite.   Right?   You did not say: 'we do not know if they are finite' but rather 'no, they are not finite'.

Intellectual honesty is a good thing.

Only a hyper partisan would make such a false statement as you have that "earth's resources are finite and we are pushing the envelope".

'Hyper partisan'.  Where does that come from?   Earth's resources are finite.  We have a finite supply of natural resources such as fossil fuels, fresh water, air, usable land, minerals, etc.   We are demonstrably pushing the envelope (even with your estimate) when we can calculate running out of critical resources within a century.   That is an extremely small amount of time when talking about natural resources.   It is disappointing to observe people who not only cannot see the obvious but blindly argue against it.

Again, there is NO evidence that we have over population in the world or that our resources are in a critical condition.

You do realize we are talking about the conditions of doubling the current population on the planet, right?   Keep the goal posts where they are.   Do you claim that there is NO evidence that twice the population of the planet will not be a critical condition for resources?

That is just the typical nonsense of the radical left.

I am not a 'radical left' individual.       You deem me 'radical left' because I have noted that resources are finite and we cannot sustain another doubling of our population.  

And in my recent travels in the Northwest and Canada what I observed was an abundance of water resources, rivers, streams, and lakes

   You seriously wrote that??   You are arguing that in your travels you saw rivers, streams and lakes ∴   no water shortage problems.   The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is statistical cherry-picking.  

From the executive summary of " THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S LAND AND WATER RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE " referred by the United Nations website .

Towards 2050, rising population and incomes are expected to call for 70 percent more food production globally, and up to 100 percent more in developing countries,
relative to 2009 levels. Yet the distribution of land and water resources does not favour those countries that need to produce more in the future: the average
availability of cultivated land per capita in low-income countries is less than half that of high-income countries, and the suitability of cultivated land for cropping
is generally lower. Some countries with rapidly growing demand for food are also those that face high levels of land or water scarcity. The largest contribution to
increases in agricultural output will be most likely to come from intensification of production on existing agricultural land. This will require widespread adoption of
sustainable land management practices, and more efficient use of irrigation water through enhanced flexibility, reliability and timing of irrigation water delivery. The prevailing patterns of agricultural production need to be critically reviewed.  A series of land and water systems now face the risk of progressive breakdown of
their productive capacity under a combination of excessive demographic pressure and unsustainable agricultural practices. The physical limits to land and water
availability within these systems may be further exacerbated in places by external drivers, including climate change, competition with other sectors and socioeconomic
changes. These systems at risk warrant priority attention for remedial action simply because there are no substitutes.

The thing with water is that it's like energy, it's neither created nor destroyed. But it can be degraded to the point where it is unusable for anything and that would include irrigation.

All the water we currently have on the planet is all we're getting. Once we've degraded it all that's it, cancel Christmas

Another thing we need to understand about fresh water :

Only about 0.3 percent of our fresh water is found in the surface water of lakes, rivers, and swamps. Of all the water on Earth, more than 99 percent of Earth's water is unusable by humans and many other living things! 

But livefreeordie came across rivers, streams and lakes in his travels so we are okay.

Yes. God will provide.

One of several examples where belief without evidence causes harm:  do nothing about population, natural resources, pollution, etc. because God will make sure everything works out well.   

But livefreeordie came across rivers, streams and lakes in his travels so we are okay.

Now lets test that water and see just how ok it is. How many rivers and lakes are polluted or otherwise unsafe for human consumption or use?

because God will make sure everything works out well.

He's sure doing a bang up job right now, eh? >sarc<

But livefreeordie came across rivers, streams and lakes in his travels so we are okay.

It's like Inhofe holding up a snowball in the Senate and declaring, "No Global Warming."

You certainly don't want to take a big gulp out of the refreshing looking river, stream, or lake. You'll end up with a gut full of E coli and/or giardia.

Mammals shit in that water.

A Prominent Doctor friend of mine was talking to me about this exact type thing. He loves history by the way. Actually studies it.

He actually got me to think about the past and Desperation then.

Seems, based on his conclusions, when the world gets to a point that humans can't be sustained to their liking anymore, or it's just at the point of seeming to have no return due to unsustainability of the simple basics of the times, "Real Honest to goodness" wars break out, thus reducing the population. We're talking "Millions", not "Thousands" here.

A "Mechanical" way of Cleansing the earth.

Then Life starts all over again. Growth starts again. 

In other words, "Lather, Rinse, Repeat". "Lather, Rinse, Repeat" !

Now that's a Thinker in my mind ! 

A Prominent Doctor friend of mine was talking to me about this exact type thing. He loves history by the way. Actually studies it.

He actually got me to think about the past and Desperation then.

Seems, based on his conclusions, when the world gets to a point that humans can't be sustained to their liking anymore, or it's just at the point of seeming to have no return due to unsustainability of the simple basics of the times, "Real Honest to goodness" wars break out, thus reducing the population. We're talking "Millions", not "Thousands" here.

A "Mechanical" way of Cleansing the earth.

Then Life starts all over again. Growth starts again. 

In other words, "Lather, Rinse, Repeat". "Lather, Rinse, Repeat" !

Now that's a Thinker in my mind ! 

We'll send you and your family first, since you think that it's such a great way to limit the population. 

We'll send you and your family first, since you think that it's such a great way to limit the population. 

Now that's FUUUUUUUNNY ! 

Not one time did I say it was a "Great" idea. 

Now that's FUUUUUUUNNY !  Not one time did I say it was a "Great" idea. 

You certainly did not oppose it,

Then Life starts all over again. Growth starts again. 

In other words, "Lather, Rinse, Repeat". "Lather, Rinse, Repeat" !

Now that's a Thinker in my mind ! 

You certainly did not oppose it,

Your Funny ! 

Maybe I should have Double Spaced so "Between the Lines" were easier to read ?

Where is your opposition to that idea when you posted it?  Your attempt to dance around it would impress Fred Astaire.

Where is your opposition to that idea when you posted it?

Did YOU need me to have an opposition comment ?

Did YOU need me to have an opposition comment ?

Do you understand how a discussion or a debate functions?

Did you understand anything in my original comment ? 

Did it make you want to look into what my Doctor Friend noted ?

Did it just CONFUSE you so your initial post was: "We'll send you and your family first, since you think that it's such a great way to limit the population." ?

The idea that the Earth can support billions of more people on top of the current population is simply ludicrous. We can't even adequately support the current population, regardless if it's due to politics, the lack of resources, environment, ect.. So adding more people into the mix certainly is not going to help. Earth's resources are finite and more people means those resources will deplete much faster. To say nothing about the greater demands for housing, medical care, food, clean water, living space, ect. that a growing and larger population will need. If anything, the Earth is already overpopulated.

Well, have we decided how many we need to kill and who goes first yet? /s