> So did Malthus and as did The Club of Rome in 1973.
I don't know of these references. Could you please expound on them?
> There are several assumptions being made in this discussion that are
> unwarranted.
Please state why they are unwarranted.
> 1. Current trends in population growth will extend into the foreseeable
> future. (Malthus made this mistake as did The Club of Rome)
Nothing is realistically being done about the "trends", therefore they
will stay the same. Unless of course a meteor shower hits in the next 30
years, killing off about 5/6 of everyone alive, or maybe your counting
ona great war that will kill of billions. Both Disgusting and inhumane
solutions. Humane solutions don't fall out of the sky. They take hard
work and time.
> 2. Growth in GDP in developing countries will result in directly
> proportional environmental damage that occurred in previous instances of
> industrialization. (Catch up gets easier as high-tech becomes less
> capital intensive)
More cars, roads, parking lots, factories, shopping malls, larger
housing, more pollution, more waste. The list goes on and on. These are
all either destructive of the environment directly or indirectly (by
robbing the system of resources like land, water etc.).
Do you think first world countries are any better at this? Not. In
Florida, where I live, the everglades are being destroyed by human
overpopulation. The water levels are getting lower, threatening the
entire ecosystem. And as population in central Florida increases, the
drain on the everglades aquefer (linked to lake okechobee) is increasing.
It's a major environmental catastrophe looming on the horizon. You'd
think maybe it would hit the news a few times and be a public concern.
Most people don't even know the problem exists and DON'T CARE either.
> 3. The major causes of environmental damage are industrialized nation's
> consumption. (Proxy wars, foreign aid and communism all are major
> culprits)
Please elaborate on your parenthetical expresion.
Countries with a higher GDP have a higher standard of living. They
"consume" more. The average american currently consumes 2.5 times that
of the average chinese person. As china's economy grows, its population
is aquiring a more western lifestyle (ie. China is now the worlds
largest consumer of red meat); hence, conservative estimates put china's
per capita consumption at half of america's by 2030. It could easily be
worse than that.
> 4. Dependency is a one way street. (hint Adam Smith -Division of labor)
How is this relevant?
+---------------------------------------------------+
| Oceania: A New Country In Development |
| oceania@terminus.intermind.net |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Finger erich@igc.net for my PGP Public Encryption Key