Well, I went to bed rather than look up more stuff.... and I wake to this:

"... this planet is quite capable of supporting the present population and giving a good life to everyone and NOT destroying the ecosphere.."

I hardly know where to begin..... but that is just simply incorrect. Refer to my yesterday's post of 6:03PM. Even if it WERE mathematically true, the distribution system could not handle moving the necessary resources.... and in 50 years, it will be worse.

You also, LH, began with "But I don't think it's THE basic problem, Ebbie. I think it's one of a number of major problems, but I don't think it's the biggest single problem among them,"

When you describe the "major problems"...like air pollution, water pollution and shortage, war, destruction of habitat, global climate change (no matter what the cause), new diseases....etc., etc., they all sound so horrible compared to the simple phrase 'population increase'. Wow... after all, it's just *people*, and we LIKE people...the more people, the better the odds of someone inventing new cures and technology? Right?

*sigh*... what most fail to see is that 'population' is a keystone... a common 'limiting factor'. *IF* we solve all those nasty environmental problems tomorrow, too many people would still overwhelm us in a short time....and it isn't even the case that we COULD solve most of them with overpopulation uncontrolled! "Loss of habitat" for animals is an inevitable side-effect of the need for habitat for 'people'. "Pollution" of various sorts can be reduced in various ways thru recycling, filters, new cleaner energy sources..etc. but SOME pollution is inevitable, and the more people, the less effect those techniques have! We will still need landfills, water, food sources, habitat (for us AND animals)...etc. (No, we cannot "just build higher" there are physical limits to height, as well as 'places'to put buildings.... and digging down is even more trouble.)

The other side of all those dire predictions? *IF* we had a 'steady state' population of, say, 2 billion, with the technology we have now- plus what that poor, limited 2 billion could create, we COULD have enough water, food, parks, living space, etc.... and 2 billion could eventually be served mostly by clean energy sources! In Nature, when we do not interfere, populations of animals and plants adjust themselves..(yes, occasionally leading to extinctions)...). What we don't seen to 'get' is that we ARE a part of Nature...just a weird part that only became a factor in the last 5000-10,000 years or so. Elephants in Africa have fewer open, natural feeding grounds, so they raid farmer's fields and trample what they don't eat. Hillsides all over the world..(not just in S. California) are destabilized as people build in precarious places, and a little extra rain and down they come! And fires happen where fire engines can't easily navigate...and pumping water UP to houses on those pretty mountain settlements is expensive!

   I could go on....but you probably just skimmed this anyway.

I repeat... population is the linchpin. If it is not controlled, all the other 'solutions'have a limited shelf-life. I am **72** years old. I remember when they told us that diseases would be wiped out and we'd have an eternal food source from the oceans!! They have now wiped out *2* diseases...and are fighting over what food sources are still working in the oceans.

Now... should I start on the theoretical solutions to overpopulation? :>(

(I know one, but the screams of protest would deafen you. (No..not "Soylent Green")

--------------------------------------------------

Gee, Ebbie...maybe I oughta find SOME way to get back to Juneau for one more serving of that good Salmon.. ☺