[Rhodes22-list] An inconvenient reality.

[Robert Skinner]

Rik Sandberg wrote:
> ...
> I don't believe this planet was meant to support 6 billion people for
> any length of time ..... let alone 9.
> 
> So, distasteful as it may be to some, unless we figure out a way to have
> a smaller population, we are likely to go the way of the rabbit and the
> grouse.

R22RumRunner at aol.com wrote:
> ...
> Hurray!!!! Another brilliant man has come to the same conclusion I came to  a
> number of years ago. We just have to many people on this planet. Now all we
> have to do is figure out the easiest way to reduce the gene pool. :)

elle wrote:
> ...
> Jonathan Swift in 1729 may have hit upon the perfect
> solution:

Hmmm.

There are the time-honored means of population control:

*  War
*  Starvation
*  Disease

Global warming may be just another path to some mixture
of the above.  At some point, concern for the welfare
of third-world countries may shift to a more primal
response -- about the same time that people get fed up
with terrorist-supporters.

There are few cases in history where an impoverished 
and poorly armed group of people sitting on top of a 
valuable resource have been able to hold onto it.  I
doubt that the third world nations of the current era
will have any better luck in the long run.

I suspect that we are only seeing the first zephyr in
a coming hurricane season of nasty little wars.  At 
least, I hope they are little.  I can envision a sort 
of reactive "Bop-a-mole" foreign policy for the next 
century unless we embrace a policy that balances our
use of energy and supports third-world population 
management.

It looks as if food production is going to be overcome 
by population growth on a world-wide basis in the next 
few decades, even with the genetically "optimized" 
strains of grain, etc. that are becoming available.  

If the global warming trend continues, regardless of 
its causes, it will further limit the amount of land 
that will support farming and grazing...

Happy new year!

/Robert