[Rhodes22-list] An inconvenient reality.

[Brad Haslett]

Robert,

That is perhaps the most prescient and intelligent response I've read on the
subject!  Malthus gets discredited for his theory but people don't look long
term enough.  I won't live long enough to see my belief in "peak oil"
through, but the Chinese are believers.  Go to the remotest, deepest parts
of Africa where there is a mineral resource - you'll find Chinese.  They
won't attack us directly because as Colin Powell says, they won't jeopardize
their sales to WalMart.  But do they ever compete!  We, and they, have to
wean ourselves off fossil fuels but it will take some time.  We (the US)
actually do give a shit about human rights, they don't.  They keep their
Muslim population under control (my brother-in-law is a petty government
official in one of those provinces and commutes to Beijing to enjoy the
fruits of his capitalistic wife's labor.  Please don't let him know I think
his position is petty) but their means of handling the problem would never
be accepted here.  However, their methods work despite the harshness.  But
for the oil revenues, the current radical strain of Islam that threatens us
would be an interesting curiosity.

Brad

On 1/3/07, Robert Skinner <robert at squirrelhaven.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>