RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Unfolding Universe (discovery channel)

["Ross, Matt" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> It might have done that in the past, but things are different now.  In
> many leading industrialized countries, population is at 0% growth or
> declining (maintained only by immigration).  In the third world, as
> always, population is growing.

I'm going off mainly the fact that estimates say we were at 3 billion in
1920, and are at 6 billion now.  On the other hand, keep in mind that while
our birth rate declines, our death rate also declines.  Also, the most
populous places on earth (china, for example) have population controls in
place, and they simply don't work.  As their overflow fills the rest of the
world, general wealth will decrease, and we'll be more..fruitfull.

> > I've heard sci-fi, and other sources make claims that the 
> earth can't
> > support over 20 billion of us, so this means we have 2 
> centuries left
> > before we're too populous. (of course, more say we're already
> > overpopulated, but I disagree with that).
> 
> We're overpopulated in some places on Earth and 
> underpopulated in other
> places.  We can certainly 'support' billions more diseased, starving
> people.  If we could agree on how to manage things, we could probably
> support many more people at a higher level of subsistence, 
> but we can't
> get along that well yet.

Eventually, no matter how you look at it, there is a breaking point.  I
don't know if its when we run out of elbow room, or when we run out of
carbon atoms though.

--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/