Nelson Wong wrote: > > Hi David, > > > If we are serious about CO2 levels, keeping the oceans clean, reduce > > excessive human consumption of raw material, disposal of toxic & nuclear > > waste, poverty, why aren't more of us pushing for zero population growth in > > developed countries? > > > > Don't we need to determine a carrying capacity for the world > > as ecologists Pulliam and Haddad suggest? > > I understand your point, believe me. But I think the gravity of the > population problem lies within the developing countries, not so much > with with the developed ones. > > For example, both India & China are the most populous countries in the > world, with 17% & 22% of the world's population respectively. By the > year 2020, India will overtake China as the most populous country in the > world. China has a one-child per family policy. Most traditional Chinese > would prefer to have a son to carry on the family name. The stories of > infanticide in China will numb you. India has to wrestle with the > problem of mass poverty, illiteracy. > > Going over to South America, contraceptions are a 'no-no' on religious > grounds. I don't mean abortion here. David, I understand & respect your > views. But finding solutions to the problems will be an uphill battle. > I've read about the Food Summit at FAO. The solution seems nothing short > of a nuclear winter. But I'm willing to hear you out & work at it too. > Obviously with a disproportionate amount of the world's population, India and China have their problems, but they are largely disease, poverty, illiteracy, etc., as you mention. The issue here in this discussion, however, is waste generation--in various forms including CO2--and concomitant consumption of the earth's resources. And in that regard, the *developed* countries are much more of a hazard than any of the less-developed countries. The U.S., of course, is the worst, where every child born will generate something like 50 times more waste than a child born in a less-developed country, and will also consume 50 times more of the earth's resources--talk about your burden on global society. David is absolutely correct, CO2 sequestration is something that we need to do, but still we're only treating a symptom of the real problem. More than half of the world lives a subsistence existence, they are not responsible for the carbon imbalance (unless they have some heretofore unknown, and country-wide, flatulence problem) and they are neither able to effect a solution. We have met the enemy and they are sitting in our easy chairs. DAN -- ==================== mailto:schmoldt@vt.edu ======================== Daniel L. Schmoldt Brooks Forest Products Center USDA Forest Service Virginia Tech (540)231-4674 (FAX 8868) Blacksburg VA 24061-0503
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0