Highly critical areas of discussion that senseless people will politicize...

Not being an alarmist, but understanding economic theories such as Neo-Malthusianism, all these factors are connected to one another. You also forgot peak population. It is a well documented phenomenon that as population grows, resources dwindle. This is exacerbated by the fact that natural resources are incredibly scarce. So, ignoring any environmental issues, we must find alternative resources to those that are consumed the most in society to ensure that they are still around in the future.

 

At some point in time, if resources cannot keep up with demand, supply will limit growth. As resources become more scarce western society shows that higher costs naturally limit population growth. Earlier populations bore more progeny to have a few survive, which may again become the norm but right now, western societies bare fewer children to compensate for the cost.
Either way, population is naturally limited by supply. No matter how brutal that may be, that is reality.

The nice thing is, as westerners, we have lived in an unusually supply rich time of human history.

 

Who are you to decide for me what is effective and efficient?

I believe in doing the right thing in every situation not some compromise that is only half right.

What you're suggesting is that conservatives give up their principles and pander to the mushy middle who are responsible for every bad policy that has gotten America in such trouble to begin with.

No thank you.

 

Humans have not yet achieved "peak" intelligence.

Our ability to solve complex problems is hamperd by vested interests, power politics, inertia, accretion of wealth and bad priority setting.


Its not about our intellectual abilities which, as we gain more knowledge become that much greater. We are able to grasp much more complex issues and technologies and develop the understanding to apply them to our lives.

Unfortunately, half the human population remains below average intelligence and of the other half 75% are ignorant. In democracies in particular where these less than brilliant people have the right to vote, they are not capable of understand the complexitie and must rely on emotion and "dumbed down" explanations of both the problems and their solutions. They cannot truly evaluate those solutions, hence the bumpersticker politics of the 21st century.

 

Yeah, if only we had a few elitists running things, it would be so much better.

There is so much wrong with your opinion that it is hard to figure out where to start but it is a view that has been held by others that eventually gained power and started screwing things up, like Woodrow Wilson.

 

Well...I noted 'in the early stages' of global climate change.

As the Earth's average temperature increases, over longer periods of time, the things you mention will come into play.

Regarding your 2.5 million year ice age, this has no meaning. The only issue is where we are today and how we live, versus how things will be in the future and if we must adjust our ways of living. As I stated in my post, I don't care if climate change is Earth's or man's doing; I only care if we identify a potential that we respond appropriately.

If and when climate change effects are bad enough to force human migration, this will not be a good time for people. So be careful what you wish...

 

I mentioned population this way; "Now...take all of the above buffered against a growing Earth population forecasted to be 10 billion by 2050, and without being an alarmist, the collective we are in big trouble soon...like between tomorrow and the next 40 years!"

I suppose we can assume that population growth, on it's own merits, like all the other resources mentioned, is not really finite. Because we can reproduce. We do have the capability to sustain and grow the population.

But obviously when some of those resources begin to crumble, they will take an external toll on population.

I'd say we're basically screwed! We're incapable of finding consensus on these issues. We're incapable of being proactive. The USA would rather bully and bomb the world rather than force dialogue about sustaining Earth...

 

Your words exemplify why we are doomed...

 

This is precisely why I always say the collective we have reached the Peter Principle...

 

Peak this, that, or the other.

As long as the answer seems to be "More Government" the subject is automatically politicized.

Get government out of the way and the politics go away.

 

All forms of energy. We'll always be able to create alternative forms of energy so long as the free market demands it. You have nothing to worry about.

No such thing. We effectively have an infinte amount of water.

There are more trees on the planet than there were 100 years ago.
Trees are a renewable resource. They're not going anywhere.

Say what?

Fortunately for you the evidence that climate change is caused by humans isn't credible, so there's no point in worrying about it.

No we're not. Overpopulation is a lie that the media feeds the public and they are all to willing to accept based on faith, requiring zero proof. Overpopulation only is a problem when its coupled with socialism.

Nonsense. Are you referring to intelligence or education? Intelligence can't be measured quantitatively so I don't know how you're coming to this conclusion aside from feel good opinions that rely on zero facts.

That indeed would be a very serious crisis.

 

I have noticed the same over the past twenty(20) years. Yes, for that long. Mind you, I am only forty-two(42) years old.

 

How can you mitigate critical issues that are effecting all citizens if you don't involve the government to some degree?

And, as these critical issues unfold, this increases the security risks to the nation...it weakens the nation.

Government does not need to equal BS politics. PEOPLE cause BS politics...not the government process...

 

The collective we claim to be evolved and intelligent but in reality we barely have one foot out of the primordial muck...

 

With draught conditions around the USA today, is it possible to experience another Dust Bowl?

 

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/01/weve-hit-peak-oil-now-comes-permanent-price-volatility/

EXCERPT;

Since 2005, the global production of oil has remained relatively flat, peaking in 2008 and declining since, even as demand for petroleum has continued to increase. The result has been wild fluctuations in the price of oil as small changes in demand set off large shocks in the system.

In today's issue of Nature, two authors (the University of Washington's James Murray and Oxford's David King) argue that this sort of volatility will be all we can expect from here on out—and we're likely to face it with other fossil fuels, as well.

Limited supply
The notion of peak oil is a fairly simple one: oil is a finite resource and, at some point, we simply won't be able to extract as much as we had previously. There really is no getting around that limit for any finite resource. The issue that has made peak oil contentious, however, is the debate over when we might actually hit it. Murray and King are not the first to conclude that, even as the arguments were still going on, we had already passed oil's peak. Even though prices have gone up by about 15 percent per year since 2005, production has been largely flat.

The strongest argument against this being a real peak is the increasing volume of petroleum reserves reported by many countries. Even assuming those estimates were reliable (which the authors aren't entirely certain about), these reserves have clearly not enabled increased production. In the US, for example, production as a percentage of total reserves has dropped from nine percent to six percent over the last three decades.

"We are not running out of oil," the authors argue, "but we are running out of oil that can be produced easily and cheaply." This creates significant delays before any of the new reserves can be tapped, and it limits the amount of oil that can be economically extracted from them.

Non-conventional sources like oil sands have the potential to contribute to the global supply but, so far at least, they haven't managed to do so; current production estimates indicate that they won't any time soon.

 

Reference; http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/how-much-water-is-available/#.T_RYEzDC-54.facebook

Excerpt;

Furthermore, most of this water is unusable to humans, because we need freshwater to survive, and 98 percent of that large bubble is saline. The much smaller blue sphere over Kentucky – by comparison, about 169.5 miles in diameter – represents the world’s liquid freshwater, including groundwater, lakes, swamp water, and rivers. However, 99 percent of that bubble is groundwater, much of which is not accessible to humans.

Water is another finite resource. Continued population growth and climate changes only exacerbate this limited resource...