Why are Progressives ignoring overpopulation?

The 'Congress' is part of that 'too stupid to do better' group! If we're talking about population growth and exhausting resources and polluting atmosphere and climate change, etc. it will be too late for government to do much...

 

Whence any claim to capitalism in public venues; even with the resources of our republic and an official Mint at their disposal, especially under our form of alleged Capitalism?

 

Traditional economists despite their heel dragging are being dimly forced to realize that growth in the population and economy just isn't sustainable.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/11/21-4

 

Simple logic says that Earth cannot happily accommodate an infinite number of humans. Next we need to define 'happily accommodate' but generally this might mean shelter, food, potable water, waste control, disease control, energy, and a friendly atmosphere. We probably also will need a form of economy which allows us to be consumers. Then we can look both at the Earth as a single entity and at our local situations; obviously an ice glacier at the North Pole is not going to be much help to those living in Central America, just as the Amazon River doesn't help those living in the Arabian Desert. Mass migrations are possible but at huge costs...and if population is too large there won't be a place to migrate. Which of the 'happy accommodations' are going to hit the fan first...who knows? Several don't wish to acknowledge but our atmospheric conditions with effects on oceans and land might sneak up on us while we ignore this potential? Potable water is critical to life and economy yet how much potable water supplies have been added in the past 20-30 years? I think most everyone is dragging their heels...

 

I find your comments kind of humoristic, since you usually are a fervent "anti-choice" person!

I believe it is the PROGRESSIVES who are in favor of letting a woman decide whether or not to bring another new life in this world.

I also believe it is the progressives who support SEX EDUCATION and AVAILABILITY of birth control to EVERYONE. . .including those women who can't afford it!

Yes, progressives have not made it a focus of their policies to go in countries where we do not belong and PUSH for birth control, or sex education. . .

So. . .are the "traditional, Christian Right evangelical missionaries" known to address "overpopulation" in the countries (including Africa) where they believe it is their "mission" to spread the good word?

I don't think so!

By the way. . .it is also the progressives who support the right for homosexual to marry AND to have children, either their own or through adoption.

I guess. . .that is also in some way a means to reduce the fast growing world population! Having ONLY children who are wanted (and obviously, homosexual having to go through artificial insemination or surrogates to have a child) or children who are ALREADY BORN and are unwanted by everyone. . .but homosexual parents and parents who can't conceive!

 

All population growth means is that we need better infrastructure to make it more sustainable.

 

What kind of infrastructure do you contemplate for 100 billion people?

 

I don't think you will have to worry about 100 billion people. With the use of antibiotics in food sources (livestock) and the fact that the FDA has approved the sale of Asian seafood fed on pig dung ... we will suffer a major disease outbreak of Biblical proportions before too long.

Bowerbird can probably attest to the fact that more and more bacteria are becoming disease resistant.

 

I know the good folks over on the nuclear forum Brave New Climate would tell you that after they got their waste eater nuclear power systems in place that the heat by product of their nuclear power plants would be available for desalination and water recycling to a pretty much unlimited degree. They really think they have the potable water availability problem covered, nuke style.

My guess is they haven't quite worked out the problem of when their going for the water ends and the water going for them begins. Well I have heard about the plan to build some nukes on water rafts so they can move them around where needed..

 

how about transporters and food replicators?

 

Is this some kind of Star Trek inspired solution?

 

ok; how about underground maglev in a vacuum environment and hydroponics in multistory buildings?

 

Sounds like someone is playing civilization

 

I'm a farmer and the approximate 100 square miles in which I live is mostly farming. This area has created a great economy and basically supports about 750,000 residents and local industry. We already have water issues, have been told we can't take more water, and so far this year it's the driest on record. In essence, we teeter between sustaining and failure! Right now the trend is leaning towards failure yet we have done nothing to create more water supply. A little more drought, some warming, and we can be a big trouble within months. Creating more water might require years! People will not allow nuclear power plants around here so that's a moot point for us. It would be great if some focus was placed on desalinization plants since we have the Pacific Ocean at our services...

 

Well I live in the Santa Cruz county area which has better than average local water resources due to the heavily redwooded Santa Cruz mountains. But we are running short of potable water and along with severe water conservation desalination is being considered. The ocean is both good and bad. Good because it theoretically supplies an unlimited source of water if we go ahead with desalination and bad because it becomes the source of salt water intrusion as we draw deeply on our coastal wells. This video gives folks some flavor of the challenges.

http://www.scwd2desal.org/

 

Even command economy games like Caesar III can demonstrate the productivity potential of any public sector to provide intervention in private sector markets to supply better governance at lower cost.

 

You would be surprised how going "vertical" can save you time, money, and aggravation. You may want to look into the latest in water reclamation technologies.

 

Do you have a stream on your property you could dam up? I have often thought about this myself. Dig a pretty deep pond on both sides of the stream and build a small dam to back the water up. If done during the dry season maybe no one will notice and once the pond fills the stream will run as usual. Then you could possibly have water during dry spells to pump.

 

3-4 years ago when driving through the Central Valley it was obvious there is a huge water issue. Farms as far as the eye can see were dried up and basically dead. Old mature nut orchards turned to kindling. Lots of extreme hate signs towards Obama and government for allowing this to happen. Most people in the US don't give a rip about this but the CV provides something like 60% of all produce in the USA. The largest aquifer in the US is slowly going dry and it supplies all the states from Montana to Texas. We're about 10-12 miles from the ocean as the Seagull flies and I've often wondered if it's possible for salt water to intrude the local water supplies...which are primarily shallow to deep private wells?

Long ago Percival Lowell was observing Mars and assumed the planet was crisscrossed with canals to transport water...was there once life and did it perish? I can imagine in a few hundred years another young astronomer gazing upon Earth and seeing a similar construct of canals, only to find life had also perished. I'd like to see another 1000 fresh water reservoirs in the US, plus desalinization plants, with a canal/pipeline distribution system transporting potable water to all areas of the US...

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not interested...I'm only interested in preserving the land as it has been for centuries. This is where I work and live. Perhaps in other areas, if they have the water and cash to invest, they can consider wide-scale vertical farming...

 

Yes we do have a stream but the State of CA won't allow us to dam the water. In fact we can't even dig water retention ponds on the property to collect rainfall which falls on our own property. According to the State, they calculate ALL water supplies, and this is factored into their water provisions policy. Also, the State is concerned about fish spawning and the fish take precedent over providing water for farming. We also have a pond created by a dam on the stream but the pond dries during the summer months when we need it most...

 

It is more about better control over your resources. Having a consistent water supply can be critical for some farmers.

 

Farming is certainly important

We already have water issues, have been told we can't take more water, and so far this year it's the driest on record. In essence, we teeter between sustaining and failure!

Since you have an absurd policy in California where heavily water consuming crops like rice are grown thereby depleting available resources in a Semi Arid climate.

Stop growing such water intensive crops then. Switch to Almonds, Dates, Saffron, Pomegranates,Maize, Wheat, Olives and Pistachios

..

So you want heavily electricty using desalination plants to grow your rice but no nuclear power is allowed.

 

And people wonder why I moved to a "backward" State like Alabama.

- - - Updated - - -

You may be able to start a fish farm just to have water.

 

"Why are Progressives ignoring overpopulation?"

Simple, it's a subject that few people are willing to talk about openly.

When I was born, the population of Earth was approximately 2.3 billion, a third of today's 7 billion, but even in those days, multi millions were starving.
Nothing much changes apart from the numbers.

 

It isn't progressives, but the right that insists on "arresting" our development to the Iron Age. The left knows overpopulation merely means we need to upgrade our infrastructure.