Biggest story of our time: our self-extinction by Mark Steyn

[lehighguy]

Would it matter if thier civilization died out because they didn't have kids?

Civilizations, races, nations, etc. aren't people. They don't have feelings. They don't have good days or bad days. Why do we care what happens to them?

We could have forced breeding pits if we wanted, it would increase birth rates. Would it make people happier?

Overall I think it's good for the planet that there are less of us. Normally, when a species overpopulates evolution finds a way to set things back to normal, perhaps this is jsut evolution.

[Dr. Strangelove]

That birth rates are declining in many developed nations is a very good thing. It means that the human population might actually level off (something that logically must occur) without very bad things happening.

[lehighguy]

I think of it like this:

The wealthier and more educated people are, the more of the earth resources they consume. But, conversly, the wealthier and more educated they are the more likely they won't have kids.

Seems like a good balancing effect.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think of it like this:

The wealthier and more educated people are, the more of the earth resources they consume. But, conversly, the wealthier and more educated they are the more likely they won't have kids.

Seems like a good balancing effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wealthier and more educated people may consume more but they also produce more and spend far more on reducing pollution. I'm not a fan of every American having some sort of moral right to drive a Hummer but our (and most developed nations) rivers and air are cleaner than those in most overpopulated and poor nations. And it's not even close.

~ Rick

[lehighguy]

The rivers and air in these countries are polluted because they are producing goods consumed in the wealthy countries.

A good example is non-renewable resources. Wealthy countries consume more oil, more minerals, more of everything really. Even if they are more efficient at it, they still consume more.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
The rivers and air in these countries are polluted because they are producing goods consumed in the wealthy countries.

A good example is non-renewable resources. Wealthy countries consume more oil, more minerals, more of everything really. Even if they are more efficient at it, they still consume more.

[/ QUOTE ]

For a cleaner environment I suggest a vibrant, first world economy. Wealthy = cleaner, and it's not even close.

If energy efficiency is your yardstick then you'll find that the US is near the top in economic output / unit of energy consumed. The third world is miles behind by this metric.

But if you simply wish to bash the West, don't let any facts get in your way.

[lehighguy]

Energy efficieny is not my yardstick. Energy CONSUMPTION is what I'm talking about.

If your ten times as efficient, but you use 50 times as much, your still consuming alot more.


* The United States, with less than 5 % of the global population, uses about a quarter of the world’s fossil fuel resources—burning up nearly 25 % of the coal, 26 % of the oil, and 27 % of the world’s natural gas.
* As of 2003, the U.S. had more private cars than licensed drivers, and gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles were among the best-selling vehicles.
* New houses in the U.S. were 38 % bigger in 2002 than in 1975, despite having fewer people per household on average.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
That birth rates are declining in many developed nations is a very good thing. It means that the human population might actually level off (something that logically must occur) without very bad things happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be even more desirable to have stable populations in developed nations and a decline in the growth rate of undeveloped nations?

~ Rick

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]


Wouldn't it be even more desirable to have stable populations in developed nations and a decline in the growth rate of undeveloped nations?



[/ QUOTE ]You know it in your heart that this is not how things will turn out at all.

[DVO]

Everyone is tap dancing around the un - PC issue here, which is that at today's growth rates, Muslim populations will come to dominate in Europe and elsewhere in the next few decades. This is Steyn's concern and he has written about it frequently.

Lots of good things have come from Judeo-Christian culture in the past few hundred years. Advances in science, freedom for women and minorities, religious tolerance, economic growth and opportunity, the list goes on.

I don't see a lot of evidence of such progress within Muslim - dominated areas of the world. And of course the small minority of Muslim radicals within the faith are causing untold misery everywhere.

Brand me a racist, whatever, I don't care. As Churchill said, "get these brutal truths in your head."

I hope these trends somehow reverse themselves, but I don't see that happening.