[MP-Ryan]

Granted, I'm not a demographer, but I've taken a few demography courses.  The credible consensus is that the world's population will peak within the next 25 years and then decline to stable numbers, at roughly the 8 billion (IIRC) mark.

This is due to two factors:  (1) low fertility in the developed world, and (2) an imminent shift in the developing world to a more developed state.  Essentially, children go from being an economic asset in a developing economy to an economic liability in a developed economy, which is the single largest reason why parents in developed countries have fewer children (usually just around replacement).  What is now the developed world went through this shift in the 1950s-1960s; the signs of it occurring in the developing world started a while back and are slowly increasing.

Regardless of the details, the population explosion that the Chicken Little's of the world are keen to predict is seen as a complete fallacy by most demographers.

And there is no doubt that the lifestyle common in Western societies is unsustainable - our economic system is based largely on the extension of credit (which we're already seen tank) and the myth of technology solving all the world's ills is rapidly being proven as such.  Technology may keep the standard of living high, but the days of mass consumerism are numbered.  This is not to say that "green" initiatives are going to solve the world's ills either - most "green" initiatives are opportunistic bunk propagated by people who see it as a way to make some serious money quickly.  The "organic" food nonsense is completely unsustainable too (and bad for the environment to boot).

Most of us are liable to see a large shift in lifestyle within our lifetimes - not necessarily tumultuous or in a short timeframe, but dramatic in scope.  Water, not oil, is the resource most likely to drive it.

[Kosh]

Glad someone is more optimistic about this than I am. I don't have that much faith in technology.

Because of science and technology we have reliable, clean drinking water and lifespans have doubled in 100 years. It's also because of science and technology that, with the exception of world war 1 and 2, the western world has completely done away with famine. When you read about some poor africans or whoever that don't have clean water or whatever, it's because they dont have the technology we do.

the western lifestyle is completely sustainable... for a smaller population,

Again, you're making assumptions based on current technologies.

our economic system is based largely on the extension of credit

While this is true in the US, in several western Euro countries this has not been the case. And even so, 30 years ago we when credit was definately not cheap, we still had a very high standard of living far above and beyond the rest of the world.

the myth of technology solving all the world's ills is rapidly being proven as such.

Like what?

[Sushi]

Responding in several different directions at once...

I was unaware that I lived a "Hyper Luxurious" life style.  The non-sustainable part only comes in because we're brainwashed to replace EVERYTHING once a decade or so.  We're fixing to bring in this years harvest using a combine that is almost as old as I am.

I guess I can't speak for you, but I know that I definitely am. Like most Americans, I have shelter, I have work, I have enough food that I can afford to glut myself to the point of obesity AND still waste most of it. I have so much stuff that is so far beyond basic necessities that calling it anything but a luxury is unthinkable. I have access to practically all of human knowledge at my fingertips. I may not be able to buy absolutely everything money can buy, but like most Americans, a heck of a lot of it is within reach. I live so comfortably that I can afford to engage in pointless debates and arguments in an obscure corner of the internet dedicated to shuffling around bits to build and explore imaginary worlds. Naturally, what constitutes "luxury" is in the eye of the beholder, but compared to almost all of the world and almost all of human history, I've got it very, very, very, very good. When the poorest Americans can still afford an ipod, cellphone, and/or a TV, we live in luxury.

The "organic" food nonsense is completely unsustainable too (and bad for the environment to boot).

I agree with you about the "Green" stuff, and I also agree that a lot of "organic" produce falls into the same category of "trend-of-the-day" capitalist opportunism, but could you please clarify this? Why exactly is organic food (in and of itself) unsustainable and bad for the environment?

Glad someone is more optimistic about this than I am. I don't have that much faith in technology.

Because of science and technology we have reliable, clean drinking water and lifespans have doubled in 100 years. It's also because of science and technology that, with the exception of world war 1 and 2, the western world has completely done away with famine. When you read about some poor africans or whoever that don't have clean water or whatever, it's because they dont have the technology we do.

the western lifestyle is completely sustainable... for a smaller population,

Again, you're making assumptions based on current technologies.

Let me clarify. I don't have anything against technology. More specifically, I am not confident that technology is going to continue to develop at the pace that it has, and not confident that it will develop quickly enough or completely enough to solve all of the problems that are bearing down on us. It might. But then again, it might not. I'm not willing to bet on it. Just because technology has been progressing rapidly for a few centuries doesn't mean that it will continue to do so. And even if it does, I am not at all confident in our ability as humans to properly handle such technology and stay well-adjusted, capable people able to keep technological progress moving forward. We might. But then again, we might not... I submit the amount of time wasted on Facebook (and forums like this) as evidence of the latter.

[Kosh]

More specifically, I am not confident that technology is going to continue to develop at the pace that it has, and not confident that it will develop quickly enough or completely enough to solve all of the problems that are bearing down on us. It might. But then again, it might not. I'm not willing to bet on it.

I've heard this kind of arguement before, though mostly from peak oil doomsayers. Contrary to popular belief, the rate of technological advance isn't slowing down or even staying the same, it's increasing. While it is true that specific technologies do plateau after short bursts of activity, the overall rate still goes up exponentially because other breakthrough techs come along.

[karajorma]

I agree with you about the "Green" stuff, and I also agree that a lot of "organic" produce falls into the same category of "trend-of-the-day" capitalist opportunism, but could you please clarify this? Why exactly is organic food (in and of itself) unsustainable and bad for the environment?

In a world where people die from lack of food, a system like organic farming which produces less food per acre than more industrialised systems is obviously going to be unsustainable.

Ironically the exact same sort of person who pushes organic food would be horrified if they ever realised that the only way the 3rd world can have organic food (briefly) would be to cut down all the rainforest to grow food. And we all know why that isn't sustainable.

There are a lot more reasons it's bad for the environment but the simple fact that it needs more land than other methods should show why it isn't a luxury we can afford if we are talking about running out of resources.

[Nuke]

its not so much about technology as it is about infrastructure. things like communications (phone, radio, tv, internet), energy(electricity, fuel), water, sanitation (sewage/garbage), transportation (roads, bridges, airports, seaports, trains) and the like that are required for developing countries to be developed. technology only determines what can be done with the infrastructure. the infrastructure is what brings the resources to the people, and without it no level of technology will improve the quality of life. technology might let you make better use of the infrastructure but its not a replacement in most cases.

[Liberator]

And the 3rd world is too busy killing each other for the rest of us to go in and provide them an infrastructure.

[Bobboau]

I just don't see so many people changing there habits so dramatically in such a short time.

[General Battuta]

And the 3rd world is too busy killing each other for the rest of us to go in and provide them an infrastructure.

Really? That's odd, I thought we were too busy killing them.

[Dilmah G]

Well they seemed to have got the job done themselves well enough in places like Darfur.

[Kosh]

And the 3rd world is too busy killing each other for the rest of us to go in and provide them an infrastructure.

Really? That's odd, I thought we were too busy killing them.

No.

[General Battuta]

And the 3rd world is too busy killing each other for the rest of us to go in and provide them an infrastructure.

Really? That's odd, I thought we were too busy killing them.

No.

On the grand scale of things, not that significant.

Bear in mind I bludgeoned my way through enough years of high school and college Model UN to have a great idea of exactly how ****ed up the third world is and how it got that way. What's fascinating is exactly how culpable European colonialism was in creating most of these awful situations.

You also have not the slightest sense of humor.

[Dilmah G]

You also have not the slightest sense of humor.

Well to be fair Battuta,

A) This is the internet.
B) Smileys exist for a reason.

[General Battuta]

You also have not the slightest sense of humor.

Well to be fair Battuta,

A) This is the internet.
B) Smileys exist for a reason.

he rides across the nation
the thoroughbred of sin
he got the application
that you just sent in

it needs evaluation
so let the games begin
a heinous crime, a show of force
a murder would be nice of course

bad horse
bad horse
bad horse
he’s bad

the Evil League of Evil
is watching so beware
the grade that you receive
will be your last we swear

so make the Bad Horse gleeful
or he’ll make you his mare...

[Dilmah G]

Dude, no-one quotes Doctor Horrible seriously.

Your previous statement on the other hand could quite easily have been interpreted as serious. A fact you must be aware of since two of us here ended up doing so, and so I'll leave you to it.

[Sushi]

You also have not the slightest sense of humor.

Well to be fair Battuta,

A) This is the internet.
B) Smileys exist for a reason.

he rides across the nation
the thoroughbred of sin
he got the application
that you just sent in

it needs evaluation
so let the games begin
a heinous crime, a show of force
a murder would be nice of course

bad horse
bad horse
bad horse
he’s bad

the Evil League of Evil
is watching so beware
the grade that you receive
will be your last we swear

so make the Bad Horse gleeful
or he’ll make you his mare...

[Kosh]

And the 3rd world is too busy killing each other for the rest of us to go in and provide them an infrastructure.

Really? That's odd, I thought we were too busy killing them.

No.

On the grand scale of things, not that significant.

Bear in mind I bludgeoned my way through enough years of high school and college Model UN to have a great idea of exactly how ****ed up the third world is and how it got that way. What's fascinating is exactly how culpable European colonialism was in creating most of these awful situations.

You also have not the slightest sense of humor.

Unlike you I've actually lived in the third world as well as reading a great deal about its history.


And really, it's hard to tell when you're joking without 's

[Sushi]

[StarSlayer]

And the 3rd world is too busy killing each other for the rest of us to go in and provide them an infrastructure.

Really? That's odd, I thought we were too busy killing them.

No.

On the grand scale of things, not that significant.

Bear in mind I bludgeoned my way through enough years of high school and college Model UN to have a great idea of exactly how ****ed up the third world is and how it got that way. What's fascinating is exactly how culpable European colonialism was in creating most of these awful situations.

You also have not the slightest sense of humor.

Unlike you I've actually lived in the third world as well as reading a great deal about its history.


And really, it's hard to tell when you're joking without 's

He saw the operation
you tried to pull today
but your humiliation
means he still votes "neigh"!
And now assassination
is just the only way.

There will be blood,
it might be yours.
So go kill someone.
Signed, Bad Horse.

[General Battuta]

And the 3rd world is too busy killing each other for the rest of us to go in and provide them an infrastructure.

Really? That's odd, I thought we were too busy killing them.

No.

On the grand scale of things, not that significant.

Bear in mind I bludgeoned my way through enough years of high school and college Model UN to have a great idea of exactly how ****ed up the third world is and how it got that way. What's fascinating is exactly how culpable European colonialism was in creating most of these awful situations.

You also have not the slightest sense of humor.

Unlike you I've actually lived in the third world as well as reading a great deal about its history.


And really, it's hard to tell when you're joking without 's

I doubt you live in Sierra Leone. Watch out for generalizations - wherever the **** you live is probably not representative of the entire Third World.

You don't make a great argument when you link to a Wikipedia page describing a war that's killed 200,000 people in eleven years when we're just wrapping up a pair of wars that have killed (conservatively) 100,000 people or so in a similar timeframe - though some estimates say many more.

There are many problems with the Third World, but you need to resist the urge to simplify them to point causes. The fallout of the colonial era is still being played out, and like most bad things it's a very complex problem with a lot of self-perpetuating feedback.

I got into college on the strength of a paper I wrote for the US Institute of Peace, performing a differential analysis of what made Third World nations successful in the modern era. Colonial history was one of the most critical determinants.

Then of course there's the absurdity of saying the Third World is busy killing itself when violent conflict is at such a low.