"Green" Construction

No it doesn't.

It is obvious that human freedom and prosperity can be optimized by reducing the population, and I have been advocating that for decades. However, you need to learn a little math before you jump into the fray---your statement makes no sense.

-tg

Agreed, the poster's math is meaningless, but the concept is the main and most important issue. Overpopulation is the issue, more than anything else. The earth currently supports many times the number of people that it should, and as a result as population grows unchecked, the quality of life declines for *all* people.

You are quite right. Assuming a child is born at age 20, and you both live to age 80, the correct statement is that every child you have increases you ecological footprint by 66%. This is because it takes two people to have a child, so you personally only get dinged for half the damage an additional human does.

If we had a nicely declining population, we would have an adequate supply of housing for a long time. However, it is already too late for birth control to save any remnant of a natural planet. Doesn't building houses for the species responsible for destroying nature and calling it "green" strike you as a bit ironic?

That's nutty!

Then why are so many dense populations iprosperous and so many sparse populations impoverished?

So what? Carbon is good, it's plant food - and human production of CO2 is minisclue compared to natural sources.

You need to get dinged upside the head!

By what standard? What is the population that the earth "should" support?

re: population limits

Apparently Malthus ultimately prevails

The situation will probably not change, although credit China for its efforts, because it's disliked for it's restriction to one child, and allegedly women are in shortage because of it, so it hasn't worked well

The RCC will change--it eventually does but usually post facto after the damages are done

So, the Bush II regressive politiks does what it does, and i presume whatever progress that Clintonism brought about has been gutted by prevailing reactionary GOP politiks

The irony is his kin/grandmother was allegedly an ardent Planned Parenthood official type

huh? care to post an example. Say for a dense population we use India? Care to name a sparse population that will show this is true? Remember, not just number of people per square KM, but a low number of people that can be supported on that KM.

Since Malthus has been wrong for 200 years (and he refuted his earlier work), apparently he DIDN'T prevail.

You can remove your head from your ass any time now.

Why not?

Why do you feel the need to tell others how to live?

Evidently you haven't been watching the trends over the past couple decades.

That's not surprising given the thuggish tendencies of your sort.

Why don't you go first and exterminate yourself?

Go ahead...please.

Every prosperous population on the planet maintains its wealth by using up irreplaceable resources. Many of those resources could be conserved if the planet's population was reduced to between 750 million and 1.5 billion people.

Carbon is only one small part of the damage you are doing. In the USA alone, one million acres a year disappears under concrete and asphalt. That represents the total ecological destruction of that land. You will have been dead a thousand years and the survivors will still be dealing with the destruction you and your kind have done. Fisheries are collapsing. Large areas of the oceans on every continental shelf are turning into dead zones where nothing lives. This is all because there are too many people for the planet to support. Everything is running down and dying. Nothing is getting better. Do you see a trend there, or are you too stupid to open your eyes?

You need to be castrated.

Short term, one sided, personal economic sense perhaps, but not for society as a whole.

Please, let's not bring in myths, legends and fantasy into this discussion.

Good point. But why does that woman who had four kids feel it necessary to tell me that my Hummer is the problem?

Which ones. Probably haven't!

Reality is the issue. The earth is a limited resource.

Sure... Show me the way.

yep! Go for it. Read Soylent Green... (Or watch the movie if you can find it.)

Another clueless boob who thinks he isn't the one destroying the planet.

Unlimited growth is the philosophy of the cancer cell. Eventually it kills the organism that spawned it.

Because if they keep doing what they are doing, they will kill everyone.

Which trends? The sea dying? Starvation increasing? Food reserves vanishing? Which trends did you have in mind?

Ah, the attacks begin.

There you go! Your kind believes the only solution is murder. You are willing to kill rather than restrain yourself.

When your children and grandchildren are sinking into desperate poverty and struggling for life, remember that you were the one who promoted it.

We can ship food around the world to ameliorate the effects of drought and pestilence, but world food reserves are running on empty. Farmers around the world are responding to economic uncertainty by reducing the input of fertilizer on their crops. This will result in a (currently unknown) reduction in world food supply. Large seed companies like Cargill have been funding planting in Brazil and other South American countries. Due to the credit crunch, Cargill does not have the funds to do that this year. Up front planting funding in Brazil has been cut by

You sound like a clueless urbanoid who thinks food comes from the supermarket.