The past is past as will be the present shortly. Demand for just about everything will increase as time moves forward barring something major.

It is reasonable to assume costs per individual may accelerate beyond increases in income for the vast majority. Actual lack of availability is also a possibility as well.

Some people will change lifestyles and others will resist. Part of life is actually living through the changes and adjusting. I suspect we already generallly do this anyways. The only thing certain is change after all.

Man has been fully cognizant that natural resources of many types are limited but acts in general like they are not. We seem not even able to sustain the fisheries on a world wide level with todays population.

I am not sure of the politics but fishing was seriously curtailed many years ago in our area. The fish population seems unable to rebound. This was not an expected outcome. I still see it as a danger sign that for whatever reason nature is not as predictable as we thought. It seems almost that once a critical mass has been reduced to less than a certain level the normal expected repacement activity seems to cease.

Same with lumbering. It is good the demand currently is not too high as almost everything to harvest is gone. The replanting was just lip service with no really serious attempt to replace what is harvested.

Man seems to have developed more technology than common sense. He still wants to take everything he can with no thought of the future. Many natural resouce dependant companies have already closed up operations for lack of raw materials.

The country that gets a clearer picture of the future and acts accordingly should in general do better. I personally would like to see north america take the lead. Right now it looks more like a state of denial exists instead and will be hard to turn around. For example Canada and the United States share the great lakes. One of the largest available bodies of freshwater in the world. The polution levels just seem to rise and rise. The current thinking is it can be reversed when it becomes a requirement to do so. What if it will not respond? We may be playing with dynamite over the medium haul even. The reduction of availability of even common natural resources may be felt sooner than later now. I am not an eco freak but do see that we are counting on too many things based on older understandings. These understanding may prove badly flawed.

Better yet pm me for my mailing adress and send it along.

It may, but that doesn't change the big picture. Whether there are 200 million rich individuals causing most of the damage to the planet out of a population of 7000 million or 300 million out of a population of 10000 million (or whatever the specifics are), the wealthy are causing disproportionately more damage than everyone else. Comapling because there are a few thousand billion more poor people when a hundred million rich people cause just as much if not more damage is not a population problem. If the damage was evenly distributed and pretty much independent of income then it would be a population problem, but until then it's a resource consumption problem caused by a relatively small portion of the world population.

I agree, just saying that the relative number of relatively wealthy individuals will increase and the rate of resource consumption will increase faster than the overall population.

You got it!

Because there are none so blind as those who will not see...

Just more of the usual leftoid blame the bad capitalist crap. Clearly written by people who have no clue about actual enviromental conditions in the third world and the effect of the "poor" on the environment. Another typical western liberal angst filled polemic so removed from reality as to have no meaning outside of ivory towers and the coctail party circuit.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

Yeah, no. If you have anything specific you think is incorrect, feel free to post it up.

Otherwise, your posts are "Just more of the usual leftoid blame the bad capitalist crap. Clearly written by people who have no clue about actual enviromental conditions in the third world and the effect of the "poor" on the environment. Another typical western liberal angst filled polemic so removed from reality as to have no meaning outside of ivory towers and the coctail party circuit."

Everything, starting with the facile assumption that human civilization can progress without damaging the enviroment, that you can remove "deforestation" from the equation and that "mangrove swamps" are somehow as vital to environmental balance as the curbing of massive industrial pollution, and that the big bad capitalists are forcing all the nature loving swamp dwellers to destroy their mangroves so they can eat shrimp. It's the same drivvle that's been spewed forth for decades by the anti western mob. It's not remotely scientific and it's relevance is exclusively to the academic coctail party circuit.

- Peter.

__________________
2021 Chevrolet Spark
Formerly...
2000 GMC Sonoma
1981 240D 4spd stick. 347000 miles. Deceased Feb 14 2021
2002 Kia Rio. Worst crap on four wheels
1981 240D 4spd stick. 389000 miles.
1984 123 200
1979 116 280S
1972 Cadillac Sedan DeVille
1971 108 280S

There's no assumption that human civilization can do it's thing w/o any damage to the environment, however minimizing costs otoh isn't a bad idea, especially if we're looking at stuff that isn't "mission critical", like shrimp farming.

And no, there are no "bad bad capitalists", just *******s and dumbasses. The people buying the shrimp are *******s, because if they were really capitalists they would pay for and own the levelized costs of mangrove destruction (capitalize the externalized costs) like soil erosion and increased damage from storms, but they don't because it's cheaper for them to socialize those costs. The people who are providing the shrimp are either *******s because they aren't charging for the externalized costs to make themselves rich or are dumbasses because they don't know they should charging for the externalized costs.

Besides, this isn't anti-western, this is anti-rich. A homeless person living off hand-outs and garbage is as western as anyone else, but they aren't the ones causing most of the trouble. Even the working class guy commuting 20 miles a day in his econobox isn't that bad. It's the rich mofos flying to Hawaii (or where-ever) every weekend to have shrimp and caviar, and that is not a uniquely western thing.

Who is 'WE'?
..Hitler tried to reduce the earths population.
The thought of Americans (if this is your plan) believing they should monitor and control other country's populations..is just plain ill.

__________________
CHILCUTT~
The secret to a long life. Is knowing when it is time to leave.