| > How does "we don't need to use virgin wilderness" equate to "let's pave and plow every single inch of the planet"? Be specific. Virtual all arable land is already cultivated and grazable pasture is cowburnt now with population 7B. The notion that it's not a problem to scale up because we can just keep chopping down rainforests for lumber, soy and palm oil plantations etc is sickening. No, agriculture doesn't need wilderness, but the inhabitants of earth do. > I'll repeat what I said to the other guy: you first. I have << 2.1 children; I've done my part. > In fact, virtually every advanced society is either population-neutral or actually losing people. So what? The rest of the world is churning out babies and are more than eager to move. Overpopulation is a global problem. Arithmetic again. Mathematically and physically of course population growth will end at some point. But it's the major driver of all the major social, environmental, and political problems facing nations and the earth today, and it's the easiest one to do something about. Do you think that population growth just slowed down by magic? In developed countries, family planning is universally accessible. In developing countries where overpopulation is most acute, countries with well-run organized population programs like Thailand, Iran, and China have been extremely successful at managing population growth and have reaped the benefits. |
You're clearly more interested in preaching that listening to what I say.
Technology increases the yield from current land. By a lot. Thus reducing the need to "pave and plow" more of the planet.
The United States, for instance, has considerably more forest now than it did at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Where do you actually see slash-and-burn agriculture and similar wilderness-destroying methods of farming? Bingo: in the low-tech peasant farming operations that you and the other guy hold out as models.