Previous  1  2  3

I believe there is some confusion about the points I was trying to make.<br /> <br /> I am not implying that everyone should live as hutterites in Canada.<br /> <br /> I was also very much aware that my math included areas like lakes, rivers, mountains, etc. Nor did it take into account things like the need for other structures such as hospitals, schools, roads, etc. which would be required for a large centralized population.<br /> <br /> I will attempt to clarify my positions:<br /> <br /> 1. The use of hutterites was simply to illustrate that there are other forms of distribution than our current one of consumerisitic "survival of the fittest". Just because it happens to be the model our civilization uses doesn't mean that it's the only possibility or even the best model. My ultimate point was that our redistribution of wealth was very poor and is most likely a greater contributing factor to hunger than overpopulation or lack of resources.<br /> <br /> 2. My point regarding the area of Canada is that, theoretically, you could move everyone on the Earth into an area the size of Canada (with room to spare) and use the rest of the planet for food production. That way, localized environmental changes (or natural disasters) would have a limited effect on our food supply. I only used Canada to give readers a visual idea of the size required (and Canada is way larger than the maximum size required to give every human a 5000 square foot lot). Naturally, I would much rather live in a temperate zone than Ellesmere <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> <br /> <br /> I believe that trying to limit who can have babies or who can come into this country ends up villifying our species as the cause of these perceived problems when the reality is that the way we govern ourselves and our planet that is the true source of the problem. The symptoms that are being falsely attributed to overpopulation are actually symptoms of greed and control by those who do not want to lose their power or share it.<br /> <br /> I'm sorry but I simply don't buy the fear-mongering. The belief that we have to empower our leadership to make procreational decisions for everyone is a far more suicidal fantasy than anything I've suggested.

   

Japan and Germany have shown that we don't need government to make population control decisions. What it takes is a change in cultural attitudes which doesn't make having lots of children something that we congratulate people on rather than question and conndemn.<br /> The intrusion of government into our lives is directly porportionat to polpulation. The more people the more regulation it takes to stop us from stepping on each other's toes. When the ratio of game to people was great, hunting and fishing regulations were totaly unnecccesary. You could build a home in the bush and affect no one, and consequently no one would bother tyou about it.The same applies to other government intrusioins into our lives. Overpopulation has made this impossible, especially when people reject Ellesmere and all want to live i the best places.<br /> You are correct when you say that our current globalization, greed oriented religion are a major part of the problem. The idea of turning our agricultural lands into factories while importing outr food from the other side of the plkanet is totallly unsustainable, and naive in the extreme.<br /> Unfortunatly agricultural land is cheap to build factories on, and politicoes are dependent on the support of factory builders. They have the power to buy the media persuasion that so many peoples values are based on.They will use their economic power to veto any change in the status quo.<br /> Do you see any realistic solutions to this ?<br /> Brent

   

Circling back to small houses, <a href="http://www.cusatocottages.com/index_content.html">here</a>’s an interesting post-Katrina development (<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/redface.gif' alt='Oops!'>, no pun intended).<br /> <br /> Kindly note that that site requires Flash, but your browser is likely to have the plugin for it installed already.

   

Some municipal governments are banning the use of cargo containers, claiming they are an eyesore. I've seen many buildings which are far more of an eysore than well painted and maintained cargo containers. <br /> Containers are only marginaly profitable when it comes to shipping them back to their origin. They are fireproof, earthquake proof , and ,if anchored properly, hurricane proof. Ther are exremelt B&E proof, and this make an intelligent home for afraction the cost of building a house or workshop from scratch. In ortherwords the use of them for homes and shops is intelligent. We can't have that now , can we!!<br /> The previous comment that should to populate the world with our superior race rather thatn their inferior race, is extremely racist.<br /> Show me a country with a high rate of population growth and I'll show you a country with a low standard of living, a huge gap between rich and poor, extreme corruption and extreme government interferrence in the daily lives of it's people , and high polution, and high environmental impact of the population. The opposite is true of countries with a lower population growth. What you are saying when you say we need more people is we should strive to make our country more like Bangladesh and less like Canada.<br /> Duhhhh.<br /> Brent

   

As a friend recently pointed out , when our population was only 20 million they said a bigger population was good for all of us and we should strive for a bigger population in Canada to improve our economy. Back then the average working Canadian could work a 40 hour week , one wage earner per family and still afford a home. Now with two income families working up to 60 hours a week , the kids entrusted to the state ,or strangers , few can afford a home . So where are the benefits of a bigger population that they promised us? Where's the proof? Yes we have more millionairs, and now we have homeless, which for the most part didn't exist back then. It is obvious that population growth has benefited few while widening the gap between rich and poor , just like in all those other countries which have oversized populations.Yet they still manange to scam gullible suckers into promoting the interests of the super rich in widening the gap between them and the rest of us, for fun and profit, their fun and profit.<br /> Agricultural production in China is dropping at a rate of ten percent per year due to industrial pollution.China and Egypt were the only two civilisations to survive beyond the average . It was because the Nile and the Yangtze replenished the land with ti's floods. They dammed the Nile and ended that lifeline. Now China has built the thre gorges dam.<br /> Yes we can produce enough food to feed the world as long as China and other countries can feed themselves, and the current population drops , and the declines in agricultural ouput miraculously stop for no logical reason . The drop in their ability to do so is increasing rapidly and there is no way we can make up the difference .Famines come on very suddenly following an era of confident smuggness, and denial of the obvious threat staring them in the face..<br /> The large fish polpulations are down 90% in the last 30 years , yet you suggest we can keep tapping into such food resources at the same rate we have been, indefinitly.<br /> Canada should limit immigration to genuine refugees, leaving immigration officials far greater leeway and ability to err on the side of caution before risking sending anyone back to certain death in their country of origin.<br /> Brent

   

Previous  1  2  3