JimB wrote:
"mr.b" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:13:35 +0000, JimB wrote:

Perhaps the system is self limiting . . . .
how else would a finite system operate? the problem for us is that there
are too few smart enough to recognize that and far too many who are too
stupid to recognize it


'stupid' is a little pejorative. How about 'ill educated'?

'The end of the world is nigh' - untrue.

'change is inevitable' - true


Two thoughts:

1. Not "stupid" or "ill educated" but "self centered" and/or "short sighted"

2. Combining your two statements -

"The end of the world AS WE KNOW IT is nigh"

Since we are being a little philosophical here I propose two questions:

1. What it the correct number of people to have a maximum human experience?

2. Why is it that this question is never debated?

This question is distinctly different from asking about the ultimate
"carrying capacity" of the earth. It asks about the kind of earth we
want to live on and what we value as human experience.

I recently heard a lecture on "urban farming." My city is losing
population and their are proposals to turn the abandoned lots into
gardens. Well and good. Then the discussion turned to "vertical
farming." 10-story glass pyramids of intensive farming in the city.
And there are serious scientist and support efforts to find ways to
manage the earths environment (e.g. mirrors in space.) I may be getting
old and stiff but that is not a future that I relish.