Steve, I couldn't get through to the PDF. Did you find it easy?
Once again, I must say that you and Keith are illustrating the very best of online discussion. Each message carries us forward. I shall expect Keith's rejoinder pretty quick. I also visited the site you gave us and have book-marked it. It looks good. I should say that "carrying capacity" is where the Malthusians retreated to - after overpopulation was shown to be silly. (My favorite was putting the whole world into Texas in single story houses with nuclear families of four. When I began that bit, Texas would be filled with houses - 7 to the acre. Now, it's probably 12 or 13. Of course the Texans would all leave and come to California. I haven't looked at the necessary figures for a while - the size of Texas and the world's population, but in terms of bodies and space - the world is empty. Carrying capacity is another matter. Though the world is empty, what if it can't support our population? This is a valid argument, although it appears to have been superceded by our "footprints". However, the new Malthusians have done their job too well. There is absolutely no way out for us. Whatever is done, we are going to suffer a catastrophic die-off. Yet, they are wrong. There is a way out - an effective way out that will solve the immediate problem and provide a long term solution. However, nowhere in the voluminous literature of the Malthusians can I find the obvious solution - though FW members should know because I have alluded to it before in posts. Also, Carol, who I hit pretty hard, is on the edge of understanding, but isn't there yet. Stiglitz - the new darling of the Antis - vehemently proposes it. Just the Malthusians steadfastly count up the water, and oil, and grain, and weep over our inevitable doom. But, we had better hurry. Even as we speak trees are falling and cow patties are being used for fuel instead of fertilizer. How slow we take this up won't be bothersome to us, but our speed - or sloth will be measured in deaths. Harry _________________________________________________ Steve Kurtz: >I have examined the report which Keith linked (pdf; 38 pgs) on Global >Forests. Keith's conclusion or interpretation that impelled this : > >"FutureWork readers might care to >be reassured that the situation is improving since then." > >is not even a glass half full vs half empty difference of opinion. The >conclusion of the study is that the RATE of decline is slowing BUT that: > >"net deforestation at the global level was estimated at an annual rate of >approximately 9 million hectares, with gross global deforestation at 13.5 >million hectares." (pg 20) (hectare = 2.47 acres) > >The difference between net/gross is new plantations; and scientists >overwhelmingly agree that the rapid growing, monoculture crops deplete the >soils fertility and its ability to support long term forestry. Thousands >of other species, and watershed characteristics are also affected. >Statistics need to be analyzed beyond the numbers. > >In any case, rational people will "be reassured" when fewer people make >demands on expanding forests! Currently earth adds around 90 million >people NET yearly, and the forests are still in decline by ANY measure. >Per Capita water, soil, forests, fisheries, etc are what count in a living >system. > >Steve > >-- >http://magma.ca/~gpco/ >http://www.scientists4pr.org/ ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
