Tweet
Get rid of nature before it kills us!
http://growthunlimited.blogspot.com/
Our Earth can support a population of 100 billion people with higher material living standards than the developed countries have now, and be a much better place to live in for all. Some of you may find this an outrageous statement. However, bear with me, I will presently in the GrowthUnlimited blog document the reasoning behind the statement.
Area is of course an important limiting factor for population density and wellbeing. But considering that the total area of the Earth is 510 million sq.km and that in a 100 G world 99,9% of all people would most likely be living in cities with a average population density of 2.000-10.000 persons / sq.km, we would need about 10-50 million sq.km, which is from 2-10 % of the total Earth area, for city areas, which would leave ample space for food production, pristine nature and recreation (golf courses, cultural landscapes). Yes, I am consciously including sea areas too, as we already now are seeing artificial islands being built....
The world continues to be a better and better place for human beings. It may happen in fits and starts, and it may not occur at the same time all over the world. However, the long-term trends are obvious: The human population is increasing and at the same time we are living longer, getter richer and being better educated. The world economic growth is now at its highest (about 4%) since the heady 1950’is and the decade we are in now: The Amazing Zeroes, will probably break all human records on enriching people and getting people out of poverty...
There are sufficient energy and resources available for a much higher human population (10-100 billion people) on Earth living affluent lives, the only real physical constraint being area. If we look to space there are no real limits to growth on a universal timescale. The neo-malthusians are plainly wrong and their views harmful to building an affluent world for all people...
Of course we do not need nature. A detached observer must take the Hobbesian view, that undisturbed nature only allows for human lives to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. A human existence in material and intellectual affluence demands, that man fills the earth, subdues it and dominates all living things to secure a continuous increase in living standards and longevity...
Because of mankind's steadily increasing ability to control nature we are now 6 billion going towards a equilibrium state of 10 billion, which pending the right political actions all can obtain livings standards and life expectancies, which our forefathers could not even dream about...
Three Good Reasons to Get Rid of Nature...
...Nature has to be managed and controlled to allow human beings to survive and thrive...In the geological time scale, nature left to its own devices will surely kill most or maybe all human beings, if we don’t allow the development of necessary precautions...
Does Nature Have a Future?
Even more than 30 years after the publication of "Limits to Growth" and after numerous clear falsifications of its statements we still see a strong influence of the doomsayers in their call for "control and regulation" of new technology and their lobbying for draconian measures on the global warming issue.
...A major global trend now is the use of advanced technology for decoupling our production activities particularly in food production from land use and environmental impact....
An unsentimental view on nature, as something which human beings has as well a duty as a right to manage and control and even get rid of, is the best guarantee for a good future for our planet.
As you see, the only "limits to growth" is land area, and to prove it I'm sure the author will be "going Galt" in Antartica, or maybe that desert in South America that has never had rain in recorded history. Things like that have no effect on growth - only a lack of faith can do that.
Area is of course an important limiting factor for population density and wellbeing. But considering that the total area of the Earth is 510 million sq.km and that in a 100 G world 99,9% of all people would most likely be living in cities with a average population density of 2.000-10.000 persons / sq.km, we would need about 10-50 million sq.km, which is from 2-10 % of the total Earth area, for city areas, which would leave ample space for food production, pristine nature and recreation (golf courses, cultural landscapes). Yes, I am consciously including sea areas too, as we already now are seeing artificial islands being built....
The world continues to be a better and better place for human beings. It may happen in fits and starts, and it may not occur at the same time all over the world. However, the long-term trends are obvious: The human population is increasing and at the same time we are living longer, getter richer and being better educated. The world economic growth is now at its highest (about 4%) since the heady 1950’is and the decade we are in now: The Amazing Zeroes, will probably break all human records on enriching people and getting people out of poverty...
There are sufficient energy and resources available for a much higher human population (10-100 billion people) on Earth living affluent lives, the only real physical constraint being area. If we look to space there are no real limits to growth on a universal timescale. The neo-malthusians are plainly wrong and their views harmful to building an affluent world for all people...
Of course we do not need nature. A detached observer must take the Hobbesian view, that undisturbed nature only allows for human lives to be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. A human existence in material and intellectual affluence demands, that man fills the earth, subdues it and dominates all living things to secure a continuous increase in living standards and longevity...
Because of mankind's steadily increasing ability to control nature we are now 6 billion going towards a equilibrium state of 10 billion, which pending the right political actions all can obtain livings standards and life expectancies, which our forefathers could not even dream about...
Three Good Reasons to Get Rid of Nature...
...Nature has to be managed and controlled to allow human beings to survive and thrive...In the geological time scale, nature left to its own devices will surely kill most or maybe all human beings, if we don’t allow the development of necessary precautions...
Does Nature Have a Future?
Even more than 30 years after the publication of "Limits to Growth" and after numerous clear falsifications of its statements we still see a strong influence of the doomsayers in their call for "control and regulation" of new technology and their lobbying for draconian measures on the global warming issue.
...A major global trend now is the use of advanced technology for decoupling our production activities particularly in food production from land use and environmental impact....
An unsentimental view on nature, as something which human beings has as well a duty as a right to manage and control and even get rid of, is the best guarantee for a good future for our planet.
Comment