English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

How many more houses, office buildings, roads, cars, machines, etc. can we build to provide jobs, i.e. survival? Since they all utilize natural resources and since resources are finite, are we not on a dead end course?

2006-06-13 06:54:50 · 5 answers · asked by veniyer2 2 in Society & Culture Other - Society & Culture

5 answers

Survival does not depend on growth. economics as practiced over most of the world to day does depend on growth. That will have to change before long or there will not be enough resources to sustain all the people. It is a real struggle to feed us all at this time so what about another 100 years when there may be as many as 20 billion people. At the rate we are going that is what will be.

2006-06-13 07:17:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I forget the exact amount (10 acres maybe?) but somewhere I read that it takes a specific amount of land for each human to live independantly. This is for growing of food, living space, job, and other neccessary things such as cotton and trees for the clothes you wear and the lumber to build your house. This is just for the needs. All the 'wants' take up more space. Desert land doesnt count because you realistically can't live there, and can't grow there. As of right now we have more than enough room on the planet to live. This will change unless somthing is done. The baby boom of the 50's expanded the population greatly and it continues to grow at an almost exponential rate. Try looking at it this way. If everyone on the planet has 2 children, one will replace each parent, and all is good. Those that have three will make up for those that have either 1 or none. Everything balances that way. Putting it another way, if everyone has lets say 4 children, and those have 4 children and so forth, how quick will we run out of space? With the miracles of modern medicine, our life expectancy has also been pushed even further, creating the need to use the worlds resources for more years than before.

I live in the Chicago suburbs and see so much out of control growth. Within a 10 minute drive I can go to at least 5 different stores of nearly any brand. 5 Home Depots, 5 Lowes, 3 Menards (another hardware store) 5 Targets and 5 Walmarts (1 more opening up within 3 miles of another) and I find it utterly rediculous. I am also not some crotchety 80 year old that likes to complain about everything, just seeing that current trends cannot be continued forever. Overgrowth isnt really cause by greedy corporation that have to have thier store every 2 miles apart, its caused by overpopulation, plain and simple. If you are worried about overpopulation, have only two kids and it will help to not live in too much excess. Waste less, Recycle more. If you dont care about it then let your great great great great grandchildren deal with the problem and go ahead and have your 4 or 5 + kids, forget about recycling and let the landfills get larger. I am no activist by any means, but this is something I feel strongly about. We dont see overpopulation/overgrowth as a problem, because it isnt one, not yet anyway. Why worry over a problem if you can't see it? Most resources are renewable, some are not. Its a matter of keeping the renewable resources untainted for furture (re)use and keeping the the actual usage of those resources down.

2006-06-13 15:00:14 · answer #2 · answered by andysiner 2 · 0 0

We are not on a dead-end course if we have the courage to move into outer space. Failing that, we will eventually reach the Malthusian limit here on Earth, and population will limit itself.

2006-06-13 14:01:09 · answer #3 · answered by sandislandtim 6 · 0 0

Never that's what creativity is all about then its time to be resourceful and invent something revolutionary

2006-06-13 14:00:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

well i guess thats the end of survival

2006-06-13 14:01:02 · answer #5 · answered by CAMELMANDAN 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers