Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (62) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84349 
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 07/28/23 10:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 4
I doubt the additional billion people in poverty are much comforted by the percentages.

Probably not. But I would think that the additional three billion people who get to live lives that are not impovershed very much are.

The rise in energy and industrial production, the increasing real numbers of people in poverty, is coming at the expense of the environment.

As others have mentioned, it's just not sustainable.


They've mentioned it, but haven't supported it. As I noted upthread, the U.S. has increased its population by more than 50% (and increased income by far more than that) over the last fifty years....and the environment is generally in better shape than it was in the 1970's. Certainly not in each and every specific spot, of course - after all, we have taken some parts of the environment and completely developed them, and other areas are newly polluted. But we have also witnessed the dramatic cleanup of many other places - you can swim safely in the Hudson or the Chesapeake Bay again, and the Cuyahoga isn't on fire nearly as often.

Population growth and economic development doesn't have to be an environmental catastrophe. In fact, economic development may be more sustainable than poverty - rich western developed economies tend to be (overall) more protective in terms of environmental regulations than poor, developing, or largely subsistence agricultural countries. Indeed, economic development appears to carry with it the seeds of its own sustainability, not destruction - as people become wealthier and less ag-dependent, they end up caring more about environmental protections and having fewer children.

Seems pretty sustainable to me. Doomsayers like Malthus and Ehrlich have been claiming we're on the verge of imminent collapse for....well, pretty much always you can find someone saying that the end is nigh. Yet overall, the natural environment of the U.S. is in better shape than it was fifty years ago. Seems like we're headed in the right direction - with fits and starts, but still generally improving over time while still growing quickly.

Albaby
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (62) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community