Economics and China

[Taem]

... lies in the problem which is not our over consumption, but the lack of resources at the current rate of usage meaning quite simply that we are overpopulated.

I guess the world equity argument would be then that the overpopulation began many decades ago, if you equitably base per capita consumption at the US/Europe level, and not at the India/China level.

One view would be that the US and Europe should reduce consumption of critical resources to allow for the increases in consumption by developing nations. India's (112th place) population growth rate is 1.26 (UN) and (158th place ) China is at .52 (UN) -- so you can't say the population control message is not resonating in those nations. The issue of resource shortage is no longer one of population growth, but one of growth in industrialization in those nations with large populations. In the past and present, you have about 10% of the worlds population in the US and Europe, who consume at a high rate, while 20% in China consumes at a lower rate, and the 20% in India at a much lower rate. If consumption were equitable, the US would need to cut their consumption drastically (like 90%), and Europe some what less drastically (like 50%) to allow for these larger population nations to consume at higher levels.

For me, the bottom line is that it is not "ok" for the US and Europe to maintain the status quo in being the big resource consumers. Our answer to shortages cannot be simply that the remainder of the developing would should just stop developing. What then should be the criteria for regulating supply and demand? You've heard from the other side, whereas us capitalists would say, "price".

Now, it is fortuitous for the us in the former Colonial Empires that we've horded and exploited the world's wealth over the past few centuries. We can afford 3$ for a 12 oz box of cereal. However, it is unfortunate for us that we also sell these former repressed peoples our advanced weapons such that they may attempt to establish some equity by force. I believe a more prudent strategy would be for us to be more understanding in the distribution of resources to our developing neighbors, thus avoiding the many millions of deaths were we to leave it until the four horsemen are unleashed.

How narrow-minded of you; I am disappointed: Population Projections
World Energy Consumption vs Population
Report on Global Food Eating Trends
Report detailing consumption requirements to 2050

It is naive of you to believe the volume of population has no bearing on shortage of resources and quite frankly, I'm a bit aghast you even suggest otherwise. Your and FIT's ideal strategy to cut consumption in all developed nations is not only ludicrous, but asinine all level of business infrastructure. What would a real win-win scenario look like? No FIT, this is no "Interstellar" bullshit... NASA plans on sending a team to Mars by 2025, it's already in the works. If it turns out to be highly habitable, then guess what, we can supplant part of our population by mining that planet for resources and everyone wins... people, corporations, the planet. True insight towards the future starts with what we can do, and this is within our grasp as a species. Cutting emissions and resources down to safe levels is impossible even if all 1st world countries back because the rest of the world is growing and expanding so rapidly, it simply cannot sustain itself. How much farmable land do you imagine there is in the world versus the rate of population growth? How much potable water? How much mineral resources? This isn't rocket science here - do the math. Cutting back no consumption will help stymie the effects of this situation, however not forever. It's vital we as a species look forward NOW, because I'm fairly certain teraforming Mars cannot be done overnight; it may take over 100-years to plant enough oxygen producing species of fauna to make the air breathable and by that time, in 2115, how many people will be on this planet?