The detriment to the habitat in the older areas of Asia occured long ago,
while they were developing. How many plants and animals were made
extinct creating those places? What used to be under that pavement?
And the problems go beyond habitat. Studies have shown that crime and
divient behavior increase as population densities increase. And don't
forget transmission of diseases. Do you have a better chance of catching
the flu, or worse, riding a bicycle in the country or on a crowded subway?
The Ebola virus, for one, is attributed development and population
encroachmemt
of the jungle. The virus has always been there.
>Slow or planned growth can result in areas with
>preserved, diverse healthy biotomes, so long as care is given to sewage,
>open areas/greenways etc.
<snip>
>To preserve wilderness, we must make it at least as
>valuable as developed land to the owners. A shortcut for those of us with a
>more focused agenda would be either to buy land outright, lease it, or
a>nother exciting new development in environmental policy is that of "land
>swapping" - buy farmland which would make a lovely shopping mall, and swap
>the owners of a CP habitat. Both sides get what they want, nobody had to
>crack any skulls, and so the solution is both practical and moral.
>Remember, it is irrational to believe that anything is worth anything other
Buying land isn't slowing or planning development, it's stopping it. At
least that's the intent.
The population can't keep growing forever. The earth is finite.
Eventually the maximum capacity will be reached. As more land
is developed, plant and animal habitat is lost.
I don't see any long term benefit in increasing the population. I see short
term
economic benefit. Increasing the population to benefit the economy is, to
me,
like a chain letter or other pyramid scheme. It eventually has to collapse
because
there is a limit, somewhere. That limit will be the maximum population.
If there has to be a limit to the population, why not create it now? How are
the generations that follow us going to benefit from a larger population and
the irreversable changes caused by it?
I personally can't see how I'm better off now that say 20 years ago when the
population of the world, the US, and Calif. were significantly less.
Ron Sbragia