Quote:
Originally Posted by graciegirl
There is a price to everything. Since 1990, industrialization has halved poverty and hunger by half.
|
Industrialization began (or increased) around 1900 with the development of the internal combustion engine. Mercedes Benz began making automobiles. New England ran cotton spinning equipment with hydro-power and etc. Maybe 1900 was meant instead of 1990. Regardless, the population of the US in the 1950s was around 180 million. There may have been a greater quality of life then at 180 million than now at 350 million people - which is my point or question. Should population increase unchecked until when(?) - until ALL animal species are extinct - until all oxygen on the planet is gone?
I believe in science and progress. But I define progress as the improved individual "quality of life". Forget GNP and the stock market as gauges of progress - use quality of life. Run a computer simulation taking into consideration ALL raw material and resources of the US and come up with an IDEAL population. Is it 400 million? - is it 300 million - 200 million? What would it be? Then make PROGRESS toward that population and make progress through science toward the maximum quality of life.
I am in favor of capitalism and individual freedom and not a racist - I just WISH that some leader would question the VALIDITY of believing that PROGRESS is synonymous with brute population growth. To me, that would be a reasonable debate to have.