nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 532:
Line 532: + + + + +
→Populations: You're still wrong, although more reasonable now.
You have to realize there are two types of over-population. One is the obvious excessive population growth of humans. The other focuses on over-population pollution wise. The more wealth pepole have, the more they pollute and the more they use up natural resources. Carrying capacity is defined as the number of organisms an ecosystem could sustain and we're using up envionmental resouces at an increasing rate. Therefore, prosperity would lead to the same consequence as overpopulation. And we are quickly approaching our carrying capacity becuase we are using up more and more natural resources. My claim is not nonsense. -Sundance
You have to realize there are two types of over-population. One is the obvious excessive population growth of humans. The other focuses on over-population pollution wise. The more wealth pepole have, the more they pollute and the more they use up natural resources. Carrying capacity is defined as the number of organisms an ecosystem could sustain and we're using up envionmental resouces at an increasing rate. Therefore, prosperity would lead to the same consequence as overpopulation. And we are quickly approaching our carrying capacity becuase we are using up more and more natural resources. My claim is not nonsense. -Sundance
: That's two ''problems with'' overpopulation, not two ''types''.
: The claim that the wealthier people are the more they pollute is not necessarily true. The wealthiest nations are the ones that have done the most to limit pollution, whereas the most polluting nations have been places like the much poorer former eastern European countries. Pollution is not inextricably tied to wealth.
: That ''some'' resources such as fossil fuels are finite does not mean that there are not other resources, many renewable, that could replace them.
: In ''this'' post you've put a much more reasonable argument than your previous post regarding guns being helpful. ''That'' post was nonsense, and as ''this'' post doesn't defend that point, this post does nothing to change the fact that your previous post ''was'' nonsense.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:06, 8 June 2008 (EDT)