Overpopulation AND Overconsumption.

[pan]

Both.

[pan]

Birth rate chart by country

Nations in Africa are the most fecund.

India is ranked 87th in birth rate with 22.22 births per 1,000. The US is ranked 151st with 14.18/1000.

Germany, Japan and Hong Kong have the lowest birth rates.

[pan]

U.S. Birth Rate: Still Fueling Population Growth?

The total fertility rate (TFR) or average number of children per woman given current birth rates-- was 2.1 children per woman in 2005. Among racial and ethnic groups, the TFR for highest for Hispanics at 2.9 children per woman, compared with 1.8 for non-Hispanic whites, 2.0 for non-Hispanic blacks, 1.9 for Asian and Pacific Islanders, and 1.7 for American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Among Hispanics, the rates are highest for Mexicans and Central Americans—who are our fastest growing Hispanic groups.

[Mark]

We only have one planet. Many of its resources are called "nonrenewable" because they are limited and finite. There is a finite amount of oil, for example. When we use it up, it is gone. Some countries have already passed peak oil and have to buy oil from other countries or wage wars with other countries to get oil. The depletion of nonrenewable resources is causing irreparable harm to the planet and threatens not only our survival, but the survival of most living things on earth.

The most fecund countries are the poorest countries. Here a chart of consumption:

Note that the poorest and most overpopulated countries are using less than 2% of the world's resource, while the wealthiest and least populated countries use all the rest.

The State of California alone, with only a tiny fraction of China's population, uses more gas than China.

Here's a partial list of oil consumption by country.in billions of barrels per day as of 1995:

- World 80,290,000 2005 est.
1 United States 20,800,000 2005 est.
- European Union 14,580,000 2004
2 China 6,930,000 2007 est.
3 Japan 5,353,000 2005
4 Russia 2,916,000 2006
5 Germany 2,618,000 2005
6 India 2,438,000 2005 est.
7 Canada 2,290,000 2005
8 Korea, South 2,130,000 2006
9 Brazil 2,100,000 2006 est.
10 Mexico 2,078,000 2005 est.
11 Saudi Arabia 2,000,000 2005

Note that the United States, with barely a fifth of the world's population, uses a quarter of the world's oil. Notice also that not only does the State of California, which is much less populous, use more oil than China, but that China uses more than twice as much oil as India.

Overpopulation is when a populations exceeds the carrying capacity of its territory. Then it has to steal from elsewhere or wage wars to supply its needs. China isn't waging any wars of aggression because it is not overpopulated. India isn't waging any wars of aggression because it is not overpopulated. Neither country has exceeded the carrying capacity of their territory. The United States is overpopulated because it has exceeded the carrying capacity of its territory and has to wage wars of aggression to meet its wants. It has fewer people, but they consume ten times as much, on average, as people in China and India. To be equally as destructive of the planet as we are, China would have to more than triple its population and India would have to have almost ten times as many people as it does now.

Suppose you had a nonrewable resource, Pan, such as a life's savings. It took you a lifetime to accumulate and you can't do it again. And you have no kids, but you have a sister who has one child and a brother who has seven kids. You decide that since you can't take it with you, you are going to give all your nieces and nephews debit cards to your savings account and let them withdraw whatever they want. There is enough in the account to provide each of your nieces and nephews with a small allowance to supplement their income for ten years. Your sister's only child goes to the bank, looks at the total amount in your savings account, and withdraws a tenth of that amount every week. In ten weeks the entire account is wiped out. Your brother's seven kids look at the account and decide that they want to make it last as long as possible, so they go to the bank and withdraw 2 percent of the original amount every month and split it between them. But when they come back the third month, there is nothing left in the account because you sister's only child has taken it all. What depleted your savings, your brother's "overpopulated" family, or your sister's kid's greed and selfishness?

You titled this thread, "Overpopulation AND Overconsumption," but you mentioned only overpopulation. You seem to be saying that if people are not U.S. citizens and have darker skins and higher birth rates, they are overpopulating even if they have NOT exceeded the carrying capacity of their own territory, and that since the wealthiest U.S. citizens have lighter skins and lower birth rates, we are not overpopulated even though we have exceeded the carrying capacity of our territory and have to wage wars of aggression to meet our overconsumption wants.

How do you define overpopulation, Pan? Is it dark-skinned people having kids? I define it as when a population exceeds the carrying capacity of its own territory and has to wage wars of aggression against other territories to get what it wants.

Our survival is threatened by the depletion of the earth's nonrenewable resources and by the pollution of our basic survival needs like air and water. We deplete more resources than Indian and China combined, and we are the world's biggest polluters. Half of our contribution to global warming comes from our military, which we need in order to wage wars of aggression because we consume more than we can produce.

Normal healthy cells and organisms have regulatory controls to ensure that they consume, grow, and reproduce only as much as is necessary to the maintenance of a healthy cell or organism. Malignant cancer cells have no such regulatory mechanisms and consume everything they come into contact with, growing and reproducing until they have killed their host. China and India are healthy organisms. We are a cancer on the face of the earth.

And we've even had the nerve to excoriate China for population control campaigns.

[pan]

I'm not "seeming to say" anything.....I'm citing statistics that relate to previous discussions on other freds.

I have made two posts to this thread - a bit early to try to distinguish a trend dontcha think?

To clarify: there is absolutely no argument from me that the U.S. is a huge suck on the planet due to our exhorbitant "lifestyle" that is based upon overconsumption. If one accepts Georges Bataille's reversal of generally accepted economic theory in his "new Copernican project" then it becomes clear that overconsumption and war are desperate attempts to escape the soulless condition of a society built upon the values of Capitalism.

According to Bataille taboos exist so they may be transgressed as a method for entering the sacred and become "like water moving in water". Capitalism was made possible by the Protestant rejection of "good works" of Catholicism which placed the emphasis upon working (the Protestant work ethic) and frugality which led to the amassing of capital. The ultimate taboo in capitalism is waste. In a society with no sense of the sacred the only method left to enter the sacred is to break the last remaining taboo. War is the penultimate waste, the biggest taboo - so it is the most tempting manner to disrupt the breach between Subject and Object within oneself. Just as Anorexia and Obesity are expressions of the same issue of body, food and self, Frugality and Extravagant Waste are expressions of Capitalism. There will never be an end to overconsumption as long as Capitalism is ascendent.

And here is where we may have common ground. If one sees Capitalism as a product of the Patriarchy then, ultimately, the Patriarchy is the source.

[Mark]

My definition is that war is a desperate attempt to survive after outgrowing the carrying capacity of one's territory. In other words, we, the United States, have overpopulated because we cannot produce enough to maintain our unsustainable lifestyles. China and India have not overpopulated because they do not need to engage in wars of aggression.

I'm not interested in Satanism or any other justifications for violating the taboo, "Thou Shalt Not Kill." Capitalism places no taboo on waste--conspicuous and wasteful consumption is the sine qua non of capitalism. Capitalism derived from patriarchy because it was patriarchy that said we are the owners and rulers of the earth, rather than part of nature, and it was patriarchy that condoned the commodification and private ownership of land, animals, and other people. Capitalism merely expanded upon this with a centralized money system that funnels wealth to fewer and fewer people.

Capitalism is only ascendant in the minds of capitalists. If you take a group of young playmates and most of them value friendships, but one values only material possessions and successfully steals from the others, that kid may see themself as ascendant, but they won't have any friends. In a global poll taken during the previous administration, the President of the United States had a lower approval rating worldwide than both Satan and bin Laden. And while everyone wanted to give our new President a chance, he has outdone the previous one in matters of torture, wars of aggression, and enriching the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Ascendancy that is achieved only by violent means and lacks the consent of the governed, has no friends. If I should falter in my struggle, my friends will help me. If the tyrant ever has a weak moment, even those he thought were his friends will set upon him with the rest of us. Even you, Brutus.

[pan]

Capitalism is only ascendant in the minds of capitalists.

Tell that to the G20......or the various countries that have been raped for their resources and labor.

[pan]

So.....India isn't involved in wars of aggression when dealing with Pakistan?

And China's use of military in Tibet isn't considered a war of aggression? And their threats of violence towards Taiwan?

And, China and India's increasing embrace of the consumer lifestyle of the U.S. isn't a concern because....?

And China's one child rule isn't an attempt to control their overpopulation?

[Mark]

No, India isn't involved in wars of aggression with Pakistan. All their wars have to do with the British partition of India in 1947. The British didn't bother to consult the natives.

Whether or not China's use of military in Tibet or threats towards Taiwan ore aggressive, neither one can be construed as a war of aggression for resources due to overpopulation.

China's one child rule WAS an attempt to control their population, to PREVENT overpopulation, and THE UNITED STATES CONDEMNED THEM FOR IT. Our government said it was a human rights violation.

But these are all digressions.

You started a topic here, Pan. I'd like to discuss the issues with you. But I can't because I don't know what you mean by "overpopulation." I know what overconsumption is, but I don't know what you mean by overpopulation and in what way, if any, you think it should be connected with a big capital letter screaming "AND" to overconsumption.

Please define overpopulation for me.

As far as I can see, all your statistics were about people of color having higher birth rates than whites.

Do you define overpopulation as people of color having higher birth rates than Aryan ubermenschen? Fascists often see that as a problem and try to counter it by encouraging white females to have more children while sterilizing or killing females of color. Why Aryans needed to wage wags of aggresions for "lebensraum" if they don't overpopulate seems strange, but I guess when you've killed off fifteen million people or so, you might have more lebensraum than you wanted and need people to fill it.

Anyway, what I need to know in order to be able to discuss this topic with you, is how do you define overpopulation and if you believe it is in any way related to overconsumption or only to skin color.

So far, all I'm seeing from you and BO is citations showing that people of color have a higher birth rate than White Aryan Warriors. I see nothing to show that any of them are currently guilty of overpopulation OR overconsumption.

Do your statistics about the birth rates of people of color (whether by themselves or compared to white birth rates) have anything to do with your topic title of "Overpopulation AND Overconsumption?"

Was it just a joke that I failed to get, or a way to disrupt a discussion that was about overpopulation and overconsumption by using those two words as a topic title and then discussing something totally irrelevant?

I know we're really loose about topic drift here, but to post a topic and then post two comments that, as far as I can see, have nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, is a lot weirder than even I ever get.

[pan]

Yes, yes, we all know about the history of colonialization and the wreckage that it left. But, eventually India and Pakistan (and all other former colonial acquisitions) will have to take responsibility for ending the mess. It has been 62 years......I think it is about time they start sharing some of the blame for their own actions.

[Mark]

Sorry, they didn't invade, conquer, and occupy their own territory and draw artificial boundaries that anyone should have known would lead to war. Don't blame the victims for what the British empire did to them.

[pan]

So in Mark's world White Man's Guilt is the net result of White Man's Burden. Too bad those brown peoples are clever enough to deal with what the White gods did to them. Gee.....kinda sounds like racism to me.

[pan]

And, as Jared Diamond notes:

Even if the people of China alone achieved a First World living standard while everyone else’s living standard remained constant, that would double our human impact on the world.

From the Australian
HU Jintao wants to make every Chinese twice as rich by 2020. He has done it once - in just five years, per capita income doubled to $US2000 ($2250)- and the only obstacle in the Chinese President's path is the fuel needed to stoke the boiler of China's locomotive.

The president needs more copper, iron ore, zinc and natural gas. Above all, he needs more coal to keep the power stations humming and more oil for Chinese cars and lorries. China accounts for more than a third of world demand for coal and the price in Australia soared this year as the People's Republic switched from exporter to importer.

If Mr Hu had a message for the world in his address to the Communist Party National Congress, it was this: we will burn our coal and, if we have to, we will burn yours, too.