[SustainableTompkins] Population verses Resources

[Andrew B Goodell]

This is a response to Tyler Jay Goepfert.

Over-consumption is a relative term, and so is over-population, and these go
together. The fact that we use the term over-consumption quite a bit now
means that our world population is getting too high for the resources that
we are able to get from the Earth. I believe the economy can definitely
remain stable even with a drastically smaller population, it just requires
relocalization. Our flawed measurement of growth is not sustainable; we
obviously cannot continue to increase profits without an unlimited supply of
resources, which we do not have.

>From my point of view, our world was meant for a millions or maybe tens of
millions of people, not billions. The society we live in, especially in this
country, tries to convince us that we need to create more jobs, more wealth,
and continue to grow. I wonder, what percentage of our current jobs would
exist with only 10% of this population? I highly doubt that all these office
jobs would still exist. All we are doing now is building up for a collapse.
When we start running out of oil (7-14% declines already...), how will our
economy be able to grow? It won't... not easily at least. Not to say that
people are useless, but we are generating a population of dead-end jobs,
which aren't necessary in a sustainable world.

Look forward 500 years, do you think most of our jobs will still be needed?
My bet is that we will revert in some way back to our ways of living simply,
using the land and our resources very effectively, and will likely still
support 2-3 billion people that way.

Andy Goodell
(603) 831-0356