Population

[skepticalbip]

So by your meaning of "sustainable impact" you would see no problem with clear cutting practices by timber companies as long as they continue the practice of clear cutting dispersed patches and replanting the cleared areas. Such a practice can be carried on indefinitely since the cut areas will be fully grown again by the time they work their way around the scheduled patch cutting policy?

How about the Panama canal example?

Your examples don't take into other factors into account, clear cutting destroys habitat, species loss, etc. It may be possible on a limited scale. Scale counts. Which is why 8 - 10 billion people acting in their own interest, indulging in high consumption, cars boats, air travel, with insufficient regard to their environment - clear felling, etc, most probably make a greater impact the planet than a population of 2 billion.

Then you really didn't mean, "Doesn't 'sustainability' mean that whatever activity we are engaged in can be carried on indefinitely,". The clear cutting that is actually done, is not what you are apparently imagining. It is what I described and can be done indefinitely. Ten acres cut out of a several hundred thousand acres of forest does not destroy habitat or cause species loss. You need to try again at explaining what you mean by "sustainable impact".

And then, was the building of the Panama Canal a crime against nature and the planet in your opinion?

I am beginning to think that you really don't have any understanding of ecology and only are emotionally drawn to anything proffered by militant "environmentalists" because it makes you feel like a "good" person.

 

[DBT]

So by your meaning of "sustainable impact" you would see no problem with clear cutting practices by timber companies as long as they continue the practice of clear cutting dispersed patches and replanting the cleared areas. Such a practice can be carried on indefinitely since the cut areas will be fully grown again by the time they work their way around the scheduled patch cutting policy?

How about the Panama canal example?

Your examples don't take into other factors into account, clear cutting destroys habitat, species loss, etc. It may be possible on a limited scale. Scale counts. Which is why 8 - 10 billion people acting in their own interest, indulging in high consumption, cars boats, air travel, with insufficient regard to their environment - clear felling, etc, most probably make a greater impact the planet than a population of 2 billion.

Then you really didn't mean, "Doesn't 'sustainability' mean that whatever activity we are engaged in can be carried on indefinitely,". The clear cutting that is actually done, is not what you are apparently imagining. It is what I described and can be done indefinitely. Ten acres cut out of a several hundred thousand acres of forest does not destroy habitat or cause species loss. You need to try again at explaining what you mean by "sustainable impact".

And then, was the building of the Panama Canal a crime against nature and the planet in your opinion?

I am beginning to think that you really don't have any understanding of ecology and only are emotionally drawn to anything proffered by militant "environmentalists" because it makes you feel like a "good" person.

Old growth forests, for instance, may take centuries to establish, which means that once clear felled they are not quickly replaced, if at all.

Not being a disposable commodity, or a commodity that is readily renewable, if at all, clear telling old growth forests is not sustainable. Once cut down it is gone.

This has nothing to do with how I feel, being 'good' killing the poor, genocide or any of Strawmen that have been raised.

 

[skepticalbip]

Then you really didn't mean, "Doesn't 'sustainability' mean that whatever activity we are engaged in can be carried on indefinitely,". The clear cutting that is actually done, is not what you are apparently imagining. It is what I described and can be done indefinitely. Ten acres cut out of a several hundred thousand acres of forest does not destroy habitat or cause species loss. You need to try again at explaining what you mean by "sustainable impact".

And then, was the building of the Panama Canal a crime against nature and the planet in your opinion?

I am beginning to think that you really don't have any understanding of ecology and only are emotionally drawn to anything proffered by militant "environmentalists" because it makes you feel like a "good" person.

Old growth forests, for instance, may take centuries to establish, which means that once clear felled they are not quickly replaced, if at all.

Not being a disposable commodity, or a commodity that is readily renewable, if at all, clear telling old growth forests is not sustainable. Once cut down it is gone.

This has nothing to do with how I feel, being 'good' killing the poor, genocide or any of Strawmen that have been raised.

Trying to have a discussion with someone who can only repeat emotional sloganism from the militant "environmentalists" is a waste of time. Yes, once a tree is cut down it is gone forever... the tree that grows in its place is not the same tree but an entirely different tree that only looks the same. That is rather silly thinking if it is thinking rather than emoting.

You keep coming back to essentially saying that humans should have no impact on nature. All species have an impact on nature... at least while they exist.

 

[rousseau]

You keep coming back to essentially saying that humans should have no impact on nature. All species have an impact on nature... at least while they exist.

One of the key differences between us and other animals is that we have the ability to adapt in real time, iterate our technology, and intensify our resource consumption. Every other species is moderated by natural ecological rhythms, while we're able to adjust to them. That makes our history and relationship with the planet's resources different in a very real way.

There are almost 8 billion of us. Whether someone calls that overpopulation or not doesn't really matter, the reality is we are affecting the biosphere in a very real way. Multiply that by 50k - 100k, even 1 million years and it'll be interesting to see what our world looks like.

 

[steve_bank]

You keep coming back to essentially saying that humans should have no impact on nature. All species have an impact on nature... at least while they exist.

One of the key differences between us and other animals is that we have the ability to adapt in real time, iterate our technology, and intensify our resource consumption. Every other species is moderated by natural ecological rhythms, while we're able to adjust to them. That makes our history and relationship with the planet's resources different in a very real way.

There are almost 8 billion of us. Whether someone calls that overpopulation or not doesn't really matter, the reality is we are affecting the biosphere in a very real way. Multiply that by 50k - 100k, even 1 million years and it'll be interesting to see what our world looks like.

Nicely put. Science and technology has taken us out of natural checks and balances on population.

 

[steve_bank]

You didn't answer my question....

WTH does the phrase "sustainable impact" even mean?

This is a case when one responds with 'If you have to ask the question you probably are not going to understand the answer.'

Do you really need an explanation? Water here in the USA is becoming a problem. Major agriculture in Ca is being affected, IOW our food supply. Can population and economies increase without limit as some seem to think?

In the 69s as a kid in the NYC area I remember pollution and smog with temperature inversions. Pollution trapped by a thermal boundary as cars keep putting out pollutants.

In LA the pollution was so bad visibility in the air was limited and peoples eyes and lungs were deteriorating.

You missed my point. The term "sustainable impact" is one of those terms that have no specific meaning. It means whatever someone wants it to mean. The building of the Panama canal destroyed the local ecosystem. Extremist in the ecological community would decry the "unsustainable impact" on the local ecosystem since it will never recover.... moderate members of the ecological community would see it as a "sustainable impact" since it was only a "small" scar across an otherwise healthy Panamanian jungle. Phrases that have such fuzzy meaning are useless.

Someone using such a fuzzy phrase has to be asked what they mean exactly before it can be known what their point is.... that is if they actually have a point.

Do you really need a definition handed to you?

Sustainable means living within bounds that does not bring us to environmental collapse, total consumption of water, and exhaustion of agriculture resources.

An economic system that runs a on investment that requires future growth for a return and requires population growth is not sustainable.

Living on credit beyond your means is not sustainable. Savvy?

I don't know your politics, yior argument sounds like a FOX News segment.

 

[skepticalbip]

You keep coming back to essentially saying that humans should have no impact on nature. All species have an impact on nature... at least while they exist.

One of the key differences between us and other animals is that we have the ability to adapt in real time, iterate our technology, and intensify our resource consumption. Every other species is moderated by natural ecological rhythms, while we're able to adjust to them. That makes our history and relationship with the planet's resources different in a very real way.

There are almost 8 billion of us. Whether someone calls that overpopulation or not doesn't really matter, the reality is we are affecting the biosphere in a very real way. Multiply that by 50k - 100k, even 1 million years and it'll be interesting to see what our world looks like.

Absolutely. I understand but DBT holds an apparent emotional position that humans should have no impact on nature... at least I have, so far, been unable to get him to agree that as long as there are humans they will necessarily have an impact just as all species have an impact. Beavers bring down trees and dam rivers creating ponds where there was only a valley... I have to assume that DBT would see this as "good" since it was nature. However if humans did this I have to assume, from his earlier posts, DBT would call unsustainable so "bad".

 

[skepticalbip]

You missed my point. The term "sustainable impact" is one of those terms that have no specific meaning. It means whatever someone wants it to mean. The building of the Panama canal destroyed the local ecosystem. Extremist in the ecological community would decry the "unsustainable impact" on the local ecosystem since it will never recover.... moderate members of the ecological community would see it as a "sustainable impact" since it was only a "small" scar across an otherwise healthy Panamanian jungle. Phrases that have such fuzzy meaning are useless.

Someone using such a fuzzy phrase has to be asked what they mean exactly before it can be known what their point is.... that is if they actually have a point.

Do you really need a definition handed to you?

Sustainable means living within bounds that does not bring us to environmental collapse, total consumption of water, and exhaustion of agriculture resources.

An economic system that runs a on investment that requires future growth for a return and requires population growth is not sustainable.

Living on credit beyond your means is not sustainable. Savvy?

I don't know your politics, yior argument sounds like a FOX News segment.

As I said, "sustainable impact" means whatever someone wants it to mean. You apparently have a strong attachment to your understanding of the phrase. Others have just as strong attachment to their understanding of the phrase. Argue your definition with a militant "environmentalist" and you will have a fight over the meaning. Argue your definition with an industrialist and you will have a fight over the meaning. If I am in a discussion with anyone using the phrase they need to define what the fuck they mean by it before I can understand what they are talking about.

 

[bilby]

You keep coming back to essentially saying that humans should have no impact on nature. All species have an impact on nature... at least while they exist.

One of the key differences between us and other animals is that we have the ability to adapt in real time, iterate our technology, and intensify our resource consumption. Every other species is moderated by natural ecological rhythms, while we're able to adjust to them. That makes our history and relationship with the planet's resources different in a very real way.

There are almost 8 billion of us. Whether someone calls that overpopulation or not doesn't really matter, the reality is we are affecting the biosphere in a very real way. Multiply that by 50k - 100k, even 1 million years and it'll be interesting to see what our world looks like.

But that makes us better than other species, not worse (If you define 'better' as 'able to minimise the changes our behaviour imposes on other species, and/or on other individuals of our own species').

There are plenty of examples of species that have had far more dramatic impacts on Earth's environment than humans ever could.

The cyanobacteria that changed the atmosphere from a reducing atmosphere to one containing almost 20% free Oxygen are perhaps the most significant example; Others include the vast forests of the Carboniferous, which stripped almost all of the Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere. When it comes to changing the atmosphere, humans are rank amateurs, and far from unique.

That we are different in being able to see, and to mitigate, the changes we are making to the atmosphere, makes us different in a 'good' way. As does our demonstrated ability to stop population growth via humane technological and social advances (oral contraceptives and education), rather than by running into a food shortage head first (by the way, food security is at an historical high, and hunger an historical low, right now. There's no plausible reason why humanity would ever expect food shortages again; Since the mid C20th, such shortages have only occurred due to war, and since the Industrial Revolution, only due to war or deliberately cruel public policy).

 

[DBT]

You keep coming back to essentially saying that humans should have no impact on nature. All species have an impact on nature... at least while they exist.

One of the key differences between us and other animals is that we have the ability to adapt in real time, iterate our technology, and intensify our resource consumption. Every other species is moderated by natural ecological rhythms, while we're able to adjust to them. That makes our history and relationship with the planet's resources different in a very real way.

There are almost 8 billion of us. Whether someone calls that overpopulation or not doesn't really matter, the reality is we are affecting the biosphere in a very real way. Multiply that by 50k - 100k, even 1 million years and it'll be interesting to see what our world looks like.

Absolutely. I understand but DBT holds an apparent emotional position that humans should have no impact on nature... at least I have, so far, been unable to get him to agree that as long as there are humans they will necessarily have an impact just as all species have an impact. Beavers bring down trees and dam rivers creating ponds where there was only a valley... I have to assume that DBT would see this as "good" since it was nature. However if humans did this I have to assume, from his earlier posts, DBT would call unsustainable so "bad".

You use emotive terms yourself, yet project it onto me. I simply pointed out that studies have shown that we as a species are having a negative impact on the environment, ecosystems, atmosphere, oceans.....and that is all I said. No handwringing, no emotion. It is you and some others that engage with emotional arguments. Stop, it doesn't work.

You assume too much. Try reading what is said, not what you want to see.

 

[DBT]

Then you really didn't mean, "Doesn't 'sustainability' mean that whatever activity we are engaged in can be carried on indefinitely,". The clear cutting that is actually done, is not what you are apparently imagining. It is what I described and can be done indefinitely. Ten acres cut out of a several hundred thousand acres of forest does not destroy habitat or cause species loss. You need to try again at explaining what you mean by "sustainable impact".

And then, was the building of the Panama Canal a crime against nature and the planet in your opinion?

I am beginning to think that you really don't have any understanding of ecology and only are emotionally drawn to anything proffered by militant "environmentalists" because it makes you feel like a "good" person.

Old growth forests, for instance, may take centuries to establish, which means that once clear felled they are not quickly replaced, if at all.

Not being a disposable commodity, or a commodity that is readily renewable, if at all, clear telling old growth forests is not sustainable. Once cut down it is gone.

This has nothing to do with how I feel, being 'good' killing the poor, genocide or any of Strawmen that have been raised.

Trying to have a discussion with someone who can only repeat emotional sloganism from the militant "environmentalists" is a waste of time. Yes, once a tree is cut down it is gone forever... the tree that grows in its place is not the same tree but an entirely different tree that only looks the same. That is rather silly thinking if it is thinking rather than emoting.

You keep coming back to essentially saying that humans should have no impact on nature. All species have an impact on nature... at least while they exist.

There was nothing emotional in my post. There is a vast difference between clear felling pine plantations and clear felling old growth forests. Pointing that out is not emotion, the distinctions between pine plantations and old growth forests are quantifiable.

 

[rousseau]

You keep coming back to essentially saying that humans should have no impact on nature. All species have an impact on nature... at least while they exist.

One of the key differences between us and other animals is that we have the ability to adapt in real time, iterate our technology, and intensify our resource consumption. Every other species is moderated by natural ecological rhythms, while we're able to adjust to them. That makes our history and relationship with the planet's resources different in a very real way.

There are almost 8 billion of us. Whether someone calls that overpopulation or not doesn't really matter, the reality is we are affecting the biosphere in a very real way. Multiply that by 50k - 100k, even 1 million years and it'll be interesting to see what our world looks like.

But that makes us better than other species, not worse (If you define 'better' as 'able to minimise the changes our behaviour imposes on other species, and/or on other individuals of our own species').

There are plenty of examples of species that have had far more dramatic impacts on Earth's environment than humans ever could.

The cyanobacteria that changed the atmosphere from a reducing atmosphere to one containing almost 20% free Oxygen are perhaps the most significant example; Others include the vast forests of the Carboniferous, which stripped almost all of the Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere. When it comes to changing the atmosphere, humans are rank amateurs, and far from unique.

That we are different in being able to see, and to mitigate, the changes we are making to the atmosphere, makes us different in a 'good' way. As does our demonstrated ability to stop population growth via humane technological and social advances (oral contraceptives and education), rather than by running into a food shortage head first (by the way, food security is at an historical high, and hunger an historical low, right now. There's no plausible reason why humanity would ever expect food shortages again; Since the mid C20th, such shortages have only occurred due to war, and since the Industrial Revolution, only due to war or deliberately cruel public policy).

I don't think the adjectives 'better' or 'worse' really apply to the conversation. I'm not trying to take down our own species or make anyone feel bad about being human, but the reality of our nature is that we will ruthlessly pursue comfort and pleasure at the expense of other species and the environment. It comes down to the laws of physics: any gain we make in our well-being has to come at the expense of some other system. That's not really up for debate, it's just a fact.

Our nature certainly works for me as a Canadian, but farmers starving in India due to drought and famine likely don't agree. Iron implements worked for the Bantu but not so much for Bushmen. Industrial Agriculture is great for people who want to eat burgers, not so great for livestock. I think you get the picture. 'Better' or 'Worse' is an over-simplification. At best you can say that we are very good at both solving and creating problems for ourselves. And even then there is no real locus of control on our history, so neither can really be pinned on us anyway.

Further, the idea of a species moving cohesively is at odds with biology and evolution. We are made up of individuals and individual groups who are looking out for themselves, not the good of all of us. Being smart and adaptable doesn't imply that those qualities are going to be applied to a greater good.

 

[steve_bank]

You missed my point. The term "sustainable impact" is one of those terms that have no specific meaning. It means whatever someone wants it to mean. The building of the Panama canal destroyed the local ecosystem. Extremist in the ecological community would decry the "unsustainable impact" on the local ecosystem since it will never recover.... moderate members of the ecological community would see it as a "sustainable impact" since it was only a "small" scar across an otherwise healthy Panamanian jungle. Phrases that have such fuzzy meaning are useless.

Someone using such a fuzzy phrase has to be asked what they mean exactly before it can be known what their point is.... that is if they actually have a point.

Do you really need a definition handed to you?

Sustainable means living within bounds that does not bring us to environmental collapse, total consumption of water, and exhaustion of agriculture resources.

An economic system that runs a on investment that requires future growth for a return and requires population growth is not sustainable.

Living on credit beyond your means is not sustainable. Savvy?

I don't know your politics, yior argument sounds like a FOX News segment.

As I said, "sustainable impact" means whatever someone wants it to mean. You apparently have a strong attachment to your understanding of the phrase. Others have just as strong attachment to their understanding of the phrase. Argue your definition with a militant "environmentalist" and you will have a fight over the meaning. Argue your definition with an industrialist and you will have a fight over the meaning. If I am in a discussion with anyone using the phrase they need to define what the fuck they mean by it before I can understand what they are talking about.

Well amigo, I am a lot closer to the end then the beginning. Climate change is upon us. If yiu are younger you may be facing serious changes in food and water supplies. The increase in energy stored as heating oceans over a long period of time is not going to decrease quickly even if pollution went to zero.

If you are one of those who think the economic system based on genration by gebration increase in consumption is sustainable, then I lump you with crazy conservative side.

Afrca n gneral is in trouble. They can not feed ther population as it was before climate change. India is borderline on resources like water. If the monsoon cycle is interrupted ot is catastrophic for the region.

We are already beyond sustainability for the global population.

Just look at how the economies were affected by the pandemic.

Putting it as simple as I can, can existing economies and population continue to expand without collapse?

 

[Bomb#20]

If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation. At least, not with me. I've yet to see any concrete evidence to support the notion that the past two centuries of various population control mechanisms have actually reduced the most significant ecological stressors in any meaningful way.

Get somebody to read this to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

 

[Politesse]

If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation. At least, not with me. I've yet to see any concrete evidence to support the notion that the past two centuries of various population control mechanisms have actually reduced the most significant ecological stressors in any meaningful way.

Get somebody to read this to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

Not only have I heard of Planned Parenthood, I've even personally used their services. But what does that have to do with my question? Ecology is discussed nowhere on the linked page. There's more mention of eugenics on that page than of ecology, in fact; does that mean Wikipedia is in on the "pronatalist conspiracy"? If so, why are you citing them?

 

[Bomb#20]

Dude, you're the one who accused Swami of wanting to kill poor people.

Not Swammerdami, specifically. All Malthusians. If someone were interested in population studies for reasons other than class aggression, it would never occur to them to start with discredited Victorian theories of population growth.

And you're specifically accusing Swami of being a "Malthusian", and specifically accusing him of starting with discredited Victorian theories of population growth, and specifically accusing him of being motivated by class aggression. The fact that you are specifically accusing an awful lot of your innocent political opponents of wanting to kill poor people does not magically mean you aren't specifically accusing Swami of wanting to kill poor people. You're peddling pronatalist propaganda.

I'm sorry, m'lord, I never learned to read. Help me out. Here's a list of periodic genocidal acts, mostly in the past 170 years. Kindly point out which ones were caused by fear that overpopulation of the urban poor was a threat to global ecology.

Ecology was not the primary target in most of those cases (nor do I believe for a second that modern-day eugenicists genuinely care about ecology) but Malthusian ideology was routinely cited as an "objective" justification for most the events you listed. While I acknowledge it might be a little more diffficult for you as a non-reader, if you can find a digital screen-reader or literate friend to read them aloud to you, you can find out more at the following links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

Hey, wow, you proved Godwin was right. When people disagree with you it means they're like Hitler. Thank you for that contribution to human knowledge. Your own link isn't even supporting your position, Mr. "Anyone who can read knows". Which part of "to resolve German overpopulation" didn't you understand? The Lebensraum preachers wanted to seize resources from other people in order to allow their favored overpopulated group to continue to breed like rabbits; they weren't advocating that Germans have fewer children to bring their numbers into alignment with Germany's carrying capacity. But then, you already knew that, didn't you? You're peddling pronatalist propaganda.

Oh well, let's see if your other link backs up your claim that Malthusian ideology was routinely cited as an "objective" justification for most of the events I listed...

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust

Why, no, it doesn't. It doesn't even mention them. What a surprise. Here's what it does say:

"There is a single ideological current running through a seemingly disparate collection of noxious modern political and scientific movements, ranging from militarism, imperialism, racism, xenophobia, and radical environmentalism, to socialism, Nazism, and totalitarian communism. This is the ideology of antihumanism: the belief that the human race is a horde of vermin whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites endanger the natural order, and that tyrannical measures are necessary to constrain humanity."​

Gee, no hysteria there. Pointing out that making more copies of DNA isn't the measure of the good life means you're antihumanist, sure. I guess that would make the folks endlessly preaching against "consumerism" -- i.e., people achieving higher standards of living -- "prohumanist"? Western culture has plenty of experience with that ideology.

Welcome to the 21st century, Friar Savonarola.

 

[Bomb#20]

If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation. At least, not with me. I've yet to see any concrete evidence to support the notion that the past two centuries of various population control mechanisms have actually reduced the most significant ecological stressors in any meaningful way.

Get somebody to read this to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

Not only have I heard of Planned Parenthood, I've even personally used their services. But what does that have to do with my question?

Planned Parenthood is one of the population control mechanisms of the past two centuries and it has actually reduced the most significant ecological stressors in a meaningful way. Duh. What the heck do you think caused birthrates to fall enough to prevent Ehrlich from being right, if it wasn't making birth control available to women?

Ecology is discussed nowhere on the linked page.

Ooh, an article on Planned Parenthood focused on the good it did for women rather than the good it did for the environment. I guess that proves it did no good for the environment. :facepalm"

There's more mention of eugenics on that page than of ecology, in fact; does that mean Wikipedia is in on the "pronatalist conspiracy"?

Who are you quoting?

 

[Politesse]

Planned Parenthood is one of the population control mechanisms of the past two centuries and it has actually reduced the most significant ecological stressors in a meaningful way. Duh.

I'm familiar with the assertions. My question was about evidence. I note that PP primarily operates in the United States, whose carbon footprint and energy usage are higher than almost any other country's, save for the People's Republic of China, whose attempts at population control have been even more severe. So I would be especially, specifically interested to see any proof that their efforts have had beneficial ecoogical outcomes to date. This is the Science subforum, not Religion.

Is your evidence, the word "duh"?

For the threee millionth time, I do not in any sense oppose Planned Parenthood, or the availability of family planning services in general. I think they do a lot of good for people. But their mere existence in no way proves the validity of the pseudoscience you're peddling about demography and ecology.

 

[Bomb#20]

Planned Parenthood is one of the population control mechanisms of the past two centuries and it has actually reduced the most significant ecological stressors in a meaningful way. Duh.

I'm familiar with the assertions. My question was about evidence. I note that PP primarily operates in the United States, whose carbon footprint and energy usage are higher than almost any other country's...

You say that as though it weighs against my argument.

So I would be especially, specifically interested to see any proof that their efforts have had beneficial ecoogical outcomes to date. This is the Science subforum, not Religion.

Is your evidence, the word "duh"?

For the threee millionth time, I do not in any sense oppose Planned Parenthood, or the availability of family planning services in general. I think they do a lot of good for people. But their mere existence in no way proves the validity of the pseudoscience you're peddling about demography and ecology.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/facts-figures/annual-report

"In 2020, Planned Parenthood provided care and education to millions ... 395,000 unintended pregnancies averted by contraceptive services"

https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/many-chickens-eaten-day-97fda74fbde5d17c

"in the United States, 8 billion chickens are consumed per year"

https://www.census.gov/popclock/

The United States population on October 22, 2021 was: 332,863,191

In fact, if you gave up chicken, you'd save money on your groceries and ultimately benefit in most respects, as would the environment that is exploited to sustain your lifestyle.

The difference I see is that by creating a market for chicken, Steve and other chicken consumers are specifically encouraging land to be used in a certain way by adding monetary incentive for doing so. We as a species consume roughly 55 million chickens a day, so any change to consumer behavior regarding chicken would have a fairly significant impact, even if it were only a partial reduction.

8 billion / 332,863,191 x 395,000 = 9,493,390

In one year, Planned Parenthood reduces the rate at which Americans increase the number of chickens we kill per year by about nine and a half million. Cumulatively, the number of chickens they thereby prevent us from creating a market for grows year by year. In ten years, 95 million; in the 105 years PP has been in operation, 500 million, assuming they've been ramping up their birth control activities linearly. 500 million chickens per year is a significant change to consumer behavior regarding chicken. You have already stipulated that this has a fairly significant beneficial impact on the environment, even though it's only a partial reduction.

"Those who refuse to do arithmetic are doomed to talk nonsense." - John McCarthy

 

[steve_bank]

Maybe nor ecology, PP is about in part reducing unwonted kids. Kids who may end up in a govt program with little support or worse.

Population was dropping as America became better off in the first place. No need for 5 or 6 kids to provide support for older parents. That is why legal immigration in the USA was important, keeping the economy growing needs a growing population.

Planned Parenthood is just what it says. Planning how many kids you want and can support, or no kids at all.

The flip side is the Catholic mantra breed like rabbits or abstinence. There is a poster from the 60s or 70s showing the pope saying 'The iull is a no no'.

PP or anything like it has not been around for 200 years. In the 19th century food, water, and disease was a check on population. If you are born into a poor family odds of survival were low.