Despite threads that claim the world's human population is decreasing the best data I can find just claims that the rate of increase is declining. I also read that the planet can safely support a population of well over 10 billion humans. But I can't help but wonder how much the population of other living creatures, especially mammals, has to decline to make room for more and more people. This is in addition to the increased strain that the still ever increasing human population puts on nature to handle the needs of the human population.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

If I compare my country \ nation to others Britain has a population of well over 60 million. If I look at the US, Pakistan or France et al Britain is overpopulated for it's land size (per unit of land).

Even so we do have areas that there are few people living like vast areas of Scotland.

We also have a low population neighbour (Eire \ Ireland) where we could direct people to go.

I doubt the mamal population will decline to dangerous levels.

Rats follow humans. Dogs and cats are already highly integrated.

If we plan for expansion then bats can live in the belfrays.

Hedgehogs and foxes are already adpting to city life.

I suspect that the strain on natural resources is down to the attitudes of humans and their poilitical and ecconimic leaders and values more than our numbers.

A new phone every year may seem like a little thing but when you look at the industry required to make that phone from start to finish the environmental impact is frightening.

Cotton for clothes and apples or beans for food may require our labour but these take up very little other resources when we do the work ourselves.

For me just to be able to post this text cost far more than I pay for it. Mostly because we have oil and natural resources we exploit and pay for the energy we don't put in ourselves.

(How many industries \ companies are involved in sending a simple internet text - I suggest several hundered or more from the people who mine silicon to those who deliver the PC to your home.)

Humans don't actually need many resources to live a healthy life... We are mamals too.

Our planet already has trillions of creatures on it and their mass needs probably out-wheigh basic human needs.

There is an issue within certain populations in terms of equitibal reproduction (2 kids 2 parents.)

Some of our populations are suffering from polutants.

Plasticate particulates (from the sea in fish or just from drinking a refreshing coke from a plastic bottle) has an effect on male (and female) reproduction. (A form of estrogen that can demasculanise.)

I am not into the apocalyps idea. I suspect we will get to a point we can't sustain and then crumble (or fall into war) and afterwards, just like ants or rats or giraffs build ourselves up again.

Mind you I do fancy the idea that I am the last man on earth after all you daft burgers have blown yourself up.

We do have a difficult future but it wont be solved through science fiction or politics or ecconomics.

The trick is, will people drastically alter their life styles voluntarily to make life bearable for less fortunate humans and our animal friends. I couldn't stand to live in a city with 5 or 6 thousand other people taking up the space all around me. The population of my state, Florida, has more than tripled during my adult life and the evidence is everywhere. Leave the vicinity of the theme parks and it doesn't take long to see how most of us live. But we are still fairly lucky. I'm just glad I won't be here in another 50 years or so.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.