No I'm talking about your butt... it's producing to much gas and the pollution is definately something to be concerned about.
I wish that were a joke...PBR. Pabst Blue Ribbon? Puts Bunge Right.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I do like how "concern" for pollution gives you the right to question everyone elses motives and beliefs. I suppose my "concern" isn't as good as your "concern."
How? You haven't explained this at all so I can't really respond.
Deciding there are too many cows on the planet again Bunge? What did I say about trying to control the planet?
Straw man.
Every time.
Why not stay within the context of the argument instead of inventing phantoms to fight?
The point made was that cows were the source of the problem. If cows are the source of the problem, we're the source of the cows. It's our responsibility.
That's straight, plain, logic. Even groverat would back me up on this one (assuming my methane output was low.)
I never said that there are too many cows. I said that if they are the source of the Global Warming problem it's our responsibility.
I leave the thread unattended for a few hours, ( yes I need to sleep sometimes ) & when I come back all sorts of fire & brimstones have been lobbed around.
In case anyone is interested, my position is still one of skepticism on matters relating to the ennviroment. I'm particularly skeptical as to the degree of influence that we humans have with regards to global warming. ( I never said Global warming isn't happening )
I just prefer to go out there & do deep research of my own bat.
As an pro-active enviromentalist, I have elected Not to drive or own a car or to even own a motor Bike. It makes my life difficult at times, but I figure thats a small price to pay when I consider that this act is having a smalll effect in reducing air pollutants.
Over the last 20 years this has amounted to approx 100,000 gallons of gas, & 5.000 gallons of lubricants, & 200 lbs of tire compounds that ultimately end up being washed into gutters to rivers and the ocean.
It's a small contribution, but if everyone did the same..just imagine the differences.
As regards Cows, you guys deserve a medal. I know the stuff about cows, but just to put it into perspective, you might be interetested to know that little bitty Termites actually chew over more vegetation. Some ecologists estimate that termites are responsible for up to 12 times what cows or any other mamalian rudiments generate by way of methane.
Why not stay within the context of the argument instead of inventing phantoms to fight?
The point made was that cows were the source of the problem. If cows are the source of the problem, we're the source of the cows. It's our responsibility.
That's straight, plain, logic. Even groverat would back me up on this one (assuming my methane output was low.)
I never said that there are too many cows. I said that if they are the source of the Global Warming problem it's our responsibility.
It is a straw man to you because of your self-centeredness. You assume so much about a) human understanding b) human action. Copernicus proved that the universe doesn't revolve around the earth, but you insist on still putting humans at the center of everything.
It's called perspective, you need to get some. The earth is like a dot compared to the sun and even though you think there are lots of humans, we still only inhabit small stretches (relatively) of this planet. In otherword we are a relatively small variable in the equation and yet you would give us the most importance.
You wonder why I find it comical that you consider the number of cows we have instead of considering the largest object in our entire solar system. I mean sure it happens to provide the energy for everything that ever has and ever will happen on this planet, but hey it's all about the humans.
That my friend, is not a straw man. It is trying to show you the ridiculousness of the validity you give this certain science. If I were calling it a religious study you wouldn't give it a shred of thought. You would dismiss it outright. You would call it assumptions based upon assumptions. However because it meets your humanist "religion" you welcome it with open arms. They can't say with certainty what the weather is going to be in a month, but they are 100% certain that humans control the weather trends on this planet.
Wow...this subject frays a few nerves round here. People are diving into the black and white corners.
As far as the science goes, we know for sure that the Earth is warming up. What we can't say with 100% certainty is to what extent human activity is responsible for the warming, if at all...since we have no reference or comparable situation.
The situation could be anything from the 2 extremes of (a) "the Earth is cooling naturally, but the warming effect caused by CO2 from human activity is so much greater that the natural cooling is obliterated" to (b) "the Earth is warming naturally, and the amount of CO2 produced by human activity is so negligable that its not even a factor". The stats from the EPA (posted earlier in the thread) tend to suggest that human activity is a major factor.
At one end of the spectrum I have seen reports sponsored by the automobile and oil industries pointing to scenario (b), while the Union of Concerned Scientists take the converse view.
How much is science being tampered/efected/modified etc by big money here? Global warming is something that affects all of us, specially into the future. If it is human activity thats (largely) to blame, then we are going to have to change the most fundamental of human activities that allow an industrial society, namely transportation and generating electricity. Over 50% of the entire Wall St portfolio is directly or closely connected with energy, and the auto industry is also a sizable sector. A huge part of the economy is vested in fossil fuels and internal combustion engines. Nobody can deny that, and nobody can deny that industry is notorious for dragging its feet when short term profits can be hit due to reinvestment in new plant and machinery, research, environmental regulations etc etc. And we in the US are by far the largest consumers of energy, both in total and per capita.
There is no conspiracy theory here...its just the way humans are. If the people running the industries that may be responsible for global warming can manipulate scientific reports to absolve any responsibility, then they will, for $Billions (if not potentially $trillions) depend on it. And many people only tend to look at their own lifespans as being relevant time periods..."we can do what the hell we want now, leave it to future generations to fix the mess, cause we ain't gonna be around".
The reality in global warming is probably somewhere between the 2 extremes....withy support for each reflected in the 2 political positions of (a) 'green', clean air, zero pollution, regulation of energy etc industry, blah blah...to (b) traditional capitalism with the rule of vested interests, no regulation, blah blah.
It would have fascinating to see a debate re. global warming and related issues between, say, Ayn Rand and Noam Chomsky...but we know that's not on the cards!
BTW....nobody's mentioned deforestation...if there was ever a possible human factor in global warming...then there is one. Justs my 2¢ worth on a cold windy Friday night.
The issue isn't cows or people making CO2 and methane. The question is how much impact human beings realistically have on the environment on a global scale. Obviously we can have a large impact on a local scale: London when coal burning was at its height; desertification, especially in the Middle East and Africa; pollution (and clean up) of the Great Lakes.
However, I don't believe that Global Warming is honest science. It carries too much political weight with it; it is a way of manipulating people and countries with fear, much in the same way as overpopulation. (Obviously I don't believe the world is overpopulated; I have four children.)
Faith or lack thereof in Global Warming is also largely affected by one's perception of reality, namely a belief in God and how He relates to time and space and the sustainment thereof. "Man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God." The "science" behind Global Warming is hardly comprehensive so it's a question of faith regardless of which side you come down on.
How much is science being tampered/efected/modified etc by big money here?
although i'm sure there is a lot of bias to show that global warming in a non issue for these folks, it would be naive to assume that on the other side of the table the exact same thing isn't going on in the other direction.
scientists are whores for grant money. they'll find a way to make global warming an issue to keep the fat money pipe flowing.
BTW....nobody's mentioned deforestation...if there was ever a possible human factor in global warming...then there is one. Justs my 2¢ worth on a cold windy Friday night. [/B][/QUOTE]
Please read my thread.
I actually posed this as part of a bigger question connected to air pollution etc etc..
Re Indonesia, 1999, 2000, 2001 burning of old grwth forest was on such a scale and for such a duration that scientists noted a "profound defection of the seasonal Monsoon rain patterns in relation to Indonesia, Irian Jaya ( West papua ) New Guinea, And Northern Australia. "
Smoke from these wanton fires travelled as far south as New Zealand & eventually circumnavigated the world.
although i'm sure there is a lot of bias to show that global warming in a non issue for these folks, it would be naive to assume that on the other side of the table the exact same thing isn't going on in the other direction.
scientists are whores for grant money. they'll find a way to make global warming an issue to keep the fat money pipe flowing.
The temp today doesn't matter. It's not about how hot it is now, but what the temp should be right now.
So it may have been hotter in the middle ages. But if the current cycle should have us with an average temp that is on a decline but it's currently going up instead then we're really going to be ****ed when the natural cycle goes up again.
OK - This is a rather interesting point. Its a pitty for my sake at least I couldnt clearly clarify point I was making by hearing the item on the radio again.
OT: I hear that the holes in the Ozone layer - or well some of them are getting smaller!
Boy, I don't know about you, but I am beginning to think that some of our Northern cousins are in desperate need of some sweet loving back to nature hooning on a trail bike type stuff.
I'm so glad that most don't know where Australia is, let alone The Apple isle !
So in the mean time we can have a bit of peace eh !
Boy, I don't know about you, but I am beginning to think that some of our Northern cousins are in desperate need of some sweet loving back to nature hooning on a trail bike type stuff.
I'm so glad that most don't know where Australia is, let alone The Apple isle !
So in the mean time we can have a bit of peace eh !
LOL! How you going.
My brother works in a big name american hotel in Sydney and this American woman came up to him and said "Oh you have Christmas in Australia? Hows that, since it doesnt snow?" and another Yank thought that Tasmania wasnt real - Apparently he deduced this fact because of the cartoon character Tazzie Devil.
That there is no scientific consensus of a global-warming threat is indicated by surveys of active scientists. A November 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union found that only 19 percent of those polled believed that human-induced global warming has occurred.
That same year, Greenpeace International surveyed 400 scientists who had worked on the 1990 report of the influential U.N. Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or had published related articles. Asked whether current policies might instigate a runaway greenhouse effect, only 13 percent of the 113 respondents said it was ?probable? and 32 percent ?possible.? But 47 percent said ?probably not??far from a consensus.
My brother works in a big name american hotel in Sydney and this American woman came up to him and said "Oh you have Christmas in Australia? Hows that, since it doesnt snow?" and another Yank thought that Tasmania wasnt real - Apparently he deduced this fact because of the cartoon character Tazzie Devil.
(In case you weren't joking, as I sincerely hope you were.)
My, we are hasty.
It is not. At the population density of Manhattan (hardly poor and desperate conditions) you could fit the population of the world in Yugosalvia.
The Roman Empire was concerned about "over population" and the Earth has how many more people now? The plague wiped out a third of Europe's population during the Middle Ages. Did things suddenly get better because of the population decline? No. People produce things. Production went down. Gross domestic product went down. The sorry state of so many places in the world are the result of oppressive regimes and downright criminal economic policy.
And I have cupcakes to make so have a Happy Easter.
Hello, folks. We're talking about overpopulation of the world here, me and Fangorn, so if it's climate change and "SPJ's a dickhead no Trumptman's a twat" you want, move along.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fangorn
My, we are hasty.
It is not. At the population density of Manhattan (hardly poor and desperate conditions) you could fit the population of the world in Yugosalvia.
No. We are not hasty. We are in terrible, terrible trouble already.
You're fortunate enough to live somewhere where you're insulated in almost every possible way from the consequences of global overpopulation, which are awful. I've seen a lot of the developing world (well, Africa and Asia) and I've seen land erosion, pollution, poverty, hunger and thirst with my own two eyes. And it's nothing to do with 'density' of population.
There are too many of us for the resources we have left us. It's that simple.
It's long, but please read this:
Quote:
The key to understanding overpopulation is not population density but the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area's carrying capacity. When is an area overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated.
By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soils and forests are rapidly being depleted: and that implies that its carrying capacity for human beings will be lower in the future than it is now. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing mightily to the destruction of global environmental systems.
You talk about the European Plague years. Well, the population of London today is larger than the population of the whole of Elizabethan England. On our planet:
There were one billion of us in 1804.
There were two billion of us in 1927.
There were three billion of us 1959, four billion in 1974 and five billion in late 1986; in October 1999 there were six billion of us. (source: overpopulation.net, but these figures are well known and not open to question.)
Do you see? We can't sustain it like this. We're already living in luxury, me and you, using our computers and driving our cars (well, bicycle in my case, but still.) A tiny, TINY percentage of the planet can do what we do, and we can only do it because they can't.
If you've been to any city in south Asia or sub-Saharan Africa there is absolutely no way you could still say that the planet's not overpopulated. Absolutely none. We're in awful trouble now, even those of us in Europe and America who can't see any problem because it hasn't bitten us on the arse: yet. In the meantime it's all going off in a third world near you.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
No I'm talking about your butt... it's producing to much gas and the pollution is definately something to be concerned about.
I wish that were a joke...PBR. Pabst Blue Ribbon? Puts Bunge Right.
Originally posted by trumptman
I do like how "concern" for pollution gives you the right to question everyone elses motives and beliefs. I suppose my "concern" isn't as good as your "concern."
How? You haven't explained this at all so I can't really respond.
Originally posted by trumptman
Deciding there are too many cows on the planet again Bunge? What did I say about trying to control the planet?
Straw man.
Every time.
Why not stay within the context of the argument instead of inventing phantoms to fight?
The point made was that cows were the source of the problem. If cows are the source of the problem, we're the source of the cows. It's our responsibility.
That's straight, plain, logic. Even groverat would back me up on this one (assuming my methane output was low.)
I never said that there are too many cows. I said that if they are the source of the Global Warming problem it's our responsibility.
I leave the thread unattended for a few hours, ( yes I need to sleep sometimes ) & when I come back all sorts of fire & brimstones have been lobbed around.
In case anyone is interested, my position is still one of skepticism on matters relating to the ennviroment. I'm particularly skeptical as to the degree of influence that we humans have with regards to global warming. ( I never said Global warming isn't happening )
I just prefer to go out there & do deep research of my own bat.
As an pro-active enviromentalist, I have elected Not to drive or own a car or to even own a motor Bike. It makes my life difficult at times, but I figure thats a small price to pay when I consider that this act is having a smalll effect in reducing air pollutants.
Over the last 20 years this has amounted to approx 100,000 gallons of gas, & 5.000 gallons of lubricants, & 200 lbs of tire compounds that ultimately end up being washed into gutters to rivers and the ocean.
It's a small contribution, but if everyone did the same..just imagine the differences.
As regards Cows, you guys deserve a medal. I know the stuff about cows, but just to put it into perspective, you might be interetested to know that little bitty Termites actually chew over more vegetation. Some ecologists estimate that termites are responsible for up to 12 times what cows or any other mamalian rudiments generate by way of methane.
But that's another story
Originally posted by alcimedes
man, this thread got a lot uglier than the last one.
Part Fools!!!! You know not what you do!!
Originally posted by bunge
Straw man.
Every time.
Why not stay within the context of the argument instead of inventing phantoms to fight?
The point made was that cows were the source of the problem. If cows are the source of the problem, we're the source of the cows. It's our responsibility.
That's straight, plain, logic. Even groverat would back me up on this one (assuming my methane output was low.)
I never said that there are too many cows. I said that if they are the source of the Global Warming problem it's our responsibility.
It is a straw man to you because of your self-centeredness. You assume so much about a) human understanding b) human action. Copernicus proved that the universe doesn't revolve around the earth, but you insist on still putting humans at the center of everything.
It's called perspective, you need to get some. The earth is like a dot compared to the sun and even though you think there are lots of humans, we still only inhabit small stretches (relatively) of this planet. In otherword we are a relatively small variable in the equation and yet you would give us the most importance.
You wonder why I find it comical that you consider the number of cows we have instead of considering the largest object in our entire solar system. I mean sure it happens to provide the energy for everything that ever has and ever will happen on this planet, but hey it's all about the humans.
That my friend, is not a straw man. It is trying to show you the ridiculousness of the validity you give this certain science. If I were calling it a religious study you wouldn't give it a shred of thought. You would dismiss it outright. You would call it assumptions based upon assumptions. However because it meets your humanist "religion" you welcome it with open arms. They can't say with certainty what the weather is going to be in a month, but they are 100% certain that humans control the weather trends on this planet.
Please....
Nick
As far as the science goes, we know for sure that the Earth is warming up. What we can't say with 100% certainty is to what extent human activity is responsible for the warming, if at all...since we have no reference or comparable situation.
The situation could be anything from the 2 extremes of (a) "the Earth is cooling naturally, but the warming effect caused by CO2 from human activity is so much greater that the natural cooling is obliterated" to (b) "the Earth is warming naturally, and the amount of CO2 produced by human activity is so negligable that its not even a factor". The stats from the EPA (posted earlier in the thread) tend to suggest that human activity is a major factor.
At one end of the spectrum I have seen reports sponsored by the automobile and oil industries pointing to scenario (b), while the Union of Concerned Scientists take the converse view.
How much is science being tampered/efected/modified etc by big money here? Global warming is something that affects all of us, specially into the future. If it is human activity thats (largely) to blame, then we are going to have to change the most fundamental of human activities that allow an industrial society, namely transportation and generating electricity. Over 50% of the entire Wall St portfolio is directly or closely connected with energy, and the auto industry is also a sizable sector. A huge part of the economy is vested in fossil fuels and internal combustion engines. Nobody can deny that, and nobody can deny that industry is notorious for dragging its feet when short term profits can be hit due to reinvestment in new plant and machinery, research, environmental regulations etc etc. And we in the US are by far the largest consumers of energy, both in total and per capita.
There is no conspiracy theory here...its just the way humans are. If the people running the industries that may be responsible for global warming can manipulate scientific reports to absolve any responsibility, then they will, for $Billions (if not potentially $trillions) depend on it. And many people only tend to look at their own lifespans as being relevant time periods..."we can do what the hell we want now, leave it to future generations to fix the mess, cause we ain't gonna be around".
The reality in global warming is probably somewhere between the 2 extremes....withy support for each reflected in the 2 political positions of (a) 'green', clean air, zero pollution, regulation of energy etc industry, blah blah...to (b) traditional capitalism with the rule of vested interests, no regulation, blah blah.
It would have fascinating to see a debate re. global warming and related issues between, say, Ayn Rand and Noam Chomsky...but we know that's not on the cards!
BTW....nobody's mentioned deforestation...if there was ever a possible human factor in global warming...then there is one. Justs my 2¢ worth on a cold windy Friday night.
Originally posted by Fangorn
The issue isn't cows or people making CO2 and methane. The question is how much impact human beings realistically have on the environment on a global scale. Obviously we can have a large impact on a local scale: London when coal burning was at its height; desertification, especially in the Middle East and Africa; pollution (and clean up) of the Great Lakes.
However, I don't believe that Global Warming is honest science. It carries too much political weight with it; it is a way of manipulating people and countries with fear, much in the same way as overpopulation. (Obviously I don't believe the world is overpopulated; I have four children.)
Faith or lack thereof in Global Warming is also largely affected by one's perception of reality, namely a belief in God and how He relates to time and space and the sustainment thereof. "Man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God." The "science" behind Global Warming is hardly comprehensive so it's a question of faith regardless of which side you come down on.
Great Great points!
Fellowship
How much is science being tampered/efected/modified etc by big money here?
although i'm sure there is a lot of bias to show that global warming in a non issue for these folks, it would be naive to assume that on the other side of the table the exact same thing isn't going on in the other direction.
scientists are whores for grant money. they'll find a way to make global warming an issue to keep the fat money pipe flowing.
Please read my thread.
I actually posed this as part of a bigger question connected to air pollution etc etc..
Re Indonesia, 1999, 2000, 2001 burning of old grwth forest was on such a scale and for such a duration that scientists noted a "profound defection of the seasonal Monsoon rain patterns in relation to Indonesia, Irian Jaya ( West papua ) New Guinea, And Northern Australia. "
Smoke from these wanton fires travelled as far south as New Zealand & eventually circumnavigated the world.
That should read " Deflection " not defection....
Originally posted by alcimedes
although i'm sure there is a lot of bias to show that global warming in a non issue for these folks, it would be naive to assume that on the other side of the table the exact same thing isn't going on in the other direction.
scientists are whores for grant money. they'll find a way to make global warming an issue to keep the fat money pipe flowing.
Did you mean something like this Alcimedes?
Scientists decry Kyoto and excessive funding for Global Warming Research
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
The temp today doesn't matter. It's not about how hot it is now, but what the temp should be right now.
So it may have been hotter in the middle ages. But if the current cycle should have us with an average temp that is on a decline but it's currently going up instead then we're really going to be ****ed when the natural cycle goes up again.
OK - This is a rather interesting point. Its a pitty for my sake at least I couldnt clearly clarify point I was making by hearing the item on the radio again.
OT: I hear that the holes in the Ozone layer - or well some of them are getting smaller!
Your back on line...Good man.
Boy, I don't know about you, but I am beginning to think that some of our Northern cousins are in desperate need of some sweet loving back to nature hooning on a trail bike type stuff.
I'm so glad that most don't know where Australia is, let alone The Apple isle !
So in the mean time we can have a bit of peace eh !
Originally posted by aquafire
Hey TrevorM,
Your back on line...Good man.
Boy, I don't know about you, but I am beginning to think that some of our Northern cousins are in desperate need of some sweet loving back to nature hooning on a trail bike type stuff.
I'm so glad that most don't know where Australia is, let alone The Apple isle !
So in the mean time we can have a bit of peace eh !
LOL! How you going.
My brother works in a big name american hotel in Sydney and this American woman came up to him and said "Oh you have Christmas in Australia? Hows that, since it doesnt snow?" and another Yank thought that Tasmania wasnt real - Apparently he deduced this fact because of the cartoon character Tazzie Devil.
LOL!
Lack of pollution particulates might be contributing to drought
Poor nations demand climate compensation
Smog protects India from Global Warming
Tree farms won't halt Global Change - Kyoto Wrong
Antarctica getting cooler, not warmer...or not... or maybe
Desertification reversable and is reversing
What do scientists themselves think about it?
That there is no scientific consensus of a global-warming threat is indicated by surveys of active scientists. A November 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union found that only 19 percent of those polled believed that human-induced global warming has occurred.
That same year, Greenpeace International surveyed 400 scientists who had worked on the 1990 report of the influential U.N. Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or had published related articles. Asked whether current policies might instigate a runaway greenhouse effect, only 13 percent of the 113 respondents said it was ?probable? and 32 percent ?possible.? But 47 percent said ?probably not??far from a consensus.
Nick
Originally posted by trevorM
LOL! How you going.
My brother works in a big name american hotel in Sydney and this American woman came up to him and said "Oh you have Christmas in Australia? Hows that, since it doesnt snow?" and another Yank thought that Tasmania wasnt real - Apparently he deduced this fact because of the cartoon character Tazzie Devil.
LOL!
Just tell em you look this
Originally posted by aquafire
[IMG]SNAP!
Funny indeed! Quick reply BTW!
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
And by the way, THE WORLD IS OVERPOPULATED.
NOW. ALREADY. TODAY.
(In case you weren't joking, as I sincerely hope you were.)
My, we are hasty.
It is not. At the population density of Manhattan (hardly poor and desperate conditions) you could fit the population of the world in Yugosalvia.
The Roman Empire was concerned about "over population" and the Earth has how many more people now? The plague wiped out a third of Europe's population during the Middle Ages. Did things suddenly get better because of the population decline? No. People produce things. Production went down. Gross domestic product went down. The sorry state of so many places in the world are the result of oppressive regimes and downright criminal economic policy.
And I have cupcakes to make so have a Happy Easter.
Originally posted by Fangorn
My, we are hasty.
It is not. At the population density of Manhattan (hardly poor and desperate conditions) you could fit the population of the world in Yugosalvia.
No. We are not hasty. We are in terrible, terrible trouble already.
You're fortunate enough to live somewhere where you're insulated in almost every possible way from the consequences of global overpopulation, which are awful. I've seen a lot of the developing world (well, Africa and Asia) and I've seen land erosion, pollution, poverty, hunger and thirst with my own two eyes. And it's nothing to do with 'density' of population.
There are too many of us for the resources we have left us. It's that simple.
It's long, but please read this:
The key to understanding overpopulation is not population density but the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area's carrying capacity. When is an area overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated.
By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soils and forests are rapidly being depleted: and that implies that its carrying capacity for human beings will be lower in the future than it is now. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing mightily to the destruction of global environmental systems.
You talk about the European Plague years. Well, the population of London today is larger than the population of the whole of Elizabethan England. On our planet:
There were one billion of us in 1804.
There were two billion of us in 1927.
There were three billion of us 1959, four billion in 1974 and five billion in late 1986; in October 1999 there were six billion of us. (source: overpopulation.net, but these figures are well known and not open to question.)
Do you see? We can't sustain it like this. We're already living in luxury, me and you, using our computers and driving our cars (well, bicycle in my case, but still.) A tiny, TINY percentage of the planet can do what we do, and we can only do it because they can't.
If you've been to any city in south Asia or sub-Saharan Africa there is absolutely no way you could still say that the planet's not overpopulated. Absolutely none. We're in awful trouble now, even those of us in Europe and America who can't see any problem because it hasn't bitten us on the arse: yet. In the meantime it's all going off in a third world near you.