🚀 go-pugleaf

I've been researching the topic of Sustainable Devleopment for a few years
now, and so I believe that a few general observations/predictions can be
made:

1) Nations, or groups of nations, that are able to select a starndard of
living that their nation(s) can collectively support/sustain, and provide
appropriate incentives and disincentives to their citizens to limit their
reproduction to that level that can be sustained from natural resources,
will still be around.

2) Nations, and groups of nations, that are unable to implement population
stabilization and/or reduction programs so that their natural resources
are not chronically depleted, will fall into anarchy, starvation, gang
clashes (e.g. Tutsi vs. Hutu),  and eventually will fall back into the
stone age.

3) Nations that fail to seal their boarders against the influx of economic
immigrants will fall victim to the same over-consumption of natural
resources that led the immigrants to flee in the first place.

In general, a nation, or group of nations, can't survive as a civilized
people unless it has the basic underpinnings to support their economy.  
These include: adequate farmland to provide food, fiber, raw materials,
and fuel, fresh water, wildlife habitat for spawning fish, etc.  

Post fossil fuel economies may be driven by solar, wind, water,
geothermal, nuclear fission or fusion.  The decision is up to the
nation(s).  The key is that if a non-nuclear option is choosen (e.g.
solar) then there must be sufficient allowances made for land to be used
to solar collectors.

In conclusion, each nation or group of nations (e.g. Japan  and related
Asian nations) must decide how many people can be sustained and at what
level (e.g. how many acres of farmland per capita, gallons of fresh water,
etc.) will be allocated or budgeted.  Those who fails to implement
population reduction/stabilization programs will fail to survive.   Those
that do, will still be here in the year 3000 and they will be able to
continue technological advancements  that we have grown used to.  

The  heart breaker will be having to stand-by and watch other nations fall
into the abyss of chaos as nature adjusts their population level for them.
 Good candidates for this are: Mexico, Bangladesh, most of Africa, and
most other countires that have a population growth rate that is doubling
their numbers in less then every 30 years.  

Charities will offer help and will make us feel better, but only the
people of each nation can really change their destiny.   Too bad that the
Pope is still too blind to see the clamity awaiting the results of their
fertility policies and lack of equality for women.   Since some Christians
believe that the world is about to end, I suppose failure to plan for the
year 3000 makes sense?

The good news is that countires that offer women/girls equality with men
already have a stable population.   This may be the answer, however male
dominated third world countires are not likely to give-up their power to
women without a fight, and who wants to fight? 

After fossil fuels are exhausted, developed countires that achieve a
balance between natural resources and consumption will have to choose
between lowering their standard of living in order to assist third world
countires that continue to double their numbers every 30 years.  
Countries that fail to implement a population reduction program, I
contend, should be placed at the bottom of the priority list so that
countries that are trying to stabilize/reduce their numbers can be helped.
  Tough choices await us in the future. 

If interested in researching and discussing Sustainable Development,
please write me via E-Mail.  

Tom Tucker, Portland, OR USA