People have been saying the same thing and have had the same fears (or at least similiar ones) for thousands of years. Relax things are really not that bad. There is abundant food, energy, room, and resources on the planet. And that is the great thing about innovation - we constantly discover how to get more and more return from less and less. Don't let big numbers scare you - like the size of the current human population. Hell there are probably more bacteria in your mouth than people who have ever lived and they (the bacteria) aren't running out of resources. We're fine. Think positive. Haha ...

I see we'll have to agree to disagree. It takes a long time to fill up an enormous space (the earth), but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Human population has irrupted due to the twin conincidences of discovering the earth's fossil fuel abundance and discovering 2 new continents (North and South America) into which people could expand. Those 2 events will not be repeated.

There is the chance for a new energy subsidy if we can get fusion going, for example, or perhaps just using Thorium in more traditional fission reactors. That would help tremendously. But it still would not help solve problems associated with overfishing, depletion of the soils, climate change, and a myriad other disasters coming at us.

Yes, we're fine for the moment, and for maybe another decade. But the day of reckoning is coming, and soon.

I think its clear we are mostly in agreement. Having said that, where's the fun in just echoing each other? So I'll discuss the (relatively minor) areas where I disagree with you.

Affluence, loosely defined as living in comfort with the ability to acquire, is not directly attached to the footprint unless no attempts are made to reduce individually the footprints of the things that make up that life. Currently, they are linked. They may or may not need to be. I tend to think not, that there is a way to provide a better lifestyle to the inhabitants of the planet without the massive footprint. But in terms of what has been invented and how things are done in the present, you are right. I was alluding to the future. We can invent our way out of a dire future (except for any consequences that are now inevitable). We can't invent a method that keeps perpetual growth from poisoning the planet, is what I meant.

Well, I'm skeptical. We either support a lot of people at a low standard of living, or a few people at a relatively high standard of living. I don't know for sure, of course. There is the potential to harvest a LOT of energy from renewable sources. But I don't see how we get from here to there without either greatly reduced standards of living (at least for a while), substantial die-off, or both.

So to me, that poses an ethical question: should a solution to global warming be pursued without pursuing the problem of ending perpetual growth?

This one is easy - you can't solve the global warming problem without addressing the issue of perpetual growth, at least not as long as fossil fuels power the world economy (which is overwhelmingly true today).

as Samuel Johnson said,

Nothing focuses the mind like a hanging in the morning.

I agree with the sentiment, but I just don't see the concern in the general population. Old habits die hard. It is already very late in the day to start taking action on these issues. Just look at RFT's response - everything is fine! By the time it is staring you in the face, it's too late.

*Chuckle* - man if I could only go back to say 1100 AD, or 500 AD or 2000 BC and make a bet with you guys on this - since there was no shortage of people with the same firm opinions then - I'd make a mint.

OK then. We can't go back in time, but that doesn't prevent a friendly wager. I'll bet you global oil production will hit 50 million barrels of oil a day before it hits 100 million barrels of oil a day.

Maybe we could bet the price of a barrel of oil on the day the bet is settled.

Hopefully there is still someone lurking on this comment thread to verify the bet. What say you, RFT?