Would world peace be good for the environment?
By locke49
@locke49 (66)
United States
October 7, 2008 11:27pm CST
I'm talking about COMPLETE world peace: absolutely no violence whatsoever - not a another death intentionally caused by another human being. Wouldn't this lead to a huge increase in population growth? After all the impact that humans have on the environment is calculated by the formula: IMPACT = POPULATION * AFFLUENCE per person * TECHNOLOGY. Essentially, a drastic increase in population would lead to food shortages and crowding. Are wars then, in this perspective, a good thing?
1 person likes this
1 response
@CraftyCorner (5600)
• United States
8 Oct 08
I think that complete peace would be good for the environment. Peaceful places tend to have lower birth rates. War torn places tend to have higher birth rates. When peace breaks out creativity is spawned which leads to environmentally friendly technologies.
@CraftyCorner (5600)
• United States
8 Oct 08
Many peaceful countries are currently at below replacement birth rate.
*
Japan is one. They are going to be in economic trouble pretty soon because of this, even though the elderly in Japan are some of the longest lived and stay in the workplace well into their 90's. This country is almost free of car culture, a major polluting factor. Many residents prefer to ride bikes from place to place. Bikes are very easy to park. Longer journeys are on high speed rail.
*
America is hovering at just above replacement. Her above replacement status is largely dependent on immigrants who come from war torn places or Catholic countries that frown on birth control.
*
Germany is below replacement too. This country is in such a fix that it is having to close schools, some having as few as 30 students.
*
One of the reasons for the free falling birth rate is education options for women. They are finding themselves preferring not to have children in order to pursue other goals such as careers.
