Yes.

Case in point. The upper Appalaichains in the northeastern part of our contingent states: Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine.

When the settlers landed in our country, that area was sparsely populated by trees. The settlers needing more ample vegetation and such, planted. (Forgive me for I've forgotten the species or types of trees in reference). But, the fact is- the trees have nearly consumed all of New Hampshire and Vermont and Delaware- even though the population continued to rise dramatically, so did the trees.

Sure. As long as one of those humans figures out a method to do so. The odds are good. Either that, or someone will invent a material that replaces wood and is common (e.g., plastic).

A professor of mine once mentioned the ratio of value of products between ingenuity and raw materials. We're able to create products now that are highly valuable and use very little raw material. 50 years ago, an adding machine was all full of gears and mechanical things, and printed results in paper. Now we have calculators that are 1/20th the size (less raw material), have internal mechanisms made out of 1/100th of an ounce of silicon, and print their results on long-lasting, reusable LEDs instead of paper. The value of the materials in a calculator are far less than 1 percent of the value of the finished product. I thought it was an interesting point.

Look at the damage we are currently causing the environment with our vehicles and coal power plants worldwide. Soon there will be no ozone and the world will be too warm to sustain certain lifeforms. Its only a matter of time until it catches up to us. Also, feeding 10 billion people would be difficult.

You should read some of Wade Davis's work.

Particularly, Shadows in the Sun

An excellent book that will help answer some of your questions. Besides, near the end- it includes a delirious tale of his exploration into the Sonoran deserts of Arizona to smoke toads.

Also, quality of life would drastically increase with a much smaller population because there would be less resource scarcity and damage done to teh environment.

There is a finite supply of accessible oil (I think estimated at another 30-40 years worth) so I believe that problem will self-correct before the ozone disappears.

Coal is also limited, although I am not sure how much we have.

In general, the best solution to overpopulation would be self-regulation (people would have less children) but that would require a radical shift in world attitude. I wouldn't expect that to occur soon although Japan has come to that point.

I agree. Self-Regulation is horribly inefficient, but what can one do but draw attention to the problem and its sources? Dogmatism is a plague on this planet.

I recently finished the book "Inevitable Surprises" by Peter Schwartz. There is a chapter or two in there discussing current population trends (i.e. rather than booming overpopulation -- which everyone feared 15 yrs. ago -- pop. growth is leveling off and pop. overall is heading toward stabilization rather than uncontrolled growth) and it's a good read.

I really don't trust estimates that oil will "run out" in 20, 30, 50 or 100 years. Many experts were saying the same thing 20 years ago. There is a lot of oil out there that is not being exploited because of cost -- i.e. it's too expensive to extract it, like in Canada. As the price of oil continues to rise, more and more of that will be economically feasible to go after.

New oil deposits are also being found, as our drilling technology improves (massive props to the History Channel).

Actually, I believe coal is one resource that is still in abundant supply. Most experts think that the end of the coal supply is nowhere in sight.

Not going, to read the whole thread, but Britain is not a monarhcy but rather a parliamentary system. Also, I'd put a 3 next to America.

The other thing (already mentioned in this thread) that effectively reduces population is disease. I have not done any research into the topic but I believe there is a correlation between overpopulation and disease. Certainly there is a correlation between ignorance and disease which is one of the reasons why disease is so devastating in underdeveloped countries where education is poor. Of course the other problem in underdeveloped nations is the poverty which is typically associated with unsanitary living conditions.

Religious-based and culture-based attitudes are excepcionally difficult to change. Unfortunately, procreation is often rooted in these concepts so again, I would say education might be the most effective tool in combatting overpopulation.

Ok, depends who one believes, I guess. I am certainly not an expert but my original statement is true. There is a finite supply of accessible oil. At some point that supply will be exhausted.

FWIW, I was speaking of prerevolutionary britain.

Yeah, last year in my environment class, the prof said there's enough to last another 500 years at the current consumption rates.

ANd my bad about the monarchy Nightfyre, I thought you were listing them according to a timeline. The revolution took place long before WWI.