This question is like the nurture vs. nature question. The only sensible answer is yes! Increased population causes an increased consumption of the resources. Clearly if you have 5 mice eating your cheese they will consume it at a faster rate than 2 mice consuming the same block of cheese. What seems to be happening though is we have more and more mice, but the western philosophy of bigger, better, faster, more has created a couple of capybaras that are also consuming the cheese. The real question is .... "Is there any possible way to turn the capybara back into a mouse? How do you get an entire culture and philosophy to see the SmartCar as cool and the Cadillac Escalade as uncool.

A second challenge with this dynamic is the capybara eats more cheese because it can. Western culture consumes more resources because we have a greater ability to do so. We have more money and more free time with which to consume resources than a subsistence farmer who spends all their time generating enough food to live on. But again how do you ask someone (and in this case millions of someones) to voluntarily live with substantially less than they can afford? How do you create a people that voluntarily choose not to do things they have the time and money for? And how do you create a capitolist economy that doesn't encourage consumption?

If you look at population dynamics in wild populations normally a predator keeps a population in check. The consumption of one species is limited by other consumers. When a population gets too big some other species comes in and eats it. Then that population can increase in size until it has nothing to consume and eventually you have a die off or a population collapse. Is this where we are heading?

p.s. a capybara is a large South American rodent. In one sense the largest rat on Earth.

I see your population dynamics in wild populations where normally a predator keeps a population in check. And I raise it to having our cozy mother earth shaking us off like a flea infested dog. Weather people would like to accepted or not Mother Earth is a living breathing organism, and if the pattern holds, all living organisms have symbiotic relationships with other organisms, when the balance is upset by something like bacteria, man or dinosaurs for example, it wipes them out and starts again.

We humans like to think of us as the biggest creature that roams the earth... the Universe! ha! A little arrogant don't you think?

Why must we always blame affluent societies for all of the world's ills. Mr. Diamond and the rest of the world should thank God for the affluent nations of the world, and specifcally the United States. The U.S. produces 40% of the world's corn, 51% of the world's soybeans, 25% of the world's wheat, 21% of the world's cotton, and 18% of the world's rice. We do this because our free enterprise system and form of government allows us the freedoms to be inovative and creative in our abilities as human beings. Let's not be too concerned about the rich Americans consuming at a higher rate. I'm sure those we feed around the world are not concerned about the question at all.

Today NOAA announced that this has been the coldest winter in 7 years, for both the USA and the world. As I've always known, the Global Warming issue has always been political. I know PRI is very liberal in their views, but it would be very refreshing to hear the truth about this issue every now and then.

Weather is what happens day-to-day, year-to-year; climate is the overall average of what the weather is doing. Like in baseball, a home-run is one hit, not the batting average. One or two cold winters doesn't change the overall outlook any more than one or two home runs make for an outstanding batter. I think that's one of the things causing confusion. In any case, those individual home runs have built up to be a pretty convincing batting average for global climate change. Also, the fact of unusual weather conditions argues for climate change as well, as the normal fairly predictable system isn't working as it should, producing fluctuations. Something's moved.

I believe modern environmental scientists refer to the phenomenon as "climate change", not specifically 'Global Warming', specifically to avoid compartmentalization of a complex set of factors that contribute to the issue. Yes, the sudden fervor is politically, but mostly media driven, yet that doesn't negate the fact that as an ever growing species with extensive industrial demands growing at exponential rates we can't afford not to have a dialog about these things. Global warming refers to the implications of the dimenishing extremes in terrestrial temperature, statistically significant when adjusted for geological time. It does not specify the average daily or periodic temperatures in any given region. What is manifestly true is the more volatile and unpredictable weather patterns that are showing up in places that were relatively stable in recorded history. Shifting of the jet stream due to oceanic temperature shifts from depleting ice caps and thinner ice plates bring drought to previously moist areas, rain in arid regions and a disruption for species further reaching than our own. It is not the change in global climate that is disurbing or disruptive- this is a given fact of nature. It is the rate at which the activities of industrialization and misunderstanding of the limits of our own needs that factors in to the climate change equation. To respond to the initial post, it is not that as a population explodes it is more susceptible to the dinner needs of predators, but rather that the predator itself has nothing more to eat. We will exhaust our resources either by consumption of kill off due to our activities, and then the remaining will war out over the limited resources remaining. Peace and stability are founded on access to resources. Those who have them rule the world, and in an ever diminishing platform to raise resources we become increasingly vulnerable.

When I was at school in the eighties the big threat to the future of the earth was the rising popultion. There was a calculation that suggested by 2050 we would all be living on the equivalent of 10 square feet of land each, because the population of the world would be so vast. This prophecy does not look like it's going to become true, simply because adults are chosing to have less children, in all parts of the world, either through governmennt intervention, such as in china, or through affordability choices. I therefore think the rising population threat has gone. On the other hand the threat from excessive consumption is every looming, and as afluence increases, there is a natural desire for 'more things'. Just look at the 'storage' business which is growing at an alarming rate as consumers look for somewhere to store their 'extra stuff'. I think this greed is going to be our ultimate downfall, as we strip the earth of all it's natural resources. We of course won't be around to see the pain....it will be our children that will pay the ultimate price.

Diet for high cholesterol

We have to address both population growth and overconsumption.
World popuation growth should be given more emphasis, with more effort/dollars going for education/family planning. This effort should best be viewed as a long term program.
As individuals we can cut consumption a lot by going to a healthier plant based diet, eliminating meat products. And we can develop an energy conservation mentality; using mass transit, buses, bicycles, etc. These things can be done in the short term.

one solution is reading "The Perfected Diet how to eat organic gourmet for $8 a day" by Eve Anderson positive solutions and in depth research

"Especially in affluent Western societies," negates the entire argument. Has Jared Diamond read the Fast Company article describing China's natural resource grab with no concern whatsoever for the impact upon the environment or the people of Africa? Raping the land, enriching dictators, means nothing to them. Apparently Mr. Diamond isn't aware of the devastating impact of China on the world right now. The increased rates of consumption are taking place in China, but maybe Mr. Diamond doesn't have the guts to challenge them. No, go ahead, make excuses for them. When they crush the Western democracies they will put all tree-hugging liberals in front of firing squads and be done with them.

Interesting angle to approach this topic. In response to your explanations, China (the world's largest exporter) is merely a vehicle for Western societies the developing world to acquire goods and services at a far lower cost to our respective environments and economies while the Chinese government willfully extracts those costs from it's people's own lands and those of their neighbors (privatize the benefits, socialize the costs). So why would the Chinese willfully pillage and defile their own lands and those of their neighbors? Simple, most Chinese yearn to acquire a "Western" lifestyle with all of the amenities and benefits associated with it. And who can blame them or anyone else who aspires to our lifestyle? It is very difficult to have an environmental or human rights consciousness when you are trying to support a family. I do not agree with the collective choices made by China (or the rest of the world for that matter), but we can hardly blame them for wanting to follow a path that, until recently, made us the most wealthy and powerful nation in the world.
The problem overarching all of these issues is most definitely overpopulation. Our planet is not capable of sustaining our numbers at Western affluence (in fact, it is calculated that we would need three Earths to do that!). Consumption is already beginning to be perceived in the same light as gluttony at the dinner table, in short it is politically incorrect and viewed as obscene...give it time and increasing resource scarcity will bring that viewpoint into stark contrast with those we held in the late 1990's and early 2000's. As for population, we need to not only halt growth but reverse the trend and bring our world population down to a more sustainable level (2-3.5 billion sounds reasonable). In order to do that in a fairly short span of time (50 years), draconian population controls will have to be introduced alongside increased education for women, contraceptive distribution, and ideally a world-wide taboo on having more than x number of children. Only when we recognize the seriousness of this issue, implement measures that will work at the pace required, and create a paradigm shift in world consciousness will we have a manageable number of people on this planet.

Economy as of today gets worsen and worsen that’s why politicians build bridges that will solve great economic problems, in any situation, you will always have the ability to carefully analyze and come to a prolific decision. For example, if an unexpected expense comes crashing down on your budget, and were looking for financial relief. Using payday loan is something you can rely in choosing solutions and one act of financial responsibility. If you pay it back on time, and find a lender with favorable terms, and it is only once in a blue moon that you’re doing it, then everything is fine. It’s like credit cards or anything else, if you use cash advance responsibly and in moderation, there’s nothing wrong with them at all.

I guess for me the bigger threat to our planet is the rising of population. Let's face it not all of us can support large families. Especially those countries that have economic crisis. Because if there is only small population there would be enough consumption and less expense. In relation to continuous economic recession did you hear the sad story of KEN KARPMAN ? He is now living example of rags to riches and back to rags. The former corporate trader has been hit hard by the economic recession and now, desperate for quick payday loans, Karpman took a job at Mike’s Pizza & Deli Station in Clearwater, Florida. He is now earning $7.29 an hour plus tips. He’s grateful to have work, even if it sometimes takes him to the doors of neighbors to his old office building. There has been stress in the Karpman marriage. But when it comes to who is most at fault for the collapse, Ken Karpman points at himself. “If we didn’t have to worry about the lights getting turned off, we can spend more time talking about us.” We have to admit that Ken Karpman at least deserves credit for the effort. I feel sorry for him! So guys let's still be thankful because we are still bless, right?

I think rising populations is the more ominous, destructive problem. With rising populations comes higher carbon levels, more depleted forests, and more endangered species of animals. As a conservationalist, I realize that many species of animals are in severe danger already because of a larger human impact, which comes with higher populations.