Vitaliy did you write that? What's your opinion of 3d printing allowing for localized, small manufacturing? About population control, I've read some studies that say human population growth is self limiting -- and not becuase of limited food resources, but because of some evolutionary biology built into living things. I've read other studies, that of course, disagree with that.

In nature we see the result of over-population. Too many creatures fight for limited natural resources which results in population die-off, then cycle repeats.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev I had trouble understanding what you think the problems are. Are you saying the problems with the world economy are overpopulation and decreasing amounts of fossil fuels?

Here's a link about human populations naturally stabilizing. I won't argue these points because I'm essentially ignorant on the topic. Though if anyone wants to argue NBA playoffs, pm me. https://globalconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/world-population-is-stabilizing/

The Myth of the Population Explosion So the primary myth I would like to explode is that, because the world population is growing exponentially, it will soon explode if we do nothing to stop it. I must admit I believed in this myth also until I learned the facts. Where did this myth come from? If you look at a plot over many thousands of years, averaging over hundreds of years, the exponential J-curve in the human population is apparent, as shown in the following graph from Population Growth over Human History.

News article from today's ABC News Online:

Human activity has pushed the planet across four of nine environmental boundaries, sending the world towards a "danger zone", warns an international team of scientists.

Climate change, biodiversity loss, changes in land use, and altered biogeochemical cycles due in part to fertiliser use have fundamentally changed how the planet functions.

These changes destabilise complex interactions between people, oceans, land and the atmosphere, the team of 18 scientists report in the journal Science.

Passing the boundaries makes the planet less hospitable, damaging efforts to reduce poverty or improve quality of life.

"For the first time in human history, we need to relate to the risk of destabilising the entire planet," says Johan Rockstrom, one of the study's authors and an environmental science professor at Stockholm University.

Scientists in 2009 identified and quantified the nine planetary boundaries within which humanity can develop and thrive.

The five other boundaries -- ozone depletion, ocean acidification, freshwater use, microscopic particles in the atmosphere and chemical pollution -- have not been crossed.

Passing the boundaries does not cause immediate chaos but pushes the planet into a period of uncertainty.

Scientists consider climate change the most serious crossed boundary.

"For climate change the risk to humans begins increasing as carbon dioxide rises above 350 parts per million (ppm)," says the study's lead author Professor Will Steffen of the Australian National University.

We're now at nearly 400 ppm; we're coping so far, but we're seeing extreme weather events become worse, loss of polar ice and other worrying impacts," says Steffen.

The study results are set to be incorporated into the new global development goals that will be finalised in September at the United Nations in New York to replace the Millennium Development Goals on poverty alleviation expiring this year.

Scientists hope the new study will help balance competing demands for economic growth and environmental sustainability which are likely to arise during the conference.

Despite a steady drumbeat of grim warnings, food prices have declined the past four years, indicating that wild weather linked to climate change is not destroying harvests worldwide.

Commodity prices, a measure of scarcity for energy and other basic goods, are also falling, leading some economists to question warnings from climate scientists and environmentalists.

But Steffen says living within planetary boundaries will not necessarily compromise the prosperity and comfort of humans.

"Experts from technology and engineering say we can prosper with nine billion people, and stay within the planetary boundaries," says Steffen.

"We have to be clever and we have to innovate, but they say we can do it."

Well that makes no sense at all.

Uncertainty.

What I like about that solution is it encourages people to become doctors who actually want to heal people. I'm tired of these entrepreneurial doctors who care more about big money than helping people. I think docs should make a lot of money, in proportion to their high level of schooling and responsibility, but it shouldn't be a road to mega bucks. Another problem with the entrepreneurial doc is you get more surgeries -- surgery isn't always the right thing to do medically. But it's usually the right thing for a doc to do if he wants to line his pockets with cash.

I have relatives who are physicians for the US Government. They make about $15,000 per month. That's a damn good salary. They also have great benefits. That should be enough to attract top people to the profession who actually are interested in being healers.

You do not read carefully. In contrary - high salaries attract people who are more interested in money themselfs.

No I understand you point and it's the same point I'm making. What I'm saying is the $15,000/month is far short of what the entrepreneurial class of doctors makes. In other words, I think doctors should be paid well -- but being paid well is not the same as becoming filthy rich off the profession -- which is why certain people are attracted to the profession as it currently exists.