Are there too many of us here (on Earth)?
-
There's no need to swing to extremes in an attempt to dispute opinions presented. If the discussion can be kept on a logical, lucid it would be nice.
Kill yourself and save the Earth...
Why? Nobody suggested this. Why can't pragmatism and forethought create a plan that avoids draconian measures and misery and stabilizes world population? Why the prejudice against balance and the drive toward consumption acceptable? Why the resistance to seeing the results of past civilization's collapse applied to modern times and seeking to avoid the same fate?
We, the voter...
...and? One can observe that the voters have the power, but why has the desired change not been effected already? There's absolutely nothing wrong with capitalism, I'm all for it - in a well regulated fashion. I am against capitalism that makes it's profits on the backs of the common man, i.e.: The company does poorly but bonuses are given. Payroll cuts boost profitability, bonuses taken. Benefits slashed to boost profitability, bonuses taken. Company folds, golden parachute taken and the workers get nothing. Layoffs to boost profitability, bonuses again. Outsourcing (insert anything here) and laying off local employees, again - more bonuses. All of these fat bonuses are taken because the company has pushed more of the expenses of the employees off onto you and me, the taxpayer, because we pay for their unemployment, ER or medical visits they can't pay for, their defaults on loans. It's a Scam, and I'm tired of paying for their profitability.
Disease and Strife...
Where should I start? MRSA. AIDS. Malaria. Tuberculosis. Go here and get educated: http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/DiseasesConnectedAR.html
Organic Coffee keeps the farmers poor...
Really? You mean that $20/lb Coffee we buy keeps them poor? You mean the exorbitant markups and cuts taken by the middle men have nothing to do with it? Corrupt governments don't either I suppose. Show me the logic. I'm interested.
Doom laden...
Let's not get petty. Extremes get you nowhere. I don't base my idea of the future on "Star Trek", all rosy and technologically perfect. History has taught us that civilizations fall. Ours will too. How rapidly and in what manner it happens in is based on our decisions and actions today; doom is not certain, but if we continue down this path the fall will certainly hurt.
-
Alas yes for the moment!
By Michael Wolf (no photo montage)
Absolutly freaking! Is this the way you want to live?
Architecture of density
-
Nuff said:
-
.....and a graph showing the population rise over the last 12 000 years. Yeah it's not scary at all.
-
Yep Marian, graphs show things very clearly indeed. Is it just a co-incidence that this graph is identical to the oil production graph? I think not.
I have just read Paul Chefurka's article, Population The Elephant in the Room He makes a case for an sustainable World population after 'The Age of Oil' for no more than 1 Billion humans! He also makes an analogy using Wile E. Coyote, which I am sure will appeal to Alan F
This is the first article I've read where someone is actually willing to put a figure on a World Population for humans, all be it, without oil and no 'magic' alternative!
The article was written in 2007, some 4 years ago, and he was projecting current World population at approx. 8.2 or 8.3 Billion! As we know its now at 7 Billion. So maybe slowing!
I've also learned a new term in relation to this topic,'overshoot'! And it looks like we might well be in this phase.
If anyone is interested, its a good read, 20 minutes or so, with some quality graphs and stats to view. Check it out here, http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
EDIT: In my post above I got my figures wrong with regard to current World population. I have now corrected it.
-
Exactly my point, Mike....the idea that we can support even higher populations if everyone in the world was as efficient agriculturally as we are...when we are only as productive as we are BECAUSE of oil.
I've seen a number of such graphs; and they are all very similar. A couple of interesting facts emerge if you also study either the details of such graphs or the best mathematical modelling:-
The number of people currently alive on the planet is equal to the total number of people who EVER lived from the first appearance of Homo sapiens approx. 200,000 years ago until about 20,000 years ago...a period of 180,000 years.
The number of people currently alive also represents about 12% of all the people who have ever lived. That is one serious geometrical increase.
-
..... so the only way population can continue to grow is with some new mystical sources of energies that will replace oil energy and goods? Can't see that happening within the projected time-span for oil depletion. So, it looks like it will be down to Nature to sort it all out until such a source is found
Alan, we will be long gone when this comes about
-
@alan fraser said:
Yes, we could do all kinds of things...chop down more of Amazonia and what's left of the jungles in S.E Asia....cover the Sahara in solar cells to power desalination plants on the coast, then grow vegies in the shade of the panels; cover our coasts and the flanks of all our mountain ranges in wind turbines.
Wind turbines? Solar panels?? Why on earth would we want to do that? Solar panels and wind turbines are a massive waste of resources (and I mean massive!). Safer thorium powered nuclear power stations would be far more efficient and longer lasting than the former.
@alan fraser said:
But the loss of habitat would be catastrophic and would lead to mass extinctions on a scale not seen for millions of years. For every one of your hypothetical new Einsteins we'd lose dozens of plants and animals that may hold untold riches in terms of what they may may provide us with in pharmaceuticals or other technological advances. All this quite apart from the morality of driving many of our fellow creatures to extinction simply to make breeding room for even more of us.
You must have heard of scientific cataloging? Anyway what's the use of a lot of plants if we don't have the scientists who can make new biological, and quote "pharmaceutical or other technological advances"??
As for "Millions of years worth of destruction"? Again, I'm not too sure. It seems that the Amazon rainforest believe it or not is manmade anyway! It probably would have never existed if man hadn't farmed the land in the first place
@unknownuser said:
the Americas were a far more urban, more populated, and more technologically advanced region than generally assumed; and the Indians, rather than living in static harmony with nature, radically engineered the landscape across the continents, to the point that even "timeless" natural features like the Amazon rainforest can be seen as products of human intervention.
There have already been a couple of BBC documentaries about this already.
@unknownuser said:
The Amazon rainforest is the epitome of a last great wilderness under threat from modern man. It has become an international cause celebre for environmentalists as powerful agricultural and industrial interests bent on felling trees encroach ever deeper into virgin forest. But the latest evidence suggests that the Amazon is not what it seems.
As more trees are felled, the story of a far less natural Amazon is revealed - enormous manmade structures, even cities, hidden for centuries under what was believed to be untouched forest. All the time archaeologists are discovering ancient, highly fertile soils that can only have been produced by sophisticated agriculture far and wide across the Amazon basin. This startling evidence sheds new light on long-dismissed accounts from the very first conquistadors of an Amazon teeming with people and threatens to turn our whole notion of wilderness on its head. And if even the Amazon turns out to be unnatural, what then for the future of wilderness?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0122njpSo there you go. Everything you are so worried of loosing isn't about to disappear as quickly as you initially thought. The graph everyone keeps flaunting may show population increasing exponentially, but actually humans have always foiled this by being resourceful. I have no doubt that we may run out of oil one day, but like usual, humans will find new and innovative ways of extracting what is needed from the earth;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing -
@mike lucey said:
..... so the only way population can continue to grow is with some new mystical sources of energies that will replace oil energy and goods? Can't see that happening within the projected time-span for oil depletion. So, it looks like it will be down to Nature to sort it all out until such a source is found
Alan, we will be long gone when this comes about
Mike Like I just said, "What about thorium?"
...and then there is Shale gas too.
Here's a funny article about "Peak Wood", a crisis that happened in the Elizabethan period.
@unknownuser said:
The energy crisis which struck the British Isles was ‘peak wood’. The idea of peak wood may seem absurd from our vantage point in human history, but be assured it was taken seriously by the Elizabethans.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/debates/copenhagen_article/9202/ -
-
.... a totally 'natural' process!
-
Wow! What a revelation. There are the remains of ancient civilizations that have been since reclaimed by nature. Presumably the existence of Leptis Magna or many Egyptian sites now partly covered by desert sand means that the Sahara must be largely man-made too?
The plain fact is that tree cover is the natural clothing of the planet in all areas of the globe that have enough precipitation and sunlight to support it....and however much you care to extrapolate a few findings to complete absurdity.
Scientists may argue about the precise ratio, but it's generally agreed that as much O2 is produced onland as is produced by phytoplankton in the oceans...and it's the trees that are producing it.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what happens if you get rid of most if not all of the current tree cover and replace it by yet more people and livestock all breathing out CO2....especially when current levels of human activity are also seriously degrading plankton levels as well. LinkIt doesn't matter what new technologies are brought online...be it Thorium MSR, nuclear fusion or even Prof. Rossi's E-Cat cold fusion device, the result is exactly the same...just deferred.
The population is increasing. Other than a few setbacks like pandemics, it has been for the last 200,000 years. So even if such 'Star Trek' futures are attainable; and the population increases to 2 or 3 times its current level? What then?...it'll still continue to increase...or do you two imagine that it will simply and magically stop increasing for some mysterious reason?All you are arguing for is procrastination...dumping difficult decisions into the lap of some future generation. What decisions regarding population stabilization will they NOT have to face at some point in the future, that we are faced with at present? The only difference will be that we'll have raped the planet in the meantime.
-
@alan fraser said:
I'm heavily involved in the Rotary organisation. My own club is funding projects in Goa, Sierra Leone and several other parts of the developing world. What are you doing O saviour of Mankind? Because there's all the difference in the world between giving practical help...yet realising what is practically possible; and just spouting stuff you think sounds good but which is firmly planted in cloud-cuckoo land.
Well since you asked (and initially I didn't really want to rise to the bait, but what the heck?) For the last couple of years I have been raising awareness and money for the Alzheimer's Association, as well as the Stroke Association. I've also worked with children with severe disabilities such as cerebral palsy and autism, raising public awareness through music related workshops (CBSO, LPO and Glyndebourne Opera). A while ago I worked closely with a UNICEF based charity, raising money from the west German government to help a small village better their water system and get the youngsters to train learning how to fix basic electrical items. Really they should have learn't how to design and program computers, but that's what I was hoping to do with my books- starting with the SketchUp one. I'm also a member the PTA at my kids school. We've already raised money through a series of summer events to provide a school projector for the hall. I teach kids about architectural as well as engineering principles- with an emphasis on those in state education, as depressingly our governments seem to neglect that not everyone can afford to go to public schools (both Cameron and Clegg are Etonians).
It's very nice to hear that you are doing work with the Rotary Club. I bet you like showing off to the people of Sierra Leone your modelling skills? I'd like to see your results too.
BTW, my website is here if you want to have a look at some of my work;
Do have a look. One or two of the pictures I took for some of the projects are in there. But much of my work is not up there, because of copyright reasons- as well as privacy.
-
@alan fraser said:
All you are arguing for is procrastination...dumping difficult decisions into the lap of some future generation. What decisions regarding population stabilization will they NOT have to face at some point in the future, that we are faced with at present? The only difference will be that we'll have raped the planet in the meantime.
"Raped"? That's a harsh word!
What do you think the sun will do to the planet when in several billion years it dies, becomes a supernova and engulfs the earth? As for procrastination, you are putting words into my mouth. You are obviously upset because I dare disagree with you. On the contrary I am not(note I'm not shouting using upper case lettering), "dumping difficult decisions on future generations", quite the opposite. But I oppose your notion of regressing. We should be drilling for Shale gas. We should also be pouring millions into nuclear, learning how to dissipate the waste produced through technology and looking for far more efficient alternatives to solar and wind options. We went to Iraq and killed thousands of innocent men women and children on the back of Tony Blair. We spent millions of dollars doing that in partnership with GWB. If we can spend millions on a pointless war effort, we can spend money on welcoming in the 7th Billionth baby (as well as the 14th and the 28th etc etc!) -
@unknownuser said:
I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we … are the cure.
Agent Smith, The Matrix.
-
Well, bully for you, Tom. This is just descending into pettiness. I only raised the subject of Rotary because of your initial post in which you seemed to think that you were the only one here that cared for his fellow man (bleating on about potential lost Einsteins...as if that doesn't happen every day amongst all the millions of sperm that DON'T win the race to the ovum) and that the rest of us were heartless bastards who wanted to solve the problem by Gestapo-like tacics such as a bullet in the brain.
If you are going to constantly nosedive into silliness, hyperbole and now dick-measuring, then this becomes a pointless discussion.No, rape isn't too harsh a word. Don't you think that there's a slight difference between what is going to happen later on this century to your immediate descendants and what is going to happen in 5 billion years? We've evolved from amoebae in less time than that. God knows what kind of creatures will be inhabiting the planet at that point.
This is just more desperate stuff...you even accuse me of shouting because I take one particular option off adding stress to a single word. I used caps instead of italics...big deal.
Sorry, but I'm not wasting any more of my time on this level of debate...especially when you are not prepared to address any of the real points. -
.... and I've unlocked it as I started the topic in the hope that we would see all sides!
This, I think, is what is happening. I only wish we were is a real corner bar with a pints in front of us having this 'row'!
I can see both sides to the Tom / Alan argument and feel that the real solution must lay in the middle ground. As to what the middle ground is! I have no idea?
I still feel that the World Population is out of kilter with Nature in her intended plan! We (humans) stumbled on oil and off we exploded! If there was no oil on the planet I strongly feel that we would be still at the sustainable levels of population, probably a couple of billion!
Just to through a spanner in the works! Has anyone read up on this New World stuff? I've been reading bits and pieces over that past couple of years and initially though it was a load of old cobblers BUT now I'm not so sure.
One thing that was mentioned in the New World 'plan' as seen by so called conspiracy theorists, was that the world population had to be brought back to 2 billion or so! The methods envisaged was some kind of an engineered virus! After seeing 'Contagion' I got worried!
I brought my missus to the film! I don't think she liked it that much but it put her thinking which probably was the general idea. I won't spill the beans on the plot but it showed a possible scenario that is very plausible! All I will say is that forced food production had a large part to play,
When I was a young lad, 50 years ago, I really enjoyed the Sunday chicken dinner! The chicken tasted great and I nearly eat the bones but the dog was always watching me and waiting for them. The chicken on my grandparents farm in Kerry was even better as the were running around the place the day before!
Today, I hate chicken. Its like eating cardboard, unless its KFC
But generally the chicken in the supermarkets is rubbish. I've been in a small industrial chicken farm and was shocked at the way the chickens are reared. Its no wonder they taste like cardboard. However to maintain current levels of population this is the way it has to be, unnatural!It should also be noted that chickens and pigs have been at the bottom of a number of the dangerous viruses that have erupted of late. I also think that they (chickens and pigs) will be at the bottom of a virus that could well do nature's work and bring the human population back to balance.
Mass world education may be the only way we will be able to gain some kind of equilibrium with Nature. And this I feel is slowly happen via the internet. All we have to do is look at the recent and current activities in the Arab World. IMO, Twitter played a more powerful role that the Kalashnikov! Chinese authorities spend a lot of resources controlling the Net! We would not be having this 'row' without the Net
-
I'm pleased you unlocked the thread Mike
(that'll learn ya Csaba! )I'm not offended at all by Alan's remarks. I'm pleased that he is venting his anger, because this is a serious topic and it needs debating!
I was about to address Jeff's comments (I actually PM'd him this link after the thread got locked). This is a response to the Fairtrade remark I made. It now being 2.45pm I'm going to have to pick up the kids soon- but I will be back- to quote Arnie
Let's hope this works (thanks Pilou and TIG)
There are other links available- but many of them require a lot of reading. I know some people prefer videos, so here you go. (It's nicer to watch a video with some popcorn!
)[flash=437,363:3rsvsgcm]http://www.viddler.com/player/4f13affc[/flash:3rsvsgcm]
-
Personally, Mike, I have trouble with the estimated 'stable' population in the article you posted. I don't think it needs to drop anything like as low as 1 billion.
I think we might even manage to maintain present numbers, without further ruining the environment, if it's tackled properly...and promptly. Given the past record of the world community, however, I'm just not holding my breath.
The article did mention improved technology since 1890; and I think this would play a very great part. It doesn't have to be space-age; it can be as simple as septic tanks for all the animal waste in each village in rural india, which can produce surprising amounts of methane for domestic cooking and lighting before such waste is finally used as fertilizer on the fields.
We may need to introduce this ourselves on a truly industrial scale for human waste once we really hit peak oil and the cost of fertilizer starts going through the roof.
Similarly, the introduction of supplies of safe drinking water to everyone isn't exactly a bank-buster either. These are small things but impact hugely on infant mortality ( a factor which both causes people to try for large families and which has kept population levels low throughout history)
In the end, however, it still comes back to mathematics...the number of people versus the overall standard of living. We simply can't accomodate countless billions, each one 'entitled' to a nice house with all mod cons, on a nice plot of land with a nice garden and a nice car parked on the driveway. There simply isn't the room or resources.
My preferences lie in doing the best we can for those that are here already and giving them the best quality of life we can.
As for Fair Trade, there is clearly a desire amongst average consumers here to be 'fair' in our dealings with the 3rd World. Now you can make statistics (and interviews) say whatever you like. I have no idea if Fair Trade is as fair as it claims to be, but if it's not, then it's up to its detractors...who claim to have recognised its failings...to use that knowledge to develop something even fairer....which I'm sure people would be even happier to embrace.
-
I'm sure people will find solutions to the energy shortage like when they found it for the shortage of whale oil. We still have a lot of natural gas that can be used as fuel so we're not in big doodoo just yet when it comes to fuels.
The problem is the way the world currently works,is shaped and the places where the number of people are actually increasing. The amount of space or technology are not the main issues here it's the uncontrollable population growth coupled with the political and economic situation.Think of it like this, population is like a runaway freight train running down on an increasingly steeper hill on a very dark night. Technological and space issues are rather small debris, cars and people on the track that can be cleared just in time before the train reaches them, while political and economic issues are pretty big wooden logs on the track that might get cleared in time or they might not. A few logs could be safely crushed or cleared by the train.
The point is that the train is accelerating and at some point in time it will become impossible for the obstructions on the track to be cleared or it will meet a large thick tree and the train will then derail, crash and burn.
Advertisement