Are there too many of us here (on Earth)?
-
'what is left is highly-priced and used for pharmaceuticals and plastics production'
Have you noticed how a lot of products we buy have a huge amount of plastic wrapping. In a lot of cases the wrapping is more valuable than the actual product that is being wrapped!
Crisps for example! An expensive plastic oil based wrapper for a quarter of a fried spud!
Alan, have you the link to those stats?
-
I'm sorry Mike, but I'm on Alan's side this time. Pepsi is definitely better than Coca-Cola!
The only thing that's wrong with KFC, is that there is not enough meat on the thing!
And recently I have become a convert to MacDonalds, moving away from Burger King. "It's just nicer"!
Starbucks coffee? Can't get enough of it! And my daughter is fast becoming addicted to frappachino's
-
@mike lucey said:
Have you noticed how a lot of products we buy have a huge amount of plastic wrapping. In a lot of cases the wrapping is more valuable than the actual product that is being wrapped!
Oh here we go again......
What's wrong with wrapping?! It's how you dispose of if that is important. Throwing it out of your car window does not impress!
This is an interesting article;
-
@alan fraser said:
I came across this interesting table. It assumes a time when oil has effectively gone (at least as a fuel) and what is left is highly-priced and used for pharmaceuticals and plastics production. Obviously, alternate energy sources have been developed, otherwise the more technologically advanced options wouldn't be possible at all.
It also assumes that each such population would have an effective zero effect upon the biosphere.Yes, you are right. It is only a hypothesis. But say the demographic starts to take GM more seriously rather than just passing it off as a 'frankenstein' product, we could in theory grow plants that are much higher in oil content than before. Hemp or rape for example. I'm sure there are others which could be found, plants that could be processed to create a generation of new polymers?
I'm not at all against GM, but I don't approve of companies such as Monsanto owning all the patents. But perhaps that's something I'll/we'll just have to live with unless there is a complete overhaul of our present global capitalist system?
-
@alan fraser said:
Do you have any idea how long it takes to filter a mass of 5000 lego pieces, a similar number of statically-charged, clingy fragments of supermarket bag and a healthy coating of loft dust?
Yes I do. I did that as part of my degree in product design engineering.
UV is an excellent source to break down plastics too. Plastics manufacturers constantly strive to introduce chemicals that slow this process.
-
Here you go Mike. It's a little outdated now but a good source for discussion.
I have to admit that I don't quite understand scenario 2 with its lower population...unless it means extremely laissez-faire with not even the rather limited eco-restrictions we currently have in place.I also must admit plastic bags don't pose the 'eternal' threat that's claimed...although, I guess, improperly disposed of ones can cause great damage to wildlife before they degrade
I was up in the attic not long ago, tidying up the kids old toys including an enormous hoard of Lego in a couple of Tesco bags. The bags disintegrated into minute fragments, the moment I touched them. Do you have any idea how long it takes to filter a mass of 5000 lego pieces, a similar number of statically-charged, clingy fragments of supermarket bag and a healthy coating of loft dust? -
Plastic bags to batteries.
[flash=600,480:vq43lh0p]http://www.youtube.com/v/sw5WTO5i0Ag[/flash:vq43lh0p]
Oh, definately Coke, Pepsi is too sweet and artificial tasting.
-
It's diet Pepsi for me. I'm on a high protein/ low carb Atkins-based diet.
I far prefer 7-up though. Or even Iron-Bru! Liquid bubblegum!!!
-
@solo said:
Plastic bags to batteries.
What a brilliant example of how resourceful humans can be!
Thanks for showing as that Pete.
-
.... I'm sticking to the wastefulness of all this plastic oil based wrapping.
As I write, I am looking at the plastic wrapper that came with my GoPano (nice device btw) and there is nearly as much plastic in the wrapping as there is on the actual product! The whole device, lens, iPhone case and carry bag could have been fitted into a simple cardboard box!
Nearly everything comes in plastic these days and one can even cut their fingers if not careful when opening some accessory plastic wrapping! What is wrong with simple cardboard or paper, at least its sustainable! Why do 20 packs of cigs have plastic wrappers instead of a simple paper seal! To keep them fresh? I think not!
I am not sure there is really as much recycling done as we would like to think! Check this out,
Recycling around the world
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4620041.stmThe recycling 'answer' is not good enough! Its expensive to recycle plastic, whereas recycling paper is low cost. But again the Big Oil Companies don't have a monopoly on forestry .... yet! But they are working on it, I am sure
My parents had a shop / filling station and I worked in it as a young lad. The minerals (sodas), Coke, Fanta, Lucozade (my favourite) etc came in glass bottles and when the bottle was returned the customer got a refund. It was even a source of pocket money for enterprising lads pinching them from neighbours! Motor oil came in glass bottles also. All these bottles were collected, refilled and delivered back to the shelves for selling again and again. I often noticed wear and tear on the Coke bottle from them rubbing against each other. The 'shape' was the reason. This was the case with milk bottles also. It made sense! Now its aluminum cans and plastic which don't get recycled as much as people believe they do.
I notice everyone is 'tip toeing' around my rant above!
-
@mike lucey said:
I notice everyone is 'tip toeing' around my rant above!
I'm not tip-toeing around it- or I hope I'm not anyway? I've been reading the paper that Alan posted (which I found utterly miserable) and have been looking at many arguments for and against population growth.
@unknownuser said:
So we come to this inescapable conclusion when we try to answer the question of how many people the Earth can support--the answer can only be a counter question: "What kind of world do you want?" If you want a world where Americans can continue living pretty much as they are, then global human population is likely to be substantially less than it is now. If you wish to keep the current American standard of living where it is, while allowing the rest of the world to grow substantially in numbers, the consequence is to doom that "other world" to perpetual misery and lost expectations, while doggedly holding on to the American way of life as desperately as possible.
This is not a world I want for my children and grandchildren, nor is it one I think anyone else would care to see. The only response can be to drop all these time and energy-wasting lost-cause efforts to keep both freedoms of fertility, immigration, and affluence while continuing to grow world human population. Instead we should work to reduce the number of humans living on Earth. This can be done peacefully by conscious action, or it can be done coercively, or involuntarily--as is happening currently in Zimbabwe, with its 30% level of AIDS infection.
Grim.
But I know what kind of world I want. The problem is it seems, is that the world I want seems to be the unpopular vote- or at least many don't want to talk about it. (4 pages of debate, yet less than 700 views for this thread).
As for too much plastic? We could of course ban plastic bags, but then if we did, however would we have been able to come up with that brilliant idea about making batteries from those very bags, in the link that Pete posted earlier?
I think this is the classic trick Malthusian thinkers keep missing- the classic old schoolboy mistake, is that man has always learnt to adapt and be creative with his surroundings. We're not the only ones who are moving and developing- the rest of the world is too. During Roman times the ladies would hand bits of black rock around the necks as jewellery, knowing very little that one day we would be heating our homes or powering entire cities with. Or the strange yellowish element that made glass windows a nice colour could actually be used to generate electricity. Today we are only beginning to understand what an abundant rock we now know as Thorium, can be used again to generate almost limitless quantities of electricity, thus replacing coal.
What I am saying is never underestimate the power of the human mind and the power of human ingenuity.
-
@tfdesign said:
What I am saying is never underestimate the power of the human mind and the power of human ingenuity.
I agree and do not forget the heart too
compassion is a must on this subject in my view -
Who can give someone else or an organization a right demand from someone to kill unborn child or to sterilize a person?! This is a direction this question is heading.
We should rather ask how WE can find new ways to let Earth thrive...
(Official Trailer) THRIVE: What On Earth Will It Take? - YouTube
[flash=720,578:u24ed8sa]http://www.youtube.com/v/OibqdwHyZxk[/flash:u24ed8sa].
-
@juanv.soler said:
@tfdesign said:
What I am saying is never underestimate the power of the human mind and the power of human ingenuity.
I agree and do not forget the heart too
compassion is a must on this subject in my viewWhich is exactly why I and others argue for at least starting to do something about the problem now...while we have the leeway to exercise compassion, rather than waiting until humanity has painted itself into a corner and we have to helplessly watch disease, hunger and war solve the problem for us.
The human mind and human ingenuity certainly do have great potential, but we are not omnipotent. We do not have the power of psychokinesis, nor can we magic infinite resources from a finite world merely by willing it to be so.
Wanting a particular outcome does not mean that it's necessarily achieveable, however firmly we put our minds to it."You can't always get what you want."
The Rolling Stones -
Juan you are spot on. There's far too much hatred of fellow humans on this earth. Most of these haters have never heard of 'reason' (or at least they'd rather bury their head in the sand
)You know there is a website that rich westerners can go to and actually pay people to go and discourage others from having children!
@unknownuser said:
PopOffsets is unique –we give you the option of offsetting your carbon footprint by funding family planning
A way of saying, "we're (the affluent western whitey, are) going to stop you from having one of life's most amazing gifts; children". Nice. Where's that going to end, I wonder?
http://www.popoffsets.com/what_we_do.phpIt wasn't so long ago that a certain Austrian fellow with a stupid moustache was branding similar ideas around- vis-a-vis the concept of 'eugenics'
. The principles of eugenics are horrific. Eugenics once fell out of grace because of the 1940's nazi disposition with them, but I suppose because it's now been several years since the end of the second world war, people have largely forgotten the atrocities of the nazi's, and the essence of fascist/nazi principles are once again creeping back in. -
Alan,
Believing that we are yet to be discovered gives oneself a better way to grow for one keeps aware and not closed.
One has to count with the Spirit. -
@alan fraser said:
Which is exactly why I and others argue for at least starting to do something about the problem now...while we have the leeway to exercise compassion, rather than waiting until humanity has painted itself into a corner and we have to helplessly watch disease, hunger and war solve the problem for us.
There's an answer to that...
- Disease;
We fight disease by getting behind pharmaceutical companies & development (and stop being afraid of them) and by introducing massive R&D back into British and worldwide industry- in the west at least. This for one would help boost our economy. The British are very advanced in the field of medicine. It would be a shame to export all that talent to countries like China- we should work together instead.
- Hunger;
We do the same as above with GM. (I noticed that there was only one reference to GM in that report you uploaded Alan. And of course we forget about organic food- which after several independent studies, was shown to have no extra benefits to health than food grown in large scale industrialisation). This too (GM research), would also help boost our economy.
- War;
We open all borders right across the globe allowing free movement of migration for everyone.
I know that the last point is controversial to many. But we kind of just had an open border right here in Britain! It would be interesting to know what the result of this has turned out to be.
http://www.newint.org/argument/2010/12/01/immigration-debate-open-borders-to-refugees-migrants/ -
Tom, you say,
'A way of saying, "we're (the affluent western whitey, are) going to stop you from having one of life's most amazing gifts; children". Nice. Where's that going to end, I wonder?'
Can you explain to me how offspring are a 'gift'? By definition, 'A gift or a present is the transfer of something without the expectation of receiving something in return.'
-
Mike, "the gift and human right to reproduction"? I don't really understand what you are angling at, apart from maybe perhaps playing the 'selfish' card? But then I suppose it boils down to how I'd define the term 'selfish', as selfish is another term that gets branded around a lot. Greedy is another one. And eventually it boils down to one thing alone, misanthropic thinking. This is why I conclude that people who believe what Malthus wrote in his paper; "An Essay on the Principle of Population" are simply misanthropic thinkers. Many of them it seems were also a product of the flower-power generation, and after several years of Thatcherism have never really been delivered into the "promised land" (whatever that was supposed to be?).
I would imagine that if I were living in pre-Victorian times, without contraception (probably because of religious order), I may have been born into a family with many brothers and sisters. There's a strong link that bonds that older period with the modern period- poverty, as well as the appliance of modern medicine. (I note that Bill Gates is really doing a good job in the Maleria department- a disease that we westerners don't really have to worry about). I've got two kids. I'd love to have more, but I don't really have the income to support them. But if I were 10 years younger and had a £70,000/year job i'd definitely have more! My friend Lawrence on the other hand is a Christian and he has 7 kids! So perhaps the religious thing goes out of the window?
We as a type of animal with a reproductive system breed (I know mice replicate in much higher numbers, but then mice don't develop drugs that help them have a far more satisfying and stable life), are able to reproduce and the result is very beautiful- out pops a child. You can prevent this, but then what's the point in living if you can't reproduce? I'd rather be dead.
-
@unknownuser said:
We should rather ask how WE can find new ways to let Earth thrive...
Brother, we're not going to thrive with David Icke! I'd rather go with the world according to Ned Flanders and have a total frontal lobotomy!!
Notice the great big Hollywood type production to that trailer? Are thrills and dark secrets the way to win arguments? And where is all this 'powerful technology beamed to us via UFO*****'?
Conspiracy theories have so far proven nothing and are not the way forward.*****U.F.O.= "United Fruitcake Outlet"
Advertisement