EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Earth's Systems in Rapid Decline
Protecting bits of nature here and there will not prevent humanity from losing our life support system. Even if areas dedicated to conserving plants, animals, and other species that provide Earth's life support system increased tenfold, it would not be enough without dealing with the big issues of the 21st century: population, overconsumption and inefficient resource use.
Without dealing with those big issues, humanity will need 27 planet Earths by 2050, a new study estimates.
The size and number of protected areas on land and sea has increased dramatically since the 1980s, now totaling over 100,000 in number and covering 17 million square kilometres of land and two million square kilometres of oceans, a new study reported Thursday.
Protecting bits of nature here and there will not prevent humanity from losing our life support system. Even if areas dedicated to conserving plants, animals, and other species that provide Earth's life support system increased tenfold, it would not be enough without dealing with the big issues of the 21st century: population, over-consumption and inefficient resource use. Without dealing with those big issues, humanity will need 27 planet Earths by 2050, a new study estimates.
Dealing with failure
But impressive as those numbers look, all indicators reveal species going extinct faster than ever before, despite all the additions of new parks, reserves and other conservation measures, according to the study published in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series.
"It is amazing to me that we haven't dealt with this failure of protected areas to slow biodiversity losses," said lead author Camilo Mora of University of Hawaii at Manoa.
"We were surprised the evidence from the past 30 years was so clear," Mora said.
The ability of protected areas to address the problem of biodiversity loss - the decline in diversity and numbers of all living species - has long been overestimated, the study reported. The reality is that most protected areas are not truly protected. Many are "paper parks", protected in name only. Up to 70 per cent of marine protected areas are paper parks, Mora said.
The study shows global expenditures on protected areas today are estimated at $6bn per year, and many areas are insufficiently funded for effective management. Effectively managing existing protected areas requires an estimated $24bn per year - four times the current expenditure.
False hopes
"Ongoing biodiversity loss and its consequences for humanity's welfare are of great concern and have prompted strong calls for expanding the use of protected areas as a remedy," said co-author Peter Sale, a marine biologist and assistant director of the United Nations University's Institute for Water, Environment and Health.
"Protected areas are a false hope in terms of preventing the loss of biodiversity," Sale said.
The authors based their study on existing literature and global data on human threats and biodiversity loss.
When asked about the 2010 global biodiversity protection agreement in Nagoya, Japan to put 17 per cent of land and 10 per cent of oceans on the planet under protection by 2020, Sale said it was "very unlikely those targets will be reached" due to conflicts between growing needs for food and other resources.
"Even if those targets were achieved, it is not going to stop the decline in biodiversity," he said.
One reason for this is "leakage". Fence off one forest and the logging pressure increases in another. Make one coral reef off limits to fishing and the fishing boats go the next reef.
Another reason protected areas aren't the answer is that fences or patrol boats can't keep out the impacts of pollution or climate change.
Finally, the pressures on the planet's resources are escalating so quickly that "the problem is running away from the solution", he said.
The loss of biodiversity is a major issue because it is humanity's only life-support system, delivering everything from food, to clean water and air, to recreation and tourism, to novel chemicals that drive our advanced civilisation, said Mora. Right now the dominant strategy to halt the loss of biodiversity is with protected areas.
"That's putting all our eggs in one basket," he said. "A major shift is needed to deal with the roots of the problem."
The ever-expanding footprint of humanity is the primary cause of global biodiversity loss. When the world's population was 5bn people in 1985, the amount of nature's resources being used or impacted became more than the planet could sustain indefinitely according to many estimates, said Mora.
The world population, currently at 7 billion, is well beyond Earth's ability to sustain. By 2050, with a projected population of 10 billion people and without a change in consumption patterns, the cumulative use of natural resources will amount to the productivity of up to 27 planet Earths, the study found.
Sustaining the current 7 billion people on the planet requires a major shift in resource use. At present, the average US citizen's ecological footprint is about 10 hectares, while a Haitian's is less than one. The planet could sustain us if everyone's footprint averaged two hectares, Mora said.
If there are more people, then there are simply fewer resources available for everyone, so population control will be needed along the lines of "one child per woman", he said.
"I'm from Colombia, it blows my mind that some governments in the developing world pay women to have more children," he added.
Hardly anyone is focused on the pressing need for a major shift, said Sale.
"The awareness of the public about this is shockingly low," he noted. What is needed is for humanity as a mass to change direction, he said.
"But can we find the hook, the lever that's needed to make that happen?" Sale asked.
A version of this article first appeared on Inter Press Service news agency.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
65 Comments so far
Show AllThe goal of the Powerful Few is to destroy this world.
No, it really isn't. Honestly.
What their goal is, is to own and control everyone and everything. That's all they care about.
They're not actually smart enough or perceptive enough, most of them, to be truly aware of the consequences of what they're doing. They're narrowly clever rather than intelligent. And they're so demented (their level of greed has been recognised as a serious psychopathology for a good 2000 years, probably more) that the few who are aware are unable to control themselves.
They need to be in locked wards, receiving care, or on a remote island where they can prey on one another rather than on us and Earth..
[ For those interested: copy this <br><br> and paste it in wherever you want a para break ]
Plan B? Plan B? There is no Plan B.
yep. Easter Island on a maga-scale. we'll soon be eating rats and seagulls too.
I'd like to know what the last Easter Islander thought as he slowly starved to death....
Easter Island is a good metaphor for planet earth, but the inhabitants did not all starve. When a Dutch ship "discovered" the island there were people living there, The population was quite small compared to previous centuries, but they were eking out a living.
Yes sheephearder and that was because they were eating each other!
Rats,,, GottaGetOffTheGrid,,, maybe... Seagulls? Don't count on it... See my post below.
He (and I doubt it was a she) probably thought, "Wow! I won! I own everything now! "
an excellent pair of articles was posted at The Oil Drum on the enery side of this topic:
========================
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, we have seen an impressive and sustained growth in the scale of energy consumption by human civilization. Plotting data from the Energy Information Agency on U.S. energy use since 1650 (1635-1945, 1949-2009, including wood, biomass, fossil fuels, hydro, nuclear, etc.) shows a remarkably steady growth trajectory, characterized by an annual growth rate of 2.9% (see figure). It is important to understand the future trajectory of energy growth because governments and organizations everywhere make assumptions based on the expectation that the growth trend will continue as it has for centuries
Part 1:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8155
part 2:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8185
What a asinine article! It is all based on the premise that we will by 2050 still be protecting the overburdening human population(exponentially will be 10 to 11 billion people by then) which if measures were taken now that burden could be reduced with less problems if the people would accept that too many people IS THE MOST SEVERE PROBLEM RIGHT HERE AND NOW ON THIS PLANET!
But when one looks at it the human population, it never has been a species the was rational in thinking NOR able to commit to any long time endeavors.
Extinction by overcrowding.
Your premise of one couple/one child is flawed as there will likely still be 3 generations of living parents for each child born. Why worry? Our world leaders won't do squat about it except pay to insulate themselves from the consequences as best as thier money will do. The whole issue has been left up to fate and will be self correcting. It has already started, mass human die offs from one casue or another. Drought, disease, hunger, exposure. 29000 children in the Horn of Africa, may be considered a mass die off? I am sure it won't be noticed by the well off.
"Ah yes. Let's all live like Haitians that will make for a better planet? No clean water, poor nutrition, little medical care, etc., WTF? "
Serious question: do you have a problem with Haitians living like Haitians, or only with the prospect of yourself living like one?
There is an extremely strong negative correlation between economic development and the birth rate in a country. As Karan Singh put it, "Development is the best contraceptive." If anyone is truly concerned with overpopulation burdening the planet, what they should do is encourage economic development in underdeveloped countries, and challenge Western governments on the policies that limit economic development in the poorer countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox
It's a good way to test someone's honest in this discussion, I think. Some people may object to raising the living standards of the poorer countries as a way of naturally reducing their birth rate, on the grounds that overall consumption may remain the same through this method: birth rate will go down, but per capita consumption will rise to compensate for the lowered birth rate. However, if a person living in a rich country raises this objection, I think it just exposes how self-interested they are in engaging in this discussion. It shows very clearly they are not willing to sacrifice their own standard of living for the sake of the planet, but they are willing to sacrifice the standard of living of others for the sake of the planet.
"Development" is part of the problem. "Development" implies Capitalism, and markets, and wastage and all the rest. Capitalism cannot tolerate a fully-developed world. It depends on there being a large population who can be exploited as near-slaves.
Look at the 19th c.: transportation was slow, so the near-slaves lived locally. London, New York, Chicago, St. Louis --all the major cities of the world had "development" where a few über-wealthy had everything and the majority of the people had nothing. The Triangle Shirtwaist fire was a tragedy, but not an unforeseen one: those who worked there were near-slaves, condemned by Capitalism to remain desperately poor while making the two owners millionaires. Chicago's "Back of the Yards" slum provided slave-level labor for the stockyards and abattoirs of the city, so that the wealthy could have their steaks and chops, but the people lived in the utmost squalor (as Upton Sinclair documented).
Now transportation is (for the moment) fast, so the slaves can live in overpopulated, desperate places like Mexico, Bangladesh, China, and similar. Transportation isn't going to remain fast, but for the moment it is, and so we don't have to see the slaves at that level - or be them; we can still be a higher level of slave; how nice for us.
The solution is not "development". The solution is birthrate control, and a change in everyone's way of life in the West. No more psychopaths. No more conscript armies. No more predatory religions. To paraphrase Diderot, strangle the last psychopathic ruler with the guts of the last psychopathic priest -- and kill those who would take their place.
"The solution is not "development". The solution is birthrate control, and a change in everyone's way of life in the West. No more psychopaths. No more conscript armies. No more predatory religions. To paraphrase Diderot, strangle the last psychopathic ruler with the guts of the last psychopathic priest -- and kill those who would take their place.
"
Show evidence for your claims.
Otherwise, you are just engaging in wish-casting, in blind belief.
Are you Roman Catholic, perhaps?
I already offered you what should have been sufficient proof in the form of a thought-experiment. Do you remember it?
Humans are not exempt from physical law, though many have sufficient hubris to imagine that they, personally, are. That means there is an upper bound beyond which the human population on Earth cannot increase no matter how meager their lives or perfect the distribution of Earth's resources to them.
To use program-management jargon, human population is on the critical path. No action other than population reduction can do more than delay the inevitable global crash, and most such actions have already been taken (e.g., Borlaug's work).
As Margaret Mead noted, once upon a time there were so few humans that some group could wipe themselves out without affecting any other group. But now some group can wipe themselves out and take every other living creature with them.
We're in the process of doing that, as of course you know.
Let's do another thought experiment: presume that everyone in the "West" decided to commit altruistic suicide. Do you think that would end all the problems? The historical and anthropological record guarantees it wouldn't. Some other psychopath(s) --the Indian and Chinese ones on current form-- would rush in to take the place of the defunct Western ones, and the disaster would proceed as before.
What does that tell you? What it tells me is that we must (a) reduce the population, because that's on the critical path, and (b) change our way of life in the West and West-wannabes, because once population is in hand, the vulnerability to psychopaths takes population's place on the critical path.
We cannot survive unless we put structures in place to permanently exclude psychopaths from power. It is they who want the theocracies (with them as theocrat) and the empires (with them as emperor), and the gigantic starving populations who have no choice but to be their slaves.
(edited to fix typo)
Nope.
I'm not RC. As I have stated many times in such debates, I'm an atheist. Just because I do not subscribe to the beliefs that are popular among some liberal "rational" atheists, does not make me religious believer. Lazy specious logic.
More importantly, I'm materialist. Empiricist. I insist on real world material analysis to solve real world problems. Not thought experiments, not logical conjecture. If I were RC, I would hardly reject thought experiments, since religion is nothing more than thought experiments.
Thought experiments are not proof. Proof, or even evidence, is what happens in the material world. Not in your mind. That is mental masturbation. Fun, maybe, but not proof. Much beloved of by RCs BTW. Are YOU RC? Ex RC perhaps?
"Humans are not exempt from physical law, though many have sufficient hubris to imagine that they, personally, are. That means there is an upper bound beyond which the human population on Earth cannot increase no matter how meager their lives or perfect the distribution of Earth's resources to them. "
Well yes. Ergo, there is an upper bound beyond which human consumption cannot increase.
"To use program-management jargon, human population is on the critical path. No action other than population reduction can do more than delay the inevitable global crash, and most such actions have already been taken (e.g., Borlaug's work)."
To use program-management jargon, human consumption is on the critical path. No action other than consumption reduction can do more than delay the inevitable global crash, and most such actions have already been taken (e.g., Borlaug's work).
"As Margaret Mead noted, once upon a time there were so few humans that some group could wipe themselves out without affecting any other group. But now some group can wipe themselves out and take every other living creature with them."
Typical human hubris. Human might overreach and all go extinct, not every living creature will go with humans.
"Let's do another thought experiment: presume that everyone in the "West" decided to commit altruistic suicide. Do you think that would end all the problems? The historical and anthropological record guarantees it wouldn't. Some other psychopath(s) --the Indian and Chinese ones on current form-- would rush in to take the place of the defunct Western ones, and the disaster would proceed as before."
No let's not. Let's do some real world material analysis. IE, science.
"What does that tell you? What it tells me is that we must (a) reduce the population, because that's on the critical path, and (b) change our way of life in the West and West-wannabes, because once population is in hand, the vulnerability to psychopaths takes population's place on the critical path. "
It tells me nothing other than that you like to engage in thought experiments, with specious logic based on a priori assumptions: for example, the belief that if you can manage to reduce the population to some arbitrary size, psychopaths can be dealt with. Where is the material evidence for this? Where is the material evidence for what the arbitrary size should be? Zilch. Not only do you fail on the point of material scientific analysis, you also fail on the basis of reason and logic.
I'm not RC. As I have stated many times in such debates, I'm an atheist
My question was incautiously phrased. I should have asked if you were raised RC. And yes, to answer your later question, I was. Unlike many nominally-ex-RCs however, I'm no longer in thrall to the teachings.
Thought experiments are not proof. Proof, or even evidence, is what happens in the material world. Not in your mind.
You're not much of a scientist, then. Thought experiments have a long and useful history as a way to settle nonsensical questions, such as whether there can be infinite growth in a finite environment.
Typical human hubris. Human might overreach and all go extinct, not every living creature will go with humans.
Oh yeah, materialist-boy? :-) Where's your evidence?
for example, the belief that if you can manage to reduce the population to some arbitrary size, psychopaths can be dealt with. Where is the material evidence for this? Where is the material evidence for what the arbitrary size should be? Zilch.
Try anthropology. We have material evidence that psychopaths don't survive in pre-tribal cultures. In such cultures everyone pulls their weight. Those who persistently fail to behave in pro-social ways do not survive to adulthood. They are expelled or, if violent, killed.
Which means that we know that in a non-tech culture, psychopaths can be identified and culled up until the point that the culture is too big for the demos to be aware of all its members.
But in a tech culture, such as ours, we have artificial, persistent memory and communication. That allows one segment of the culture to identify and label a psychopath for the use of other segments of the culture, so that the psychopath can't escape being known by moving elsewhere. That allows the potential no-psychopath culture to be almost arbitrarily large. The current, rudimentary and poorly implemented example of that ability is the sex-offender list.
Here is a link to the study:
http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m434p251.pdf
Samosamo is right, since there won't be 27 new planets, there won't be 10 billion people either. Mass extinction: It's for EVERYONE. And Define Freedom is also correct, it's a little late to start having one child per household. The only alternative at this point to mass human die-offs is mass human sterilization--and even that might be too late. Either way, there are going to be a lot fewer people around come 2200, and the Easter Island on a global scale analogy is probably very accurate. Stupid homonids--calling themselves sapiens just makes it all the more ironic.
If you run the numbers you'll see that it's possibly not too late, though it will take all our technological sophistication and good will to pull through.
Do try it. Run the numbers. The simplifying assumptions I made were conservative, namely that
it takes us 5 years to gain power and ramp up, thus 2016the starting population quintiles will be as given at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/brokereveryone has their 0.5 child at age 20 and then undergoes sterilisationeveryone dies at age 80
Voices of Indigenous peoples experiencing climate change -
Fever -
http://www.lifemosaic.net/en/fever.php
A Chance to Speak a chance to Listen
http://www.lifemosaic.net/en/chancetospeak.php
REDD a new animal in the forest
http://www.lifemosaic.net/en/reddnewanimal.php
Brazil: The Money Tree
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/carbonwatch/moneytree/
Abolish Capitalism! - Capitalism is the ultimate cause of this catastrophe we're in, & abolishing it would go a long way toward dealing with our problems. BTW, human beings haven't always been selfish, greedy, stupid a-holes; if we were, we would have gone extinct a long time ago. I think we should replace the market economy with a gift economy.
Abolish Capitolism, Religion and control population!
Bingo! Nothing less will do.
Stein's Law: "Trends that can't continue, won't."
Two words:
Green Party.
Issues such as this should be driving people into that Party, but they are not.
If the U.S. Greens could figure out why and rectify the problem, then maybe they could measure up to other Green Parties globally.
Ultimately it's about economics, because those influence our ambitions/aspirations more than anything else within our control. We can compare economic systems by their physical outcomes as we so often do. Or we can compare them by the way they influence our ambitions/aspirations.
Looking at how economic systems influence people is perhaps the best way to look at them, because with that information we can actually work to change them, to prevent bad outcomes and ensure good outcomes. It's the proactive approach as opposed to the reactive approach. So with the proactive approach we are basically taking influence out of the hands of das kapitalists and putting it back into our own hands.
Das kapitalists' ekonomic system is a system of disconnect. All ideas are disconnected. All phenomena are disconnected. Therefore in das kapitalist system nobody is accountable for their actions. Hence in das kapitalist system, people konsume with wild abandon. Like there's no tomorrow. Nothing's connected. No cause/effect. Ignorance is bliss.
In contrast to that, we on the far left advocate an economic system built on a view of a fully connected planet. All causes/effects known. Responsibilities understood. Ambitions adjusted to preserve the living earth. And we can only embrace this view and approach by first sloughing das kapitalist parasites off our backs and out of our minds, ehh? Shutting out the distractions, the temptations, the lures/baits.
So we judge the system based on how it affect us. We take a look at how the system encourages us to to the right thing, or the wrong thing, and then transform the system into one that enlightens the people about how everything is connected, and encourages us to do the right thing.
I believe the entire monitary system will eventually have to be replaced with something very new and different! You can't take part in a monitary system if you can't earn any money! The world can not provide enough work to employ everyone as it is! As we are forced to comsume less by manufacturing much more durable goods and more efficient items, this situation will only get worst. Technological unemployment! Personally, I don't think we have enough time to change, even if we had the will, which we don't! The adjustment that is comming will be catastophic to most. I just hope something prevents us from taking the rest of the life on this planet to the brink with us?
INTERNATIONAL DAY OF ACTION------------------------------------to save the Amazon's Xingu River from construction of the Belo Monte (Belo Monster) dam
Please sign a petition and get it into the social networks____________________
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2486/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7490&utm_source=Amazon+Watch+Newsletter+and+Updates&utm_campaign=0f58883001-BMD_20110804&utm_medium=email
There will not be any humans left here to gloat or live in luxury... The rich and powerful will die off with everyone else and it wont' be long.
We just spent a week in Alaka on a fishing trip, caught a few nice steelhead, released most and had some great fish dinners. But it wasn't anything like it was 40 - 50 years ago, the smog is up there too,,, and there weren't many fish.
Then we returned home and left on a road trip to Pennsylvania. We decided to count how many birds we would see... That was easy... From Arizona to Mississippi we conted six, four were near the Mississippi river. In PA for a week we saw four birds in the kid's backyard, our son in law said, "see there's lots of birds". He has no clue of how it was and how it should be.
Next we drove down the east coast to Miami, don't go there in Jusly or August! We counted five birds at the rest stop on the Chesepeake Bay Bridge, three seagulls and two pidgeons. There should have been countless seagulls.
In Florida we counted seven ducks, a white herron and a blue herron. Driving across the Everglades on I-75 we conted three blackbirds and saw one large bird in the air. That was the total so far.. Returning home we saw a flock of buzzards circling near the Mississippi river and a large flock of sparrows at the first rest stop in Texas on I- 20. Counted five more in Texas at rest stops but no more till Arizona where we say a hawk. And there were few annoying bugs (anyplace).
Except in Florida we steered clear of the Gulf Coast. In northern Louisiana during early July we saw millions of dead fish floating in the Mississippi River when it was flooding.
So there is our (Canary in the coal mine) as I see it... Much of our trip was on country roads or along the Atlantic coastline and two seperate boat trips through the Everglades. Forty or more years ago there were countless birds sitting on the electricl lines at daybreak or before sunset. There were always countless seagulls all along the shore and flocks of many different specie of birds in the air... Not now, except for some isolated cases.
We first noticed a serious decline of birds seven years ago and it has become far worse every year since... Oh, we saw three honey bees too. And we must remember that our dying oceans are in the deadly mix of atomic poisons and the poisons from burning coal... And yes, I'm guilty of flying round trip to Alaska and burning gasoline to drive 6,700 miles... Got 42 mpg though and didn't hit any birds.
Wayne WR:
That's pretty grim news.
As I read all the blogs and articles here on CD and elsewhere, I am always reminded that the natural world has been replying to our malfeasance all along - we're just not tuned-in, most of us anyway.
Cousteau didn't give us much of a chance, and, more recently, neither does James Lovelock.
Of course, these are just two voices in a cacophony - who to believe?
Then there are the United Nations Panels - on climate and biodiversity - countered with money.
Still - it's shocking to see how fast the Holocene is ending - all human caused.
Manysummits
=========
I'm glad others are noticing. As an avid backpacker and birder I too have noticed an alarming drop in bird populations. As a New Mexico native I've spent alot of time in known bird habitat, Gila Wilderness, for example. There I use to lie in a hammock for hours below the cottonwood and sycamore canopy and watch tanagers, finches, woodpeckers, western kingbirds , flycatchers and other non-typical birds. During migration I'd see clouds of mountain bluebirds flitting among the woodland shrubs "gassing up" for their journey, in both directions. The wetlands had redwings or yellowhead blackbirds. I'd regularly see golden eagles, usually in pairs and all sorts of other raptors. Now the sightings are rare or non-existent. I still take long solitary hikes thru the wilderness, sometime 15-25 miles, be gone for days in remote mountainous and riparian terrain. I'll catch a few glimpses of something rare on occasion but mostly ominous ravens, even the ubiquitous jays and juncos seem fewer. Something is wrong but most folks are tuned out, maybe by choice. See all you can -now. I'm going to Banff, BC all of next month camping and sightseeing, hope I have a different story to tell.
Honeybees all over the place here in Roslyn WA!
I think it is too funny how you are dead certain of a human and other species extinction due to pollution and yet you enjoy a cross-continent automobile trip for a holiday! ;)
At least you realize it, right?
So that makes it OK.
Hey matti, my trip to banff and BC will be ~3000miles and I only get 22mpg -in an SUV!
Gotta have something to haul my paddle boats, bikes, climbing and camping gear. I'll be emitting a fair amount of carbon in your state as well.
See, I can $h!t on people's posts, too.
Yes ~~Matti~~, I pollute the atmosphere, don't know any who don't... If I were in charge however, we wouldn't be burning any coal or splitting atoms to boil water... We'd have geothermal energy, combined with wind, hydro, tidal and solar...Vehicles would be getting on average 50 mpg and wed have excellent puublic transportation.
We'd have the new (*compressed air*) powered engine which is being marketed in India and emitts zero Co2, The car has a range of 280 miles and can be recharged in three minutes, the engine exhaust air conditions the vehicle.
Our 536 DC elected would all have to wear NASCAR type suits so we'd know who their corporate sponsers are.
I'm not in charge though Matti and I am going to enjoy life as much as possible with what is available... I am not going to live in a cave, a tree or under a rock and I will visit my family once a year and see our country once again if at all possible.
I see you use a computer and electricity Matti... Do you have solar energy for your house, do you use a bicycle to commute? __ We have solar and use rain water for most of our water needs, it works very well... I don't like you Matti just to set the record for you... Go count the birds and bees and make yourself useful. Glad to know there are honey bees in some areas, I have seen less than one a week at our home and no lady bugs either... It ain't normal Matti.
If there WERE 27 new planets with humans, there would soon be 27 fucked-up planets with 10 billion humans, or more, imploding on each other, and, of course, imploding on every other sentient non-human species on each of those 27 planets. Try surviving on any finite planet with a psychopath.
Ahh, I see the typical liberal hypocrites are out in force.
Overpopulation, overpopulation, overpopulation, nary a word on overconsumption, on the disgraceful discarding of food in western countries, of the resources used to sustain a lifestyle of temperature controlled personal transport everywhere, etc.
The comments on any overpopulation-related thread on CD are always appalling. But, if nothing else, they do go to show why Westerners can't be counted on to solve the world's problems.
While I agree that "Westerners" have done more than their share of damage! When you mention them in regards to population you are way off base! The white population is the only one that is at zero if not minus population growth at this time.
Ecological footprint does not equal number of persons.
Ecological footprint = (number of persons) x (per capita consumption).
It's simple, painfully simple. But apparently it's not simple enough for most self-interested Westerners to understand (or at least acknowledge).
The third world countries would be wise not to let Westerners come in to their countries and "solve" their birthrate "problems". They've been screwed HARD every time they've taken Western advice on their economies, they'd be crazy to take it now on this issue. Here's hoping that they have wised up.
Also, your statement about the "white population" is nothing more than useless racist garbage. It is those who enjoy a high standard of living that tend to have a lower number of children. Thus, I said Westerners and not "white people". For instance, a person who comes to the U.S. from India and becomes a doctor here does not then tend to have many children simply because of the color of her/his skin. They tend to have one or two children, whom they try to send to the best possible college--just like most rich people do no matter what the color of their skin.
The point is that population is not the singular problem that liberal westerners want to reduce the issue of environmental degradation to.
That you say "hen you mention them in regards to population you are way off base! The white population is the only one that is at zero if not minus population growth at this time" is PRECISELY the problem, it is PRECISELY why well-meaning liberal westerners CANNOT be relied on solely to come up with the solutions.
Why did you write your sentence to focus only on population? You, have assumed a priori that the problem is population, and only population. Is the issue, at heart, not resource usage, is the issue at heart, not environmental degradation? If one American in Texas uses the same amount of resources as 3 Indonesians in Sumatra, how is that better in terms of mitigating environmental degradation?
There is much reference to population in this topic! It is a crucial part of the problem and it will undermine any effort we make if it is not dealt with quite soon! Part of the problem in dealing with population is the race card!
Now I have to tread lightly but factually! To my knowledge, at the present time only the Caucasian race is in a "no growth status"? That is not a racist remark, it is simply the truth! In addition, a large number of the leading scientists in the world are also white. I have no agenda here just stating what I know to be true.
Every time I hear a suggestion, by a scientist, that certain places on the planet need to control their populations, someone will at the same time complain the "whites" want to carry out genocide on all none whites. While there is plenty of racism to go around from all sides, this is an absurd argument that would only hold water if these areas had population stability and did not require food assistance almost every year. If your population is growing rapidly, you are part of the problem! Race is not the issue unless it is made an issue by people trying to sidestep their responsibility to the rest.
We have no time for this bull shit! Certain parts of the world have famines almost every year for as long as I can remember! That is a pretty clear indication that people are exceeding the carrying capacity of their local! I also see unending news reports of people suffering from floods, earthquakes and other natural disasters pleading that they must feed their eight children! Why do you have eight children if you live in such poverty?
We can debate history and who did what to whom all day long! It does not matter in the situation we are in! We must stop the population explosion and begin to bring our population down. I have no problem helping people in need, but if they are not willing to learn and take the steps they can to help themselves, the help only postpones the outcome and make it worse.
If we don't leave political ideology, race and religious prejudices as well as what is politically correct at the door and start dealing with facts, we are screwed! Mother Nature does not give one rat's ass about starving children and suffering from disease! Mother Nature bats last and I can assure you that she will reach an equilibrium for us and we won't like it!
"If we don't leave political ideology, race and religious prejudices as well as what is politically correct at the door"
The assumption that these issues arise naturally among people is false, hence the direction where you would like to focus effort is the wrong direction. These issues are inflamed deliberately by the elites, and that is the direction in which we must focus. The elites, in both "developed" and less "developed" countries, build competing political ideologies, and they fuel competition among races and religions in order to divide/conquer the people. Notice how these prejudices among the people, and the baits/lures of das kapitalism (or even more direct forms of serfdom in less "developed" countries), all fueled by the elites, handicap the people, distract the people from recognizing what is in their very own better interests. If one thinks the elites lack influence, then one must be under their spell too. We can't change human nature but we can change the societal structures. Get to work!
Everyone has an agenda.
Yes, this includes scientists. And I say this as a proponent of science. Scientists are also humans, with all the biases and agendas of being human, despite that some would like to pretend that they have no biases no agendas.
Focusing solely, or even primarily, on population, is itself an agenda. It reveals an agenda of refusal to face up to the problems of a lifestyle that so many in American take for granted: personal transport everywhere, massive discarding of food, golf courses, manicured lawns, ice skating rinks, personal swimming pools in places with hot arid climates, etc.
"this is an absurd argument that would only hold water if these areas had population stability and did not require food assistance almost every year"
Wrong. The places that require food assistance every year, tend to be places that are too poor to buy food, in the globalised markets. Small farmers in these places are priced out of existence, often via "food assistance". One of the nefarious tactics that the EU has used in Africa, is to give food aid, is to give other forms of aid, in return for those African countries opening their internal markets to European farmers. Conversely, EU markets are protected, EU farmers are subsidised. Not surprisingly, those small African farmers cannot compete and go bust, with the result that those African countries then have to rely on buying food from the global markets.. Given that those countries are already poor, any increase in the prices of food on the global markets results in those countries starving.
"f your population is growing rapidly, you are part of the problem"
If you are driving a car everywhere, if you discard food, if you use a swimming pool, if you play golf, in a climate that is not cool and wet, if you play golf, etc, you are part of the problem.
"That is a pretty clear indication that people are exceeding the carrying capacity of their local! "
No it isn't. See my explanation above.
"debate history and who did what to whom all day long! It does not matter in the situation we are in"
Yes it does. If you refuse to face up to the material causes, if you refuse to deal with the actual causes of why something happens, you will not be solving the problem.
"I have no problem helping people in need, but if they are not willing to learn and take the steps they can to help themselves, the help only postpones the outcome and make it worse."
Maybe instead of "helping" people, you should fix your own problems first.
"we don't leave political ideology, race and religious prejudices as well as what is politically correct at the door and start dealing with facts, we are screwed! "
The people who rant endless about overpopulation, such as you, are NOT dealing with material facts. It is people like you who are stuck in the rut of political ideology, race and religious prejudices.
"Mother Nature does not give one rat's ass about starving children and suffering from disease! Mother Nature bats last and I can assure you that she will reach an equilibrium for us and we won't like it! "
True. For example, once the resources start becoming scarcer, whether you refuse to cut down on consumption, will not matter. The resources just will not.
KrazyKatz's top problems.
* World population. We are currently at 7 Billion and counting with no end in sight. One can certainly argue what the acceptable human carrying capacity of our planet actually is, but one would have to suspended all reason to believe that our planet's human carrying capacity is unlimited. I use the word acceptable instead of maximum because there is a difference. We could probably cram 25 Billion half starving, half mad human beings on the planet completely devoid of any natural habit but its not a world I would want any of our great grandchildren living in.
* Poverty. Not just "Western style" poverty, but the true poverty that exists throughout the world.
* Worldwide greenhouse gas emissions and the twin problems of global climate change and ocean acidification.
* Global fresh water supplies. Worldwide, our fresh water supplies are in danger from multiple problems ranging from overuse to outright poisoning from man-made chemicals.
* Worldwide deforestation, wetlands destruction, and natural habit destruction.
* Nonrenewable natural resource depletion. Everything from oil to rare earth minerals are being depleted at a rapid and increasing rate.
* Our dying oceans. Over fishing, pollution, agricultural wastewater runoff, ocean acidification, and melting sea ice. Each of these is contributing to the diminishing viability of our oceans and seas to sustain a varied and vibrant marine ecosystem. An ecosystem that the majority of the world's population is dependent on for its existence.
* The poisoning of our natural environment through the use of far too many man-made chemical compounds, many of which are used either strictly for convince or for cost cutting and not out of any real need.
* Our disappearing wildlife. Throughout the world, human encroachment and development of natural habitats coupled with our poisoning of the natural environment has led to the dramatic decline in virtually all wildlife species.
Notice how none of these problems are what is currently front and center on the world stage. Instead we are being consumed with our global economic problems and the austerity measures being imposed worldwide by what I'm guessing is less than .0007% of the world's population.
As a guess I'm assuming that less than 50,000 people worldwide are really the true drivers of this. I know that worldwide there has to be more people than this to actually implement these policies, but here I'm just concerned with the true powers. Those who control the actual levers of governmental and corporate power, those who control our banking and financial institutions, and those who personally control extreme amounts of wealth.
These very few, this less than 1/1,000 of 1 percent of the world's population is responsible for virtually every policy that brings so much misery. They're the ones who own the global mass media. These people are the ones who fund the corporate foundations and think tanks whose main purpose is to shape public opinion or at the minimum to muddy the waters with lies and distortions. They're the people who actually control our world's major corporations, the ones who make the decisions to poison our water or blow up mountains for profit. And they're the ones who are pushing for the dismantling of government services worldwide, this so called "austerity" which in reality is nothing but the means whereby they can control even more wealth or physical resources.
Very well said and I would bet all that I have that it is very close to the truth as well!
Unfortunately, as human beings we never elect or follow a Charles Darwin or a Galileo! Our legends are of Napoleon, Alexander the Great and such! We have always followed the most ruthless, conniving and charismatic rather than the thinkers who have little interest in fame and power! I think we are basically incapable of any long term planning and prevention as well!
Instead of the "super congress" I like the idea of linking a bank of the most powerful super computers available, feeding in every scrap of scientific knowledge attained by humanity since we crawled out of the caves and updated constantly with every new bit of data as it become available. Feed it with sensors from all over the planet and in orbit with every real time measurement we can provide! Then process some scenarios into this super computer and get some suggestions based on good science, probability and historical data and not on politics and special interests!
Then force the Congress to make an up or down vote on the suggestion and hold them accountable!
Bollocks.
Your suggestions are at best naive. At worst, they are deliberately disingenous.
"I like the idea of linking a bank of the most powerful super computers available, feeding in every scrap of scientific knowledge attained by humanity since we crawled out of the caves and updated constantly with every new bit of data as it become available. Feed it with sensors from all over the planet and in orbit with every real time measurement we can provide! Then process some scenarios into this super computer and get some suggestions based on good science, probability and historical data and not on politics and special interests!"
You are assuming that they people programming those computers, will program their computers entirely on " good science, probability and historical data" and not "politics and special interests".
Not possible. There is no such as a "disinterested technocrat" acting in the interests of the greater good. That is a myth, a lie.
Your own posts reveal this. Your own posts are certainly not based on "good science, probability and historical data".
PLEASE EVERYONE: STOP BREEDING!!!!!!!
KrazyKatz:
Well said - I too agree that you have pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Manysummits
=========
Again I say to whoever might listen "We think, therefore we are stupid" ; most of us think because we think, therefore we are smart: My point is that people need to be much more humble and realize that with our big brains, we just might destroy ourselves and much of the Earth to. How do you teach that to the average person? Answer - don't know but you gotta try.