[jeskill]

kitkat, on 27 July 2010 - 05:40 PM, said:

Global warming is a natural cycle of this planet. The real problem is how can we expect to survive in the future with an expanding population of humans. We cannot solve any other problem without dealing with this one first.

So I actually joined scienceforums a while back but haven't posted in a few years (in case you're wondering why I didn't introduce myself). Anyways, I was lurking about and saw the post above, which had led to a lively discussion about whether or not climate change is anthropogenic. I don't really want to discuss that. Rather, I'm interested in this whole concept of the global Malthusian dilemma and its perceived effect on the environment.

Here's the deal: John Bongaarts wrote a paper in 2009 that seems to suggest fertility rates have been declining in all parts of the world since approximately 1980. (Proc. Royal Soc. B; 364, 2985-2990) Both he and the U.N. suggest that global population sizes will level off at approximately 9 billion. The highest fertility rates are in some of the poorest countries of the world.



But here's the thing: I have conversed with people in developed countries (U.S. and Canada) who have refused to have children because they believe that overpopulation is destroying the environment. I don't think this is true and I think this is a silly reason not to have children. Why?

Let's use carbon dioxide emissions as an example. The per capita rate of CO2 emissions in Canada was 16.9 GtC/year in 2007, and 1 GtC/year in Yemen. One Canadian is worth 16 times a Yemenite in carbon dioxide emissions. Yemen is a significantly smaller country than Canada (and a significantly poorer country with a relatively high fecundity rate), yet Canada only has 34 million people, while Yemen has 22 million people. Hopefully by now people have realized that my clumsy pedantic evidence is supposed to demonstrate that the amount of resources we consume is very important.

While I agree that not having one child in Canada or the US is like not having 16 children in Yemen, do people really think that Canada and the US are overpopulated? Do people really think that we couldn't live sustainably given our current population size?

I don't think that overpopulation is the main problem causing environmental degradation. Based on the data we have at hand, it doesn't seem like it would be effective to focus the majority of our efforts on reducing population sizes in regions that pollute the most; they already have low per capita birth rates. It seems more likely that over-consumption is the problem we need to focus on.

Moreover .... by arguing that we need to deal with the overpopulation issue first, really, we're basically saying, "Hey, you people over there in Yemen! You need to deal with our problem. We're just going to continue on business as usual." It seems kind of unethical, no?

[Greg Boyles]

jeskill, on 30 June 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

So I actually joined scienceforums a while back but haven't posted in a few years (in case you're wondering why I didn't introduce myself). Anyways, I was lurking about and saw the post above, which had led to a lively discussion about whether or not climate change is anthropogenic. I don't really want to discuss that. Rather, I'm interested in this whole concept of the global Malthusian dilemma and its perceived effect on the environment.

Here's the deal: John Bongaarts wrote a paper in 2009 that seems to suggest fertility rates have been declining in all parts of the world since approximately 1980. (Proc. Royal Soc. B; 364, 2985-2990) Both he and the U.N. suggest that global population sizes will level off at approximately 9 billion. The highest fertility rates are in some of the poorest countries of the world.

Graph.001.jpg

But here's the thing: I have conversed with people in developed countries (U.S. and Canada) who have refused to have children because they believe that overpopulation is destroying the environment. I don't think this is true and I think this is a silly reason not to have children. Why?

Let's use carbon dioxide emissions as an example. The per capita rate of CO2 emissions in Canada was 16.9 GtC/year in 2007, and 1 GtC/year in Yemen. One Canadian is worth 16 times a Yemenite in carbon dioxide emissions. Yemen is a significantly smaller country than Canada (and a significantly poorer country with a relatively high fecundity rate), yet Canada only has 34 million people, while Yemen has 22 million people. Hopefully by now people have realized that my clumsy pedantic evidence is supposed to demonstrate that the amount of resources we consume is very important.

While I agree that not having one child in Canada or the US is like not having 16 children in Yemen, do people really think that Canada and the US are overpopulated? Do people really think that we couldn't live sustainably given our current population size?

I don't think that overpopulation is the main problem causing environmental degradation. Based on the data we have at hand, it doesn't seem like it would be effective to focus the majority of our efforts on reducing population sizes in regions that pollute the most; they already have low per capita birth rates. It seems more likely that over-consumption is the problem we need to focus on.

Moreover .... by arguing that we need to deal with the overpopulation issue first, really, we're basically saying, "Hey, you people over there in Yemen! You need to deal with our problem. We're just going to continue on business as usual." It seems kind of unethical, no?

If Australia, Canada and the US were sealed off from the rest of the world and had to sustain their current consumption from their own resources then they would all be grossly over populated. They would either have to dramatically reduce their numbers or else dramatically reduce individual consumption. The only way they are able to sustain their current population levels/consumption is by taking resources from developing countries for a pittance.



I don't comprehend how you cannot see that human population levels is the primary problem. For every other animal species on Earth, numbers are determined by available resources. They build up while suffcient resources are available and crash when the population grows too large and exhausts those resources - precisely what we are in the process of doing to ourselves at present.



Why is it that you think those same ecological rules do not apply to our species?

[jeskill]

Quote

If Australia, Canada and the US were sealed off from the rest of the world and had to sustain their current consumption from their own resources then they would all be grossly over populated. They would either have to dramatically reduce their numbers or else dramatically reduce individual consumption. The only way they are able to sustain their current population levels/consumption is by taking resources from developing countries for a pittance.

I don't think anyone would say that these countries are currently self-sustainable. In this paragraph you mention that we would either have to reduce consumption or the population would have to decrease. I agree with that statement. My point is that it is more moral to reduce consumption than it is to drastically reduce population sizes at a time when population growth (i.e. per capita birth rate) is already low and/or decreasing in most parts of the world.

I wonder if the real problem is that that many people in US/Canada/Australia are afraid to reduce consumption because they don't realize that it will actually improve their standard of living. They think of it as going back to the 1800s. I don't think that's true. There's a lot we can do that will improve sustainability while simultaneously allowing us to live healthier lives, allowing us to interact with more our communities, or improving the ecological resilience of the landscape in which we live. For example, green roofs drastically reduce energy waste, reduce the heat island effect, improve water cycling, and have a positive impact on ecological diversity. Organic home garden plots reduce water waste, improve access to healthy food and contribute to ecological diversity. Public policy that favors pedestrians, cyclists and public transit-takers improve energy efficiency and human health. Public policy that bans plastic bags and one-time use plastic water bottles .... I hope you get the point.

By focusing on population growth, what we're doing is focusing on one aspect over which we don't really have personal control but nevertheless is already improving while ignoring all the other things we could be doing -- at a local or national level -- that actually do improve sustainability.

Quote

I don't comprehend how you cannot see that human population levels is the primary problem. For every other animal species on Earth, numbers are determined by available resources. They build up while sufficient resources are available and crash when the population grows too large and exhausts those resources - precisely what we are in the process of doing to ourselves at present.

I hope you remember from eco101 that population size is not just determined by available resources. It's also determined by the number of predators, and environmental factors that are constantly changing over time. I would argue that most animal species do not undergo boom-bust population cycles simply due to resource availability.

Regardless, we are not most animals. See, we have these amazing things called 'tools' and, probably more importantly, a really amazing thing called 'science'. These allow us to make predictions about the future and allows us to change the way we interact with our environment.

This post has been edited by jeskill: 24 July 2011 - 08:15 PM

[CR_Student]

Hopefully there will be scientific breakthroughs that allow us to support a large human population. However, right now, we can't support such a large number of humans. Given the set-backs that global warming poses and other situations, I don't think we're anywhere near having the resources such as food and water available to do such.

[jeskill]

CR_Student: How do you know that? Do you have stats to back that up?

The last 30 years, globally we have produced enough food to feed the world but people have still gone hungry. The problem is not a lack of production, but a lack of distribution and a lack of support for low-tech, low-input ecological agriculture. Hunger is caused by politics and the types of distribution chains, not a lack of scientific technology and knowledge.

I do agree that we have to change the type of technologies we use in agriculture. For example, in our efforts of make agriculture more "productive" and industrialized, we've increased the amount of energy inputs to an unsustainable degree. However, data suggests that a shift from industrial to ecological agriculture will actually increase overall food production per hectare (See Badgley et al. 2007 in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems). Many are arguing that a shift to ecological agriculture will improve our ability to adapt to the effects of climate change (see Reganold et al. 2011 in Science). Ecological agriculture by its very nature is sustainable -- the point is to manage the ecology of the system to improve soil fertility and promote beneficial insects/fungi/etc. This shift does not need new technology. It needs a political shift that supports the rights of small-scale landowners and the concept of food sovereignty.

In short, I disagree that we need scientific breakthroughs to support the current population. We already have the technology and surprisingly, it's the low-tech tools and knowledge that has a high probability of doing a better job of feeding the world's poor, not the high-tech tools.

[Greg Boyles]

jeskill, on 30 June 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

So I actually joined scienceforums a while back but haven't posted in a few years (in case you're wondering why I didn't introduce myself). Anyways, I was lurking about and saw the post above, which had led to a lively discussion about whether or not climate change is anthropogenic. I don't really want to discuss that. Rather, I'm interested in this whole concept of the global Malthusian dilemma and its perceived effect on the environment.

Here's the deal: John Bongaarts wrote a paper in 2009 that seems to suggest fertility rates have been declining in all parts of the world since approximately 1980. (Proc. Royal Soc. B; 364, 2985-2990) Both he and the U.N. suggest that global population sizes will level off at approximately 9 billion. The highest fertility rates are in some of the poorest countries of the world.

Graph.001.jpg

But here's the thing: I have conversed with people in developed countries (U.S. and Canada) who have refused to have children because they believe that overpopulation is destroying the environment. I don't think this is true and I think this is a silly reason not to have children. Why?

Let's use carbon dioxide emissions as an example. The per capita rate of CO2 emissions in Canada was 16.9 GtC/year in 2007, and 1 GtC/year in Yemen. One Canadian is worth 16 times a Yemenite in carbon dioxide emissions. Yemen is a significantly smaller country than Canada (and a significantly poorer country with a relatively high fecundity rate), yet Canada only has 34 million people, while Yemen has 22 million people. Hopefully by now people have realized that my clumsy pedantic evidence is supposed to demonstrate that the amount of resources we consume is very important.

While I agree that not having one child in Canada or the US is like not having 16 children in Yemen, do people really think that Canada and the US are overpopulated? Do people really think that we couldn't live sustainably given our current population size?

I don't think that overpopulation is the main problem causing environmental degradation. Based on the data we have at hand, it doesn't seem like it would be effective to focus the majority of our efforts on reducing population sizes in regions that pollute the most; they already have low per capita birth rates. It seems more likely that over-consumption is the problem we need to focus on.

Moreover .... by arguing that we need to deal with the overpopulation issue first, really, we're basically saying, "Hey, you people over there in Yemen! You need to deal with our problem. We're just going to continue on business as usual." It seems kind of unethical, no?

Comparing population size between Yemen and Canada is rather meaningless

You also have to compare the ecology of the two countries in conjunction with their populations to derive any meaning.

An over populated country or region is not necessarily densely populated and a densely populated country or region is not necessarily over populated.


One of the best and self evident indicators of over population must be polticial stability.

[kitkat]

Many people think especially here in the U.S. is that we still have alot of land terrain that is not currently occupied by man. They believe that since we have not expanded to use up all of our land mass that we can continue our population rates. If we turn this land into cities with concrete covering most of it, extinct all creatures that previously lived there, do you actually believe that our existence alone is sufficient to sustain human survival?

Life here was built from the bottom levels that support each level of biodiversity on up to us and if you take away any of these tiers you have a total collapse of the ecosystem. Every creature on this planet contributes to the stabilty of the global environment. A complete system of many biochemical reactions occuring simultaneously between all entities of life. There is no one species that can accomplish all the these essential biochemical interactions by themselves to sustain life on earth.

So it is completely insane that humans can keep on increasing their numbers with total disregard to how we effect the other biodiversity we share land mass and still survive. If we leave it up to nature to fix this problem, I believe that humans will regret that they did not take responsibility for their reproduction rates. It is amazing to me how people believe that we are the superior species due to intelligence but how is that superior when we don't take responsibilty for our actions by using our intelligence?

[jeskill]

kitkat, on 23 October 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

Many people think especially here in the U.S. is that we still have alot of land terrain that is not currently occupied by man. They believe that since we have not expanded to use up all of our land mass that we can continue our population rates. If we turn this land into cities with concrete covering most of it, extinct all creatures that previously lived there, do you actually believe that our existence alone is sufficient to sustain human survival?

No, I do not believe that us humans would survive for very long if we destroy the resources that provide us food, shelter, etc.

Quote

So it is completely insane that humans can keep on increasing their numbers with total disregard to how we effect the other biodiversity we share land mass and still survive. If we leave it up to nature to fix this problem, I believe that humans will regret that they did not take responsibility for their reproduction rates. It is amazing to me how people believe that we are the superior species due to intelligence but how is that superior when we don't take responsibilty for our actions by using our intelligence?

You're missing the point. The figure linked to in the OP clearly shows that humans, especially North American humans, have already taken responsibility for their reproduction rates and currently have a fecundity level that is below replacement rates. This is also shown in the US population clock, where birth rates clearly are less than death rates. According to this clock, the North American population is growing mostly because of immigration, not new babies.

I agree that humans, especially North Americans, are currently using resources unsustainably. I agree that sex education, women's reproductive choice, and availability of contraception should be maintained in North America. But if you want to stop unsustainable resource use in North America, railing on about how North Americans need to have less babies is ineffective. They already ARE having less babies than before. It would be more effective to use your energy to work to improve per capita energy efficiency, reduce consumer waste or even to just eat locally grown, sustainable food.

This post has been edited by jeskill: 23 October 2011 - 07:52 PM

[JazzScience]

There are so many other areas that we can focus on besides overpopulation in North America. What about eating locally, reducing the amount of carbon emissions that we produce, and converting our energy supply to a more sustainable source? As I have heard before, nature will find new ways to kill us over time. Our work with the environment, though, needs to improve if we are to improve our future.

[kitkat]

Your comment that the U.S. is growing through immigration is correct and those people produce more children then our average of 2.5 but I don't beleive that we can view the problem at the local level but at the global level. We depend on global economics and this is the new norm so even though the U.S. may show lower growth rates, we are still affected by increase rates in other countries such as Africa. This is evident in that we send them money to enable their growth further which is the worst thing we can do.

We most certainly are capable of controling our reproductive system which no other species have this capability. We claim we are intelligent and you don't have to be a scientists to understand that human activity without responsibility is destroying the global environment. The claim that species will expand in numbers that rapidly deplete their resources which result in reduced populations is most often seen with species with high reproductive rates and a problem with the species that prey on them. Otherwise nature, without humans, has no problem with checks and balances that allow stability to continue for eons.

We are over populated right now and have been for some time due to the fact that we have so many endangered species that do not have anywhere to live. It is arrogant to think we don't need the biodiversity of species and can exist by ourselves. Animals in zoos or game parks is not an effective way to continue their existance nor is storing the DNA in a genome bank. We are currently in the 6th mass extinction and yet some people think that population growth is not a problem, insanity comes to mind here.

jeskill, on 30 June 2011 - 04:37 AM, said:

So I actually joined scienceforums a while back but haven't posted in a few years (in case you're wondering why I didn't introduce myself). Anyways, I was lurking about and saw the post above, which had led to a lively discussion about whether or not climate change is anthropogenic. I don't really want to discuss that. Rather, I'm interested in this whole concept of the global Malthusian dilemma and its perceived effect on the environment.

Here's the deal: John Bongaarts wrote a paper in 2009 that seems to suggest fertility rates have been declining in all parts of the world since approximately 1980. (Proc. Royal Soc. B; 364, 2985-2990) Both he and the U.N. suggest that global population sizes will level off at approximately 9 billion. The highest fertility rates are in some of the poorest countries of the world.

Graph.001.jpg

But here's the thing: I have conversed with people in developed countries (U.S. and Canada) who have refused to have children because they believe that overpopulation is destroying the environment. I don't think this is true and I think this is a silly reason not to have children. Why?

Let's use carbon dioxide emissions as an example. The per capita rate of CO2 emissions in Canada was 16.9 GtC/year in 2007, and 1 GtC/year in Yemen. One Canadian is worth 16 times a Yemenite in carbon dioxide emissions. Yemen is a significantly smaller country than Canada (and a significantly poorer country with a relatively high fecundity rate), yet Canada only has 34 million people, while Yemen has 22 million people. Hopefully by now people have realized that my clumsy pedantic evidence is supposed to demonstrate that the amount of resources we consume is very important.

While I agree that not having one child in Canada or the US is like not having 16 children in Yemen, do people really think that Canada and the US are overpopulated? Do people really think that we couldn't live sustainably given our current population size?

I don't think that overpopulation is the main problem causing environmental degradation. Based on the data we have at hand, it doesn't seem like it would be effective to focus the majority of our efforts on reducing population sizes in regions that pollute the most; they already have low per capita birth rates. It seems more likely that over-consumption is the problem we need to focus on.

Moreover .... by arguing that we need to deal with the overpopulation issue first, really, we're basically saying, "Hey, you people over there in Yemen! You need to deal with our problem. We're just going to continue on business as usual." It seems kind of unethical, no?

Population growth is a global problem and every nation must unite on this problem and find a solution. They must all take responsibility to reduce their growth otherwise it isn't going to work on a global scale in preserving our resources.

[jeskill]

kitkat, on 27 October 2011 - 07:05 PM, said:

Your comment that the U.S. is growing through immigration is correct and those people produce more children then our average of 2.5 but I don't beleive that we can view the problem at the local level but at the global level. We depend on global economics and this is the new norm so even though the U.S. may show lower growth rates, we are still affected by increase rates in other countries such as Africa. This is evident in that we send them money to enable their growth further which is the worst thing we can do.

I don't know why I keep being reeled in by the same arguments. Nevertheless ...

Saying something like "those people produce more children than average" without backing that statement up with evidence makes it sound like you're stereotyping, which runs the potential of offending someone.

How exactly are North Americans affected by population growth rates in Africa? Yes, the world is a global economy. But Africa as a region has the lowest CO2 emissions per capita in the world, despite having a high birth rate. (See Figure 10, page 12) That means that on average, an African individual's effect on carbon dioxide emissions is far less than an American individual's effect on carbon dioxide emissions. Hence, an American has a far greater polluting effect on an African.

Quote

We most certainly are capable of controling our reproductive system which no other species have this capability. We claim we are intelligent and you don't have to be a scientists to understand that human activity without responsibility is destroying the global environment. The claim that species will expand in numbers that rapidly deplete their resources which result in reduced populations is most often seen with species with high reproductive rates and a problem with the species that prey on them. Otherwise nature, without humans, has no problem with checks and balances that allow stability to continue for eons.

OK, I have some questions before I go on:

First: Are you insinuating that the human population growth rate is currently exponential? Because data suggests that we're actually growing logistically right now and should reach a stable population size within the next 50 years.

Second: Do you recognize that population birth rates in all parts of the world have been declining for the past 20-30 years? If not, look at the OP graph again.

Third: Do you recognize that places with low birth rates (such as China and the US) have a disproportionally large effect on the environment? Yes, China has a large effect because it has a large population size, but please note it has a low birth rate -- they've already introduced a draconian population control policy. Really, the only effective policy to reduce the population size in China right now is to remove the population via emigration or to kill them. Ethical, eh?

Fourth: You might consider reading up on "IPAT", which stands for Human Impact = Population Size x Affluence x Technology. Here is a classic overview by Dietz and Rosa.

[kitkat]

jeskill, on 28 October 2011 - 03:46 AM, said:

I don't know why I keep being reeled in by the same arguments. Nevertheless ...

Saying something like "those people produce more children than average" without backing that statement up with evidence makes it sound like you're stereotyping, which runs the potential of offending someone.

How exactly are North Americans affected by population growth rates in Africa? Yes, the world is a global economy. But Africa as a region has the lowest CO2 emissions per capita in the world, despite having a high birth rate. (See Figure 10, page 12) That means that on average, an African individual's effect on carbon dioxide emissions is far less than an American individual's effect on carbon dioxide emissions. Hence, an American has a far greater polluting effect on an African.



OK, I have some questions before I go on:

First: Are you insinuating that the human population growth rate is currently exponential? Because data suggests that we're actually growing logistically right now and should reach a stable population size within the next 50 years.

Second: Do you recognize that population birth rates in all parts of the world have been declining for the past 20-30 years? If not, look at the OP graph again.

Third: Do you recognize that places with low birth rates (such as China and the US) have a disproportionally large effect on the environment? Yes, China has a large effect because it has a large population size, but please note it has a low birth rate -- they've already introduced a draconian population control policy. Really, the only effective policy to reduce the population size in China right now is to remove the population via emigration or to kill them. Ethical, eh?

Fourth: You might consider reading up on "IPAT", which stands for Human Impact = Population Size x Affluence x Technology. Here is a classic overview by Dietz and Rosa.

Do you realize how many species we have pushed to the brink of extinction due to human expansion of their land? Water tables all over the world are getting low and humans keep pumping more polution into the oceans. The oceans are overfished for human consumption and dead zones are becoming common. So even though you feel some areas are declining in population growth we are still over populated by a few billion people. Where I grew up in the country in Ct. the local ponds and lakes were abundant with wildlife, now it is hard to find any.

Humans have become a parasite to the planet and when they do get around to imposing laws on reducing reproduction it will be too late.

jeskill, on 28 October 2011 - 03:46 AM, said:

I don't know why I keep being reeled in by the same arguments. Nevertheless ...

Saying something like "those people produce more children than average" without backing that statement up with evidence makes it sound like you're stereotyping, which runs the potential of offending someone.

How exactly are North Americans affected by population growth rates in Africa? Yes, the world is a global economy. But Africa as a region has the lowest CO2 emissions per capita in the world, despite having a high birth rate. (See Figure 10, page 12) That means that on average, an African individual's effect on carbon dioxide emissions is far less than an American individual's effect on carbon dioxide emissions. Hence, an American has a far greater polluting effect on an African.



OK, I have some questions before I go on:

First: Are you insinuating that the human population growth rate is currently exponential? Because data suggests that we're actually growing logistically right now and should reach a stable population size within the next 50 years.

Second: Do you recognize that population birth rates in all parts of the world have been declining for the past 20-30 years? If not, look at the OP graph again.

Third: Do you recognize that places with low birth rates (such as China and the US) have a disproportionally large effect on the environment? Yes, China has a large effect because it has a large population size, but please note it has a low birth rate -- they've already introduced a draconian population control policy. Really, the only effective policy to reduce the population size in China right now is to remove the population via emigration or to kill them. Ethical, eh?

Fourth: You might consider reading up on "IPAT", which stands for Human Impact = Population Size x Affluence x Technology. Here is a classic overview by Dietz and Rosa.

You are only seeing our carbon footprint which is one of many problems we are causing to the environment. A much smaller human population reduces the demand of resources, saves wilderness areas, reduces our water consumption. and the list goes on.

[jeskill]

kitkat, on 29 October 2011 - 01:00 AM, said:

Do you realize how many species we have pushed to the brink of extinction due to human expansion of their land?Water tables all over the world are getting low and humans keep pumping more polution into the oceans. The oceans are overfished for human consumption and dead zones are becoming common. So even though you feel some areas are declining in population growth we are still over populated by a few billion people. Where I grew up in the country in Ct. the local ponds and lakes were abundant with wildlife, now it is hard to find any.

As stated before, I accept that humans cause pollution, overuse resources, and have been either directly or indirectly responsible for a significant amount of biodiversity loss in recent times. I just disagree with the notion that the effective solution to these issues is to impose laws to limit birth rates.

Quote

Humans have become a parasite to the planet and when they do get around to imposing laws on reducing reproduction it will be too late.

"it will be to late" ... EXACTLY. That's why I'm arguing it's more effective to focus on reducing our per capita footprint, rather than focusing on reducing our birth rate.

Quote

You are only seeing our carbon footprint which is one of many problems we are causing to the environment. A much smaller human population reduces the demand of resources, saves wilderness areas, reduces our water consumption. and the list goes on.

Our human footprint is not "a problem we are causing to the environment". It's a metric used to calculate our per capita effect on the environment.

With the second sentence, do you mean to say that a much smaller population size reduces the demand of resources?
This is actually an interesting idea. One would think that reducing the population size would reduce the demand for resources. This logical line of thinking doesn't actually hold up when you look at the evidence, however. A reduction in population birth rates is usually caused by an increase in women's education, women's empowerment, and an increase in urbanization. These factors also generally lead to an increase in per capita resource use, because families with more education make more money and thus use more resources.

What I'm saying is, as birth rates decrease, both per capita emissions and per capita use of resources increase.

This post has been edited by jeskill: 29 October 2011 - 01:21 AM

[kitkat]

I read the IPAT based model and although you may feel it resembles reality, I don't. You can invent all new technology and it won't solve our problems unless the population is reduced significantly. We have polluted rivers and lakes and nothing has been done to restore them due to either humans don't want to spend money or we do not have a solution. We are causing dead zones due to irrigation of excess run-offs filled with byproducts, has anything been done about this? Can we fix this or too expensive to be bothered?

You can come up with the best solutions on paper for the improvement of the environment and while they are meant to be good intentions, they generally get pushed to future generations due to costs to solve it. The problem is no generation has yet to put anything in action so compound that with an oversized global population and now the problem cannot be fixed. I mean come on this so called political name of global warming instead of its real name global destruction creates an ongoing debate so that everyone can spend time arguing over if it is human induced or natural cycles. A tactic to shift the problem that we know 100% is human caused is environmental destruction.

I understand science depends on being funded and politicians claim to care about the environment but who funds those scientific papers that came out after the election when so many had donated to the cause of global warming and now say it is natural and not human caused? Was it all bullshit to get people to donate money or is the information actually correct? Until we can be responsible with our actions, my stance on over population will remain as the number one global crisis.

[jeskill]

kitkat, on 29 October 2011 - 01:41 AM, said:

I read the IPAT based model and although you may feel it resembles reality, I don't. You can invent all new technology and it won't solve our problems unless the population is reduced significantly. We have polluted rivers and lakes and nothing has been done to restore them due to either humans don't want to spend money or we do not have a solution. We are causing dead zones due to irrigation of excess run-offs filled with byproducts, has anything been done about this? Can we fix this or too expensive to be bothered?

I know that sometimes it's easy to look at the world and feel useless or hopeless. Certainly, there are a lot of environmental problems that need to be addressed and haven't yet been addressed. But we have also had some key environmental wins, at least in some parts of the world, so we know it can be done.

Some examples:
Montreal Protocol
Air quality standards in the majority of Annex I countries have improved over the past 100 years.

Commuting by bike increased by 70% in North America from 2000 - 2009

As stated in multiple previous posts (in the politics forum), sustainable agricultural techniques have improved healthy food availability and environmental sustainability in a few, but growing, regions of the world



I will answer your question with a question:
Do you want these problems to be fixed? If you do, have you written to your government representative to tell them this?
The dead zone in the Gulf is fixable. There are multiple possible techniques available to reduce ag runoff and storm-water runoff. This problem would be helps if the EPA was given the ability to enforce their regulations concerning ag runoff and storm-water run-off.

Quote

You can come up with the best solutions on paper for the improvement of the environment and while they are meant to be good intentions, they generally get pushed to future generations due to costs to solve it. The problem is no generation has yet to put anything in action so compound that with an oversized global population and now the problem cannot be fixed. I mean come on this so called political name of global warming instead of its real name global destruction creates an ongoing debate so that everyone can spend time arguing over if it is human induced or natural cycles. A tactic to shift the problem that we know 100% is human caused is environmental destruction.

I understand science depends on being funded and politicians claim to care about the environment but who funds those scientific papers that came out after the election when so many had donated to the cause of global warming and now say it is natural and not human caused? Was it all bullshit to get people to donate money or is the information actually correct? Until we can be responsible with our actions, my stance on over population will remain as the number one global crisis.

Why do you think it'd be easier to create, pass, and enforce legislation to limit birth rates than it would be to create, pass, and enforce legislation to regulate pollution (and I mean pollution in general right now, not just green house gasses).

[kitkat]

jeskill, on 29 October 2011 - 02:51 PM, said:

I know that sometimes it's easy to look at the world and feel useless or hopeless. Certainly, there are a lot of environmental problems that need to be addressed and haven't yet been addressed. But we have also had some key environmental wins, at least in some parts of the world, so we know it can be done.

Some examples:
Montreal Protocol
Air quality standards in the majority of Annex I countries have improved over the past 100 years.

Commuting by bike increased by 70% in North America from 2000 - 2009

As stated in multiple previous posts (in the politics forum), sustainable agricultural techniques have improved healthy food availability and environmental sustainability in a few, but growing, regions of the world



I will answer your question with a question:
Do you want these problems to be fixed? If you do, have you written to your government representative to tell them this?
The dead zone in the Gulf is fixable. There are multiple possible techniques available to reduce ag runoff and storm-water runoff. This problem would be helps if the EPA was given the ability to enforce their regulations concerning ag runoff and storm-water run-off.




Why do you think it'd be easier to create, pass, and enforce legislation to limit birth rates than it would be to create, pass, and enforce legislation to regulate pollution (and I mean pollution in general right now, not just green house gasses).

Neither one is easier then the other because the biggest obstacle is ourselves in that sacrifice is not something anyone wants to do in a world that believes that obtaining more is how you succeed. What is going on now in the world is producing so much conflict with more consequences just around the corner then the environment will soon be put on the back burner, perhaps permanently, the population will most likely be reduced when the tipping point is under way.

it saddens me that humans have not evolved their emotional beings to act more responsible for their actions. I am starting to understand what "free will" was meant in that we don't have to be enslaved by human condition of being selfish, greedy, etc that this negative behavior is primarily the reason why we are in this mess. To actually act using free will mean to change the behavior that has lead to every extinction in history which we are currently following can be stopped if we take responsibility for our actions and take action to prevent them from destroying our environment that supports us.

We are certainly aware that a healthy environment is the only way for a species to survive, there are no exceptions to this rule. The environment can take alot of abuse for so long until it crumbles under the pressure. We are witnessing it right now and we know it but yet we still do nothing or very little to solve it due to the lack of cooperation of the powers that be that actually can enforce it. Playing this political game of who is responsible before any action will be taken is a stall tactic to not have to deal with it and do something about it.

The first clue is how it is labeled "global warming" when it should have been global environmental destruction which obviously gives clear evidence of who is to blame.

[TonyMcC]

CR_Student, on 27 July 2011 - 03:48 PM, said:

Hopefully there will be scientific breakthroughs that allow us to support a large human population. However, right now, we can't support such a large number of humans. Given the set-backs that global warming poses and other situations, I don't think we're anywhere near having the resources such as food and water available to do such.

There is one source of food that is neglected - insects:- http://www.guardian....cts-food-crisis

I have heard it said that some wartime survivors of the Japanese put their survival down to a willingness to eat,among other things, cockroach "soup".

This post has been edited by TonyMcC: 3 November 2011 - 05:40 PM