EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:26 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:52 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2155
Location: Central Colorado
Actually, 7 billion was hit in August or October of 2011. The death rate will increase as the economy worsens and health care is lessened while famines and diseases increase along with area warfare. Birthrates will continue to decrease, too. A point will be reached where birthrate and death rate are equal, followed by a rapidly increasing death rate from a variety of factors.
Then death rates will decrease to less than birth rates at some point of much lower population.
That is the simple explanation. The reality is of horror and suffering, not just for humans, but many other species as well. :cry:

http://www.cosmosmith.com/human_population_crisis.htm

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/CC_Overshoot.html

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:18 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:24 am
Posts: 87
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
To "recap", the human population has been in overshoot for a hundred years more or less depending on standard of living.
The rate of soil loss has been ~100 times regeneration for that long. For over 60 years the rate of aquifer loss has been over 100 times recharge rates. The pollution of CO2 has been hundreds of times absorption rates, along with other pollution thousands of times absorption rates. Resources have been used at a half million times their regeneration rate with fossil fuels, and other non-renewables have ended up in dumps along with toxic plastics, also in 6 trash gyres in the acidifying oceans. The oceans will also be depleted of edible fish 2035-50. Water is the weakest link in the chain of ecological sustainability. See the above posts. India's and many other rivers are open sewers.
http://www.overpopulation.org/water.html


Supports my arguments given the phrase "more or less depending on standard of living," not to mention environmental damage.

So much for the claim that we overlook overpopulation. Apparently, we've been doing it the other way round: i.e., insisting on overpopulation while ignoring overconsumption, environmental damage, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 12:29 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:24 am
Posts: 87
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Overpopulation of hunter gatherers would also destroy the biosphere(without predators or enough diseases, and with the technical achievement of weapons), and so would overpopulation of vegetarian farmers(without enough predators and diseases, and with the technology of the "green revolution").
Fossil fueled industrialized agriculture and transport began the stimulated overpopulation, and the technology of weapons and medicine got rid of predators from wolves to viruses, and increased agricultural output with irrigation and fertilizers along with chemical herbicides and insecticides. They all added with each other for the rapid destruction, pollution, and depletion we see.
The economic system also had its effect of over-consumption promotion, and religions their effects of overpopulation.


From what I remember, population hardly went up for thousands of years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

which meant that it would have taken a very long time to see an "overpopulation of hunter gatherers," not to mention destruction of the biosphere. On the other hand, what is described in your second paragraph very much describes the situation that led to increasing population plus over-consumption. That is, much lower infant mortality rates plus availability of food, medicine, etc., leading to longer lives, and with the availability of basic needs the drive for even more resources.

With that, it turns out that overpopulation is not the only "serious threat" to the environment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 3:15 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2155
Location: Central Colorado
As described;

Overpopulation of hunter gatherers would also destroy the biosphere(without predators or enough diseases, and with the technical achievement of weapons), and so would overpopulation of vegetarian farmers(without enough predators and diseases, and with the technology of the "green revolution").
Fossil fueled industrialized agriculture and transport began the stimulated overpopulation, and the technology of weapons and medicine got rid of predators from wolves to viruses, and increased agricultural output with irrigation and fertilizers along with chemical herbicides and insecticides. They all added with each other for the rapid destruction, pollution, and depletion we see.
The economic system also had its effect of over-consumption promotion, and religions their effects of overpopulation.
http://www.worldhistorysite.com/population.html
Seeing it is probably impossible to stop the mid century population crash, the more important thing is to save the biosphere from a mass extinction event caused by human pollution---AETM. That is the serious threat, and may be possible to stop with an 80 to 90% reduction in HGHGs by 2020 or so. Fossil fuel use makes up 70% of that and slash and burn agriculture to feed the overpopulation is 30%. The demand is from overpopulation now.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/CC_Overshoot.html


Suzanne York
People's Rights, Planet's Rights Holistic Approaches to a Sustainable Population
Overview
"Human population numbers have been fodder for
discussion since ancient times. Aristotle, Confucius, Machiavelli and many others expressed concern about increases in population.
In more contemporary times, the Reverend Thomas Malthus
predicted that population growth would be checked by world hunger, famine, and malnutrition. However, the Industrial Revolution and the rise of fossil fuels usage proved many of his theories wrong.
More recently, in the late 1960s, Dr. Paul and Anne Ehrlich's The Population Bomb echoed similar concerns, though the Green Revolution put off the day of reckoning that Ehrlich feared.
Interestingly, Norman Borlaug, the “father” of the Green Revolution, noted that this effort would only buy humanity a little bit of time.
In his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, which he won in 1970, Borlaug said “Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the 'Population Monster'." The New York Times wrote that he was frustrated throughout his life that governments did not do more to tackle population growth by lowering birth rates, and at one point said “If the world population continues to increase at the same rate, we will destroy the species.”
Today the number of humans on Earth number over 7 billion. The mid-range United Nations population projection is for 9.3 billion people by 2050. However, just an average of one half (1.375 instead of 2.75 TFR ) fewer children per woman would reduce that number to 8 billion, with positive effects on health, education, food, water and resource availability.
There are approaches we can take – all grounded in fairness, equality, and rights – that can make a difference in balancing population growth and the health of the planet. It goes beyond numbers and requires a holistic, rights-based approach to talking about population and producing positive changes. Calling it the ‘Population Monster’ or population control won't direct the conversation where it needs to be.
The bottom line is there will remain billions of people on the planet, barring any major catastrophes, for the rest of this century and far beyond. Finger pointing, denying rights, myopic thinking, and the like will not improve lives or the environment. Global society is confronted by a range of serious ecological, economic, and social issues that require a systemic and holistic path. We are all in this together; let's take an inclusive approach, look closely at how lives may be improved, and put the political and moral will behind doing so."
Barring major catastrophes will be the hardest part. Like world financial meltdown, aquifers depleting, ocean fisheries collapse, Kafla volcano, most oil depleted or too high a price, vastly increased CAGW effects, nuclear war, Cascadia, La Palma, soil depletion effects without petro chemical fertilizers, increased heavy metal pollution, garbage, mass riots, malnutrition effects and diseases.
http://collapseofindustrialcivilization ... overshoot/

As for US population factors;
Among the key findings of the FAIR/Pulse Opinion poll:
•By a 53% to 41% margin, voters believe our nation's borders are not secure.
•By a 74% to 21% margin, voters believe the government is not doing an effective job preventing illegal aliens from living and working in the U.S.
•By a 53% to 26% margin, voters believe that illegal immigration is harmful to American workers.
•By a 66% to 11% margin, voters believe that illegal immigration imposes a burden on American taxpayers.


Another good article from a Prof. Emeritus of History;
http://www.npg.org/forum_series/Little_ ... 021913.pdf

http://dieoff.org/_Systems/PopulationCr ... entury.pdf

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:25 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2155
Location: Central Colorado
The root cause has not been hit enough, even though it is too late to stop the 2030-2050 crash peak followed by 90 to 99% population drop (400 million deaths per year). There is still time(though not much) to mitigate it and to stop emissions enough in time to save the biosphere from AETM ELE.
http://www.cosmosmith.com/population_clock.htm

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 2:51 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2155
Location: Central Colorado
From the above link;
"When scientists talk about overpopulation, they are usually referring to a population exceeding its biological carrying capacity which is defined as "the maximum number of animals that a specific habitat or area can support without causing deterioration or degradation of that habitat." Likewise, human overpopulation is when the number of people can not be permanently maintained without depleting resources and without degrading the environment and the people's standard of living. One might consider that if we were to consume less, we may be able to live within the carrying capacity of the planet. However, we should not reduce our consumption or degrade our lifestyle in order to claim that the human race is not overpopulated. Especially not as our number continues to increase.

Population Reciprocal Chart Some may argue about how much vacant room there still is on Earth to hold billions and billions of more people. However, one must consider the fact that people are all made up of atoms of matter, and that matter which comprises our bodies has had to come from the earth itself. The majority of the matter in our bodies is in the form of water. At the rate our population is presently growing, within 1200 years, our oceans would be entirely converted into people as more and more water is required to build the bodies of people. This is not even considering the water required for drinking, washing, irrigating crops, sea life, etc.

Hypothetically, if the human population continued to grow at our present rate, the mass of people would be equal to the mass of the earth within 1600 years. In 2300 years at this rate, the mass of people would fill up our entire solar system, and if you were able to create matter from nothing in order to make people, in roughly 5300 years a great sphere of humanity with a radius of over 150 light-years would be expanding faster than the speed of light.

These are not predictions of things that may happen. Limitations will halt our growth much sooner. The intent is instead to illustrate how rapidly our population is growing and to express that this obviously can not continue. The growth occurs so suddenly that the population can become unmanagable without sufficient warning, after it is too late to prevent catastrophe. In short, we are in great danger of using up both space and resources."

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:33 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2155
Location: Central Colorado
Wow, over 23K "hits", this is definitely way more popular than so called fence sitting. :razz: :razz: :razz: :razz:
http://www.growthbiasbusted.org/wall-of ... ul-gilding
excerpt 2012; “Let me begin with four words… four words that will come to define this century. Here they are: The Earth is full. It's full of us, it's full of our stuff, full of our waste, full of our demands. Yes, we are a brilliant and creative species, but we've created a little too much stuff -- so much that our economy is now bigger than its host, our planet. This is not a philosophical statement, this is just science based in physics, chemistry and biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means.”

Overpopulation: An Overlooked Factor in Global Health
Lynsey Jones
Posted by Lynsey Jones on Thursday, 20 March 2014 in Wall of Fame
http://www.growthbiasbusted.org/wall-of ... bal-health
Excerpt; "Brian Krans is the author of today’s piece and I find it very interesting that he and his publication are also focused on the human health side of things. This new study seems to be gaining a lot of attention from that field. As it should! And perhaps this is really the approach that journalists and academics should be focusing on if we want to really attract public attention and action.

Krans states, “With an ever-growing population on a finite earth, the issue of overpopulation should be a major concern when evaluating how we’ll be able to feed and care for the masses. But it’s not.” And the problem here lies in the fact that people don’t want to acknowledge it, talk about it, or do anything about it. “Camilo Mora…reviewed nearly 200 research articles and found that population is being ‘downplayed and trivialized,’ despite its biological impact and its fundamental role in human welfare.”

Well we could have told you that. In fact, we have. But it warms my heart to know that people in other fields are now reading and writing about these issues. The underlying message of Mora’s study, and therefor Krans’ piece, is that nothing will get better if overpopulation continues to be the third rail of environmentalism. " #-o =D> :mrgreen:

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:07 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2155
Location: Central Colorado
"Earth Day celebrations a cruel joke on Americans, especially their children
Blog post by Dave Gorak on April 16, 2014
Tags:
environment
population
immigration

On April 22 - Earth Day - the nation's children once again will be found "greening" up areas in their communities and doing it with great sincerity because their parents and educators tell them their efforts are making a difference.

Unfortunately, they are not.

Those responsible for nurturing those we often refer to as "the future of this country" are not telling these well-meaning children that their own government's cavalier and irresponsible immigration policy is responsible for 82 percent of this nation's population growth that plays into the loss of nearly 2 million acres of prime farmland to development every year.

When Earth Day debuted in 1970, the nation's population was 203 million people. It was a good idea at a time when Americans were very passionate about protecting the environment and our quality of life.

But that passion died long ago, and we are the poorer for it. Our population has exploded to nearly 318 million people, and Census is projecting more than 400 million of us by 2050 and 600 million-plus by century's end. This more than 40 years after the Rockefeller Commission on Population Growth and the American Future stated:
After two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population, rather that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems. We have looked for, and have not found, any convincing economic argument for continued population growth. The health of our country does not depend on it, nor does the vitality of business nor the welfare of the average person."

Shortly before his death in 2005, Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
...in this country, it's phony to say, 'I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration.' It's just a fact that we can't take all the people who want to come here. And you don't have to be a racist to realize that." "

" April 22, 1970: the very first Earth Day.

New York City Mayor John Lindsay shut down Fifth Avenue. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans alike gathered in tens of thousands at Fairmount Park in Philadelphia. The event put environmental concerns front and center across the nation, and the consequences were profound: the creation of the EPA and the passage of the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Acts.

After starting in the U.S., Earth Day soon went global -- and now is observed in more than 190 countries. It's a day when people around the world demonstrate their passion for policies and endeavors to help the planet we share.

You recently demonstrated this passion when you told the EPA you support strong carbon pollution standards for new power plants. We're hoping to count on your passion and support again this Earth Day to reach our goal of sending over 100,000 comments to the EPA.

When you sign up for our Thunderclap today, a post will automatically be published to your Facebook, Twitter, or Tumblr on Earth Day spreading the message that you support the strong carbon pollution standards for new power plants, and asking your friends to do the same.

The more people see your message, the stronger it will be once the EPA gathers and reviews all comments received over the past few months. Your help today will send a loud and clear message that can't be ignored: man-made carbon pollution is contributing to climate disruption and it's time we put a stop to it. In 1970, Earth Day transformed the environmental consciousness of a nation and took the movement forward. With your help, it can do the same in 2014.

Thanks for your support,
The Climate Reality Team"
It would sure be easier with the population of 1970, but insufficient action was done in time to prevent the crash and the AGW .........

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group