EnviroLink Forum

We may never understand but the population growth can result to more serious threat to our environment. A large population or growing population can lead to more abuse to the environment most especially if not all are aware of the effect of disorganized surroundings. What can you say?

You may be right, but it's so much more out of our control than other environmental initiatives. The hope is as we start doing things right, the social push for continued green actions will grow.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12235. Now the topic has been erased!!
Overpopulation is the root cause of ALL environmental problems. The rest are how this population lives. You can not reduce pollution 20% and raise population 20% without being back where you were, on the road toward population crash(2048 or so) then thermageddon(2300 or so). It is now mathematically impossible to reduce population by forced worldwide one child families in time to prevent the crash. It is unlikely a war which will kill 2/3 of the population will not kill everyone. It is also unlikely a disease will develop that will kill that many, also.
The way of nature is population crashes in ecological niches. The human niche is global and interdependent, with the huge commonalities of polluted atmospheric warming and mercury fallout, and immensely polluted oceans and much of the surface water. Depletion of the soil is over 2/3 in all ways, and the same for aquifers of pure water, and will be much worse by the 2040s. Both necessary for the amount of human life and both of very long term regeneration rates. The atmospheric warming has progressed to self releasing methane which will end in oceanic methane hydrate "turnover", or thermageddon and extinction of over 80% of species and human support ecosystems, because of happening too fast for most to genetically adapt. Goodbye humanity, you mostly dumb over-breeding selfish scum. Taking most other species with it is really disgusting.

_________________
"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
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

The latest from Lindsey Grant and NPG;
http://www.npg.org/npgjournalv4n2.html
great links, too.
and this article on Peak Oil!!
http://www.npg.org/forum_series/footnot ... nal%29.pdf
and MORE!!!
http://www.npg.org/forum_series/Geoengi ... -Grant.pdf
read and weep

_________________
"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
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Here is a scary one for the USA from NumbersUSA;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muw22wTePqQ

I can't help but think that if all the laws were enforced, with their fines, the USA would be out of debt.........and if there was also a moratorium, there may be hope for our kids and grandkids.
The math exercise;
IF): The population must go down fast enough to prevent a mass die-off event. The maximum food and water for humans that the planet can produce in 2050 will be at least a third less than today and possibly even less than half. The cumulative effects of AGW, soil losses, water losses, and oil loss/huge expense, will take a heavy toll on yields. If people start to compost more and grow and buy locally more, it will be on the low end. Business as usual until then will be the high end of crop and water loss. The population will be close to 9 billion living on enough food for only 3.5-4.7 billion. If there was some great leader who could say, and people obey, that we need a moratorium an having kids for 20 years, then the natural death rate would reduce the population by at least 50 million per year. Let's say 60 million per year reduction with almost no births. In 10 years it would reduce .6 billion, in 20 it would reduce 1.2 billion. Then one child families would keep the reduction rate at 20 million per year, so by 2050 there would be roughly 5.4 billion in a world that can only support 4.7 billion in the best case. So 700 million would starve or die of thirst, rather than 8 billion over a period of 20 years or so.
That is if there was such an edict and new morality and it started immediately. That is about the best mitigation we can hope for. Let us say it was an instant going to one child families with education and free forms of birth control and changes to social systems to provide for the disabled and elderly. Then 38 years of 20 million per year net drop would be 6.3 billion in a world that can support a max of 4.7 billion. There would be more deaths from starvation, 1.6 billion in a short period, and a greater chance of warfare over resources. Still, it would be better than the crash of 8 billion or more in around 20 years, in similar fashion to Easter Island 1150 AD. Warfare, theft, cannibalism, diseases, starvation, all too fast to even bury the remains.

_________________
"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
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

_________________
"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
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

The best way to limit population growth is better economic circumstances, better health and empowerment of women by providing birth control - in all developed nations, where women have the choice, and know that infants they do give birth to are a, likely to survive, and b, likely to get an education, the birth rate has dropped to well below replacement, even in catholic countries (some of which have the lowest birth rate of all, like Italy!). So it would help if the US government actually allowed aid to be used to provide contraception, and (gasp!) safe abortions... But do realize that even if births could be controlled to at or below replacement rates, the world's population will continue to grow, because so many people are very young and will add to the fertile segment of the world's people. As a consequence, some serious thinking about how we can help all of us to cope and survive by looking at needs, not wants, and sensible agreements about how to use the earth (eg, looking seriously at nuclear energy again, and the use of genetically modified crops) is still paramount.

Even with equal women's health and educational opportunities, the problem is really and unfortunate lack of >>average<<< intelligence. I read this general text in another forum;
The problem is that maximum food and water available in 2050 will be 1/3 to 1/2 of what it is now. The 7 billion of now reduced to just above starvation level in the best case scenario (6 billion) means reducing the 130 million annual births to 4 million while keeping the death rate of 50 million per year the same. That is just 3% of today's birth rate. If it is more, then the death rate will have to increase. If neither is done, the amount of food and water available will be below that needed to survive, on average. This is a set up for warfare and mass starvation/death from thirst. Eco-collapse preceded by years of abject world depression.

I agree that people, on average, just are not smart enough to think ahead, or moral enough to care for future generations.
I like to use the term "head in the sand". Here's a good video on it with others at the right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTWduFB_RX0

I posted this in the past at both the environment site and population.org ;
Here is more commentary with a great old link on the bottom:
The "Horsemen" and the blame. 1.) Aquifer depletion is to be blamed on the people who are over the aquifers, not on outsiders. 2.) Soil depletion can only be blamed on the countries where they are or have depleted their own soils(by not adding organics/composts, salinization by over-irrigation with river waters high in salts, citification by uncontrolled population growth and sprawl, and by not fallowing the land), not on outsiders. 3.) Oil depletion can only be blamed on the countries with oil who have sold it for their own wealth to outsiders. 4.) AGW has a number of sources of blame; the countries burning oil, the countries burning coal, the countries using slash and burn agriculture, the countries cutting down their forests--not outsiders. 5.) overpopulation beyond sustainable is the fault of the countries involved. It may be their culture. It may be their average stupidity. It may be religions. It may be their immigration policies. It may be the greed of some. It may be a combination of factors. 6.) world fisheries collapse can be blamed on drift netters, shark finners, and 3 billion people who get 60% of their protein from fish/seafood. 7.) Surface water pollution/depletion can be blamed on the people in the areas it is occurring and the people upstream who over-use and pollute with everything from agricultural chemicals, industrial waste, excrement, and pharmaceuticals.
http://dieoff.org/page14.htm

http://www.worldometers.info/
These are VERY useful links. Plus this factoid:
"Research from Murtaugh and Schlax at Oregon State University shows that a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models, would increase her carbon legacy by 40 times if she has two children."
And this food for thought; Overpopulation causes poverty, low IQ causes overpopulation and poverty.
1)overpopulation>too many people for the number of jobs>lower wages/income>poverty.(economics 1)
2)overpopulation>increased resource demands>increased depletion and increased prices>less money>poverty.(economics 1)
3)overpopulation>increased pollution and depletion>lower food production and lower pure water per capita>collapse/crash
area collapse/crash/economic hardship>migrations>collapse of host areas.(population science)
4)Higher IQ>thinking ahead>lower breeding rate/knowledge of sustainability and ecology>higher income>population habits within sustainability and pollution/depletion at replenishment/absorption rates(known by increased knowledge for increased IQ).
5)Lower IQ>easy influence by religions and cultures/lack of understanding ecology and ability to think ahead>high breeding rate>poverty>higher breeding rate>collapse economically and ecologically in one area>migrations>collapse in host areas.(multidisciplinary science and observation)
6)Long term crowding>crowd tolerance (generally regardless of IQ)>more overpopulation(w/more lowered wages)>collapse/crash

_________________
"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
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Some countries pay their people bonuses to populate. Some countries trash crops because of over supply.
Some countries are over populated. Some countries' people are starving.
We need to find a balance. I dont think GMO's are the answer. We need to consume/waste less food and resources.
We need to gather our grannies and invite them back into our homes where we can share our resourses.
I personally think mis-management is a serious threat to our environment, not the number of people who live in their environment.

BUMP!!!!!^^^^^^^^^

_________________
"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
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

I recall reading somewhere that, at least in modern times, war hasn't been useful in controling the world's population. After world war 2, world-wide there were more people then before it started.

Oh? Apparently people decided the war was a great place to have children!