EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Dec 19, 2014 7:59 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 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: 2314
Location: Central Colorado
Hence the machine guns and wood chippers on the border. Kids that never should have been born, and adults, too.
The big problem is that they tend to become high emissions in lifestyle, in addition to all the trash and graffiti.
Of course, the long term overpopulation will lead to a crash, inevitably, before mid-century. Far too late to reduce emissions the NECESSARY 90+%.
Cascadia, or LaPalma, or Katla are all due and could induce an early crash. So would Yellowstone, along with the needed minimum 7 1/2 year or more global volcanic winter for a "Toba-like" bottleneck and return to late interglacial cycle.
Hopefully, underground stocked fortresses will have only the strongest, best looking and smartest along with the realization it was greed that started it.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2014 1:23 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2314
Location: Central Colorado
In environmentalism, we find so many who are wuss save the whale or something types, who go a little green and think they are clean when they are filthy.
Climate change's health toll: 'We can save millions of lives, even now'

"While the effects of climate change on the environment are gaining wide attention, there's a lack of awareness about the impact on human health. The WHO's Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum tells DW how both can be adressed.
The sun obscured by puffs of smoke and steam from a lignite power plant in Germany

DW: How much of a threat is climate change to human health?

As the earth warms, it makes it easier to transmit diseases in many parts of the world - diseases like malaria, which kills around 600,000 people every year, or diarrheal disease, including cholera and other forms of diarrhea, which also kills almost 600,000 just children every year, particularly in developing countries. And as we get more frequent precipitation, perhaps more frequent flooding and drought, it makes it harder to supply safe water sanitation services to populations.

We are also going to get more frequent and severe heat waves, particularly in the cities. And we know that heat waves can kill thousands of people, even tens of thousands of people: The record heat wave that occurred in Europe in 2003 was responsible for about 70,000 deaths. The more that we let climate change progress, the more that we find that parts of the world are unfit for safe human habitation."
http://www.dw.de/climate-changes-health ... a-17885833

When the Earth is about 8 times the long term sustainable population, and with pollution and depletion rates 100 to 1000 times regeneration rates, it doesn't help to save people. All it does is make it worse. :x
: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
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:47 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2314
Location: Central Colorado
Talk about thinking in error;
World Population to Hit 12 Billion in 2100, New Study Predicts

Anastasia Pantsios | September 19, 2014 3:56 pm |
"Researchers had been predicting a leveling off of the world’s population, currently more than seven million. But Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, published a paper today projecting that population will continue to grow in this century and could reach 12 billion by 2100. The paper gave an 80 percent chance that world population in 2100 will be between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion."
http://ecowatch.com/2014/09/19/populati ... 2-85901709

I find it amazing that an environmental group would skip over die-off as if it doesn't exist. :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
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 1:31 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 179
Johhny Electriglide wrote:

I find it amazing that an environmental group would skip over die-off as if it doesn't exist. :mrgreen:


It's probably linked to the broad faith in perpetual economic growth.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 21, 2014 12:50 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2314
Location: Central Colorado
EcoWatch should see the root connection between overpopulation and emissions. Especially people in America.
However, as with others, they choose to be Politically Correct and not connect rapid decarbonization to necessary rapid population reduction. :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
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:17 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:07 am
Posts: 3
I believe this is also an answer to your question One reason for the growing interest in biodiversity is the threat that human activities may pose for plant and animal species. As humans take over more land for agriculture, cities, highways, and other uses, natural habitats are seriously disrupted. Whole populations may be destroyed, upsetting the balance of nature that exists in an area. The loss of a single plant, for example, may result in the loss of animals that depend on that plant for food. The loss of those animals may, in turn, result in the loss of predators who prey on those animals.

As human populations grow, the threat to biodiversity will continue to grow with it. And as more people place greater stress on the natural environment, greater will be the loss of resources plant and animal communities need to survive.

Read more: http://www.scienceclarified.com/As-Bi/B ... z3E1x15YIi

I just wonder do we think about precautions as much as we think about expansion?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:15 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 179
You can get a feeling for how overpopulation has become a taboo subject from this fellow's otherwise sound economic analysis. He makes the obvious point that there simply aren't enough jobs around for people who need them and that depresses everything associated with the economy, including wages. But unfortunately he can't bring himself to the obvious followup, that we have too many people for the jobs available and that requires a population drop. It's always got to be about "ism" stuff.

And of course a related point is the environmental cost of growth has become steeper, inhibiting economic growth, as Mother Earth becomes more unable and/or unwilling to give up her depleting bounty.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/25/ ... es-global/

Quote:
Three global capitalist research institutes recently released reports documenting a growing ‘global jobs crisis’. The World Bank, the OECD, and the International Labor Organization (ILO) all came to the same conclusion. The Group of 20 nations’ employment ministers thereafter meeting in Australia issued a joint statement on the three institutes’ conclusion that “the world’s largest economies are failing to create enough jobs and too many of those that are being produced are of a low quality to generate a meaningful boost to global growth” (The Financial Times, September 10, 2014). As the World Bank’s senior director for jobs put it, “there is little doubt there is a global jobs crisis”.

All three reports identify converging trends across all the advanced economies (AEs) of Europe, North America, and Japan. Not only is total unemployment rising long term, but the percentage of youth employment and the chronically long term jobless are also growing. So too are part time and temp jobs rising sharply as a percent of the labor force in the AEs.
---------------------------------------------------
The global jobs crisis also leads, according to the three ILO, OECD and World Bank reports, to a corresponding decline in disposable income and consumer spending, which contributes significantly to rising income inequality trends. So the jobs crisis means not only wage reduction but the rise of inter-class income inequality as well.
----------------------------------------------------------
It is not surprising that mainstream AE economists of either wing have not been successful at proposing theoretical solutions to the current global economy’s inability to generate a sustained recovery on a general scale. Nor is it surprising that capitalist politicians and policy makers in governments and central banks have been unable to do so in fact. Neither economists nor politicians have addressed, or are about to address, the fundamental problem of the global jobs crisis today raised in the three reports: the crisis of the decline in the quantity and quality of jobs.


How about the over abundance of population with respect to those jobs? It's the population stupid!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:26 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2314
Location: Central Colorado
So-called economists have been the ruin of doing enough in time to prevent ecological catastrophe.
It should be in Econ101 that more people demanding jobs lowers wages, and more people demanding products raises prices, more demand for housing increases rents and home costs. A recipe for abject world depression and poverty.
The brick wall is the reality of overpopulation's effects, which they pretend is not there and beating on it is painless. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) :razz: 8) :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
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 25, 2014 6:23 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 179
There is a lot of shouting about how we are getting off of fossil fuel and getting our energy from nonpolluting alternatives and efficiencies. And yet the statistics show worldwide fossil fuel use going relentless up. No doubt we are making progress on a per capita basis but the growing population continues to negate that progress. If you use 20% less fossil fuel per capita but the population goes up 20% then you have been in effect simply spinning your wheels. And of course many of the poor understandably have their eyes on the prize, which is living like their richer cousins. And inevitably there is the need for more living space which means diminishing the surrounding forests and their vital sequestering function.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 11:44 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2314
Location: Central Colorado
There has been the ongoing tendency of the lowest spectrum of IQ and the most selfish/greedy, to have the most kids.
This has had profound effects of dumbing down and inability to see ahead the consequences of actions. There has been a remarkable lack of math and science knowledge in this dumbing down, and hence the so-called fence sitter crap.
This was part of the post-WWII and another tendency for survivors to "make up" excessively for their lost friends.
Actually, the sustainable max was reached circa 1900 for a good standard of living and 1930 for a low impact lifestyle.
The dummy majority, now, still thinks the Earth is too big to affect by people. They think it is their right to have two or more kids, when in reality the whole family should be sterilized or composted.
Negative evolution has had a nasty hand in it, and now humans are not as strong, or intelligent, as when max sustainable was reached.
To me, speciation should have occurred, or should occur, seeing the difference in intelligence between people is greater than the difference between species.
: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
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 27, 2014 12:14 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 10:30 pm
Posts: 179
The bright guys gave us WMDS, so IQ isn't necessarily our salvation. When the Chinese wanted one child per family they got one child per family - bright or dumb. Hunter gatherers were generally good practitioners of birth control although it often involved infanticide and senicide and of course the convenience of high mortality.

Get about 20% seriously on board with family planning, both personally and politically, and the rest of the sheep will go along with the program. Folks are biased in favor of conformity.

For a long time I've thought the so called 'right to life' folks should be renamed "Forced Birth Fascists". Part of controlling outcomes is establishing a strong brand, and this one happens to be accurate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 28, 2014 12:10 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2314
Location: Central Colorado
The obvious relationship between climate and family planning — and why we don’t talk about it

By Valerie Tarico 24 Sep 2014 7:02 AM
"Today, state-of-the-art family planning methods called LARCs (long-acting reversible contraceptives) are rapidly growing in popularity. These methods offer women an unprecedented ability to manage their fertility — to have children when they feel ready and only when they feel ready. On the Pill, which is 1960s technology with a few updates, one in 11 women gets pregnant each year. With a state-of-the-art “fit and forget” method like an IUD or implant, that drops below one in 500. Recent research in St. Louis and Colorado showed that when women are offered the method of their choice with no co-pay, most choose one of these LARC methods, and the rates of rapid repeat pregnancy, teen pregnancy, and abortion plummet."
http://grist.org/climate-energy/the-obv ... gn=climate

There is so much just not talked about or avoided reality, like the math and decline in food per capita.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:39 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2314
Location: Central Colorado
I remember 1970 well. I spent 3/4 of it in combat, then home and getting my instructor rating. I could no longer hunt with all the bloody memories. I knew the world was already well over long term sustainable population...........
Half the World’s Animal Population Vanished Since 1970
Anastasia Pantsios | September 30, 2014
"The just-released tenth biennial edition of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Living Planet report found that between hunting, habitat destruction, environmental degradation and the effects of climate change, the world’s animal populations of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish has dropped 52 percent since 1970. The study, produced in partnership with the Zoological Society of London, Global Footprint Network and Water Footprint Network, measured 10,000 species."
http://ecowatch.com/2014/09/30/animal-p ... d-85901709

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:05 am 
Offline
New User
New User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:56 am
Posts: 8
It is alarming indeed since we humans consume nature's resources without thinking how we can replace those resources that we used.
It is a sad reality. We tend to focus about economy and social but we overlook our biodiversity problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:41 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2314
Location: Central Colorado
Quantity of species lost is bad enough. The unrelenting human overpopulation has lead beyond just the 2040s crash.
The only way to prevent the worst possible catastrophe of methane turnover is force the crash much sooner. :-k

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 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