EnviroLink Forum

People have been making war with their own home for a long time. 1994:

http://www.amazon.com/World-War-III-Mic ... +Biosphere

Then, population 5.5 billion. Now, 7.1 billion.
The countdown to extinction continues................................................
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-08 ... s-iraq-war

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-06 ... rowth-myth

_________________
"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

Don't worry. We'll terraform Mars.

Yeah, sure, terraform Mars like in Total Recall. Life is just an imaginary movie.
The present average world TFR is 2.75 and decreasing, albeit far too slowly. Blame it on male machismo, or female feminista, religion, stupidity, culture, habit, or just that a third of births are accidental. It is understanding the math and a wide variety of depletion/pollution data to come to future probabilities.
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. Even if the crash were "gentler" and the reduction took 50 years, it would include most of the births in that period, maybe 2 billion more humans, total. The bottom will be at most a billion left, and probably less than half that.

_________________
"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

What is the maximum permanently sustainable level?

I remember a multidisciplinary study in 1972, another in 1980, and another in 1992, and they all averaged 1.75B @ "Euro" level of 2500 cal./person/day. However, with depletion of soil and aquifers, and pollution, that level has gone down in an accelerating manner to near half.
Here are some old thoughts on it;
http://www.evfit.com/population_max.htm

we are probably on the low projection in this one;
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7853

_________________
"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

We will need the equivalent of 100 more Colorado Rivers by 2025, clearly not gonna happen!

by Alister Doyle

“Death Valley, No Water” Photo by Trey Ratcliff/Flickr/cc

OSLO (Reuters) – The world needs to find the equivalent of the flow of 100 Colorado rivers or 20 Nile rivers by 2025 to grow enough food to feed a rising population, and help avoid conflicts over water scarcity, says a recently released study by world leaders.

Factors such as climate change will strain freshwater supplies, and nations including China and India are likely to face shortages within two decades, they said, calling on the U.N. Security Council to get more involved. “The future political impact of water scarcity may be devastating,” former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said of a study issued by a group of 40 former leaders he co-chairs, leaders including Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela. “It will lead to some conflicts,” Chretien told reporters on a telephone conference call, highlighting tensions such as in the Middle East over the Jordan River.

_________________
"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

And, they were warned!
"One of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century will be the growth of population. Whether man’s response to that challenge will be a cause for pride or for despair in the year 2000 will depend very much on what we do today. If we now begin our work in an appropriate manner and if we devote a considerable amount of attention and energy to this problem then mankind will be able to surmount this challenge as it has surmounted so many during the long march of civilization." – President Richard M. Nixon, July 18, 1969

Donate to get this movie out!!!
http://www.criticalmassfilm.com/

Well, no matter who wins the election, there will be no real population reduction for the USA and we are condemned to crash around 2045. Most likely we won't reduce emissions enough either, and the Earth, as we knew it, will fairly quickly, geologically, change to near uninhabitable for several Milakovich cycles. Then in three million years will be full of life we would not recognize.

_________________
"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

Another one post wonder spouting idiocy above? Guess he/she/it didn't go to these links.

"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell" (Edward Abbey).

_________________
"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

I love that quote

To recap, the problem isn't just overpopulation but overconsumption, especially the latter as part of lower birth rates among wealthier nations. Thus, resource savings from lower birth rates are offset by increasing resource use due to more wealth. Worse, the transition from poverty to wealth involves increasing resource consumption, which may be seen in resource consumption among various wealthy nations and a growing global middle class. Also, increasing resource consumption may lead to increasing population, as seen in the use of oil contributing to manufacturing and the Green Revolution from 1945 onward leading to lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancy rates.

In the end, even if population stopped growing or even decreased to only two billion, if the remaining population follows a middle class lifestyle (e.g., car, house, electricity, running water, all the way to owning guns and ammo, a computer, and accessing the 'net) then that much smaller population may even experience overshoot.

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

_________________
"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

Saw a Brooking Institute "tightly held" paper from about 1980 suggesting the the
Great Powers would eventually have to eliminate population growth in third world.
Impose sanctions or use bioweapons!

In 1970 at the 1st Earthday a seminar of environmentalists agreed that 200 million
would be our ideal population. Now it's 315 million. Government welcoming about
a million legal immigrants a year. Insanity.

..

The one and only cause of environmental destruction is Industrialization.

Overpopulation and Overconsumerism are consequences / by-products of Industrialization.

Without Industrialization there would be no overpopulation and no overconsumerism.

Industrialization, Overpopulation and Overconsumerism happen together.......Industrialization, Overpopulation and Overconsumerism happen at the same time.

It is Industrialization that has led to a population of 7 billion.....Not overbreeding.

The entire world was overbreeding before Industrialization.....The entire world is underbreeding after Industrialization.

There used to be 5 - 15 children per family all over the world before Industrialization and yet world population reached only 1 billion till 1800 AD......After Industrialization the family size reduced drastically, most families are now having 1 - 4 children and yet world population jumped from 1 billion to 7 billion in just about 200 years.

If Industrialization had not happened world population would be less than 2 billion today.

India and China have large populations today because they started with larger populations thousands of years ago since ancient civilizations thrived in these regions.....What was the population of Europe and America 2000 years ago????.....Was it comparable with the population of India and China???? .....And once again, In the absence of Industrialization India and China would not be having large populations today.

If Industrialization had not happened, High death rate would have kept population of the world under control....Diseases caused by virus and bacteria would have kept population under control.....Feeding capacity of soil would have kept population under control....Shortage of food and water would have kept population under control.....Harsh Climatic Conditions would have kept population under control - People would not have been able to live in regions that are too hot or too cold.

If Industrialization had not happened this planet would have been in very good condition today.....There would be no overpopulation, no overconsumerism and only limited urbanization.

A Non-Industrial Society would have destroyed some ecosystems on the land [Forests] but Marine Ecology [Oceans] would have been almost 100% safe today......Forest Cover would be much greater than what it is now....Millions of species on the land and in the sea would not have been decimated and would be thriving with very healthy populations......This planet would be free of Billions of Tonnes of Metal Waste, Plastic Waste, Chemical waste, Gaseous Waste, eWaste and Nuclear Waste.....The Oceans wouldn't have become Acidic, Warmer and Oxygen Deprived because of Industrial Waste.

It is consumerism that destroys environment, Not population.

A Hunter_Gatherer Society of 7 billion would have destroyed very little environment...... because it would have destroyed environment only for food......not for thousands of consumer goods and services.

An Agrarian Society of 7 billion would have destroyed very little environment [compared to an Industrial Society of 7 billion]...... because it would have destroyed environment only for food, clothing and shelter.......not for thousands of consumer goods and services.

[By the way, A Hunter_Gatherer Society would have never reached a population of 7 billion......An Agrarian Society would have never reached a population of 7 billion]

Environment has been destroyed by Industrialization/ Consumerism…….Not by Population/ Overpopulation.

Total World Population has not increased ……It has decreased……In fact total world population has been decimated.

When we talk about population we should take into account population of all animal species on earth, not just human population.

Industrial Society has decimated millions of Animal Species……Increase in human population has coincided with decrease/ decimation of millions of animal species.... The total burden of population on this planet has not increased…..It has decreased.

Industrial Society has decimated millions of other species......There was a time when the combined population of other animal species was much greater than present human population.....and we don't even need to include smaller animals in this count.....The combined population of big animals alone whose size and weight was equivalent to or greater than man was much greater than current human population of 7 billion.

The amount of food this animal population was eating was much greater than the food consumed by humans today.......Yet millions of animal species did not destroy environment and lived sustainably on earth for millions of years......because they destroyed environment only for food and not for thousands of consumer goods and services.

If animals had started a consumerist "Industrial Society" millions of years ago they would have destroyed all ecosystems millions of years ago.

The entire world has been trying to control human population for 50 years and these efforts should / will continue in future.....so where is the problem with population?????

It is so ridiculous of Industrial Society to complain about overpopulation when it itself is the cause of overpopulation......It is so ridiculous of Industrial Society to make attempts to control population while promoting Consumerism, Growth Rate, Economy Rate and GDP exponentially.

This planet can only sustain a Non-Industrial Society.
..

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.

_________________
"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

http://www.slate.com/articles/technolog ... oding.html

The world’s seemingly relentless march toward overpopulation achieved a notable milestone in 2012: Somewhere on the planet, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the 7 billionth living person came into existence.

Lucky No. 7,000,000,000 probably celebrated his or her birthday sometime in March and added to a population that’s already stressing the planet’s limited supplies of food, energy, and clean water. Should this trend continue, as the Los Angeles Times noted in a five-part series marking the occasion, by midcentury, “living conditions are likely to be bleak for much of humanity.”

A somewhat more arcane milestone, meanwhile, generated no media coverage at all: It took humankind 13 years to add its 7 billionth. That’s longer than the 12 years it took to add the 6 billionth—the first time in human history that interval had grown. (The 2 billionth, 3 billionth, 4 billionth, and 5 billionth took 123, 33, 14, and 13 years, respectively.) In other words, the rate of global population growth has slowed. And it’s expected to keep slowing. Indeed, according to experts’ best estimates, the total population of Earth will stop growing within the lifespan of people alive today.

And then it will fall.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein