EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Nov 28, 2014 5:49 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:23 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:58 am
Posts: 1
I'm a little tired of reading everywhere that overpopulation is the main threat to our environment... it's simply not true.

Yes, having too many people is not a good thing, but the main problem is that people are consuming too much. Everything we consume has an impact on the environment. And the more we buy or consume, the bigger our impact.

If we would all reduce our consumption, or change our consumption habits (e.g eat less meat; drive less often; use solar energy instead of coal/oil, etc etc), this planet would be able to cope with billions of people.

It's easy to say "overpopulation" is the main problem. Then we can conveniently point to other people as being the culprits ("they have too many babies, what can I do?" is the typical remark), instead of trying to change our own consumption habits.

In the immortal words of Michael Jackson: "If you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and make a change".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:17 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2301
Location: Central Colorado
That is a bunch of garbage!! Consumption, depletion of resources, and pollution are directly related to overpopulation which is at least seven times what the Earth can sustain long term at a reasonable living standard. Below the US but above the average in grossly overpopulated areas like China, India, S, ME, &SE Asia, and Africa. 3 billion people live on the equivalent of $2/day or less right now.
Of course, high per capita consumption affects the total results, but not nearly as much as total amount of people. The world could support 3 billion maximum, living at a low standard of living, eking out an existence. People don't really want to live that way, so the sustainable population is less than 1 billion and going down fast with the depletion and pollution rates of now. 1 billion live without adequate pure water and that will increase to 2.5 billion by 2030, and probably 5 billion around 2040. Global warming will increase human misery, along with post peak oil effects, and the world economy will be in depression. Too many people, not enough jobs, lowered incomes to even worse than now.
The quickest way to reduce depletion and pollution is to lower population to half with a moratorium on having kids for a decade, then a world wide 1 child per family policy after that. Even then, people will have to reduce HGHGs extremely, to stop the induced methane self release (and that is a 50-50 maybe).

_________________
"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 20, 2010 9:01 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:57 pm
Posts: 210
Why do you say so that overpopulation is not the problem? wherein it is the root. Why do you think overconsumption happens? I don't see any idea why you have to say that. It is a common sense that if the world have lesser population then there is no overconsumption. People nowadays are really being impatient about everything most especially to the impact of every action in our environment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:45 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2301
Location: Central Colorado
Elena is another 1 post creep in denial of reality. It amazes me how many people have had more than two children after overpopulation was generally known and the President addressed Congress on it in 1969. You see them all over and on TV shows like Wheel of Fortune. Acting like it is such a proud thing and so forgetful of the environment and their impact. :x

_________________
"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 21, 2010 8:33 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:57 pm
Posts: 210
I'm just wondering, how old is she now? It's kinda remind me how immature someone is. Even kids nowadays are concerned with the environment and I remember one time when I do some online tutoring and one time we have a free-talk and I'm asking is he has any idea about why we are having a problem with the waste and pollution. He immediately responded and a 12 year old kid told me that maybe all the waste to our environment has to do with many people in his country that didn't care about the environment. Now, it only means that at a very young age he knows exactly why some struggles happen. Hope Elena would defend herself more for posting a topic like this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:54 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:49 pm
Posts: 7554
Location: England
One child per family may seem fine, but please read this article.

" An eight-months pregnant woman was dragged from her home and forced to have an abortion because she had broken China’s one-child-per-family law.
Twelve government officials entered Xiao Aiying’s house where they hit and kicked her in the stomach, before taking her kicking and screaming to hospital.
There, the 36-year-old was restrained as doctors injected her with a drug to kill the unborn baby........"



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z136EX8oMJ




Could it happen in other Countries eventually?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:33 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2301
Location: Central Colorado
China's scientists realized in the late 1970s that, to prevent ecological collapse from overpopulation, they would need an enforced one child family law. They did that, >>>then farmers complained, logically, that if they only had one child, then food production would fall in half. So the farmers were allowed two children.<<< The lowest China's TFR got was 1.6 (in 1986), so China's momentum caused it to grow to the present nearly 1.4 billion when the scientists in 1979 anticipated only 1.1 billion before decline toward a lowering sustainability.
Now, they will crash from eco-collapse at some time after 2028, unless they attack and conquer more resources.
Mathematically, a worldwide forced 1 child policy, allowing for at least ten years implementation time, and moderate enforcement (a net TFR of 1.3), would have worked to prevent population die off at mid century, if started in 1998. Now, it would take a fifteen to twenty year moratorium on having children(and increased execution of criminals), followed by a world wide one child per family policy (until the new sustainable level is reached, i.e. .5B).
This will never happen, with knowing human psychology and the huge logistics of such an endeavor. The natural population crash of population in extreme overshoot will instead happen.
>>>The barbarism of the above post will be common with desperate people stealing others' food and water, and eventually murdering just to eat them.<<<
>>>Desperate people, who have already overpopulated their countries to economic hardship, have been migrating to other countries for a generation, bringing down wages, increasing costs, and increasing social cost burdens. An example: The wage suppression suffered by many millions of middle class Americans for the past 30 years, the rapid rising prices, the 14 trillion debt, and recession, can trace many of their roots in gross overpopulation induced by migration, and mistakes made in 1964-5 (and since) by the government.(gross over immigration of people who did not originally build the USA---mainly third world low IQ over-breeders we do not need). The chart at http://www.numbersUSA.com shows it fairly well (it is actually worse than the chart shows, with its straight line instead of geometric growth curved line of reality).
:x :x :x :x

_________________
"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


Last edited by Johhny Electriglide on Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 31, 2010 6:00 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:57 pm
Posts: 210
Yeah, I've read that it was enforced in China before but not so sure if till now they still practiced that. Although I've also read that because of that some of their people went to different Asian countries just to avoid such policy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:14 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 1:48 am
Posts: 1
Johhny, you obviously need to look into some things if you think population is a bigger problem then overconsumption. Obviously overpopulation is not a good thing, but between the two overconsumption is the problem of today. I'm only responding to this because I've had to write a fourteen page paper on overconsumption and after the dozens of books and dozens of articles I've read, overpopulation is not what is the problem. You should do some reading, here is an example:
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2140
Just type "overconsumption" in Google and do some reading, I don't see how you would still believe overpopulation was the problem. The developed countries are the ones causing the pollution and producing more waste and buying more pointless things than any overpopulated developing country that you blame.
I used to think overpopulation was the problem too, that was because I never actually sat down and looked into it. I'm not saying overpopulation is not a problem, but it is not what is the major cause of our climate change, and it is not what is causing our overconsumption. It's the developed countries that have to cut back, we're too busy trying to fulfill our wants or we're in competition with each other for social status. Just think of "keeping up with the Joneses."
Do you realize developing countries are trying to become consumers just like the US, or any other developed country? Even if these developing countries had the same population as the US, if they consumed the same amount, we would need about seven Earth's to have enough resources to make the products we so easily spend our money on. The developing countries are trying to get where we are today, if they get there and we still consume as much as we do, plus they start consuming along with us at the same rate, its like self destruction.

www.myfootprint.org
Go for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 12, 2011 6:18 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Hmmm...

Just as a thought experiment: how much would we have to cut this consumption, per person?

My off-the-top-of-my head guess is down to 1/4 present....that would be very difficult!

And the populations would just keep on growing, requiring us to make ever sharper cuts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 17, 2011 12:25 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2301
Location: Central Colorado
Your ballpark figure is probably very close, Iowanic. Cutting consumption down to 1/4 of the present, even with more even consumption per capita distribution, would require population reduction of the same degree. Which is 1.75 billion. The long it takes for this reduction, the more depletion and pollution, and thus the figure gets lower with time. Reducing population 5.25 billion would take a death rate ten times higher than now, and reduction in per capita consumption to Euro average max for Americans. 3/4 of the world right now is poor, and generally of low IQ, that is why they can not control their breeding, and why they are of low income. They are too stupid to understand sustainability, ecology, and lack the self control for population control. In a natural overpopulation crash, they would be the first to go, leaving behind a depleted, polluted wasteland where they had lived. It is unfortunate that others who could have avoided a crash, like Europe and the USA, have imported low IQ and/or religious influenced/culturally influenced over-breeders who will crash them, too, a little later.

_________________
"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: Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:52 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:58 am
Posts: 9
well the problem with the developing countries is their illiteracy, most of the people there are illiterate and the common thinking there is one child means two hands to earn. moreover for the male child, lots of female child are born....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:23 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2301
Location: Central Colorado
micle wrote:
well the problem with the developing countries is their illiteracy, most of the people there are illiterate and the common thinking there is one child means two hands to earn. moreover for the male child, lots of female child are born....

Two things lead to illiteracy. One is low IQ to begin with and two is too many people to teach and not enough teachers or money, caused by too many people in the first place!
They are too lacking in sense to understand sustainability or to think seven generations ahead of the consequences of their actions. They are more controlled by animal lust and selfish short term thinking. Really, they should and will die off from the effects of their overpopulation. The sooner, the better, ecologically. :-

_________________
"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  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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