Johhny Electriglide wrote:
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.
What if there was a total moratorium, ruthlessly enforced, on having ANY kids for the longest time possible without causing extinction? That would be say, 30 years. At the present death rate of 57 million per year, and if it was somehow done instantaneously, then the population in 2042 would be down to 5 Billion. With all the effects of depletion and pollution on food production for that time, it would yield around 1,200 calories per person per day, if distributed evenly. People would have to be at a maximum weight of 100 pounds to do enough work to feed themselves at 400 calories per day expended above the sedentary starvation level for someone of 100 pounds weight. If those old enough to breed kept the population at that level of near starvation as the sustainable level continued to decline from further depletion and pollution effects, then the population would decline further to a final state of sustainability where depletion equals replenishment of soils, and water, and pollution is at absorption rate. The world population would be around a billion, and would have avoided the holocaust of the population crash, and extinction if human habits had also changed toward sustainability.
It is a mighty big what if, and knowing human psychology and inertia, just will not happen. The population drop off will be the natural result of depleting and polluting the habitat. Human life expectancy will peak and fall, as food production ability also falls, and too many people causes falling incomes and increased prices to world depression. Pollution effects will continue to increase, and they are nasty.
The people that have had more than 2 kids since the world reached maximum sustainable at the lowest reasonable standard of living, the late 1920s, have caused what will happen. Of course, no one knew until the late 1960s, and now, you can see the impossible situation our species is in. There is no way to stop the Juggernaut.
What CAN be done is to mitigate the destruction of the biosphere to prevent extinction of the survivors. Minimize pollution of all kinds, maximize soil building with true composting increase, reduce pure water usage through efficiency and recycling, and reduce family size to decrease depletion and pollution, and lessen the impact of the crash. Certain areas can be "niched" to being totally independent for energy and complete nutrition, while others who use up everything will turn their lands to unusable wastelands. Global pollution will still affect even these "niched" areas----mercury, malevolent climate change, and other atmospheric and seaborne toxics---for many thousands of years. The more people of now and until the mid century crash, the less survivors and survivability of the species, along with many other species, many of which we need in our ecological support system.
Reduce, Re-use, and recycle are still good words to live by, and teach. What is really more important; personal selfishness, greed, and ignorance, or future generations of yet unborn people? What is more important, you, or the human species? Soldiers fight for their country, while true environmentalists fight for those future unborn people. Both make personal sacrifices, while the selfish, greedy, or ignorant do not. Environmentalists can help teach the ignorant, and show the selfish and greedy the errors of their ways. It is frustrating because the ignorant are very hard to teach, and the selfish and greedy resist strongly in changing their ways, with every rationalization possible, every form of deceit possible, and with the power their money can buy.
Still, reduce, re-use, and recycle--live it, and teach it. Rest when needed, and know you are doing what is truly right and good.