EnviroLink Forum

Live for today for tomorrow we may die .... and in nine months more life.

_________________
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

True enough. Overpopulation was probably the last thing on their mind. As for now it is also, as well.

All the wars of the past 200 years were mere blips on the relentless exponential curve of human population growth past carrying capacity long term. The crowding probably caused territorial resource ambitions and actually was a root cause. But they just were not big enough or selective like in the distant past. People came back from WWII and many were greedy and birth control pills didn't come out until 1960. My parents (dad a WWII Navy vet) stopped at two. I asked my mother how, and she said "will power".
Our country needs "will power".
1995, if only Presidents would have enforced the laws, and listened to their advisers and the people,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMywOal ... r_embedded

_________________
"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

Not gonna happen.

_________________
TANG SOO!

"....Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess.
What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victims."
Surely you must think the above was written by a Nazi or white person, and surely written after Ehrlich's 1968 book. It was part of a speech by Dr. Martin Luther King given on May 5, 1966. People were beginning to get it back then. My term paper "Mammal Populations in Ecological Niches, Including Humans" was in March of 1967 and the numbers are still holding true. The overpopulation once soluble by means and resources we had, has more than doubled, and become a monster of "Biblical" proportions, a "Juggernaut" crushing all in its path. Still, as MLK said, what is still lacking to this day is a universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem. I think some people are just totally in oblivious denial even though they technically have the intelligence to grasp the problem. Education of the even more billions who are its victims has not been successful because many lack the ability to grasp the concept. That is part of the crowd tolerance syndrome--if you are born in a crowd, an incremental small increase over a short period is not noticed. Then they get "used" to that, even though it is against instinctual survival, and then more are incrementally added without much notice. The average person, from lack of training, or inability, can not see future consequences. Some can see, but are so appalled, they turn their backs on these consequences out of disgust and/or fear. They go into denial, the same as the crowd tolerant ones.
The unfortunate remainder who do experience the Human Overcrowding Syndrome (most without realization) have more anxiety and depressive illnesses ( which have gone up over 700% per capita since 1943), and more general hostility, more crime, more drug use. Ask any old timer if people were nicer back in their day, or if people "nowadays" are less courteous. How many people do you know who have been victims of theft or other crimes? How many drink or do drugs? How many of your friends and family are on medication for depression or anxiety? How many of you live in areas of overcrowded schools? Overcrowded roads?
These things have become so universal as to be beyond mere debate.
Yet people and governments are more fearful of legislation to control population quality and quantity than they are of the dumbing down of society and the eventual horrors to their grandchildren of eco-collapse and mass death.
They are too selfish for their own easy money golden parachute political and government jobs. They are too selfish of their own wants and perceived needs, or just too stupid to see seven generations into the future and care.

_________________
"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 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.

_________________
"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

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusa ... -and-envir?

Stop all immigration, now!!!

CAPS Launches Earth Day TV Ad - Says Immigration-Driven Population Growth in U.S. Exacerbates Environmental Degradation Here and Abroad

Congress Continues Admitting Millions of Immigrants, Despite Impact On U.S. Carbon Footprint and Population Explosion

CAPS has launched a national TV campaign calling attention to the fact that mass immigration to the U.S. is expanding the country’s already massive carbon footprint and driving population growth that will add 100 million people to America in the next 40 years.
"By Peter Goodchild

30 August, 2011
Countercurrents.org

A time frame for systemic collapse can be extrapolated easily from the on-line document The Coming Chaos, an abridgement of a larger text (see link below). The most significant page is at the start of the text, the chart of estimated past and future oil production. Most of the other time frames will parallel that curve. Then one can look at the chapter on electricity, which as Richard Duncan says will be the first really distinct, “on-off” type of indicator. The next parallel can be found in the chapter on economics, which mentions two "phases," divided by the point at which money as such is no longer an important means of exchange; past examples occurred with the crash of the USSR, and in Weimar Germany.

In the chapter on famine, the fall of population appears as a parallel to the fall in fossil fuels. Some critics have said that the two do not necessarily go together -- or, rather, “fall” together. But they do, for a very simple mathematical reason. Fossil fuels are the source of more than 90 percent of the energy -- in the strict "physics" sense of the word -- in modern industrial society. If we take away 90 percent of the energy, we necessarily take away 90 percent of the population. (If we take away 100 percent of the energy, we necessarily take away 100 percent of the population.) No, we cannot replace that 90 percent with some "alternative" form of energy, as is explained in chapter one, because there isn't enough of any “alternative” to make much difference.

The same first chapter also illustrates why a voluntary reduction in population cannot work. (For that matter, neither would a mandatory reduction in population, and for the same reason.) Again, it's simple arithmetic. Oil production will fall, over the next few decades, by about 3 percent annually, and if instead we say 2 percent or 4 percent the final result isn't much different. But even if every woman on earth stopped having children from this day forward, there would still not be a 3 or 2 or 4 percent annual reduction in population.

It can be seen, therefore, that the curve of estimated past and future global oil production is not merely one of a myriad of problems with which mankind will have to deal. It is the time scale with which most other problems can be measured, and it is the cause of most other problems.

But if anyone really needs a magic number, a good choice would be 2030. That's the date at which, with a 3 percent annual decline in oil production, the year's production will be half of that in the peak year. And half of peak oil means half of everything else in human society. A very important “half” will be population, because the other half will have died of famine. And that's the one item that very few people can mentally assimilate."

_________________
"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

thanks alots

You are welcome, even with your poor grammar and no intro...........
http://www.motherthefilm.com/trailer

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.

http://www.cosmosmith.com/images/memorial_of_man.gif

_________________
"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

Population Growth is a biggest threat to environment,each person requires energy, space and resources to survive, which results in environmental losses. it is critically important to reduce human emissions to the atmosphere.

I think a distinction needs to be made... population growth is not the problem but rather population is the problem. People want to say we need less babies but really we need less people. As much as doom-sayers go on about massive starvation, I think it will happen slower as we are challenged to feed the world, we will come up with ways and at the expense of those who cannot afford the higher food prices. I want to get people out of the country areas and back into cities for the sake of the animals. This will not happen without a new way of making food for the people we can barely feed right now. Still, when I see many acres of grass and trees and houses that are cities with less then 1% of that making food, I have hope it can be done... when people can no longer afford food from the store. It has to be a cool bragging right to say "I'm a virgin" or "never had kids."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxuMKb5CKI0

Here is a new video on it;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=equbEw08KyY

AND another link:
http://www.skil.org/

_________________
"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

while I agree 100% with what was in the video, I think there is another significant factor in "reducing scarcity" and that is independence. It of course requires knowledge and wisdom (and maybe some use of arms to defend that independence). Having no money (usually in the form of rapid inflation) due to financial collapse can have the positive effects of people no longer buying stuff but making their own needs locally. This will happen on both sides of the financial scale but we will see it first in the poorest countries. If you want to invest, I would look at those companies helping the poorest people become independent as they will be the ones selling developed technologies to the starving Americans eventually.

I wonder what ever happened to Green Carz?
http://populationpress.org/2012/06/22/c ... roblems-2/

We are having a prelude with the fires near here.
And the dirty bastards owe 150 billion each in fines;
"...Washington, D.C.) The decision to have an illegal alien address the Democratic National Convention last night [September 4, 2012] is indicative of the party leadership's efforts to delegitimize and undermine U.S. immigration laws, charged the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Benita Veliz, an illegal alien, received a rousing reception from the party faithful.

"In choosing to have someone who defiantly remains present in the United States in violation of federal law address the convention during prime time is nothing more than a celebration of lawlessness. And by celebrating illegal immigration, the Democratic Party is sending a clear message that our immigration laws are not only inconsequential, but that the people who break our laws are heroes," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "Lost in the Democrats' celebration of those who break our laws is any acknowledgement of the impact of illegal immigration on American workers and taxpayers, or the responsibility of parents who bring their kids the United States illegally."

The address by Ms. Veliz comes on the heels of President Obama's decision to grant deferred action and work authorization to millions of illegal aliens under the age of 31. These beneficiaries of the president's backdoor amnesty will compete directly with younger American workers who have been disproportionally harmed by the recession. In addition, the Obama administration openly refused on Wednesday to take action against ten illegal aliens who were arrested while protesting outside the Charlotte convention center.

"Americans do not lack compassion for people like Ms. Veliz. But they do recognize the concrete harm that the decisions made by illegal alien parents to violate our immigration laws have on the American people and legal immigrants who have played by the rules," said Stein. "Unfortunately, the Democratic Party Machine seems lacking in compassion for the people our immigration laws are supposed to protect, and are instead using illegal aliens to segment the electorate and pander to narrow interests in hopes of cobbling together an electoral majority.

"The American people have seen an unprecedented assault on our immigration laws over the past three and a half years. The decision by the Democratic Party to applaud and celebrate illegal immigration at their national convention is a clear indication of the party's intent to eliminate the last vestiges of distinction between those who are lawful members of our nation and those crash our gates," Stein concluded."

_________________
"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 this came and went without much hoopla;
http://worldpopulationday.org/
Grain of truth: why everyone cannot be fed
Posted on July 1, 2011 by Norman

“A hungry world is a dangerous world. Without food, people have only three options: they riot, they emigrate or they die.” Josette Sheeran, World Food Programme
1 July 2011
Jo Smit and Norman Pagett write:
We owe our lives to technology that uses 10 calories of energy in the process of growing food to produce a single calorie of energy in the food we eat.
On average, we need to consume about 2500 calories a day, so each of us has to find 10 times that amount of energy in order to stay alive. Our existence rests on that fundamental equation. Looked at in cold print, this might seem irrelevant to our day-to-day lives but it means that global agricultural production and food supply systems are consuming 10 times more energy than they deliver as food. In case you still haven’t got the point, let’s put that more brutally: 9 out of 10 people exist only because fossil fuel energy made it possible.
The numbers speak for themselves. The world kept itself in population balance until we started using fossil fuels, then the population exploded and we became a plague species in global terms.

Few of us ever stop to consider the embodied energy in what we eat. Why would we? Calories have become purely the currency of dietary fads, something to be limited in our constant battle with obesity. We have been well fed for so long that we imagine that supermarket shelves will always be amply stocked to support our affluent comfort. Until now, in the developed world at least, the food production, distribution and supply infrastructure has been able to obtain all the energy it needs, and in ever increasing amounts.
We are far more prosperous than the third world countries that are constantly being brought to the brink of food deprivation or outright starvation. Yet we are only marginally safer. We have a blind faith in our supply systems and expect our foodstores to have everything we might want to buy available fresh every day. Remove our collective expectation of seven-day-a-week food supplies and supermarkets would be stripped bare within hours.
Our food supply is extremely precarious; it takes very little disturbance to disrupt it severely. During an oil delivery tanker drivers’ strike in the UK in 2001, the government was given the stark warning by a consortium of major retailers that the food chain delivery system carried only three days’ supply. This information was not released to the public at the time. The fuel supply emergency lasted only a week, but if it had gone on for longer rapidly emptying supermarket shelves would have provided the impetus for food hoarding and panic. This is what happens when there is a temporary break in just one link in the energy chain that supports our highly complex food supply system.
As fossil fuel energy declines, renewable sources will not be able to maintain our complex, energy-intensive food systems in their present form. As a result, we will not be able to feed our present numbers. Our food production level will return to roughly what it was 500 years ago, when one calorie had to be put in as manual labour or animal manure to produce one calorie to eat. By that reckoning, our food supply system will only support one tenth of us. In stark terms, around six billion people don’t have much of a future."

_________________
"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