EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

Biodiversity needs slower population growth
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14892
Page 1 of 1

Author:  SfEP [ Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:00 am ]
Post subject:  Biodiversity needs slower population growth

Measures need to be taken to tackle human population growth and the increased use of natural resources to halt biodiversity loss. Strategies such as the development of new protected areas are not sufficient to stop global losss of species. Not easy topics to tackle, but getting more urgent all the time. See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integra ... 263na1.pdf

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Biodiversity needs slower population growth

Not only must human population growth be stopped, but reversed and as fast as possible. Having no kids for around 20 years, then one per family until a stable population of one billion is reached. Along with a 90% reduction if fossil fuel burning within a decade or less, with going to a steady state environmental economy.
A "limited" nuclear war might work, or putting one deep into Yellowstone and forcing a super-volcano eruption. Also, drilling and putting some in other seismic fracture zones, so it just seems like natural events which are already due.
Humans (in general) have shown an insane desire to keep growing while destroying the biosphere.
Otherwise, do nothing, or not enough, and the population will crash followed by thermageddon from CO2 to self-sustained methane releases, and an ELE worse than the dinosaur extinction event. :shock: ](*,) :x :-#

Author:  animal-friendly [ Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Biodiversity needs slower population growth

[quote="Johhny Electriglide"]Not only must human population growth be stopped, but reversed and as fast as possible. ...

A "limited" nuclear war might work, or putting one deep into Yellowstone and forcing a super-volcano eruption. Also, drilling and putting some in other seismic fracture zones, so it just seems like natural events which are already due.

Huh? Limited to where?

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Biodiversity needs slower population growth

animal-friendly wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Not only must human population growth be stopped, but reversed and as fast as possible. ...

A "limited" nuclear war might work, or putting one deep into Yellowstone and forcing a super-volcano eruption. Also, drilling and putting some in other seismic fracture zones, so it just seems like natural events which are already due.

Huh? Limited to where?

The 500 world's largest cities, to stay at half the amount needed to cause a worse reaction---nuclear winter. Unlikely.
Otherwise, do nothing, or not enough, and the population will crash followed by thermageddon from CO2 to self-sustained methane releases, and an ELE worse than the dinosaur extinction event. A more likely scenario. Both "events" actually taking time, so the "frog in the pot of water coming to a boil" psychology of humans is present. Double whammy. 2030-2100, and 2300 to 3500AD. Recovery time to resequester carbon---~200K years. Recovery of biological diversity ~3 million years.
There is also the small possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect keeping the planet sterilized forever. :shock: =;
http://www.progressivesforimmigrationre ... ty-part-1/

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Mon May 26, 2014 5:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Biodiversity needs slower population growth

#18 Dustoffer

Regular
Pro Shifter
225 posts 49 rep
0 warning points

Posted Today, 03:29 PM
A few years ago at Envirolink forums as Johhny Electriglide, I proposed that forcing the super-volcanic eruption of Yellowstone with strategically placed H-bombs of great size, to induce enough cooling in time to stop the Permian type methane turnover 95% ELE or even a runaway Venus Effect. Apparently, others either followed suit or thought it up independently
https://www.youtube....h?v=VMZbvrs51cg
That is from the day before this Earth Day. He makes the big mistake of putting in the HAARP conspiracy theory as the real cause instead of the fossil fueled industrialization and population stimulation into crash mode. Another mistake he makes is saying PETM caused a 95% extinction. PETM was not a true ELE with "only" 30% of species dying off. It was the Permian ELE that was 95%.
He mentions Yellowstone and the SE Asia (Toba) plans to use drilled nuclear bombs to force their eruptions. Along with why Al Gore didn't include the methane monster in his presentations. ("It would scare people too much").
The curve presentation is good, but not pro level. However, it IS easy to see what is happening.
Here is my 2011 post; Johhny Electriglide
Not only must human population growth be stopped, but reversed and as fast as possible. Having no kids for around 20 years, then one per family until a stable population of one billion is reached. Along with a 90% reduction if fossil fuel burning within a decade or less, with going to a steady state environmental economy.
A "limited" nuclear war might work, or putting one deep into Yellowstone and forcing a super-volcano eruption. Also, drilling and putting some in other seismic fracture zones, so it just seems like natural events which are already due.
Humans (in general) have shown an insane desire to keep growing while destroying the biosphere.
Otherwise, do nothing, or not enough, and the population will crash followed by thermageddon from CO2 to self-sustained methane releases, and an ELE worse than the dinosaur extinction event.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Biodiversity needs slower population growth

animal-friendly wrote:
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Not only must human population growth be stopped, but reversed and as fast as possible. ...

A "limited" nuclear war might work, or putting one deep into Yellowstone and forcing a super-volcano eruption. Also, drilling and putting some in other seismic fracture zones, so it just seems like natural events which are already due.

Huh? Limited to where?

5/11/2014 Yellowstone, Long Valley Super Volcano & Magnetic Field
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REHktXJpA7Y

For a geologic event to be beneficial to our long term survival along with the majority of other species, it must kill off most people and have enough long lasting aerosols to stop CAGW and return back the the end interglacial/ice age beginning zone. A Toba-like population bottleneck.
It doesn't matter if it is natural or induced by people. It is not far, geologically, from super eruption. For it to work for our species' survival, it would have to erupt before CAGW +momentum is greater than the volcanic cooling. It is the only way the methane monster can be killed, and 95+% ELE avoided, once the tipping point is crossed for the tundra methane self release, a positive feedback loop, that leads to thermageddon, as soon as by mid-century.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Biodiversity needs slower population growth

I did the math and it became a Toba plus 20% deal, or 1,000 cubic miles of sulfite/sulfate enhanced aerosols lifted in two increments 5 years apart, for a total of 1,250 MGTs of buried 400' deep H bombs. Looking at latent heat versus open water winter cooling 2025 will be when methane runaway starts and 4 years later the extinction of surface life begins.

Author:  Bob-a-rama [ Thu Nov 19, 2020 8:44 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Biodiversity needs slower population growth

Negative population growth is essential to save humanity.

But we need to fix capitalism if this has a chance of happening. Let me explain:

Corporations have stockholders who are owners, but do not materially participate in the company and they expect the corporation to make more money each quarter. They invested in that company wanting their money to grow and grow and grow and grow. That means they have to sell more and more and more and more widgets (whatever they sell). Perpetual growth is the point.

If the stock 'doesn't perform' and grow and grow and grow the stockholders will sell their stocks and leave the corporation under-capitalized and on it's way to going belly-up.

A small business with no stockholders like the two I own don't need to make more and more and more money. Oh it's nice if we do, but all we really need is to make enough to pay the employees and owners and keep up with inflation.

A corporation that does that will die. They need to sell more and more widgets and achieve perpetual growth.

One sure way to sell more widgets is to have more potential customers, and that means perpetual population growth. If the store sold widgets in the 1960s with 3B people they can sell a lot more today with almost 8B people. Since they sponsor the media they use the media as a manipulation tool.

Example:

Back in the 1960s there was a big Zero Population Growth movement. Back then there were fewer than 3.5 billion people on the planet. I had two children and got sterilized. ZPG found the doctor and did all the arrangements.

Corporations freaked out. What? People are not having more and more babies? We need more customers to sell more widgets.

So in the 1960s TV the comedies, dramas, advertisements, guests on talk shows and even movies had scores of women in the media telling their husbands and boyfriends "My biological clock is ticking" meaning we better have a baby or another baby before I hit menopause.

I was there, you literally heard this exact phrase 5 or quite a few more times per day. Then you heard women in the general population repeating it. So the salesman in your living room and movie theaters were encouraging women to have more babies and they responded in spades.

Now I think Capitalism is better than communism, history proved this, but I think it's major flaw is that it needs perpetual growth to keep the stockholders happy. I don't know how to fix that.

But I have an idea.

When a couple has children, do not give them a tax deduction. Let them have the first one with no tax increase. Then after the first one increase their taxes. With each additional increase double the tax per child.

I know this benefits the rich, but it's the best I can come up with. IMO it's better than forced sterilization after the first child.

This is just one idea, and I suppose it'll never be passed globally which is what is necessary. If you have a better one, let's have it.

Most, if not all of our environmental problems are due to the fact that there are just too many humans on the planet.

The other is corporate greed which gave us the disposable product model. Why only buy the product when you can buy the container too! When I was a kid we returned soda and other bottles that got sterilized and used again. Now we buy the soda, buy the plastic bottle and throw it away.

We bought ink pens that we filled with ink and kept the pen. Now we throw the pen away.

And so on.

If we can't figure out how to control the perpetual growth model of corporations, we don't have a chance in saving the earth.

Actually, we aren't saving the earth, it'll be here when we're gone, we're saving our own asses.

Bob

Author:  Bob-a-rama [ Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Biodiversity needs slower population growth

kane8907 wrote:
Your idea is right, but how to achieve with the target of population control?

I wish I had an answer.

Corporations control the media, and corporations benefit from population growth

Corporations fund the polticians' campaigns, and corporations benefit from population growth

Corporations own social media platforms, and corporations benefit from population growth

How do we let all the people in the earth know that the biggest problem on our planet today can be summarized with this statement: Too many people are having too many babies.

That's the question. I wish I knew.

Bob

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Biodiversity needs slower population growth

It is too late to stop mass death of at least humans. We are way too far into overshoot and the heat needed to detonate the ESAS is already in the oceans with open ocean and latent heat effects seasonal heat gain to the 50 m deep bottom and the clathrate ice cage failure point will be reached in 2 1/2 to 4 1/2 years. Even without methane runaway, the human population would have crashed from other ecological failures. Geologically, like swatting a fly.

Author:  Bob-a-rama [ Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Biodiversity needs slower population growth

You may be right.

I'll still do what I can because it's the right thing to do.

And I'm glad I'm as old as I am. I'll likely die before the world does. There will be hard times ahead for humanity before humans become extinct.

Author:  Johhny Electriglide [ Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Biodiversity needs slower population growth

I keep on living the 3 Rs life on all solar power with gardens in the two Earthships I built. I enjoy the birds, wildlife, trees and rocks. My only child is living in the 2 U module Earthship with his woman companion past menopause. I will not travel to the east coast this late summer for my combat unit reunion. I have a problem standing and sitting for over an hour with the back pain of my combat 'wound'. Travel is only in the hybrid and averages about 30 miles per week. With Biden letting in the scum of the world, overpopulation is running rampant. Low IQ overbreeders unable to comprehend the concept of long term sustainability. I wonder if we veterans will have to take up arms against the invaders and other domestic enemies, and their aiders, abettors, encouragers and employers.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/