"Is a human 'population bomb' ticking?" at AlJazeera

[applegrove]

Is a human 'population bomb' ticking?

at AlJazeera

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/20126191060849944.html

"SNIP.....................................

Warning that irreversible damage was being inflicted on the planet, the scientists called on world leaders in Rio de Janeiro to implement "urgent and coordinated international action" to rein in the number of human beings on the planet, and for high-income nations to restrain their voracious appetites.

Current patterns of consumption are wiping out the planet's biodiversity. With the population now at more than seven billion, human beings have cleared 43 per cent of Earth's surface for urban development or agriculture, scientists say. By 2025, the usage level is expected to exceed 50 per cent, when the population reaches eight billion. Ecological studies of other species show that once the 50 per cent threshold is surpassed, populations quickly begin to decline.

"If current patterns of production and consumption of natural resources prevail and cannot be reversed … then governments will preside over unprecedented levels of damage and degradation," said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.

With the population reaching an estimated 9.3 billion by 2050, crucial biological mechanisms - such as forests providing clean air and water, insects pollinating crops, and untouched landscapes holding cures for disease - would disappear forever, scientists say.

.......................................SNIP"

[DonCoquixote]

1. this took a lot of guts from Al-Jazz

Since many of the culprits for the population bomb are the Abrahamic religions that use babies as a means of keeping their status, and keeping women barefoot and pregnant.

[AnnieBW]

2. But let's keep on blocking family planning!

Because Jeebus wants us all to have 18 kids like the Duggars!

[applegrove]

3. So true.

[Megahurtz]

69. Republicans keep getting in the way of that one.

We need more funding for Planned Parenthood and education to have smaller families. People do not need to have more than one, or at the most two kids. If you go on other forums you will hear republicans screaming that it's their right to have as many kids as they want, their right to have as much money as they want no matter who they bulldoze to get it, their right to have as many toys as they want, their right to eat as much as they want of whatever they want etc. Their gluttonous lifestyles all produce excessive garbage and pollution. Then you hear them screaming that there is no such thing as overpopulation, and that you could fit the entire world's population in the state of Texas. You must be kidding.

[randome]

4. I don't like 'doom and gloom' pronouncements.

But I think this one is real. We are headed for a major die-off if we don't do something and do it fast.

I don't know if humans are capable of seeing past their own selfish interests until forced to.

[Speck Tater]

6. We're headed for a major die-off even if we DO do something and do it fast. nt

[DLevine]

13. Agreed. n/t

[jwirr]

18. And maybe if we look at some world statistics we may already be experiencing that die-off. I am

thinking of the Horn of Africa.

[dkf]

5. Aka no American Dream and no middle class lifestyle

[Zalatix]

7. Everyone needs to come to grips with what they mean by "population bomb"

it means that YOU and YOUR FAMILY are being judged as superfluous.

The Plutocracy will not see any sort of crisis. They'll make sure they have all the water and food and trees they can shake a stick at. They will make no sacrifice and suffer no hardship as they watch the chaos from afar on their yachts and in their well-guarded mansions.

When you say it's the poor and working class whose population is swelling too fast - that means you, folks. You're signing up yourself and yours for doom and gloom, not the Plutocrats.

Think about that.

[randome]

9. So we should simply breed ourselves to extinction because someone SOMEWHERE...

...might be better off than ourselves?

I already posted what I think are viable tactics to take. Maybe it already IS too late. Maybe not.

Education and contraception are key. Having an after-tax rate of 10% for each child would help. That would help level the playing field, I think.

[morningfog]

10. What do you mean an after tax rate of 10% for each child?

The US isn't where the population booms are occurring anyway.

[randome]

12. We have too damned many people, too.

We can ruin our own little piece of heaven if we don't curb our own population.

You're right, though, the tax-rate stuff won't apply to people with no incomes. But public awareness -on a global scale- might help and then, if we're lucky, natural 'attrition' will help.

[Zalatix]

14. Prosperity is the most effective known form of population control.

[randome]

16. Prosperity also increases resource depletion.

We all want more and finer things. I'm not at all saying let 'those others' do without. But we CAN do both. Increase awareness and spread prosperity in a managed, responsible manner.

[Zalatix]

17. So what are you doing to help reduce resource usage?

You're posting from a computer that uses resources to stay powered up, and was also made using a lot of natural resources.

[randome]

22. True. I'm selfish.

By the same token, practically no one would pay taxes if it was voluntary. No one would worry about food safety if it was left up to companies to decide.

That's why we have governments. And that's who needs to see to our long term survival. Individuals only worry about their own safety and those of their families and immediate environment.

Governments are composed of individuals, too. But a different kind of mindset usually prevails in groups.

[Zalatix]

77. A population of a million could clear cut whole forests.

Look what happened to Rapa Nui, without modern lifestyles. They completely depleted their natural resources and fell into ruin.

The non-sustainable nature of civilization is the problem, not its population size. Beyond ten million humans, a wasteful civilization will inevitably self-destruct; all that's left to argue about is the time it takes.

What we need is a society built upon sustainability. It needs to be resource-neutral as well as carbon-neutral and include strict pollution controls. We'll need to look into solutions such as more recycling, as well as synthetic proteins and do serious research into nanotech insecticides or insect-repellents to replace Monsato GM crops and chemicals. And Stephen Hawking is still correct - we need to pursue colonization; and on our way to that goal, we can work toward building factories on the moon. That alone will create enough jobs to challenge or even overcome the global unemployment problem. (Factories on the moon are of course expensive, but not as expensive as what we're doing to the environment now.)

Taxes on children will simply be evaded as the rich leave for countries that don't tax children, or who cannot enforce it; and as you said, they use more resources. Then you're stuck with conquering the world to enforce your policy.

On the other hand, a society built on a sustainable model will be a beacon for everyone to come to. This means prosperity for everyone, and with less resource usage. People will have less kids, too.

[eppur_se_muova]

74. No, education of women is ...

then than can choose family planning.

[HiPointDem]

57. us fertility rate = 2.1. population growth in the us has been solely due to immigration for

decades.

world fertility rate in 2009 was 2.47 & is likely less today after the global economic meltdown.

[Huey P. Long]

15. Zalax is correct. Resist. -eom

[jwirr]

19. And this explains why they do not see the economic division between haves and have nots as bad.

[Zalatix]

20. They pretty much expect the population bomb to do all the social Darwinism work for them.

[jwirr]

21. Very good point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Actually there are limits to the carrying capacity of any environment

a little biology would be good.

There will be, in my humble opinion, a population crash... and you know what? All the money in the world will NOT protect them.

The drivers for this crash will be multi faceted, among them environmental degradation, desertification and overall global weather changes... which will lead to less food production... and a nice chain of events.

[Zalatix]

78. Any size population in a non-sustainable civilization can exceed its carrying capacity

The solution is sustainability that scales down to the individual level and back up to the society-wide level.

Anything short of that and you are pretty much discussing how long it take to deplete your resources and ruin your environment, not whether it will happen.

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. But we are in that chain

and now it is not in a local, or even regional level. You are not talking of a Maya crash, or one in the Levant...

Though the closest equivalent to this is the end of the Bronze Age, which saw a wide spread collapse of populations, in the mid east, all the way to India, Eastern Europe and Africa...

We know from archeological records that there was a collapse in both technological and agricultural systems.

You know the problem we as a species have about this coming crisis? We have historic examples, but most people have zero historic memory of near events, let alone things that happend about 12K years ago. That be specialized knowledge.

Here is some basic info on this.

http://www.explorethemed.com/BACollapse.asp

[Zalatix]

81. I know, that is why we need a global sustainability revolution.

Otherwise it really doesn't matter what size our population is.

We need to reach boldly, toward factories on the moon and resource acquisition off-world, coupled with near-total or total recycling. Nanotech insecticide / insect repellent technology, carbon neutral energy production, fuel cells - all of these mean a huge demand for menial, medium-level and high-level skilled labor.

If this isn't the solution, then guess what... you're the one who will have to lay down and die when the problem explodes in our faces. The Plutocrats will find a nice desert island to hide away with their hoarded goods. If this crash happens 50 years from now, you bet they'll use drones to kill the rest off and take what little they have. 50 years is a LONG time for technology to evolve.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Here is the beauty of it

We live in one rock. There is no place to hide. They might be able to "hide" for a couple of years... crisis is large enough... no place to hide... it is bad enough, it is an ELE... it is close to bad enough, another evolutionary bottle neck.

In the long term humanity will go extinct anyway... 99% of species have done such, are are not special.

[randome]

83. I like your remarks on this subject.

But I think we ARE special. No other species on Earth -that we know of- has dreamed the way we dream or loved the way we love. Or murdered or hated, etc. but let's look at the bright side, shall we?

We are the only sentient species that relies on technology and DARES to look for answers to the mysteries of the Universe.

We ARE special.

[HiPointDem]

55. +1

[Selatius]

8. I believe we'll go past 8 billion anyway.

Nobody in leadership positions today is taking resource depletion and overpopulation seriously.

People are more concerned with maintaining access to crucial resources rather than asking why those resources are becoming rarer.

I guess there is more money to be made covering over the symptoms than actually curing the ailment. This is especially true if you make money off of building weapons that nations use to maintain access to a critical resource, like oil.

In the meantime, many species of plants and animals will die. I firmly believe polar bears will become extinct in my lifetime. There will be no ice to support their hunting habits in the arctic waters.

[morningfog]

11. We will reach a point in the coming decades where the human population will peak and then decline.

The final peak number could be as high as 11-12 billion, but let's hope not.

[4th law of robotics]

23. A popular theory starting since at least the 1700s

hasn't panned out so far.

We must be the luckiest species to ever exist since we are constantly on the edge of certain doom and yet have so far managed just fine.

/there were a couple of close calls in our prehistory though.

[NickB79]

26. Said one bacterium to the other

As it ate the last of the agar nutrient solution on the petri dish and divided just once more.......

[4th law of robotics]

27. We can grow food

bacteria in your scenario cannot.

That's a pretty big difference.

Also, point out a time in our history when someone wasn't predicting that extinction is right around the corner.

Then, for fun, point out a time in our history when it actually happened.

[NickB79]

29. Food crops aren't the equivalent of agar solution in the scenario

Our planetary biosphere as a whole is the equivalent of their agar solution. Fertile soil, clean water, clean air, ecological webs that interact to support one another.

Can you grow the biosphere?

[4th law of robotics]

35. "Can you grow the biosphere?"

It can grow and replenish itself.

For instance: we can't make oxygen. Not on the order we need to survive at least.

So logically, since we aren't manufacturing it we are slowly running out right?

[NickB79]

41. It can replenish itself if given the chance, but we are degrading it

We've allowed massive amounts of topsoil to wash away into the oceans through farming practices, where it's nutrients become largely unavailable to the biosphere.

We've polluted water sources to the point aquatic food chains have or are in the process of collapsing.

We've destroyed rainforests that held gigatons of carbon in the form of nutritious humus and biomass and converted them to soy fields.

You didn't answer my question: Can we GROW the biosphere? Allowing it to replenish itself isn't the same thing as asking it to expand to allow for continued human growth.

And as for your example of oxygen production, there is some evidence we may be in trouble on that front as well, thanks to human-induced climate change: http://bangordailynews.com/2012/06/10/environment/study-finds-potentially-disastrous-threat-to-single-celled-plants-that-support-all-life-on-earth/

Still not interested? This is where it’s hard not to take notice. In 2007, the reproduction rate of phytoplankton in the Gulf of Maine decreased suddenly by a factor of five — what used to take a day now takes five — and according to a recently released study by the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences in Boothbay, it hasn’t bounced back.

So what does it mean? According to Barney Balch, the lab’s senior research scientist and lead author of the study, such a change in organisms at the bottom of the planetary food chain and at the top of planetary oxygen production could have disastrous consequences for virtually every species on Earth, from lobsters and fish that fuel Maine’s marine industries to your grandchildren. But the 12-year Bigelow study focused only on the Gulf of Maine, which leads to the question, will it spread?

[4th law of robotics]

43. With proper management processes, yes we can

[NickB79]

53. Do you see proper management processes working on a global level?

For example, even here in the US, with state of the art crop rotation and altered tilling methods, we're still losing topsoil at an unsustainable level. In less developed nations, the rates are far, far worse: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/march06/soil.erosion.threat.ssl.html

What I'm seeing is a race to the bottom, with short-term economic gains being chosen over long-term sustainability of the species. The end result is a catastrophe in the making.

[4th law of robotics]

60. Yes, to your first question

And I will agree wholeheartedly that the way we are currently growing crops is not sustainable or desirable.

So why do we do it? Frankly because it works. We have cheap oil which allows for the heavy use of fertilizers, pesticides, water extraction etc.

However, when that is no longer a reality we will be forced to move towards equally productive, but ultimately more sustainable methods.

I'm not saying we'll never have any changes in the way we do business. Of course not.

But consider just the US for a moment. Look how much of our land is dedicated in one way or another towards animal products. I don't have the numbers on me but it's a huge percentage. That could, in the face of a global food shortage increasing the value of crops, be easily converted over to other uses. We could easily extract double the usuable calories from just American farmlands than we currently are while simultaneously cutting our dependence on oil and our impact.

Similar advancements in could then easily be transferred to the third world (where the impact is the greatest and the productivity the lowest).

Yeah there may be lean years ahead. But ultimately that seems to cause us to innovate rather than simply starve to death.

[randome]

63. I WANT to believe you're right.

But we can't just wait and see what happens. We need to be proactive on this because it's becoming clear that reactive change will kill millions, if not billions.

[The2ndWheel]

72. Seems to be a bit of a jump there

"And I will agree wholeheartedly that the way we are currently growing crops is not sustainable or desirable.

So why do we do it? Frankly because it works. We have cheap oil which allows for the heavy use of fertilizers, pesticides, water extraction etc.

However, when that is no longer a reality we will be forced to move towards equally productive, but ultimately more sustainable methods."

That last sentence sounds like such a given. How do you know it'll be equally as productive? How do you know it will ultimately be more sustainable if it's as equally as productive as our unsustainable practices? Nobody can even agree on the definition of sustainable. If anything, we'll probably just end up doing whatever works, to the extent of our ability to do whatever it is that we'd be doing, whether or not it's sustainable or desirable.

[randome]

32. Good point.

But the boy who cried 'Wolf' was right once, too. And we have never before had this many people with this much stress on our planetary systems.

To say 'this isn't different' is an easy way to ignore the reality of when it truly is different.

[4th law of robotics]

38. Possibly

and it seems likely something will get us eventually.

But the constant predictions of doom (usually escalating when the economy is bad or crime is up or people are otherwise in a bad mood) get a bit stale over time.

What makes now particularly different than 1700? Well there are more people for starters. And if you extrapolate to 2050 and we have 16 billion people or more we couldn't possibly feed them as things are now.

True.

But in 1700 if you extrapolated in to the future that we'd have at some point a billion people (can you imagine such a thing?) that likewise would have been impossible to sustain . . . for the worldwide economy of 1700. They believed just as fervently that we'd all starve in 50 years as people today believe we'll all starve in 50 years.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Actually nobody has predicted species extinction

a population crash does not equal extinction...

I am sure you know the difference right? By the by, have you EVER read Malthus? I have, and nowhere did he predict extinction.

[4th law of robotics]

39. Ok, so replace extinction with population crash

have we had a major population crash (world wide, not local) due to outbreeding our food supply?

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. We have never done in a wold scale

what as a species we have done in local areas that HAVE SEEN populations crashes.

See the Maya Highlands around 900 CE for example, and the crash at the end of the Classic period.

We also saw a crash due to the black death in the Middle Ages.

And right now we have increasing desertification, the shifting of whole weather zones north. The global weather change is unprecedented. Or are you denying that we are having that happen right now?

By the way, we are in the midst of the holocene extinction and extinction rates are actually accelerating. The last time humans had a moment like this was early in the history of homo sapiens, and we went through an evolutionary bottleneck.

[The2ndWheel]

30. We've managed so far

Just fine might be a bit much though. Where our species sits today doesn't come without a cost.

[NickB79]

37. "I've driven drunk plenty of times and nothing bad's happened yet!"

That was the statement one of my coworkers made to me once. Your remarks sound so very similar to his.

All it takes is one catastrophic moment and then all hell breaks lose.

[4th law of robotics]

40. But we're not talking about simply one catastrophic event causing everything to unravel

We're talking about a long term trend that eventually catches up with us.

Some crazy disease or climate change or a rock colliding with the earth, etc. These things could all get us.

But specifically here we're talking about too many people and too little food. Which has never restricted our population growth in a serious way since we figured out how to make our own food.

[NickB79]

46. We also had entire continents to export our surplus populations to

There is no New World awaiting discovery, no significant remaining untapped resources to bite into.

The first example that came to my mind was the Irish Potato Famine. Those that had the means moved out of the country, and those that didn't starved in large numbers when the harvests failed.

Where are we to move to this time, when climate change starts wiping out our ability to feed ourselves? You may not realize it, but we ARE talking about one major catastrophic change, just as damaging as a meteorite impact: that of climate change and the ensuing damage it will do. It will alter every part of the planet's biosphere, and for the vast majority of humanity the changes will not be beneficial.

[4th law of robotics]

48. To other parts of the world

unless you're predicting that the entire worlds agricultural system will collapse uniformly and in sync.

[NickB79]

58. You can't just pick up a farm and plop it down somewhere else

Your argument sounds like those I've heard from skeptics of global warming, stating "oh, we'll just farm in Canada if it gets too hot in Oklahoma."

Such sentiment ignores the multiple complexities of the global food chain that have arisen over centuries of human expansion and of the basics of farming itself. For example, you can't grow crops in much of Canada even if the climate warmed to permit it, simply because the soil is much thinner, rockier, and nutrient-poor compared to the US breadbasket states. Even if you could, you'd need to rebuild the networks that carry that food to processors and eventually the hungry consumers. A farmer in Alberta might not be able to get his crops to market at a decent price if it has to be shipped thousands of miles extra miles to the nearest port.

[4th law of robotics]

61. "You can't just pick up a farm and plop it down somewhere else" I guess that's why to this day

farming is limited to the middle east.

[NickB79]

64. The Fertile Crescent was quite similar to current breadbasket regions when ag. arose

Fertile soil and sufficient water for crops to prosper in, a moderate climate that allowed for good growing seasons, etc. Then human action turned it into what it currently is through, wait for it.......over-exploitation of the natural systems by trying to push it harder to provide more food through badly managed irrigation. Oops.

Based on your logic, why isn't the Arctic tundra a major food producer, since it's about as far removed as you can get from the Fertile Crescent region in it's prime?

[4th law of robotics]

65. Based on your logic

why isn't agriculture restricted to where it began, since you can't simply move a farm as you say.

Why was agriculture able to spread to regions that are vastly different in climate, soil, rainfall, etc than where it originated?

Asking "well if people can adapt their methods why aren't we growing crops in the arctic" isn't a serious question I hope? That sounded a lot like "if evolution is real why are there still monkeys?"

And I would argue that we've advanced slightly in the past 10,000 years or so.

[greyl]

42. "Current patterns of consumption are wiping out the planet's biodiversity"

Yep, no problem at all with our culture's particular experiment in civilization. There are no signs of stress from over-population to be found anywhere.

____

Your post is like an aircraft pilot telling passengers who have noticed flames engulfing its engines that "everything's fine" simply because she hasn't yet crashed into the ground.

[4th law of robotics]

45. And the OP

would be a frequent flier who screams at the passengers that "we're all going to die!" on every single flight before the plane even leaves the ground.

Maybe some day he'll be right.

[greyl]

49. False. The OP contains sober facts some people don't enjoy facing. nt

[4th law of robotics]

52. If we continue to import corn at these rates

the peasants will breed out of control.

We need strict limitations on food imports to control the poor who breed like rabbits.

These are sober facts that some people don't enjoy facing. If we don't get things under control this year, 1798, may in fact be the high point in our civilization.

[greyl]

56. Oh, you aren't being serious.

Even though about 80 per cent of humans live in the developing world, people in rich areas have a far greater per capita ecological impact.

If every person used as many resources as the average North American, more than four Earths would be required to sustain the total rate of consumption, depletion and waste assimilation, according to an environmental "accounting system" developed by researchers William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel.

While the warnings are dire, some scientists are optimistic that human beings can turn things around through research, technology, and widespread human recognition that there are limits to growth.

"That's my hope for the future, that we realise where we are, that we're standing at the crossroads, and that we mobilise and do the right thing," said Barnosky.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/20126191060849944.html

Please consider reading the entire OP thoughtfully before replying defensively.

[LanternWaste]

66. I imagine that perceiving either complete safety or complete disaster

I imagine that perceiving either complete safety or complete disaster are both as dogmatic and blind as the other. But we often rationalize our own dogmas for no other reason than as an attempt to disprove the dogma of someone else.

"Maybe some day he'll be right." And bless your little heart, too (six of one, half a dozen of the other...)

[laundry_queen]

25. We live in a test tube

As per David Suzuki
http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=5240

I am going to show you why it is suicidal to think we can keep growing forever. Let me give you a test tube full of food for bacteria, that represents our world. I am going to put one bacterial cell into that test tube (representing us), and it is going to divide every minute; that is exponential growth. So at time zero you have one cell; one minute you have two; two minutes you have four; three minutes you have eight; four minutes you have 16. That is exponential growth and at 60 minutes the test tube is completely full of bacteria and there is no food left, a sixty minute cycle.

When is the test tube only half full? Well the answer of course is at 59 minutes; but a minute later it is filled. So at 58 minutes it is 25% full; 57 minutes 12½ % full. At 55 minutes of the 60 minute cycle it is only 3% full. So, if at 55 minutes one of the bacteria said to its companions that they had a population problem, the other bacteria would be incredulous because 97% of the test tube would be empty and they had been around for 55 minutes. Yet they would have only 5 minutes left. So bacteria are no smarter than humans and at 59 minutes they realize they only have a minute left. So they give massive amounts of money to scientists, and in less than a minute those bacterial scientists invent three test tubes full of food. That would be like adding three more planets for our use. So it would seem that they (and we) would be saved.

What actually happens is this - at 60 minutes the first tube is full; at 61 minutes the second is full; and at 62 minutes all four are full. By quadrupling the amount of food and space, you buy two extra minutes! How do we add even a fraction of 1% more of air, water, soil or biodiversity? We cannot. The biosphere is fixed and finite and every biologist I have talked to agrees with me, we are past the 59th minute. So all those leaders saying that we have to keep the economy growing are saying we have to accelerate down what is a suicidal path.

[4th law of robotics]

28. The earth isn't a test tube

we have a lovely source of external and free energy that can be converted (at least for a few more billion years) in to chemical energy that we can enjoy.

[NickB79]

34. Energy capture which is dependant upon clean air, clean water and fertile soil

You get a lot of solar energy hitting the Sahara Desert, for example, but it's not being captured by the biosphere in a meaningful way.

And, if we keep pumping out CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, we further degrade the ability of the biosphere to capture solar energy by inducing wide swings in climate.

[laundry_queen]

47. Resources are finite

and there are many resources we require. Solar energy is only one resource for a single purpose. We still require non-polluted water, air, food and so on. If you think solar energy will solve all the problems of overpopulation, um Everything else is finite - land, water, air.

[4th law of robotics]

50. "Everything else is finite"

"and, water, air"

And infinitely resuable.

When you use oxygen, is it gone forever? When you drink water is that water no longer part of the ecosytem?

[laundry_queen]

68. when you disrupt the ratios of

oxygen, CO2 and nitrogen in the air, it's unusable. Unless everyone should walk around with oxygen prongs up their nose, or maybe we should build the world's largest air purifier. Or if all the fresh water becomes contaminated, we'll just filter the crap out of it all for 30 billion people. I think you're dreaming if you think these things can be returned to their previous state or that just because the basic elements remain that it is usable or suitable for human life.

[4th law of robotics]

71. I don't think any serious scientist is worried about us running out

of oxygen in the near future.

[laundry_queen]

75. Now you're being deliberately obtuse. nt

[4th law of robotics]

76. Not at all

you said when we disrupt the levels of oxygen, co2 and nitrogen it becomes unusable.

That is clearly not true since we have done exactly that and, hold on a second . . . , yep it's still totally breathable.

Ergo you must mean disrupt to the point of not having enough oxygen to breathe. Which no on is really worried about.

And this: "Unless everyone should walk around with oxygen prongs up their nose" clearly indicates that you are worried oxygen levels will drop below a sufficient level for us to survive unaided.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Have we actually changed the ratio of Oxygen to other gases in the atmosphere

where it would affect life? Nope, we have not.

We have added ENOUGH green house gases to heat the atmosphere by a whole degree already, and this is the part that most do not comprehend... the amount of energy added to that atmosphere, leading to crazier and less predictable weather.

I suspect you have way too much faith in technology, and while tech might (and probably will) be part of the solution. there is this little thing about humans, short term gains and an inability to see 20 years into the future, let alone 100.

[L0oniX]

31. Monsanto is working on the problem...

along with DOW, BASF, Occidental, ect. Population reduction by GMO, toxins, carcinigens, radiation, aspartame, ect.

[stuntcat]

33. We went from 2 billion to 7 billion in a few decades

"

So many other species are threatened by ours now. The oceans are growing big dead zones.
This century will be a shame on humanity. I'm only glad my years are half over.

The real reason I won't have a kid is not to 'save the planet' but just because I don't want to give my daughter the future I'm already dreading. And because I won't have a baby my in-laws told me they wish I was dead. Yet I'm supposed to risk having a little girl so she can be pressured like that someday? No, I would kill myself before making an innocent little baby.

[11 Bravo]

51. Paul Ehrlich wrote "The Population Bomb" in 1968. The scenario has not improved since then.

[HiPointDem]

54. world fertility rate 2009 = 2.47 children per woman. should be less now since the economic bust.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=world+fertility+rate&oq=world+fertility+rate&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_l=hp.3..0l4.6603.6758.1.7747.2.0.0.2.2.0.0.0..0.0...0.0.hmxjyV8-nYc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=24bd4001b4cd61d4&biw=1024&bih=605


we're actually on track to zpg.

the same people who talk up the population explosion are the ones talking up how we don't have enough people to support the elderly.

[randome]

59. Not necessarily.

You don't have to always see things in economic terms when you consider the need to conserve our resources.

Not enough people to support the elderly? I would guess we'd find some other way to do that, then. We are infinitely tricky when it comes to economics.

[NickB79]

62. On track to ZPG, when we're already several billion over carrying capacity?

Well, thank heaven's everything is fine then! Good thing we have many, many decades to address things like global warming then: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-climate-thresholds-idUSBRE82P0UJ20120326

(Reuters) - The world is close to reaching tipping points that will make it irreversibly hotter, making this decade critical in efforts to contain global warming, scientists warned on Monday.

Oh, well, oops.....

[FarCenter]

67. At the end of the Song Dynasty, China's population declined by about half

At the time, China had a large fraction of the global population, so its decline was globally significant.



Europe's population declined by about a third in the 1380s.

So significant declines in human population are possible and have occured historically.

[Ghost of Huey Long]

70. there is plenty of space on the planet for the 99%

The 1% is standing in the way of all the technologies that will provide for us in the future, without destroying the earth. They are standing in the way of technology right now that would fix our environmental problems.

And this is the real problem...

"It is not the difficulty of the problem which we have; it is the fact that the rich people of this country—and by rich people I mean the super-rich—will not allow us to solve the problems, or rather the one little problem that is afflicting this country, because in order to cure all of our woes it is necessary to scale down the big fortunes, that we may scatter the wealth to be shared by all of the people. "

They force us to continue on this path because it makes them record profits, when obviously there are better ways.

Instead of paying for wars and Big Government programs like Homeland Security and the TSA. we could provide windmills and solar panels to every American, on every business across America. And where there are no solar panels, we will have gardens on the rooftops, buildings designed with gardens everywhere, community gardens everywhere. We could have a programs of planting trees, Fruit Trees! even, everywhere. Trees eat CO2 and give us Oxygen, there could (should) be a massive movement to plant as many trees as possible to save the earth for our Children.

It's not too late, and there is plenty of room for everyone, if we just changed direction and used our wealth and intelligence for building a better future for all.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. 2012 WWF Living Planet Report

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/

Summary Report:

If all of humanity lived like an
average resident of Indonesia,
only two-thirds of the planet’s
biocapacity would be used; if
everyone lived like an average
Argentinean, humanity would
demand more than half an additional
planet; and if everyone
lived like an average resident of
the USA, a total of four Earths
would be required to regenerate
humanity’s annual demand
on nature.

http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/lpr_2012_summary_booklet_final.pdf

Full report: http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/1_lpr_2012_online_full_size_single_pages_final_120516.pdf

Ecological footprint (hectares/person): USA 7.19 EU 4.72 China 2.13

Biocapacity (hectares/person): USA 3.86 EU 2.24 China 0.87

So, for instance, the US footprint needs to decrease to 54% of present; the EU to 47% of present; and China to 41% of present. The point being that zero population growth is not enough; many major countries or areas are already using more than the Earth can sustain.