How Silly is Climate Change Denial?

[mike]

So to recap

The report i quoted suggests a sustainable global population is around two to three billion people

Thats at current western consumption habits

You counter with Nuh ahh its 10 billion, you are wrong, but failed to mention that 10 billion figure is conditional on everyone becoming a vegetarian .
Drill deeper into the article you linked to and we see

but would only feed 2.5 billion U.S. omnivores, because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry in the United States

That same article links to another which states

Left unchecked, climate change aligned with population explosion and low agricultural yields will drastically increase global poverty and hunger over the next two decades, warns the international aid organization Oxfam in a report released today (May 31).
The prices of staple foods such as corn and rice will speed up their ascent, Oxfam predicts, and will climb by 180 percent and 130 percent, respectively, by the year 2030

 

[mike]

No, Mike. I'm merely pointing out that science is not based on faith.

Let's take a look at some of the alarmist's claims over the years:

1. Acid rain will destroy the world's forests and then plants and animals will all die out.

2. The world will overpopulated by the late 1970s and everyone will starve to death.

3. The world is going to freeze and be thrust into a new ice age due to global cooling.

4. The earth is going to fry and be thrust into a living hell of the greenhouse effect and global warming.

5. Man made climate change will make the earth either freeze or fry and all of it based on our CO2 levels that we produce from industrialization.


There was a slight, slight kernel of truth in all of these things but other than that none of it has come to pass. The alarmists do not have a very good history of predicting the future. I believe Nostradamus had a better track record than alarmists and fear mongers.

Ive already dealt with number two

Does this mean that Malthus will always be wrong?
Unfortunately, just because Malthus was wrong 200 years ago it does not mean that his theories will always be wrong. The three main drivers of agricultural growth are stalling and many of them are one offs, never to be repeated again. What is changing?

First, improvements in productivity due to mechanisation are now relatively marginal. When Malthus was young, 90% of the country would have been involved in farming. In most developed countries that number is now between 2-4% of the population. Even if you had a 50% improvement in farming mechanisation and productivity per person, this would mean that the numbers involved in farming would drop to 1-2% of the population. An improvement that is irrelevant in the scheme of things.

Second, the world saw a huge increase in new land available for agriculture thanks to New World colonies in North, Central and South America. That land was a one off and we are not anticipating the discovery of a new continent any time soon. As the population of the world increases, the amount of new land is not expected to expand, but rather contract. This contraction is due to the fact that most cities are located in proximity to prime agricultural land. As cities get bigger they expand over this prime land. Sea level rises are also likely to impact agricultural lands around the coast, with particular impacts around deltas.

Third, improvements in yields per acre are also under threat. Much is made about genetically modified crops, with the anticipation that they will radically increase yields over and above existing modern strains of crops. This is mainly true. But even Monsanto does not see huge productivity growth in idealised locations and more land is no longer “ideal”.

Huge irrigation schemes in the US, China, India and other parts of the world are also under threat as much of the water comes from underground aquifers. These aquifers get replenished over thousands of years and current levels of extraction significantly exceed the replenishment rate (see article). Many countries rely on glacial melt to feed their river systems and monsoon rains to water their crops. Changes in climate are already affecting weather patterns, which is making these natural watering systems less reliable.

Finally, as countries get richer, their diets improve and people want to eat more protein. Growing crops like alfalfa, soya beans and maize for animal feed reduces the food available for direct human consumption, which is far more efficient. Growing corn for biofuels will clearly have to stop.

This is a bleak assessment of food availability: land availability is declining, not increasing, mechanisation is producing diminishing returns, yield improvements due to genetically modified crops are lower than hoped for and are likely to be offset by declining soil quality and water availability. Malthus would be nodding his head in sad agreement: famines are more likely than food abundance.

 

[Trystero]

Yes. Because if both are only funding their chosen side then both are biased. If the US was funding scientists who both supported and opposed AGW then it would be different.[/

Also, I'm not sure if you remember it or not but I mentioned several times now that the U.S. government has acted to hijack science, starting with the Aids epidemic.

This sounds fascinating. Do you have any links to share so I can read up on it?

 

[mike]

Carrying Capacity Malthus Updated

The state of subsequent ecological knowledge now permits restatement of the main theme from Malthus in the following terms Any species using any environment as its life-supporting base has the potential for increasing beyond the capacity of that environment to continue providing the needed support. Construing Liebig’s "law of the minimum" (Odum, 1989 129 -132) broadly, we can say a population is in deep trouble if an environment’s capacity to serve any one of these three functions has ceased to suffice, whether or not that environment continues to be sufficient for one or both of the other functions.

Malthus, we can reasonably assume, would fully accept such a reformulation if he were living today. A mind as insightful as his would surely recognize that after two further centuries of knowledge accumulation, how essential it is to construe "support" as involving all three uses of the environment. It seems clear, moreover, that the consensus of contemporary ecological scientists would endorse the reformulation, apart from some lingering misunderstandings of the meaning of its fundamental term, carrying capacity.

Carrying capacity means, most succinctly, the maximum sustainable load. Sustainability is the essential ingredient of the concept. Overuse of an environment can impair its ability to sustain the user population. Extreme overuse can cause breakdown of ecosystem processes (Catton 1995). The maximum load that can be supported without beginning to cause system breakdown is the system’s carrying capacity for its users. In 1798 Malthus was not equipped by existing knowledge or vocabulary to make this as plain as can now be done, but this is what his essay was launching us toward eventually recognizing. We owe Malthus an immense debt for getting us started.

Two centuries further along in the development of technology, growth of human numbers, and accumulation of systematic knowledge about ecosystem processes, we have no excuse for continuing to ignore or refusing to recognize the breakdown effects of overuse when they do occur. They are the indicators of human population’s having overshot carrying capacity —or, stated otherwise, they are symptoms that indicate our passage from a former era of carrying capacity surplus to a much different condition today, an era of carrying capacity deficit.

If Malthus Was So Wrong, Why is the World in So Much Trouble?

Two centuries after Malthus, it is dangerous to go on denying overpopulation and disregarding the ecological deficit.16 In the face of the ecological deficit’s increasingly discernible effects, no one should mistake the fundamental issues of our time. They are larger than simply the platitude about needing to put "jobs for people" ahead of protecting an "endangered species," or simply the call to favor "the economy" over "environmental special interests."

Such clichés are a form of denial. Denial is psychologically attractive, and on this matter it is socially favored, but this is hazardous to our future (Catton 1996). False prophets (e.g., Kahn et al. 1976; Simon and Kahn 1984; Wattenberg 1987; Simon 1994) come to us in the sheep’s clothing of technological optimism, encouraging the belief that inevitable progress will dependably overcome whatever problems we generate.

These commentators continue to insist that the carrying capacity concept has no relevance for either the population explosion or industrialization.
As they see it, the world cannot be considered overpopulated so long as most of its surface is not yet peopled as densely as, say, London or Tokyo. This overlooks the dependence of each thriving urban center on an Environment far more extensive than the territory within its own boundaries, an indispensable hinterland to serve its source and disposal needs.

Humanity’s future depends on unmasking these false prophets, and learning to know them by their fruits, by the consequences that would flow from stubbornly continuing to see the world in their Panglosian terms, by the ecosystem damage that would become ever more overwhelming (and irreversible) if we allow their discounting of Malthus to persuade us ecological foresight is merely a luxury.

…In science we can know causes only through the effects that they produce. …Science studies heat through the variations in volume that changes in temperature cause in bodies, electricity through its physical and chemical effects, and force through movement.

There are in our time some effects and causes we urgently need to recognize that were unknown to people of past generations.15 The rising levels of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, the widening holes in the stratospheric ozone layer, the inexorable drawdown of many aquifers, the escalating depletion of mineral deposits and fossil fuel stocks, the deforestation of vast land areas, the loss of topsoil from farmlands, the spreading of deserts, the accelerating declines of species diversity all around the world —all of these must be seen as effects of populous industrialism (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1990 58-59; Dietz and Rosa 1997), and should serve as signs we are seriously overusing our planet’s ecosystems.

This phrase populous industrialism again makes my point, its not about how many ppl there are, there is no magic number of people, that once passed will spell our doom as the boy insists it must be expressed. Its about the way that population lives.

Overpopulation must be measured in the effects on the biosphere, not the number of humans currently alive

Or as stated in yet another way

Is it overpopulation or overconsumption we tend to deny? Given the expectations (and aspirations) of living people, this is a distinction without a difference. The sustainable number of Homo colossus (i.e. humans equipped with powerful "exosomatic organs" —modern industrial technology) on planet Earth must surely be much less than the sustainable number of non-industrialized Homo sapiens.

Some may argue that 6 billion would be a sustainable world population if all were willing to live at a pre-industrial level, but even if this were true, the prospect for global acceptance of an adequate degree of "voluntary simplicity" is dim. Given the presently occurring symptoms of ecosystem breakdown, it ought to be clear that if the "underdeveloped" Third World were to approach a First World level of living, then 6 billion would constitute overpopulation.

And the problem will not be eliminated just by pejoratively labeling such a statement "neo-Malthusian," as the cornucopian-minded and ecologically naive are inclined to do.

 

[mike]

Uh-Oh, Mike's wrong.

This link says that most scientist's believe the earth can safely support 10 billion people. There are currently 7 billion people now. This means the Earth is not overpopulated. Going further, the human population will peak shortly and then naturally decrease.

How Many People Can Planet Earth Support? | When Will the Human Population Start to Decline? | LiveScience

*snickers* Honestly, I don't even believe the 10 billion figure is correct either. I will need to do more research but from what I can tell this is definitely not a precise science and the figures can be wrong by incredibly wide margins.

Again the link says many not most......
Not withstanding that link says 10 billion is conditional on everyone becoming a vegetarian,and again the point about the population peaking misses the point.

It might peak, even decline a little, but if the 3rd world continue to strive for 1st world living conditions, the unsustainable drain of the biosphere will increase even as the population decreases. We would still be overpopulated . again its not about the number of people its about the impact they have on resources.
You just dont seem to get this.


The editor also recommends this one

On or around October 31, 2011, the human population will reach the 7 billion mark, according to projections by the United Nations Population Division. Over the years, as our numbers have increased, the populations of the Earth's other inhabitants has steadily decreased; many species have even gone extinct. Habitat loss, pollution, global warming, overfishing and overhunting all of which are connected to the human population explosion are some of the prime reasons for the current and future loss of species.
Some biologists believe that with the current rate of extinction, the Earth will experience its sixth mass extinction, where 75 percent of the planet's species disappear in a geologically short period of time, within the next 300 to 2,000 years.
Here are 10 endangered species that the growing population and expanding range of humans will likely kill off long before the mass extinction event hits.

10 Species Our Population Explosion Will Likely Kill Off | LiveScience

Whats the solution for this problem ?

Or is it all lies and wont happen

 

[mike]

Concern about overpopulation is a red herring; consumption's the problem
Population stability or decline is not an environmental panacea if it is accompanied by continued growth in consumption


More than half the world's population now lives in countries where the fertility rate – the average number of babies born per woman – is below the replacement level (around 2.1).
This seems good news for anyone concerned about the environment. A finite planet obviously cannot sustain limitless population growth, and many environmentalists make the case that even the current population, 7.2 billion, exceeds the planet's ecological carrying capacity. If birth rates continue to fall, we might realise the UN's "low" projection of a population peak of around 8.3 billion mid-century, declining back to today's population by 2100.


If everyone on Earth lived the lifestyle of a traditional Indian villager, it is arguable that even 12 billion would be a sustainable world population. If everyone lives like an upper-middle-class North American (a status to which much of the world seems to aspire), then even two billion is unsustainable. Population decline is welcome news, but it needs to be considered in a larger context. Population stability or decline is not an environmental panacea if it is accompanied by continued growth in consumption.

Concern about overpopulation is a red herring; consumption's the problem | Guardian Sustainable Business | Guardian Professional

Again, yet another article that makes my point, its not how many people there are, its how much they consume thats the means by which we measure overpopulation.
You cannot measure it by counting heads.

This response illustrates the boys fixation with headcounts

Finally! Mike, finally gives a figure, 2-3 billion. Now, I'm going to check around and research it and see if it's true or if it's not.
FYI: Resources can be shipped globally. Just so you know.

Which only demonstrates his lack of understanding as to how overpopulation is measured, its not measured in billions of people. Its measured by consumption.

As the article says if we all lived like indian villagers we might get away with 12 billion, if we all lived like middle class north america even two billion is unsustainable.

As for the comment about resources being shipped globally........ in the context of the discussion that makes no sense to me.
It makes my point not his. the ability to import resources is what allows populations to grow beyond their local carrying capacity, thats the cause of the problem not the solution. its the mechanism that allows populations to live beyond their means, to run up an ecological/resource debit

Its the reason the oceans have been overfished, its the reason the south american rainforests have been decimated to graze cattle for cheap hamburger

In the past 50 years much of the rainforest in Africa and Asia has been destroyed. Large areas of rainforest are being cut down, often in order to remove just a few logs, and rainforest is being destroyed at double the rate of all previous estimates. Unfortunately this means that there is a very high rate of extinction, as the wildlife depending on the forest dies with it.

Many rainforests in Central and South America have been burnt down to make way for cattle farming, which supplies cheap beef to North America, China and Russia. It is estimated that for each pound of beef produced, 200 square feet of rainforest is destroyed. In the past 20 years Costa Rica has lost the majority of its forests to beef cattle ranching. This is known as slash and burn farming and is believed to account for 50% of rainforest destruction. However, the land cannot be used for long: the soil is of poor quality and, without the forest, quickly becomes very dry. The grass often dies after only a few years and the land becomes a crusty desert. The cattle farmers then have to move on and destroy more rainforest to create new cattle pastures.

Rainforest Concern - Why are they being destroyed?

FYI: Resources can be shipped globally. Just so you know

You mean like the cheap beef thats farmed on destroyed South American rainforest and shipped to North America, China and Russia. ?

That he sees this as the solution, rather than a problem is mind boggling

Much of the fruit, cereals and pulses we buy from tropical countries have been grown in areas where tropical rainforests once thrived. The forests are cut down to make way for vast plantations where products such as bananas, palm oil, pineapple, sugar cane, tea and coffee are grown. As with cattle ranching, the soil will not sustain crops for long, and after a few years the farmers have to cut down more rainforest for new plantations.

 

[mike]

Designer Vivienne Westwood expressed anguish and alarm at the worsening state of the planet, at a press conference yesterday. "The acceleration of death and destruction is unimaginable," she said, "and it's happening quicker and quicker."
Speaking in support of the European Citizens' Initiative to End Ecocide, her words echo a growing sentiment that we have to do something. One thing we can do is to enshrine the sanctity of the biosphere in law.
That ecocide – the destruction of ecosystems – is even a concept bespeaks a momentous change in industrial civilisation's relationship to the planet. To kill something, like Earth, presupposes that it is even alive in the first place. Today we are beginning to see the planet and all its subsystems as beings deserving of life, and no longer mere resource piles and waste dumps. As the realisation grows that we are part of an interdependent, living planet, concepts such as "rights of nature" and "law of ecocide" will become common sense.

Vivienne Westwood is right: we need a law against ecocide | Guardian Sustainable Business | Guardian Professional

 

[mike]

36 football fields a minute............ Do you think forests grow back at that speed ?

 

[BoyintheMachine]

This sounds fascinating. Do you have any links to share so I can read up on it?

I'm not aware of any specific links directly. It's the basic history of the discovery of HIV. Perhaps so-called Aids deniers might have some links but what I'm talking about is not Aids denying itself, but rather how the discovery of what would be named HIV was made and how the U.S. government acted.

In a nutshell the discovery of what would be named the HIV virus didn't follow the scientific process. A scientist involved lied and said he discovered it when in reality it was a French team who gave him samples of the virus. He then held a press conference and proclaimed, yes proclaimed, that he was the discoverer of what we now call HIV. He did this BEFORE submitting a paper for publication and peer review. His press conference caused the U.S. government to immediately back him and on the same day as the press conference they filed for the patent. He literally became a multi-millionaire overnight. Sometime later he wrote his paper and submitted for publication but by that time the pressure from the U.S. government was so intense no scientist even questioned his findings. His paper even contained several key errors but nobody called him on it because of the pressure. The U.S. government immediately began pouring out billions of dollars to any scientist willing to do research but only if their research supported HIV as the cause of AIDS. Meanwhile, the French group sued and there was a lengthy court battle. Eventually the decision was to give them both co-credit for the discovery, which was total b.s. as the French truly discovered it and the virus was then renamed to HIV. So this is just a very, very brief overview of what happened. Again, I'm not saying that HIV doesn't cause AIDs. I'm saying that science was hijacked.

So it started with AIDs, with the U.S. decreeing what is real and hijacking science by only giving grant money to the side they decree is correct. So what is taking place is the U.S. government is telling scientists what their findings will be in advance. The same thing happened with Global Warming. Only scientists who support AGW are given grants. Therefore their findings are always in favor of AGW. Go figure. They aren't going to do anything that would stop the cash flow.

Before this time scientists mostly got their grant money from businesses and industries. We need to go back to how things operated prior to the Aids epidemic. We don't need the U.S. government to play dictator and tell us what is real and what is not. Real science can not operate under this type of tyranny.

 

[marduk]

I'm going back to the moon landing deniers thread.

 

[mike]

I'm still waiting on that magic figure, and no, Mike did not give me a figure. .

Post it. Give me the magical number that once crossed we are doomed. I dare you.

anyone suggesting that overpopulation is real should be able to come up with a magic figure that represents "too many people", a figure that once crossed we are doomed..

What's the Earth's Carrying Capacity?
Carrying capacity is not a fixed number. Estimates put Earth's carrying capacity at anywhere between 2 billion and 40 billion people [source: McConeghy]. It varies with a wide range of factors, most of them fitting under the umbrella of "lifestyle." If humans were still in the hunter-gatherer mode, Earth would have reached its capacity at about 100 million people [source: ThinkQuest]. With humans producing food and living in high-rise buildings, that number increases significantly [source: ThinkQuest].
As of 2008, there were about 6.7 billion people living on this planet [source: Sachs]. A good way to understand the flexibility of Earth's carrying capacity is to look at the difference between the projected capacities of 2 billion and 40 billion. Essentially, we're working with the same level of resources with both of those numbers. So how can the estimates swing so widely?
Because people in different parts of the world are consuming different amounts of those resources. Basically, if everyone on Earth lived like a middle-class American, consuming roughly 3.3 times the subsistence level of food and about 250 times the subsistence level of clean water, the Earth could only support about 2 billion people [source: McConeghy]. On the other hand, if everyone on the planet consumed only what he or she needed, 40 billion would be a feasible number [source: McConeghy]. As it is, the people living in developed countries are consuming so much that the other approximate 75 percent of the population is left with barely what they need to get by [source: McConeghy].
To the surprise of those scientists who dismissed Malthus' prediction as fatally flawed, this limit on resources appears to stand despite the human ability to develop technologies that alter Malthus' presumed linear growth of the food supply. The issue, then, is why technology isn't saving us from the disaster of naturally mediated population control.
What are we doing wrong?

HowStuffWorks "What's the Earth's Carrying Capacity?"

 

[mike]

When a population surpasses its carrying capacity it enters a condition known as overshoot. Because carrying capacity is defined as the maximum population that an environment can maintain indefinitely, overshoot must by definition be temporary.


If we had not discovered the stored energy resource of fossil fuels, we would probably be following the green curve in the chart below, and would be well on our way to achieving balance with the energy flows in the world around us, with our numbers settling down somewhere aroud two billion. This is the road not taken.
The road we have taken is the one in red, on which our numbers and consumption have been driven well past the world's long-term carrying capacity, deep into overshoot territory. As we partied hearty since 1900, we have degraded the flow-based carrying capacity of the biosphere by messing up the earth, air and water. As a result, when the party ends, the resulting correction will take us back well below a carrying capacity of two billion, since that no longer exists - we have already "eaten" a big chunk of it while we were in overshoot.

Carrying Capacity and Overshoot

The work of the Global Footprint Network (GFN), home of the "ecological footprint," points to the answer. Measuring consumption as the use of biologically productive land and sea, their data shows a global maximum sustainable footprint, at today's population, of just under 1.8 global hectares (gha) per person. Currently, by drawing down nonrenewable resources, we're a bit over 2.2gha, overshooting Earth's limits by about 25%.

There's more. The GFN authors point out their data is conservative, underestimating problems such as aquifer depletion and our impacts on other species. In response, the Redefining Progress group publishes an alternative footprint measure which has humanity not at 25%, but at 39% overshoot. But that too, the authors concede, is an underestimate.

Ultimately, there are limits to how much we can reduce per-person use of land, water, and other resources. A purposeful drop on the part of industrialised countries to consumption levels comparable to those of the poorest areas in the world is not only wholly unrealistic but, at today's population size, would not end our environmental woes. Our sheer numbers prevent it.
We have no alternative but to return our attention to population, the other factor in the equation. Already in overshoot, we must aim for population stabilisation followed by a decline in human numbers worldwide.

The stakes are too high to waste time evading the issue. Doing so is intellectually dishonest and a setup for global tragedy. It's time environmentalists ended the silence on population.

Return of the population timebomb | Comment is free | theguardian.com
While in overshoot, moreover, we erode carrying capacity.

According to the GFN, humans have been outliving our means since the mid-1970s, demanding more than the planet can renewably produce. (This is called "ecological overshoot.") In 2011, the GFN estimated that humans will use 135 percent of the resources the Earth can actually generate in one year.

The result of this ecological overshoot, according to the GFN, is similar to being in debt in a household: The bills pile up. Climate change, for example, occurs because excess greenhouse gases get trapped in the atmosphere. Forests shrink because the trees can't grow back faster than humans cut them down. Overfishing causes fisheries to collapse. The WWF estimates that global biodiversity is down 30 percent since 1970.
"The environmental crises we are experiencing are all symptoms of an overall trend — humanity is simply using more than the planet can provide," the GFN wrote

Earth is over budget: We've used up all our natural resources for the year | MNN - Mother Nature Network

And that my friends is how you measure overpopulation

 

[BoyintheMachine]

What's the Earth's Carrying Capacity?
Carrying capacity is not a fixed number. Estimates put Earth's carrying capacity at anywhere between 2 billion and 40 billion people [source: McConeghy]. It varies with a wide range of factors, most of them fitting under the umbrella of "lifestyle." If humans were still in the hunter-gatherer mode, Earth would have reached its capacity at about 100 million people [source: ThinkQuest]. With humans producing food and living in high-rise buildings, that number increases significantly [source: ThinkQuest].
As of 2008, there were about 6.7 billion people living on this planet [source: Sachs]. A good way to understand the flexibility of Earth's carrying capacity is to look at the difference between the projected capacities of 2 billion and 40 billion. Essentially, we're working with the same level of resources with both of those numbers. So how can the estimates swing so widely?
Because people in different parts of the world are consuming different amounts of those resources. Basically, if everyone on Earth lived like a middle-class American, consuming roughly 3.3 times the subsistence level of food and about 250 times the subsistence level of clean water, the Earth could only support about 2 billion people [source: McConeghy]. On the other hand, if everyone on the planet consumed only what he or she needed, 40 billion would be a feasible number [source: McConeghy]. As it is, the people living in developed countries are consuming so much that the other approximate 75 percent of the population is left with barely what they need to get by [source: McConeghy].
To the surprise of those scientists who dismissed Malthus' prediction as fatally flawed, this limit on resources appears to stand despite the human ability to develop technologies that alter Malthus' presumed linear growth of the food supply. The issue, then, is why technology isn't saving us from the disaster of naturally mediated population control.
What are we doing wrong?

HowStuffWorks "What's the Earth's Carrying Capacity?"

LOL...I agree Mike. I think the Earth can hold up to 40 billion, probably even more. And I think we are going to colonize the ocean beds as well. And before we finally leave this planet for elsewhere, I can see us having space cities in orbit. We know we can grow food in space so wouldn't it be cool to have massive space farms? I think so.

Mike, also don't forget the human population is supposed to peak sometime in the next 50 years or so and then it's predicted the population will begin to decline naturally.

 

[mike]

LOL...I agree Mike. I think the Earth can hold up to 40 billion, probably even more. And I think we are going to colonize the ocean beds as well. And before we finally leave this planet for elsewhere, I can see us having space cities in orbit. We know we can grow food in space so wouldn't it be cool to have massive space farms? I think so.

Mike, also don't forget the human population is supposed to peak sometime in the next 50 years or so and then it's predicted the population will begin to decline naturally.

Again you miss the point, it could sustain 40 billion on the condition we lived like rural villagers in india, but we dont do we. ?

And ive already addressed the population peak and decline, it seems you are still stuck on the magic number idea

Population decline is welcome news, but it needs to be considered in a larger context. Population stability or decline is not an environmental panacea if it is accompanied by continued growth in consumption.

Concern about overpopulation is a red herring; consumption's the problem | Guardian Sustainable Business | Guardian Professional

Our consumption patterns have overshot our carrying capacity, we are already over populated.

Even if the headcount stabilises or declines, the continued growth of consumption means we are still over populated, its not about the headcount, a fact you cant seem to grasp.

You dont seem to be able to get past your simplistic notion its about how many people, as the article points out the way we measure overpopulation has to be seen in a larger context.

The fact is we have already exceeded the earths carrying capacity, thus are overpopulated.
The trend is for the demands on that carrying capacity to increase as people seek more affluent lifestyles, so even as the headcount stabilises and even shrinks, the demand on the carrying capacity increases.

It may be hard for you to get your head around, but in our case overpopulation gets worse even as the headcount gets smaller

Its not rocket science

If everyone on Earth lived the lifestyle of a traditional Indian villager, it is arguable that even 12 billion would be a sustainable world population. If everyone lives like an upper-middle-class North American (a status to which much of the world seems to aspire), then even two billion is unsustainable.

The trend is very clear, that ppl living in 3rd world populations want to live like 1st world populations, which means they want to consume the same high amount of resources.

The world could only support 40 billion if the trend were the other way, which its not.

Im at the point where im not sure your inability to grasp even this simple math is an intellectual failing on your part, or as Gene suggested outright trolling

 

[mike]

And before we finally leave this planet for elsewhere

This is perhaps the saddest part of your pov

If it is indeed our destiny to do this, or even evolve to the post biological

Shouldnt we leave the earth as we found it, ?

Isnt that better than driving so many species to extinction, and trashing the place before we go ?

What about the other pre sentient species here, shouldnt we leave room for them to evolve and follow in our footsteps.

You seem to think its ok to use this priceless cradle of biodiversity as a fast food container, gobble up the contents and throw whats left away as rubbish

 

[BoyintheMachine]

This is perhaps the saddest part of your pov

If it is indeed our destiny to do this, or even evolve to the post biological

Shouldnt we leave the earth as we found it, ?

Isnt that better than driving so many species to extinction, and trashing the place before we go ?

What about the other pre sentient species here, shouldnt we leave room for them to evolve and follow in our footsteps.

You seem to think its ok to use this priceless cradle of biodiversity as a fast food container, gobble up the contents and throw whats left away as rubbish

Mike, the Earth is a self-regulating system. We can't restore it to pristine pre-human times. Life on earth only has about 800 million years at best and then it will all be gone. We are fixing to go into a new Ice Age in about 50,000 years when resources will be a major problem. In a million years a super volcano can erupt and the last time that happened the human species almost went extinct.

I'm not saying trash the planet. I'm saying that when we finally leave the Earth will completely heal itself.

As far as the Earth developing a new intelligent species, doubtful. Again, there's only 800 million years left. By then the sun will destroy all life on the planet. It will kill off the plants first and then the animals will follow. In fact, the only way to stop it is to generate enough CO2 to keep the plants alive. But I'm not sure how long that would work.

 

[mike]

Mike, the Earth is a self-regulating system. We can't restore it to pristine pre-human times. Life on earth only has about 800 million years at best and then it will all be gone. We are fixing to go into a new Ice Age in about 50,000 years when resources will be a major problem. In a million years a super volcano can erupt and the last time that happened the human species almost went extinct.

I'm not saying trash the planet. I'm saying that when we finally leave the Earth will completely heal itself.

As far as the Earth developing a new intelligent species, doubtful. Again, there's only 800 million years left. By then the sun will destroy all life on the planet. It will kill off the plants first and then the animals will follow. In fact, the only way to stop it is to generate enough CO2 to keep the plants alive. But I'm not sure how long that would work.

Thats complete Bullshit, the earth cannot bring back a species we made extinct

Populations of terrestrial, freshwater and marine species fell on an average by 40% between 1970 and 2000. Destruction of natural habitats, pollution, overfishing and the introduction of non-native animals, often drive out indigenous species.
Trawlers and dredgers wreak destruction across the seabed, crushing entire ecosystems of corals, algae and crustaceans as they go. But will governments take heed? Or will they continue to look the other way? The forest species declined by about 15%, the marine species 35%, while the freshwater species dropped 55% over the 30-year period

Edward Wilson estimates 27,000 species are currently lost per year. By 2022, 22% of all species will be extinct if no action is taken.
2. Niles Eldridge estimates 30,000 per year currently.
3. Georgina M. Mace using a different methodology based on extrapolations from the current lists of endangered species arrives at a figure of 14-22% loss of species and subspecies over the next 100 years.
4. Paul Ehrlich, using another approach based on total energy use estimates extinction rates at 7,000 to 13,000 times the background rate, (70,000 to 130,000 species per year) which he says is higher than figures based on data for higher orders of animal indicates, but we have little data on insects and micro flora and fauna

The cascade of current extinctions, however, is related mostly to destruction of habitat, and displacement by introduced species. Chemical pollutants, over harvesting and hybridization have played smaller but still significant role. While the actual extinction rate is difficult to pin down, there is no doubt that the planet is in the midst of a mass extinction of major proportions. The most conservative estimates place the extinction rate at 1000 times the background rate. These numbers are more easily accepted when placed in the context of habitat destruction.

How can this be justified ?

Just so we can have more humans ?

 

[exo_doc]

 

[mike]

The term ecocide is more recently used to refer to the destructive impact of humanity on its own natural environment. As a group of complex organisms we are committing ecocide through unsustainable exploitation of the planet's resources. The geological era we are living in, known as the anthropocene, is so named because the activities of the human species are influencing the Earth's natural state in a way never seen before. The most notable example is that of the atmosphere which is being transformed through the emission of gases from fossil fuel use : carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons etc. The population explosion of the last century in conjunction with economic models built on growth are fuelling this misuse, a form of global ecocide. The ecocide we are witnessing is a symptom of the disregard and reward for accounting for the damage being caused. U.S. environmental theorist and activist Patrick Hossay [4] argues that the human species is committing ecocide, via industrial civilization's effects on the global environment. Much of the modern environmental movement stems from this belief as a precept.
At the heart of the ecocide issue are practical and moral questions: is human activity destroying the ecological support system necessary for our own survival?


Thats the million dollar question is ecocide necessary for our own survival, and thus justified ?

You seem to think it is

Which is the smarter option, continue to wipe out the planets bio diversity so more humans can have more stuff.
Or keep our populations and consumption at sustainable levels and preserving the unique biological treasures this planet has created.

 

[BoyintheMachine]

Thats complete Bullshit, the earth cannot bring back a species we made extinct

Populations of terrestrial, freshwater and marine species fell on an average by 40% between 1970 and 2000. Destruction of natural habitats, pollution, overfishing and the introduction of non-native animals, often drive out indigenous species.
Trawlers and dredgers wreak destruction across the seabed, crushing entire ecosystems of corals, algae and crustaceans as they go. But will governments take heed? Or will they continue to look the other way? The forest species declined by about 15%, the marine species 35%, while the freshwater species dropped 55% over the 30-year period

Edward Wilson estimates 27,000 species are currently lost per year. By 2022, 22% of all species will be extinct if no action is taken.
2. Niles Eldridge estimates 30,000 per year currently.
3. Georgina M. Mace using a different methodology based on extrapolations from the current lists of endangered species arrives at a figure of 14-22% loss of species and subspecies over the next 100 years.
4. Paul Ehrlich, using another approach based on total energy use estimates extinction rates at 7,000 to 13,000 times the background rate, (70,000 to 130,000 species per year) which he says is higher than figures based on data for higher orders of animal indicates, but we have little data on insects and micro flora and fauna

The cascade of current extinctions, however, is related mostly to destruction of habitat, and displacement by introduced species. Chemical pollutants, over harvesting and hybridization have played smaller but still significant role. While the actual extinction rate is difficult to pin down, there is no doubt that the planet is in the midst of a mass extinction of major proportions. The most conservative estimates place the extinction rate at 1000 times the background rate. These numbers are more easily accepted when placed in the context of habitat destruction.

How can this be justified ?

Just so we can have more humans ?

I never said the Earth could bring back a species we made extinct. Man is responsible for making many species extinct. However, that's just a drop in a bucket in the history of extinction. 90% of all species that ever lived are extinct and man had little to nothing to do with it.