Some Truth: Can you Handle It?

[BeFree]

Human population has reached and exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth.

Peak oil is happening. We may actually be going downhill.

We are going to have a very 'Silent Spring'.

******************

We know these truths to be self-evident. So who thinks the PTB do not?

Of course the Powers That Be know these truths. And if they let on that the consequences of these truths are being felt now and will increase in the near future, then all hell would break loose. The real losers in all hell breaking loose are the PTB.

So they have to feed us the propaganda that everything will be alright.
They get us to focus on fake enemies and fake realities.

But in the end, it is a losing game, because the truth is the current modern economic and human society systems are not sustainable.

[cali]

1. yep, humans are likely to have a short run

so what?

[BeFree]

61. So what?

Well, if the planet was here just for humans, "So what?" would be pretty damn stupid, wouldn't it?

But since it does not exist for just humans, and since the other life forms on the planet are suffering for our overbearance, then we are screwing up.

[WeDidIt]

2. I definitely reject your first assumption

I do not accept the notion that we have reached some maximum capacity for humans on the earth. I see no evidence to support such a ludicrous statement.

Your second assumption is debatable.

[niyad]

12. and exactly where is YOUR evidence that such is not the case?

[WeDidIt]

13. I am not under any burden of proof here. You made the assertion

and yet, you failed to back it up.

And when called on it, you turned it around and demanded proof of a negative, which everybody knows is a logical fallacy.

[leeroysphitz]

104. Oh SNAP.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. You are funny. Predictable, but funny. nt.

[WeDidIt]

19. Calling out an assertion made with nothing to back it up

should be predictable when such assertions are made.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. What is your opinion on the cause of the current climate change we are in?

[WeDidIt]

40. I'd say a small percentage is directly attributable to natural cycles

but by far the biggest cause is human activity.

I think the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of that view. Natural cycles take millenia to play out, but current climate change is occurring too fast and the arate of increase of carbon into the atmosphere from human activity suggest this quickened change is linked to human activity.

That does not mean our population is unsustainable. It means we must adapt, as we have done so in the past. Adaptation is perhaps the most significant attribute of homo sapiens.

[Warren Stupidity]

51. We aren't adapting. There is no political will.

As India and China continue to move their populations toward the energy use patterns of our population and those of Western Europe, the unsustainability will be manifest. That is the 'catastrophic' part of human induced catastrophic climate change. The adaptation will be through rather massive die off - exactly what happens when a population exceeds its carrying capacity.

Now of course if through some miracle we humans transform our energy use patterns drastically while not reducing population growth, we could push the carrying capacity out a bit, but not a whole lot. But the point is that where we are today, the current reality, not some wishful thinking about what could be, is unsustainable. You cannot accept the scientific consensus that human caused global warming is pushing the planet into catastrophic climate change - and also argue that our current human population with its current energy use patterns is sustainable. Those are contradictory positions.

[WeDidIt]

70. I don't buy into that.

I believe we have plenty of time before it becomes catastrophic. the data backs me up on it, too.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. No it doesn't. But go ahead and explain how 'we have plenty of time'

and 'the data backs you up'. Be specific.

[DIKB]

95. I'm curious, What data?

"backs you up" that we have "plenty of time" (Particularly when everything that isn't right-wing propaganda says the opposite)

[Warren Stupidity]

98. Let me know when there is a response, 'kay?

[ldf]

85. hmmm. that is what gw said...

we will just adapt. that's what we humans do.

EPIC fail.

[Subdivisions]

25. You are wrong and no one is gonig to do your research for you. n/t

[WeDidIt]

69. Simply asserting it doesn't make it so

No research is necessary. I can safely reject the first assumption.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. You may reject whatever you want, but you may want to google

either Holocene extinction or the Great sixth Extinction. Either term works...

Here is a clue... apex species tend not to survive mass extinction events.

:-)

Use the google while you still can, worst assumptions and all... but the next fifty years are guaranteed to be lots of fun.

Oh and as to human carrying capacity, some scientists believe that with the end of the age of oil it might be peaking at four billion, we have an extra two.

[Warren Stupidity]

99. And are heading rapidly toward an extra five.

And the 2c increase 'negotiated' at Copenhagen means that the adaptation in some areas of the world, for example Africa, will look very much like an over capacity die off. Plus there is little evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the 2c limit, absent any determined effort to achieve a sustainable and equitable planetary energy infrastructure or to limit population growth, will hold. We are not going to roll back to 350, we are not going to hold the line at 450. We are going to multiply and shit all over ourselves until our population has an existential crisis. So much for self awareness. Highly overrated it seems.

[Don Caballero]

3. Finally someone with the balls to point out the overpopulated Earth

If one or no child policies are not swiftly enacted we are short for this world. Why people need more than one kid is beyond me. I have chosen not to have polluters of my own.

[jwirr]

7. It is not just overpopulation. Not long ago I read an article that said

that one person in the USA uses as much of the resources as a family of 10 in Mexico. Either way we need lifestyle changes: birth control and simple living.

[happy_liberal]

93. +10000

Good point- it appears over consumption that is the problem, not too many people

[TheKentuckian]

111. You wish. BOTH are problems

well, unless you don't give two shits about anything else on the Earth but humans. Each of us even living simply takes up more resources and land than any other creature.

Endless streams of humans means everything else takes the squeeze. There are animals, insects, and plants that we are supposed to co-exist with not annhilate in an effort to ever increase the population for the purposes of creating growth in economies. As we speak humans are using at least 150% of sustaniable resources, which should indicate that even with a simpler life that we'd still be damn close to 100% if not past that already.

There is no basis for believing this world can sustain 10 billion humans and a full web of life.

[happy_liberal]

114. I have two kiddos, but I moved to where we are outnumbered by animals big time

I am surrounded by nature, plants, animals, insects, not to mention a view of awe inspiring glaciers and craggy peaks. I do what I can to live a simple life and use as few resources as possible. We do what we can to protect the land from human intervention and teach our children the same. We teach our children to appreciate and protect all of God's creatures.

But if you think it's a good idea that we all stop having kids and let the duggars and the quiverful people fill the planet, we will be more screwed than we already are.

[walldude]

21. LOL.. yeah.. well my polluters are in school..

studying to learn ways to fix the problems of this world. One of my little polluters is adopted. If you are so concerned with the problems of this world why don't you adopt a child and teach them to work towards finding alternative energy sources. Save some poor kid who is already stuck here from a shitty life. Or do something besides sit there pretending your selfishness or animosity towards children is some high and mighty calling to save the planet.

[Hello_Kitty]

34. Ah yes, the "my child will save the world" conceit

Why do you have to live through your kids? Why couldn't you learn ways to fix the world and apply them yourself?

BTW, calling people who don't have kids "selfish" and suggesting they hate kids is so tired.

[Don Caballero]

37. Your children will help destroy the planet

Why did you have to have more than one? Does it make you feel better to have more carbon producing entities killing the species off?

[spanone]

39. so will you. why don't you volunteer to give up your carbon producing space?

[Don Caballero]

42. I am doing my part by not having children

Perhaps you can teach your kids about climate change and encourage them to not have your Grand children. I understand some people think it is funny and cute to have more than one kid, but the planet is in peril.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. Thanks.

[vadawg]

81. +1000 i would take people who want to dial back population more seriously if they would off

themselves first in order to show their committment to the cause, off course they are always so important to said cause so its other people who must not ever be born. Its the same as people telling us to reduce our carbon ffotprint whilst they fly thrice around the world and maintain huge houses...

[FLDCVADem]

46. Producer of two planet killers here

Yes, I'm happy to have more than one, and would have had more if finances had allowed.

Get over yourself.

[WeDidIt]

22. It's a canard

It's thrown out constantly, and has been for fifty years.

Yet nobody can prove it.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

49. watch out, Don,

some people here get very ugly when they think you're "anti-children", or criticizing their family size... or something.

I believe that the best thing you can do for the planet is not breed, and adopt if you are a kid oriented person.

But the screamers will come get you for saying that, and then you have to be careful; if you defend your views strongly (even if you're not vicious as they often are), YOU will get tombstoned.

Spoken from experience.

[Don Caballero]

50. Thanks for the heads up

Did not realize people don't care about the health of our planet.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

55. I've been using the term "mental disconnect" a lot lately

it applies here too, when those of us who point out the impact of human beings on the planet, and who point out that limiting family size is the cheaper, most effective way to reduce human impact on the planet, and who choose to be childfree and advocate adoption for those who are kid oriented, get insulted and called selfish, among other things.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. He is criticizing their family size and telling them how to raise their kids.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

88. I didn't read him like that at all

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7384854&mesg_id=7385590

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

90. Post #3 and Post # 21

If one or no child policies are not swiftly enacted we are short for this world. Why people need more than one kid is beyond me. I have chosen not to have polluters of my own.

Your children will help destroy the planet. Why did you have to have more than one? Does it make you feel better to have more carbon producing entities killing the species off?



You don't seem to be reading him very well.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

91. ok I missed that.

Please leave me alone, now, OK? I didn't sling contempt at you, I was perfectly civil. I dislike your unprovoked snark at me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. You'll get over it.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

105. I 've been over it; didn't come to mind till checking my posts....

you're not over your shitty attitude, however.

You know, I notice you have a perpetually sneering, angry, contemptful attitude here on DU. That can't help but be an indication of your character in general.

You're bound to have a negative effect on the people in your life.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

109. I hope you have a happy new year!

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

96. Oh No!

Someone is suggesting that you stop having so many children! Will the horror never end? :eyes:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. He is suggesting the government limit family size. Is that something you support?

[Flaneur]

62. Well, given the totality of your posts here....

I can only say "thank you" for not breeding.

[BeFree]

66. Totality

Indeed, that is the problem. Thanks for that idea. Because it isn't the individual that is the problem, it is the totality of the humans that are going to make the planet nearly uninhabitable for the other species, and make it so that humans are not able to exist in a lifestyle any where near what we do now.

That is the crime: So many have extracted so much from this planet in such a short time, that no one else will be able to enjoy what we have.

In totality we have not been good stewards and for that everything else will be denied a life that once was a birthright. In totality we have greatly altered nature.

[punkin87]

4. It's so obvious and yet so many people don't understand it.

[Parker CA]

5. Do you have links to back up your first statement? Never heard that stated as fact before.

[Goldstein1984]

6. And I quote: "Unlimited growth is possible"

I was in a thread last night with someone who was arguing that unlimited growth is possible, and that I needed to get over the "population bogeyman" thing. The DUer was definitely a proponent of globalization, and advised me to abandon the Malthusian fallacy.

As the exchange continued, it became obvious that he was not a U.S. citizen an was not writing from within the U.S. The DUer suggested that if the U.S. rejects NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT, which he also called bogeymen, and turns inward the rest of the world would just kick us out of the sandbox.

I believe the truth that we cannot continue to live as we do is self-evident. But don't assume other do. Many believe in the myths of unlimited growth and unlimited human creative potential to support unlimited growth. They must not live on the same finite planet that we do.

[Laura902]

8. Very true but.......

......I believe there is hope yet, if people just open their eyes (and wallets to invest in) to more sustainable practices and push against nimby we may be able to move toward a better future. That is of course an extremely optimistic view but if we do not realize that we cannot forever rely on oil, our nation, possibly much of the world, will go into a depression.

[pscot]

20. And if pigs had wings

they'd be roosting in trees just like turkeys.:P

[Laura902]

65. progress comes from those who remain optimistic and do positive things

.....not those who become too cynical to act at all.

[StarfarerBill]

9. Drawing down the West's and China's overconsumption of resources would give us some breathing room.

But can that happen? Not in the present ideological/political climate, no.

[Gregorian]

10. The single most important issue we all face.

Not even health care or any of the other topics on the forum can come close. If humans had vision they'd start thinking about working toward a common goal to turn this mess around.

I expect crisis. Everyone is looking in every direction but this one biological one. People even argue against it. Those same people usually argue against global warming and economic causes. And that is why I expect crisis. This is a phenomenon that will bite us before most people realize it's an emergency. What blindness.

[BeFree]

63. Blindness: Forced or educated?

Aren't the systems in place meant to raise alarms and alert to suggestions to alleviate awful outcomes being manipulated so that blindness is most everyone's circumstance?

Corporations obviously have reason to make and keep everyone blind. If people were made aware then profits would go down, eh? Were everyone fairly made aware of the truths, wouldn't economic growth come to a halt?

Growth at all costs is the problem. The simple solution would have been to make sure that the truths were well known through education and media systems. So, I don't blame the whole of humanity for the blindness, just those who have manipulated the 'news'.

[Gregorian]

67. Yes. That is part of the problem.

But it's more complicated than that. I totally agree with you.

There is blindness and there is blindness in the form of what I call sexual greed. I guess we're talking about one of the few basic foundations of the human being. So it's a very difficult topic from many points of view. But there is also the time lag. My grandmother saw the first horseless carriage. She had 11 children, and never saw the consequences of her breeding. Of course one factor in that situation was birth control, and male dominance, etc... But the time lag phenomenon is just one facet that enables people to hit and run and never see the ramifications of their actions. And some just don't see. They don't see the subdivisions for what they are, and the highways getting more and more busy, and food quality plummeting, and noise everywhere. I think of people like Santorum, with his six kids. But I also agree that it should be about blame. Good luck, I'm pissed off as all hell. I've spent half my life trying to get away, only to be followed by the families all the way to the most remote places of this country. Bringing their suv's and kids and new homes. It's a biological function that overrides most input.

And there's the part you mention. There's enough blame to touch nearly every person on this planet. And I know that doesn't help at all.

How do we open eyes. We start discussing it. It's too late. We're only trying to just do something. But I believe it's all over. Acidification, global warming, global dimming (which is actually alleviating global warming), deforestation, and a huge list of things. Things like how utterly hopeless I've been. I'm not alone. There are many people like me who grew up with dairy farms that turned into subdivisions and 7-11's. Sick.

Endless growth. A lot of this is due to petroleum. This is why in a way I hope we don't discover ways to sustain the lives we have. But that's cruel to think that way.

I also think that we've diluted the value of the human by having so many. And that has contributed to wars that should have never been fought. I often think I'm wrong about that, given that people have always had wars. But it's a thought.

[BeFree]

68. Too late?

Never too late. Well, maybe not never.

You and I have been on similar paths, and I like the way you elucidate the inherent problem.

However, my path has been that the voiceless creatures on the face of this planet have a chance to speak though me, and by gawd, am free to do so.

So what they want me to say is that as long as there is a chance to preserve some of what they have, and need to survive, don't give up.

Keep speaking, they say. They appreciate it very, very much.

It is too late for this lifestyle that we in first world have enjoyed. That is a given. But for the majority of the 'last' world, life still can continue.

As you do unto those that are of the least.....

[Gregorian]

71. Thanks. It isn't too late.

But I've owned several farms. The last one was amazing. A cemetery on it with Daniel Boone's relations. I remember one hot afternoon as I stretched for a bike ride, I noticed a bear climbing one of my apple trees. And just before I left the place (because of all the god damned logging), I walked the creeks with the salmon brushing by my legs. And the elk. But the sad part is, where there were 20 elk, there were hundreds. And where there were a hundred salmon, there were creeks full. Another farm I owned there was an old woman who lived in a run down house. I met her one day, and began asking her about what it was like. She went on about the salmon. You could almost walk across the river. Then came the logging.

It's too late for ME. My spirit is destroyed. The most damaging thing I ever had to witness was the vast real estate searches I did. Those showed me just how little real land is left. Fences, signs, concrete, houses, cars. The fields are gone in the sense that one can't freely move through them. I've heard stories of the San Francisco bay area from old men and women that hardly anyone will ever know about. I no longer like humans. And that is the death of someone. I get along being alone, but I'm human.

[BeFree]

72. yeah

Used to be a gung-ho enviro. Life centered around fighting the destruction, with success. So, it CAN happen, this saving of the wild places.

But like you, I am pretty much dead to all that now. Mainly because there are so few humans who think it is worth an effort to put a halt to the encroachment, and so it goes. On and on.

But there remains a chance to keep this planet from becoming an utter wasteland.
So we must continue.

[JFN1]

11. State Department Chief Scientist Nina Fedoroff

One of the United States’ most influential science advisors says that the number of humans on the planet has exceeded Earth’s “limits of sustainability.” link

Starvation, disease, and other terrible things follow as a consequence of using up all the earth's resources to sustain human population growth. We'll be up to 9 billion people within the next 50 years.

Human populations are in a growth phase. Since evolving about 200,000 years ago, our species has proliferated and spread over the Earth. Beginning in 1650, the slow population increases of our species exponentially increased. New technologies for hunting and farming have enabled this expansion. It took 1800 years to reach a total population of 1 billion, but only 130 years to reach 2 billion, and a mere 45 years to reach 4 billion.

Despite technological advances, factors influencing population growth will eventually limit expansion of human population. These will involve limitation of physical and biological resources as world population increased to over six billion in 1999. The 1987 population was estimated at a puny 5 billion. link

[laughingliberal]

30. Well, that's a little inconvenient for the deniers.

And from our own State Department, no less. Good job.

[Parker CA]

43. Thanks for this. I'm in total agreement. I was questioning the "carrying capacity" as a matter

of physical weight being enough to damage the structural integrity (crust), or the actual orbital balance of the earth, not questioning whether or not the earth is over-inhabited to a point of causing depeltion of resources and natural, non-human life, as there's ample evidence to support the latter.

[hughee99]

87. Not to be a douchebag here, but here's the quote from the link...

“We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can't support many more people," Fedoroff told the BBC.

Based on this, it would seem that she does not believe we have yet exceeded the Earth's "limits of sustainability", though she believes we will be there soon.

[Goldstein1984]

14. "Carrying capacity"

The U.S. population of 300 million represents about 5% of the world’s population of 6.6 billion people, yet we consume 25% of the planets fossil fuel supply and consequently product 25% of its greenhouse gas emissions. The same can be said for other resources and waste generation. As the rest of the world develops, they entire human population seeks a standard of living closer to that of the United States.

With current levels of technology, for the entire human population to adopt a standard of living equivalent to the U.S. would require five planets. Assuming the rest of the world only achieves a level of consumption of 50% of the U.S., at least 2.5 planets would still be required. In the unlikely event that energy efficiency doubles, we would still require 1.25 planets.

Taking into account only the impact of burning fossil fuels on the atmosphere and oceans, energy-intensive agricultural practices, energy- and land-intensive western meat-based diets, and the impact of over-harvesting from natural fisheries, there is little doubt that we have exceeded carrying capacity.

There is no doubt within the oil industry, in which I work, that petroleum resources are limited. Much of what the public hears is subterfuge. Oil reserves have been greatly exaggerated by those trying to maintain confidence in the industry, and the level of investment in the current business model dictates a continued reliance on fossil fuels to maximize return on investment. Finally, OPEC members routinely inflate their reserve data because their fraction of total OPEC production is a function of their percentage of the total reserve.

[Subdivisions]

27. Thank you! n/t

[Goldstein1984]

31. You're welcome

Those were just some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations.

I think sometimes we rely to heavily on overly complicated arguments from "experts" when the truth is pretty simple.

[Subdivisions]

35. What really blows me away is that people either don't know this. Overpopulation and

oil, and other resource, depletion (itself evidence of having reached carrying capacity) are the root drivers of everything we see happening on this planet - wars, climate change, famine, etc...ALL of it can be attributed to either overpopulation or to resource depletion.

[Goldstein1984]

38. Carrying capacity as it applies to humans is a bit more...

complicated than for organisms in a natural state. Humans have far surpassed the natural human carrying capacity of the planet. We've done this with modern agriculture, sanitation, medicine, and other technologies that require energy.

What I call the optimism about the human creative potential is based on our ability to continuously increase human carrying capacity in the past. Those past achievements have always exploited available resources, and we've only recently arrived at the point where finite resources become a factor. One resource that we're only beginning to recognize, and may still deny, is the limited ability of the atmosphere to absorb carbon that accumulated in deposits over tens and hundreds of millions of years, and which humans have been rapidly releasing over the course of only a few centuries.

After twenty years of working in the Environmental, Health and Safety field, I've grown accustomed to people not seeing the obvious. Most people begin with their conclusions and seek facts to support them. Most people prefer conclusions and facts that support their personal status quo. It's just human nature, I think.

[Parker CA]

45. Thanks for your posts explaining "carrying capacity" so well. nt

[Subdivisions]

56. And the ability to increase our carrying capacity has contributed to

what will eventually be a cliff-dive in our ability to continue business as usual.

I join Parker CA in thanking you for your informed commentary. Personally I'd like to see a detailed analysis of this from you.

[Goldstein1984]

57. I'll blow the dust off of my trusty old HP 48SX and see what

I can do.

[hunter]

102. I disagree. We too are organisms in a "natural state."

We have some clever evolutionary adaptations, but so does every other living thing on the planet earth. Biologically we ain't nothing special. We will die like animals when the resources we've built our populations on are depleted. We are animals, nothing new, nature's seen it all, we live by the same cruel math as every other animal species that ever existed.

[G_j]

28. thanks

[laughingliberal]

32. It is, obviously, in the interests of the oil companies to distort the data

There is no doubt that oil depletion will destroy our way of life in the United States if there are not sufficient alternatives at some point. I don't know what that point is but I am convinced it is closer than most think it is.

[Goldstein1984]

47. I think it's closer than most believe, too.

There are a lot of economic pressures to remain with the status quo. The most obvious is the need to maintain consumer confidence in an economy based 70% on consumption.

In most cases I can't prove it, but I believe very little of what government and business say. Both have too many reasons to deceive, and they are one and the same in many cases.

I think the economy in general has become like a tourist trap, using every method available to extract money from the many and funnel into the hands of the few.

The irony is, there probably is potential to extend the human carrying capacity a bit more, or to improve the quality of life for the current human population, or even to reverse population growth without totalitarian methods. For example, if every couple agreed to have no more than two children, then attrition alone would lead to a reduction in population. But I think we are too fractured and we lack to collective will to solve these problems.

My gut tells me the current human population rests on a house of cards. I've heard projections of 9 billion people by 2050. I'll be surprised if there are still 6 billion.

[hughee99]

89. So the carrying capacity of the earth isn't a fixed number,

but rather a number based on our current usage of resources and the amount of resources we currently know to exist. IF new technologies are developed to generate energy (for example), or efficiency is increased for the older technologies, the number changes. If new quantities or alternative resources are discovered, the number changes.

[hughee99]

16. That's why I don't worry about climate change...

because no one's going to be around to worry about global temps in the NEXT century. Between overpopulation, peak oil, seed sterilization, the Codex Alimentarius, the super-flu and other plagues, artificial intelligence, the Mayan calender and the continued domestication of the dog, we're never going to make it there.

[Goldstein1984]

48. The continued domestication of dogs is the best evidence of

reaching carrying capacity.

No matter how small we make chihuahuas, they still eat like little pigs.

And whose bright idea was the puggle?

[laughingliberal]

108. Puggle. Lol!

You're right. I have a fairly small Jack Russel and he does eat like a pig. How the hell does a 15 lb creature manage to take in as much food as my 160 lb husband?

[Goldstein1984]

113. Dogs are amazing

I once watched our 5-pound chihuahua take away a 2-pound knuckle bone from our 90-pound protection-trained working-bred German shepherd. I was amazed at both the hubris of little Bella and the restraint shown by Bruno, who is as gentle as a kitten only because he's afraid of nothing (He once intervened when I was charged by a brown bear; he stopped the bear's charge and stood toe-to-toe with it until it decided to leave.)

I think every dog owner has exceptional stories to tell about their companions.

[liberal N proud]

17. 2012 is right around the corner

[Subdivisions]

29. And that has to do with...what exactly? n/t

[liberal N proud]

59. I think you missed the sarcasm

Should have included :sarcasm:


:rofl:

[Codeine]

36. So is 2013. Who cares?

Woo-woo rubbish.

[stray cat]

18. Who needs oil right?

[Subdivisions]

23. +1000! Glad to see you posting this BeFree! Thanks! n/t

[young_at_heart]

26. Comment in today's newspaper---

"Much of the world’s population has been hungry since recorded history. American Indians often went hungry; Europeans in mediaeval times were starving, and so on. Population is not the problem, governments are."

[FLDCVADem]

33. Unrec for...

...assuming facts not in evidence.

[BeFree]

54. heh

I knew there were a few here that couldn't handle it. Peace.

[20score]

41. I've posted about over-population a few times now and always get deniers. It's important to keep up

the education on this issue. In fact nothing is more important.

Thanks for posting and K&R.

[Don Caballero]

52. I am being attacked because I don't think people should have more than one child

Overpopulation is a fact and a major contributor to climate change. If we do not curb human breeding, we will destroy the planet irrevocably.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. People here don't like having their reproductive rights dictated. Shocker!

[MercutioATC]

44. Look at my avatar. Even I'M not this bad.

Homo sapiens is but one of the species hopping around on this planet.

Even if your premise was 100% correct, we have not "reached and exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth". We have simply reached maximum saturation for our specific species. The "planet" will be just fine.

[BeFree]

58. heh

What? You got a mouse in your pocket?

As humans have expanded our populations beyond capacity, the other species have paid the price. They too are the 'planet', and in that sense the planet is not doing fine.

Sure, this ball of water and rock will still spin in the deep dark blackness of space no matter what we do, but the quality of the life hereon has been going down ever since we've over done our habitation.

And afterwards, it will recover and be 'healthy' once again in say a million years, but it will never be the same as it was before we overcame.

[MercutioATC]

60. "Quality of life"??

For YOU...and, in the grand scheme of things, you're just a sack of meat.

Seriously, "the planet" doesn't care.

[BeFree]

64. Oh?

You pretend to speak for the planet, then?

And you say the planet doesn't care?

What if you could talk to your dog and tell him what was coming down... you think he'd say he doesn't care? Replace asking the dog with any of the other lifeforms on the planet with your little don't care idea and see what they would say.

Would they say, as you seem to do, that it doesn't matter that 'I' never was?

[MercutioATC]

74. NONE of us matter, in the grand scheme of things.

That's just a fact.

[BeFree]

77. Not quite

The totality matters. Each and every one of us matters. Each of us (lifeforms) makes up the whole. So when a specie gets eliminated by another the whole is at a loss.

The deprivation to the whole matters.

Using your 'none of us matters' leads to nothing. But this planet, this little blue ball twirling around in the deep dark nothingness of space, is something.

Just because we don't know why it matters doesn't meant it doesn't.

[MercutioATC]

86. Yeah, and you're a special little snowflake.

We're an insignificant lifeform hopping around on an insignificant planet that's part of an insignificant galaxy...well, you get my drift.

Perspective.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

53. Many FACTS at PopulationConnection.org

Not that the "I"ll have as many kids as I damn well please so you just SHUT UP" crowd would be interested in reading there.

Also, be careful of talking about this issue, because the above mentioned IHAMKAIDWLSYJSU crowd will get very ugly, alert on you and you, regardless of your well reasoned and civil responses, will get banned!


http://www.populationconnection.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_main

Protecting the Planet
http://www.populationconnection.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_protectingtheplanet
Population growth stretches natural resources to their limits. Deforestation, food and water shortages, and climate change are all intensified by the addition of nearly 80 million people a year to the world's population.

According to the United Nations, the global population could be as high as 11 billion in 2050 or as low as 8 billion, if the right programs are put in place now. Population Connection strives for the world to achieve the lower projection - for the sake of the environment itself and for the people who depend upon it.



Fact Sheets

* Caught in the Crosshairs: Wildlife Faces the Population Challenge
* Fishing for a Solution to the Population Problem
* Population Growth Drives Unsustainable Urban Sprawl
* Rising Emissions, Growing Numbers of People: Population and Climate Change
* Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Population and Deforestation
* The Perfect Disaster: Man vs. Nature
* Water, Water Everywhere, But Not if You're Poor
* Wildlife Feeling the Population Squeeze

Ensuring Social Justice
http://www.populationconnection.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_socialjustice
Population growth makes poverty reduction, increasing school enrollment, and combating disease infinitely more difficult. In fact, rapid population growth hinders progress on all Millennium Development Goals, as demonstrated in the document below, Return of the Population Growth Factor.



Fact Sheets

* Diffusing the Population "Bomb" Demography and Security
* Population Growth and the Food Crisis
* Return of the Population Growth Factor
* The Demographics of HIV/AIDS
* The Fifth Largest Country: International Migrants
* Universal Primary Education: A Moving Target

Defending Women's Rights
http://www.populationconnection.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_defendingwomensrts
Country fertility rates range from 1 child per woman in Hong Kong, Macau, and Singapore to over 7 children per woman in Afghanistan, Niger, and Guinea-Bissau. There are 200 million women around the world who would like to delay or end childbearing but have no access to modern contraception.

Population Connection works with Congress to ensure that the United States is doing everything in its power to help women become empowered, active members of their communities. From fighting to end federal funding for failed abstinence-only sex education programs in the U.S., to urging Congress to appropriate $1 billion for international family planning, Population Connection stands behind women's right to make the best choices for themselves and their families.



Fact Sheets

* Abstinence-Only Education Fails Teens
* Birth Dearth Eclipsed by Population Explosion
* Making the Case for U.S. International Family Planning Assistance
* "Moral" Objections to Vital Care: Pharmacist Refusal
* Preventing Teen Pregnancy with Facts, Not Fear
* The Global Gag Rule: Finally a Thing of the Past
* The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
* What Will $1 Billion Buy?
* Women's Empowerment and Population Stabilization Go Hand in Hand

[happy_liberal]

73. Has anyone seen the documentary Idiocracy?

The intelligent people can stop having babies all they want, but that isn't going to stop the quiverful people.

Smart people owe it to the planet to have children and teach them well.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. Do you have a solution that doesn't involve dictating reproductive rights to others?

[vadawg]

83. i do, the people worried about it off themselves, therefore reducing the population

its the simplist solution if they really believe that human populations have to decrease to save the mice...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. That would require the courage of their convictions.

[TroubleMan]

82. I'm a reluctant Malthusian myself.

The number one problem in the world is overpopulation. It either is the cause of all of the other problems or it greatly exacerbates the other problems.

The problem is many of the things I'm for: freedom, health care, ecology - all those things make the problem worse.

All of the things I'm against: war, disease, economic inequality, lack of heath care, poverty - all those things decrease the population.

I don't know of a solution to the world's overpopulation problem that's not a bad one. The only thing is education of the problem and hope people limit themselves to one child per person. I'm obviously against forced population control, because firstly it's wrong to limit reproductive freedom and secondly I'm sure any application of population control would be abused by the powers that be and applied in an unfair manner.

I know it's the biggest problem facing humanity, but I don't know of a solution that's not totalitarian in nature.

[scheming daemons]

94. The first three lines of your OP seem familiar...

..oh yeah... I heard them 40 years ago.

In 1970.... we were told that human population had exeeded the "carrying capacity of Earth". That was 3 billion people ago.

In 1970.... we were told that peak oil was happening. That was several trillion barrels of oil ago.



Meh. Malthusianism has been proven to be an inadequate theory decade after decade.


The REAL TRUTH is.... we don't know what the "carrying capacity" for Earth is, because we keep coming up with new technologies that increase it. Better agriculture, better mining, etc.

We also don't know when "peak oil" is happening... it's been predicted every year for the past 40, and each time the prediction has been false. And... as new energy alternatives come about, the whole concept of "peak oil" will become meaningless in 50 years.

[TheKentuckian]

112. Again, what about the trillions of other pieces of creation that aren't human?

Is there no future cost of driving so much so quickly into extinction?

We have a responsibility to be stewards not to squeeze the life from every inch on or below the surface of the world for short term pleasure or wealth.

[scheming daemons]

115. Species are constantly becoming extinct... and new ones coming about....

...and it has been that way for Earth's existence.

There is nothing new and special about the current rate of extinctions.... paleontology shows that this has been going on for millenia.


The ecosystem is constantly churning out new species as other go extinct. It's the miracle of life.

[RedCloud]

97. War! Good God you all! What is it good for? Population control!

And profits for the liars behind the reasons for which we are at war.

[Bragi]

103. As a boomer, I do apologize for the catastrophe that looms

I'd like to apologize to all for that whole planetary environmental collapse thing that my generation has been unwilling to address.

Turns out that our human biological inability to take action now to avoid bad consequences later is a really, really serious weakness. Coupled with economic systems and democratic (sic) political institutions that are similarly impervious to change and/or long-term thinking, the end result is that we pretty well have run out of time to stop the worst effects of climate change.

Personally, I'm glad I won't be around in 30 years time, but I do feel quite sorry for people who are now age 30 (or thereabouts) and under who are going to suffer the famines, migrations, wars, upheavals, etc. that will result from climate change.

As for bringing children into this world, I have a fabulous daughter in her 30s has chosen to remain childless because she doesn't want to be responsible for adding to the human misery that awaits humanity. I am saddened by this, but I support her decision, and I'm proud of her for being a responsible person.

- B

[callous taoboy]

106. Tell me about it-

I look out at my sea of bright shining third graders' faces and just feel sad.

[Bragi]

107. I feel your pain...

I guess the pedagogical question is: at what age should children be told the truth about how things are going to change for the worse as they grow older?

[callous taoboy]

110. Back when I first started teaching

When it seemed like we did not have the many harsh problems that we do now I felt like I could at least point out some examples of people, even other kids, who were working on problems and doing good works. Now the problems are so many and varied, I don't know where to begin. We were doing recycling at our school for a few years but we've stopped because it was too much hassal. Like I said, I look out at them and wonder what kind of lives they'll be leading at my age.