Over population, over consumption - in pictures

[hearthstone]

In most of our considerations the need of all other species to have enough space to live in is missing; and yet--in an inter-dependent system any elements that are not in balance with their environment affect others directly, or indirectly ...
Hearthstone.

[arthunter]

This was on the internet this morning ... it seems to make sense ....

[hearthstone]

What seems to make sense?
(Life too short, videos too long ...)

This was on the internet this morning ... it seems to make sense ....

[Shandi]

I didn't watch the whole video, but what makes sense to me is that when people all over the world are having fewer children that will have an effect on the population. Other things that have an effect are the environmental disasters happening all over the world, taking so many lives at once. And of course, wars, along with diseases.

What seems to make sense?

[Shandi]

This is a long video, but then so is your proposal for Model Earth, etc.
You want people to take the time to read it all, but I wonder how many
people actually do. We are much more oriented to video, and that seems
to actually be the best way to sell a product or an idea/concept these days.

What seems to make sense?...

[hearthstone]

This is a long video,
but then so is your proposal for Model Earth, etc.
You want people to take the time to read it all, but I wonder how many
people actually do. We are much more oriented to video, and that seems
to actually be the best way to sell a product or an idea/concept these
days.

Shandi--the reason that there is no lasting peace in the world is that we all want peace, but everybody's definition of "peace" is different from all the other ones. That's why we end up fighting again.
What needs to happen is for all those who want to see peace in the world to sit down (as if) and start hammering out a vision of peace that would satisfy all those who want peace, and then all the others also.
Once there is an idea of what peace should look like, one that everybody is happy with, only then there is for peace to have a chance to manifest in real life. Not before.

[Shandi]

I don't see it that way. How many ways can peace be defined? The most basic definition is "lack of conflict or quiet/calm". We can be peaceful even if we're beating a drum. I don't think that everyone wants peace. I think that most people want things "their" way, and many will do whatever is necessary to achieve that. This includes slavery, murder, theft, and all other forms of harm.

Being human brings different perceptions. We see things not only through our eyes, but our experience of joy and pain. Our view of peace might be simply shelter from harsh elements, or the lack of war destroying our homes and families. Or freedom of choice.

If it's true that everyone has a different definition, it seems unlikely that even a small group could come to one perception of peace. And if they were actually able to, then they would have to enlist others in this perception, billions of others.

If the entire population came to an agreement about what peace looks like, then what? No more conflict? No more disagreement? I'm sorry, but I can't imagine this.

Shandi--the reason that there is no lasting peace in the world is that we all want peace, but everybody's definition of "peace" is different from all the other ones. That's why we end up fighting again.
What needs to happen...

[hearthstone]

Business as usual--we'll continue resolving our differences in real life, causing real waste of time, resources, and life to happen.
If we started resolving our differences according to the concept of designing the future of the Earth cooperatively, all those differences (or most of them) would be resolved without waste of time, resources, and lives, because those would be resolved in models, in roundtable discussions--any expedient way imaginable. Our choice.

I don't see it that way. ...

[podfish]

If we started resolving our differences according to ....

Shandi's right in her critique; you're also right but that's a big "if" in your statement. You're ignoring that many people seek conflict, or, to use a less evocative word, stimulation. "Peace" is not something that's accepted as the highest goal by most of us. It's nice but only in its place. Like "safety". Those who put a high value on either find those who don't kind of inexplicable, and tend to act like it's something that is a sign of individual or cultural immaturity. But that just shows how little empathy there is, in the real sense of that word.

[hearthstone]

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead - US anthropologist & popularizer of anthropology (1901 - 1978)

At the start it would be enough, if only a small group would merely start the cooperative effort of depicting what the ideal state of lasting world peace should be; then, even those people who , till then, thought peace to be only a fantasy, seeing that they could actually take a part in designing their own existence that, normally, is decided by non-caring politicians, would take a notice, because the depiction of what the ideal state of affairs on Earth ought to be would be debatable and amendable by everyone and anyone who has a stake in a satisfactory future.
With such a cooperatively designed vision it would be possible to avoid costly waste of resolving our differences in real live, because those would be harmlessly resolved in the process of designing the vision, towards which all our efforts could be directed now effectively.

... You're ignoring that many people seek conflict, or, to use a less evocative word, stimulation. "Peace" is not something that's accepted as the highest goal by most of us...

[Shandi]

If as you say, everyone wants peace, I can't imagine why a small group hasn't already started "the cooperative effort of depicting what the ideal state of lasting world peace should be". Have you gathered a small group for this purpose? If not, why not? Your model has been around many years. What's the missing piece in all of this? What does your heart say? Are you experiencing a state of lasting peace in your life, with one person? I think your vision is a noble concept, and would require a working prototype to be of interest in real time. Anytime someone has a concept for a product or an activity, they usually are required to have a working model to be taken seriously.

At the start it would be enough, if only a small group would merely start the cooperative effort...

[Valley Oak]

Rosanne,

Again, please do your research.

Please properly investigate the sources you cite. The organization that produced this video, the Population Research Institute (PRI), is an ultra-conservative religious group that is AGAINST ABORTION and AGAINST CONTRACEPTION, among other extreme right-wing issues that it promotes. The PRI disseminates MISINFORMATION and is contrary to scientific evidence. It is a deceptive organization that portrays false propaganda as facts.

The PRI was founded by Paul Marx (1920 – 2010) who was a Catholic priest and Benedictine monk, pro-life author and founder of Human Life Center (1971), Human Life International (1981) and Population Research Institute (1989). Marx frequently traveled and maintained correspondence with pro-life leaders around the globe. Marx was entirely consumed in the pro-life mission. Marx asserted that "We can beat abortion!".

The assertion that overpopulation is a myth is another hallmark of the extreme right-wing. The "logic" is based on the idea best represented by the old, tired adage, "Be fruitful and multiply." Furthermore, these propaganda efforts are motivated by the wrong-headed ideas that "abortion is bad" and "contraception is bad." Therefore, according to this kind of thinking, unending population growth MUST be a good thing and needs to be promoted and that one way of their accomplishing that is to attack any ideas or facts regarding overpopulation.

There is a great deal more information out there about PRI and its founder, its current handlers, and the whole movement to deny overpopulation facts.

Another important aspect of this debate is that the greater the population, the greater the environmental impact on the earth and our carbon footprint on it. BUT, all of this ties in PERFECTLY with Climate Change denial! Are you seeing the ideological pattern here now???

You see, if Climate Change is strictly and purely natural and is NOT impacted significantly, or at all, by humans, then this ridiculous and colossal lie supports the idea that overpopulation is a myth and vice versa.

This was on the internet this morning ... it seems to make sense ....

[Shandi]

I meant to respond to this statement before. The statement "The reason that there is no lasting peace in the world is that we all want peace, but everybody's definition of "peace" is different from all the other ones. That's why we end up fighting again." This doesn't make any sense to me. That we would end up fighting because our definitions of peace are different. I don't see that as a true reason for conflict or war.

When you've had conflicts, have they been because you and others had a different definition of peace? I know mine have never been about this. Most conflicts I've ever experienced were when another person wanted to "control" or "dominate" me, or others. I have always stood up to this by speaking out. Two different non profit groups I belonged to in the past, actually held secret meetings called by a controlling president, to oust and silence me. I considered this a form of "violent communication". I realized very soon afterwards, that I didn't belong in either of those groups, though I had contributed many years of service to both.

Shandi--the reason that there is no lasting peace in the world is that we all want peace, but everybody's definition of "peace" is different from all the other ones...

[hearthstone]

If as you say, everyone wants peace, I can't imagine why a small group hasn't already started "the cooperative effort of depicting what the ideal state of lasting world peace should be". Have you gathered a small group for this purpose? If not, why not? ...

For whatever reason, there has not been, so far, any interest in forming a group that would be dedicated to designing the future of the world cooperatively. I can only guess that this is due to the fact that the concept is too new to be accepted yet.

To experience a state of lasting peace oneself, with few others is pointless, unless all others, with no exception, are invited to actively participate in such a peace. I might be at peace with myself (or with someone else), but unless I share all resources I have with all others, then experiencing a state of lasting peace is an illusion, a useless exercise.

A working model would be, if only a small at first, a group that would start working on the concept with an open invitation to all others.

[Hotspring 44]

RE:

Art- I agree with your point, and I don't know enough about the "Agenda 21" thing to really judge, but I tend to think it's a far-fetched accusation of UN intent, in this case, and that Beck has the agenda of wanting to head people away from favoring social action and instead sticking up for the rights of corporations to run things.

Hi all, I came into this late and I am busy this week so I won't be giving much input but thought I would chime-in here and say that I heard a lot of negative press regarding Agenda 21 that I think is basically how phredo describes it here.


If you feel like reading through a 351 page pdf or are just interested in it to study in parts or sections etc to have a better understanding than you may have now, here is a link to the Agenda 21 pdf:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.or...s/Agenda21.pdf

[hearthstone]

Shandi, would you care to tell what your idea of an ideal world would look according to you?
Mine is presented at www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html , but I would try to make it more concise, if you'd think that would be helpful ...

If as you say, everyone wants peace, I can't imagine why a small group hasn't...

[Sara S]

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. -Christopher Hitchens, author and journalist (13 Apr 1949-2011)

Rosanne, Again, please do your research. Please properly investigate the sources you cite. The organization that produced this video, the Population Research Institute (PRI)...

[arthunter]

look at the facts, Edward ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De5hxVQF0Ms


www.youtube.com/watch?v=94UbNrFoxcw


and here, if that isn't enough, then here are over 7000 more videos trying to expose the "overpopulation myth" .... something to think about? or are they all just compromised in some way and trying to bring the world to catastrophe? ...

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=overpopulation+myth


Could it not be that those in power are trying to control us with fear? ... is that not a possibility? ... please look at our current national state of affairs ... you know, the police state, the Patriot Act, the surveillance state, etc. etc. etc. ... more and more controls and civil rights bashing legislation to keep us safe? ... what's wrong with this picture?

Here's a good one ... here's the description ...

Dr. Steven W. Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute, has appeared numerous times before Congress as an expert in world population, China, and human rights abuses. He has also made TV appearances on Good Morning America, 60 Minutes, The Today Show, 20/20, FOX and CNN news, as well as being a regular guest on talk radio shows across the nation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWUg0kbdTGk

Please properly investigate the sources you cite. The organization that produced this video, the Population Research Institute (PRI), is an ultra-conservative religious group that is AGAINST ABORTION and AGAINST CONTRACEPTION, among other extreme right-wing issues that it promotes. ...

[Shandi]

I don't actually have a vision of what an ideal world would look like. I can only relate to my simple ideals for relationships. I have 5 fundamental concepts that I developed for community living, but would serve any relationship. There could be more, but these are basic for me:

1.(non-violent)Communication 2. Cooperation 3. Consideration 4. Contribution and 5. Compassion.

These are the cornerstones for a peaceful co-existence that I continue to hope for, especially in community living. I don't have an expectation that any state of being is ongoing and "lasting", but this is a guide to bring us back into balance, when ego gets in the way. I have yet to experience it, but won't give up until my journey ends. I realize that the most I can do is be an example.

I believe that any relationship that demonstrates these qualities serves as an inspiration for others. I see all positive actions in this way, and believe that it's never too soon to show kindness to any living being, which encompasses the entire planet. This isn't a new concept, as yours is, but still.....not everyone is jumping on board. So, this indicates that everyone doesn't want this kind of existence.

I have no control over others, nor do I want it. I do want control over my own actions, but it seems that there are forces rising up against that. Freedom to choose is seen as dangerous for others, as pointed out in the mandatory vaccine controversy and fluoridation movement. Hidden agendas are the norm, not transparency.

So, you can see that my ideal world is very small, and it begins with a world that I know on an intimate basis.....my world. This is the only place I have now, in this time and space reality, even if it's only an illusion.

Shandi, would you care to tell what your idea of an ideal world would look according to you?
Mine is presented at www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html , but I would try to make it more concise, if you'd think that would be helpful ...

[Valley Oak]

I have looked at the facts. It is you who is refusing to look at them. I provided the facts that you need in my post, which apparently you didn't bother to read very carefully.

Rosanne, simply posting Youtube videos is not evidence that supports your assertion that overpopulation is a myth. Those videos are bogus. You need to research the people and entities who produced that diatribe in the first place.

Think of this a little more carefully: Some bozo conspiracy theorist can produce a Youtube video. Then someone else comes along, sees the video on the Internet and then claims that this is the "truth." That is what you are doing with your posts to Wacco with all of these Youtube videos.

If a person asserts that the world is flat, or that some supreme being created the earth, etc, all that person has to do, according to the way you have been doing things on this list, is to simply find a Youtube video that agrees with your assertions, no matter how absurd and unsubstantiated the claims are. So, the "proof" is not in any credible evidence but in anonymous Youtube videos that any crackpot can produce.

I'm sorry, Rosanne, but that is not worthy evidence of any kind other than demonstrating that there are many gullible people in this world.

look at the facts, Edward ...

[podfish]

Did I not provide enough proof?

I read the comment as saying you needn't have bothered...

[Valley Oak]

Here is a little bit of information from what I have glossed over from credible Internet sources:

"Most contemporary estimates for the carrying capacity of the Earth under existing conditions are between 4 billion and 16 billion. Depending on which estimate is used, human overpopulation may or may not have already occurred."

I could continue with more information (because there is an ocean of data from credible sources) but I want to use this quote as a starting point for having a quality discussion on human overpopulation.

My observations are that:

1. We might have already exceeded the Earth's carrying capacity for the human population because of various estimates ranging from between 4 billion to 16 billion. As of April 12, 2015 the world's human population is estimated to be 7.237 billion by the United States Census Bureau,^[6] and over 7 billion by the United Nations.^[7][8][9]

2. We might NOT have exceeded the Earth's carrying capacity for humans if we go by the 16 billion estimate.

So, there is no consensus on what number of people constitutes overpopulation. It depends on who you ask. Therein lies part of the controversy. This is a vital observation to make but it is not the only one when discussing human overpopulation. The range of what constitutes overpopulation of the Earth by humans is ridiculously huge. The top estimate of 16 billion people is FOUR TIMES that of the bottom estimate of 4 billion.

Unfortunately, because the range from different sources is so vast, it is difficult to have a very constructive discussion about human overpopulation or at least what that number is. Therefore, the discussion must turn to other issues such as environmental impact, which is an indicator of overpopulation, not only for humans but also for any species.

Here are some sources I consulted:

Human Overpopulation

Inter Academy Partnership

United Nations

In my opinion, and I feel substantiated by many credible sources, only 4 of which I have provided, we do need to begin now to control the world's population. Among other important reasons is the tremendous pressure that we are exerting on the Earth's resources and ecosystem. Resources are one thing and the ecosystem is another, even though they are both obviously interconnected. Global Warming/Climate Change is one of the consequences of overpopulation and also the destructive and inefficient way in which we glean our resources from the Earth.

Furthermore, even though we may have not already reached the magic number of overpopulation, we will eventually get there when we are 16 billion people. What are we going to do then? The time to do something about this is yesterday.

If we continue to argue, as Climate Change denialists do, that we are just fine and there is nothing to worry about, when the time comes that there is a mass extinction of humans, then it will be too late. By that time, the Earth's ability to regenerate food, oxygen, and our environment, will be too dilapidated to recover and our quality of life will be horrifying. And in a scenario like that, if there is another Ebola or Black Plague that rears its ugly head, it will be practically impossible to keep it from ravishing hundreds of millions of people, or even billions. Then that will certainly be one of nature's ways of putting balance back into its system.

Using precisely the anecdote of a virus, we humans are behaving much the same way. The Earth will heal itself from us, either by greatly reducing our number or eliminating us altogether. But it will be our fault because we are bringing it on ourselves. We incessantly abuse and destroy and outstrip the environment. By doing this, we are destroying our very own habitat, our home, and poisoning the air, water, soil, and food that we need in order to live.

[carpet crawler]

No group? You mean something like this?
https://www.dwfed.org/
or perhaps
https://www.wfm-igp.org/

For whatever reason, there has not been, so far, any interest in forming a group that would be dedicated to designing the future of the world cooperatively...

[Hotspring 44]

I don't remember the sources so sorry about that, however, what you are saying fits into the info I was aware of about 3 or so years ago... ...whereas it went something like (highly paraphrased and extremely shortened and minimized of course):

@ 9 Billion humans on planet if done mostly “right” (leaves room for some mistakes every now and then) is sustainable within reason.

@ 14 Billion humans on planet even if done 'perfectly' with even the smallest mistakes is likely lead to a critical environmental degradation scenario that could easily go to the point of beyond the threshold of the ability for the ecosystem to continue to support human existence and cascade into a complete collapse as far as human species survivability is concerned even if humans do it as “right” as possible; (not likely, IMHO, would people be able to get along with each other well enough to pull that one off in the first place).


I don't think the 16 Billion figure is anywhere near realistic to even consider at this juncture.

Those scenarios most likely did not take into account the oceans rising due to 'climate change'.

So I think that 11 - 12 Billion humans on planet is closer to the threshold of utter collapse of planetary ecosystem's ability to support 'survivability' for humans than 16 Billion is.

Here is a little bit of information from what I have glossed over from credible Internet sources:

"Most contemporary estimates for the carrying capacity of the Earth under existing conditions are between 4 billion and 16 billion. Depending on which estimate is used, human overpopulation may or may not have already occurred."

[arthunter]

The current world population would fit in the country of Australia, with each person having a quarter of an acre of land, with land left over … ( fact – do the math ) … if this doesn't soothe your over population fears then please do a search using the words “global population decline“, …. because, yes, birth rates are declining ..... ( more verifiable facts ) ....… and, because of this, world population numbers are expected to decline as well …

I posted this information earlier in this thread and even talked about the financial implications of this reality, as cited by Forbes magazine, who is very concerned about all of this and it's impact on our economy, but it's been completely ignored …

I sincerely believe that the current hysteria is to promote Agenda 21, which has now been banned in nine states to protect property rights … ( link upon request ) … this is where our attention should be focused ...

[Hotspring 44]

RE:

The current world population would fit in the country of Australia, with each person having a quarter of an acre of land, with land left over … ( fact – do the math ) … if this doesn't soothe your over population fears then please do a search using the words “global population decline“, …. because, yes, birth rates are declining ..... ( more verifiable facts ) ....… and, because of this, world population numbers are expected to decline as well …

That is a grossly inaccurate inference and is only based on a narrow mathematical formula and doesn't address survivability or even 'sustainability'.

Also Australia is a huge land mass.

We would be hard-pressed to sustainably maintain a population density as described in that statement even in fertile good ole climate of Sonoma County never mind the Australian Outback.

And for that matter, allot more people than that would 'fit' into the Pacific Ocean too but human sustainable Survivability is the primary issue behind my statements.
Do you have any idea what the climate in the vastness of out-back of Australia is like?...

...Not enough water in 1/4 acre within the vast majority of that could support even the bare minimum of humans consumption needs for one person.

Odds of survivability on a nice hot Australian December summer in the middle of the hottest desert is equal to the Odds of survivability in the middle of the pacific ocean, IMHO.

• Great Victoria Desert, 424,400 square kilometres
• Great Sandy Desert, 284,993 square kilometres
• Tanami Desert, 184,500 square kilometres
• Simpson Desert, 176,500 square kilometres
• Gibson Desert, 156,000 square kilometres
• Little Sandy Desert, 111,500 square kilometres
• Strezlecki Desert, 20,250 square kilometres
• Sturt Stony Desert, 29,750 square kilometres
• Tirari Desert, 15,250 square kilometres
• Pedirka Desert, 1250 square kilometres

[arthunter]

No one is suggesting that we all move to Australia ... this example is only meant to illustrate a ratio between population and land mass required to live ... it could be any land anywhere of the same size ...

... and I truly believe that the sustainability issue should focus on the corporations of the world and their greedy parasitic owners who are gobbling up the world's resources at record rates while we count our pennies, make attempts to simplify our lives, and try to exist on a dying corrupt planet ... let's get our priorities straight ...

RE:"That is a grossly inaccurate inference and is only based on a narrow mathematical formula and doesn't address survivability or even 'sustainability."
Also Australia is a huge land mass...

[Shandi]

Thank you for this information! This will make it much easier for Hearthstone to connect with a "working model". Since their goals of world peace are the same, it seems he would happily join a group like this, and contribute his piece (peace). Ahh...I feel more peaceful just knowing that there is a group, in Northern CA, and one that has been officially recognized.

No group? You mean something like this?
https://www.dwfed.org/
or perhaps
https://www.wfm-igp.org/

[Hotspring 44]

I am not agreeing with the part of the statement that says, “dying corrupt planet”.

I think the planet is, 1- not “corrupt” 2- nor is it “dying”... ...So I am left with the other posit in your last post to address more articulately which is for the most part: “sustainability”.

It would be preferable when giving an example like population density within a specific area like Australia or, wherever, or, whatever, that the example would be representative based on the posit, in this case: “sustainability” whereas it should be physically possible in theory at least anyway, otherwise it is counterproductive at best if the posit is an actual reasonable goal.

Furthermore, the premise of the 'goal' should be based on known limitations, some which are obvious and others we have yet to learn, otherwise it can't and won't exist in actual 'reality'.

Also BTW, FWIW, The planet has had at least 5 major “die-offs” (More than 90 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct.) and the planet has not “died”.

It is counterproductive, IMHO, for 'well intended people” to go out with their slogans that say: “save the planet” when they/we would be more likely to get a better response if those 'slogans/signs said something more like: “save yourselves!”, or “save our neighborhood”, or “save our drinking water”, or “save humanity” etc.

The planet will survive, it is us and that which sustains us that may be at peril , not the planet.

As long as the pennies (money as we know it as) is the primary rule, the owners and controllers of the money will make the rules and because of that, IMHO, we are at this point either surfs, slaves, or victims within that system...

..IE: Everyone and everything that does not 'serve' the top rule makers are and is 'expendable' in that form of economic framework.

I have a lot more to say on that form of economic framework system thing but I will leave that to another time and thread because it would be too divergent in this thread.

No one is suggesting that we all move to Australia ...

[arthunter]

Thank you for your opinion ....

I am not agreeing with the part of the statement that says, “dying corrupt planet”.

I think the planet is, 1- not “corrupt” 2- nor is it “dying”... ...So I am left with the other posit in your last post to address more articulately which is for the most part: “sustainability”.

It would be preferable when giving an example like population density within a specific area like Australia or, wherever, or, whatever, that the example would be representative based on the posit, in this case: “sustainability” whereas it should be physically possible in theory at least anyway, otherwise it is counterproductive at best if the posit is an actual reasonable goal.

Furthermore, the premise of the 'goal' should be based on known limitations, some which are obvious and others we have yet to learn, otherwise it can't and won't exist in actual 'reality'.

Also BTW, FWIW, The planet has had at least 5 major “die-offs” (More than 90 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct.) and the planet has not “died”.

It is counterproductive, IMHO, for 'well intended people” to go out with their slogans that say: “save the planet” when they/we would be more likely to get a better response if those 'slogans/signs said something more like: “save yourselves!”, or “save our neighborhood”, or “save our drinking water”, or “save humanity” etc.

The planet will survive, it is us and that which sustains us that may be at peril , not the planet.

As long as the pennies (money as we know it as) is the primary rule, the owners and controllers of the money will make the rules and because of that, IMHO, we are at this point either surfs, slaves, or victims within that system...

..IE: Everyone and everything that does not 'serve' the top rule makers are and is 'expendable' in that form of economic framework.

I have a lot more to say on that form of economic framework system thing but I will leave that to another time and thread because it would be too divergent in this thread.