Printable View
https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...on-in-pictures
From EANTH-L online archives - https://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?...me%40gmail.com
SURVEY: What should be the sustainable level of human population on Earth? On what grounds would you justify your answer?
Thanks, Hearthstone.
Thanks for asking the question. That Guardian article says it all. In trying to find what an "ideal" population should be, we could look at a descending continuum starting with a number where there are so many humans that we cause extinction of humans, to a number where life for humans is extremely unpleasant, to a number where life is somewhat unpleasant because of crowding and environmental degradation, to a number where everyone has the opportunity to be comfortable and the environment is largely intact, to a number where there are too few humans to maintain culture, science and beneficial technological advancement. Looked at this, admittedly simplistic, way, the next to last place is obviously the best number.
The problems come because there are some other factors and some overlap in the scenarios above. For example, there is the time lag factor where we may think the number now is in the category "life is somewhat unpleasant because of crowding and environmental degradation", but may be actually enough to cause human extinction, since it takes some time for effect to follow cause. A second example is that many people would say that having even more people than present would improve "culture, science and beneficial technological advancement".
My own ball park figure, since you asked the specific question, would be around 1-2 billion people, many fewer than the 7 billion now. Although you didn't ask how an ideal population could be achieved, even theoretically, I saw the math somewhere once that showed the results of everyone on earth having only one child, and it didn't take very long for population to drop dramatically. But it's all pie in the sky, because nobody wants to do it, neither right nor left, and the future for the short term resembles the old National Lampoon magazine's "weather forecast" on the cover: "Climate: Acceptable; Outlook: Grim"; and it goes downhill from there.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:
We have to be careful with all of this talk of population control ... sure we all want to save the planet and plan for an acceptable future for our children and grand children, but is population the problem? ... I saw a meme recently that stated that the entire world's population would fit in New Zealand ... this fascinated me so I did a bit of research and it seems that this is true ... so space is not the problem ...
https://www.danlikesthis.info/2013/09/world-population/
so are resources and waste the problem? ... sure, but we are certainly gaining on all of that ... is it population causing such misery in the world or is it the greed of the people at the top? ... are we destroying the planet or are corporations destroying the planet? ... if there was a reasonable, equitable distribution of resources would there still be poor?
Also, we have to really look into the supposed solutions to these problems ... this is worth watching ...
https://standupforthetruth.com/2012/...f-the-elderly/
The issue of world overpopulation is not a matter of enough resources, it is a matter of environmental sustainability, which we have surpassed. Yes, we could organize enough food but the planet earth is now overburdened and the carbon footprint is too great.
I know you do not believe in manmade global warming. I know that you are a Climate Change denialist. But almost 100% of scientists disagree with you and having a discussion about with you is frustrating (or perhaps a waste of time) because you like totally unrealistic conspiracy theories and refuse to listen to the facts.
The scientific information is out there and it is abundant and irrefutable that manmade Climate Change is an incontrovertible fact.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Edward,
I am not a scientist nor do I like "totally unrealistic conspiracy theories" ... I do tons of research and when I see 31,487 American scientists actually putting their names on a petition which denies man-made global warming then I take notice ... here have a look for yourself ... what do you make of this?
https://www.petitionproject.org/
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
I will add that I do believe in population awareness which stresses the quality of life for all creatures on this planet, I do believe in solar power, wind power and all other clean energy sources ... there are many problems connected to our use of oil, coal and nuclear power and we need to move beyond these things ... and "we the people" are already making these changes when we can ... the idea that this progress can only occur with government intervention is a whole new discussion ... but right now most Americans are deeply suspicious of their government so any mandates might actually hinder progress ....
You bring up some good points, but did you look at that Guardian photo-essay? Although much of our environmental problems are caused by capitalism and its ilk, it seems apparent to me that there are just to many people. You say everyone could fit into New Zealand, but consider the huge, unsustainable almost by definition, cities now everywhere in the world, from Asia to Latin America to Africa and including our own North American cities. I don't know how old you are, but I'm 72, and I've seen what seems to me to be a great degradation in the quality of life all over the US because of crowding. I've only lived in Sonoma county several decades, but if you were to ask someone born here 60 years ago how the ambiance is now compared to when she was a kid, what do you think the likely answer would be? How do you feel about it?
You say we are "gaining" on the problems of resources and waste. Could you provide some evidence? I think we're likely to face great food scarcity soon. Several hundred thousand people are added to the world's population each day, and twice as many acres, at least, of farmland must be added to feed them, plus water, fertilizer, and food transportation. Where is it to come from? So much land is now dedicated to feeding humans that non-human life is decreasing rapidly in what many scientists refer to as a massive die-off. How will this be solved by changing the ownership or organization of resources? Granted, it would be better if land were farmed in small subsistence plots rather than agribusiness, but would that be enough?
You know that many species have become extinct in recent years. Is that only the result of "greed of the people at the top", Chinese rhino horn hunters and land developers, or is it the inevitable consequence of exploding populations needing food and land?
I've got more to say and you probably do, too, but that's enough from me for now! If you could say what the main points of the links you gave are, it would save me some time, although I'll try to look at them.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Phredo,
You bring up some interesting points ...
First of all, any beautiful location with a great climate is going to grow ... when I first came to Sonoma County, many many years ago, it was empty ... the towns were funky country towns without many frills and the living was cheap ... I almost opened a cafe because I couldn't find any espresso in Santa Rosa ... yes, I remember those days too ... I didn't enjoy watching the county change as more and more folks moved here and settled in, but I also realized that if you live in a post card setting, eventually people will find it (regardless of population numbers) ...
Before I answer your other questions, I'd like to point out that 1. The US birth rate hit an all time low in 2013 ... https://www.livescience.com/48995-us...-time-low.html
and 2. "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)."
https://tinyurl.com/mhexohu
This last Guardian article is really worth reading because it makes several good points ... we are actually in trouble because of our birth rate at the moment because the younger generation is barely supporting the retiring baby boom generation ... this is what happens when the birth rates go from very high, as in the baby boom generation of the 50s, to current levels ... it's actually a very big problem as our financial system is dependent on growth ...
Another point brought out in this article is that it is "consumption" not numbers which matters and I see people adopting lives of voluntary simplicity, self sustaining practices and extreme waste management ... this alone could change the planet ...
and then there's this couple ...
http://<a href="https://www.youtube....CmTJkZy0rM</a>
I think that most of the problems in our world are due to corporate greed and financial inequality .... we crowd into the cities for financial reasons .....
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by phredo:
I did get a chance to look at the links in your last post. The first was the article about New Zealand holding all the world's population, which I, for several reasons mostly having to do with resources and quality of life, really don't think shows that there is lots of room on earth for more people. We could talk more about that, if you like. The other link featured three videos, one, according to the accompanying verbiage, a fictitious U.N. commercial promoting killing the elderly. Since it was declared to be fictitious, I didn't bother to watch it. The third was described as "showing how Agenda 21 will undoubtedly affect the future of the body of Christ:" Since I'm not interested in "the body of Christ" and it sounded a bit outside the area of this discussion, I didn't watch it either. But I did watch the second video, 14 minutes of Glenn Beck explaining his view of UN "Agenda 21". The main idea I got from it was that he finds that many people involved with it are "socialists", which seems to be a dirty word for him. He also thinks that "sustainable development", if I correctly remember the phrase he repeated several times, is just a code word for "socialism", and he seems especially unhappy that "Agenda 21" would promote "sustainable development" (socialism) through local community action and that people like Van Jones would have something to do with it. I assume the reason you added the link was for this video (not for the fictitious ad or the "body of Christ" videos) and would appreciate it if you could explain just what Beck said that you found interesting and pertinent, because I was a bit mystified.
Moving on... I liked the Charles Eisenstein article. If it's true that half the world countries have birth rates below replacement level, I'm glad to hear it. He says, as you pointed out, that a declining population is incompatible with capitalism, a statement I agree with. Now I'm going to quote him at length, because he said some things I disagree with:
"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.
This means that overpopulation is a red herring. Of course, at some point, preferably soon, population growth must end, but overpopulation is a diversion from more fundamental issues. Lurking behind the spectre of population growth lies a more challenging problem: economic growth.
Population control doesn't rock the boat very much; it doesn't fundamentally alter the distribution of wealth and power today. Indeed, it plays into a colonialistic narrative that the fecund masses of the global south are to blame for the environmental crisis, and suggests that the solution is more development (with its population-limiting effects). In comparison, it is far more disruptive to the present world order to challenge economic growth, globalisation, and development."
He says that the issue of overpopulation is a red herring in that it really doesn't rock the boat very much. But he earlier said that population decline is incompatible with capitalism, which to me sounds like a rather serious rocking of the boat. Naomi Klein recently wrote a book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate, on a similar subject, but climate rather than overpopulation, asserting that averting climate disaster is incompatible with captitalism, and she said that was good news, because it means that working to stop climate change will necessarily mean working to subvert capitalism. In other words, it's good news that, by extension to our topic, working to decrease population automatically implies disrupting capitalism. And I think, if there's a "red herring" here, it's Eisenstein's statement, above, that "...it plays into a colonialistic narrative that the fecund masses of the global south are to blame for the environmental crisis, and suggests that the solution is more development (with its population-limiting effects)." Maybe in his mind it plays into that narrative. Not in mine. Although I think that "one child for one couple" would be equitable if everyone in the world were to follow it, but if there was some way that the high-consuming global North could have fewer babies than the "fecund masses of the global south", that would of course be better in many ways for world environmental problems. But "one child for one couple" would probably do the job nicely without having to make refinements. (As I said in my first post, it's really all pie in the sky, because there's no interest or will. I'm just talking about ideal solutions, unfortunately.)
Eisenstein further states that even bringing down the population to 2 billion would not solve environmental problems if those 2 billion were consuming like North Americans, and I agree completely. I liked your link to the video about subsistence farming in an urban Pasadena and I agree it's the way to go, although I would guess that their chicken, goat, and rabbit feed comes from outside sources. I heard Jon Jeavons, author of "How To Grow More Vegetables....", the "double digging, raised beds" guy, say once that the only hope for the world is for each person to grow her own food, using hand tools and no fertilizer inputs, something he says can be done on 3000 square feet, half the size of a typical urban lot. It may be true. Do you think that would be easier to visualize with 9.5 billion people on earth or 2 billion? And if there were only 2 billion of us, maybe we could environmentally also throw in a few tractors or at least some oxen!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Phredo,
You are right ... it was the Glenn Beck video that I was attracted to. Let's look at the definition of "socialism" ... "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies" .... would Agenda 21 fall into this category? ... well, are we the people being asked to vote on it? ... do we get a say in our own future? ... are we even aware of the implications?
And what justifies Agenda 21? ... would that be global warming and over-population perhaps? So are we to believe that our world is so out of control that only our government can fix it ....without our knowledge or consent?
And speaking of our government, how are we feeling about it lately? ... are we enjoying freedom of the press, and other constitutional rights? ( see the excellent Chris Hedges speech that I posted ) ... seriously, I'm afraid of my government at the moment simply because I'm sharing information and speaking my mind ...
You see it's all connected ...
and there are other concerns regarding population control ... it's absolutely fine if we're just restricting births but many, many world citizens are worried about eugenics ... they're looking at constant news stories about chemtrails, dangerous vaccines, ebola, fukushima, police states, military drills, fema camps, laws prohibiting the collection of rainwater, GMOs, smart meters, EMF, laws prohibiting the feeding of the poor ... etc. etc. and they're getting worried about possible covert agendas of population control ....
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by phredo:
We're getting a little afield from the topic of the thread, "SURVEY: What should be the sustainable level of human population on Earth? On what grounds would you justify your answer?", but I'll go along. I think that definition of socialism is restrictive. Looking at Wikipedia, I find,"Socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system."And when I clicked the link to "social ownership", I got,
"In socialist economics, socialization is the process of structuring or restructuring an economy on a socialist basis, usually by establishing a system of production for use in place of the profit system, along with the end of the operation of the laws of capitalism. In its most developed form, the concept of socialization entails the end of money and financial valuation in the production process.
More broadly, socialization is social ownership, encompassing all the various models of resource and enterprise ownership proposed for socialist economies. Usually it refers to various types of employee-ownership, cooperatives or public ownership; but in some instances it refers to a form distinct from employee-owned cooperatives, public ownership and private ownership. Economists such as John Roemer and Pat Devine have advocated for socially owned enterprises as a major component for hypothetical socialist economies, defining social ownership as ownership of an enterprise by those affected by the use of the assets involved. In contrast, Alec Nove defines social ownership as a form of autonomous public ownership. Social ownership is usually contrasted with state ownership, and was used in this way to refer to the model of cooperative enterprise established in Yugoslavia."
Sorry the quote's so long, but the point I want to make is that "control by the government" is not a part of the above, and I think calling socialism such inserts an unnecessary bias, since many people are understandably suspicious of anything controlled by "the government", especially our government in these times. I am too. I think Beck is making a big stretch when he points to people who have influence in "Agenda 21" as being part of a organization promoting socialism to saying a UN agency which is recommending communities to try to achieve more popular control over problems facing them is part of an overall UN power grab. Now I admit I know very little about "Agenda 21" besides little snippets of web arguments and you seem to have a lot of interest in it and therefore probably know a lot about it, so perhaps you could explain just where UN control enters into the equation.
Going back to the subject of world population, I don't know of any way to bring about a lower population in any easy or global way. The topic of the thread isn't about that. I would just like to see it a lot lower, and pointed out that if each couple had only one child population would drop quickly. The Chinese made it a country-wide law, and that seemed to work fairly well although it seems that there was a big problem of individual parents aborting female fetuses so they could "try again" for a male child. Other countries, Iran until recently, for example, took a less draconian approach, spending resources on propaganda and birth control.
Have you ever read any Daniel Quinn (Ishmael, The Story of B)? He had an interesting idea that he said immediately lost him all the "leftists", who otherwise tended to like his books. He pointed out that if one considers a large case of mice with, say, 100 mice in it: if you add more food than 100 mice need to maintain health, pretty soon you'll have a lot more mice. And if you decrease the amount of food, to, say, enough for 80 mice, before long that's the number of mice there will be in the cage. If you do it gradually, you won't starve any mice, they'll just start to have fewer baby mice. You don't need to give them little diaphragms or condoms, it just happens. This is true of any organism, bacteria or whatever. He suggests the same thing would happen with humans.
It sounds weird and very impersonal, but the idea has influenced my thinking about programs like "the Green Revolution" and other schemes, like GMO crops and large mechanized farm projects, all designed to "fill the needs of a hungry world." Of course, another way that people might find more acceptable is to encourage the education of women, which seems to work well also in places where women are not educated. It doesn't seem to work so well where they already are educated and continue to have large families, like among many religious groups here at home.
Finally, here's how Wikipedia defines "eugenics": "Eugenics is the belief and practice which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population. It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction and or sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics)." People may equate ideas to reduce world population with that, but it's not anything I would support and I don't know who does. If you do, please pass it on.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
I wondered if it's true that when food becomes scarce, people stop having babies, as mentioned here. It doesn't seem that way to me. Sex is a driving force, and conception can happen easily in many women. People are starving, here and in other nations, and still having babies, with no thought about how they will eat. Nature seems much smarter than human beings.
"Have you ever read any Daniel Quinn (Ishmael, The Story of B)? He had an interesting idea that he said immediately lost him all the "leftists", who otherwise tended to like his books. He pointed out that if one considers a large case of mice with, say, 100 mice in it: if you add more food than 100 mice need to maintain health, pretty soon you'll have a lot more mice. And if you decrease the amount of food, to, say, enough for 80 mice, before long that's the number of mice there will be in the cage. If you do it gradually, you won't starve any mice, they'll just start to have fewer baby mice. You don't need to give them little diaphragms or condoms, it just happens. This is true of any organism, bacteria or whatever. He suggests the same thing would happen with humans."
Phredo,
I'm sorry if I complicated the issue ...
I'm trying to reflect the fears that I'm hearing from others who are concerned about the over-regulation of our world ... call it what you like ... Glenn Beck calls it "socialism" but I'm certainly not going to engage in an argument about that term as that is distracting from the point which I'm trying to make ... some call it "fascism" or "state control" and there is very widespread concern about this ... whether we are discussing mandatory vaccinations, the TTP, the police state or any other heavy handed policy which results in a loss of our individual rights and power ...
So bringing the discussion back to climate change, over-population, and the resulting solution Agenda 21, the fear is that this is more of the same, namely solutions which we have absolutely no power to discuss, affect or change ... solutions which place the power completely out of our hands as citizens of this planet ...
There's nothing wrong with discussing these problems, in fact that's how it should be ... but part of that discussion should focus on the facts of the problem and that's what I've been trying to do ... so, if we the people decide that we do have a problem, shouldn't we be able to discuss the solutions instead of having them presented to us as a fait accompli? ... that's my only point here ...
Also, keep in mind that a lot of our recent legislation has followed a possible paradigm which has been labeled as "problem-reaction-solution". There's lots of information about this on the internet. An example of this is 911 and the strategy goes like this. The powers that be want to bomb Iraq, they create 911, people are outraged and support the initiative to bomb Iraq ... problem, reaction, solution ...
Mistrust in our government is at an all time high with 84% of the people claiming to disbelieve the official story of 911 ... that leads to a questioning of all data and all government mandated programs of "improvement" ... I'm simply reflecting this ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by phredo:
Shandi- I agree with your critique of what I said. I'm probably over-simplifying what Quinn wrote, and also I think Quinn's idea is over-simplified to begin with, but that it has a grain of truth. But let me phrase it a little better. He suggests that whatever conditions people are living in, they must, by definition, be getting "enough" food to eat or they wouldn't be living. (And I put "enough" in quotes because he's not considering what sort of condition they're living in, just that they are alive--those who don't starve but may be ill from malnutrition, and so forth.) Then he says that like any group of organisms, if they are provided with more food than what they are presently consuming, the inevitable result will be more people. So if you wish to not be responsible for increasing population, it is a mistake to provide more food. Of course, the best effort might be to not provide more food (from the viewpoint of not creating more population) and at the same time help the people with the education, medicine, and whatever so that they might maintain their population in a comfortable fashion. Since he believes that population increase is a ticking time bomb with the likely result being a huge die-off in the not too distant future, he sees the basic idea of not increasing the world's food supply as essential to human survival. Looking at the issue from the "problem-reaction-solution" paradigm that Art mentioned in his last post, it's easy to imagine a great deal of programs like food relief, "helping" poorer countries to grow more food by highly technical and capital dependent schemes, huge dams, and the like, as a way for rich scoundrels to exploit a perceived problem, make a lot of money for themselves, and incidentally feed enough poor people to the extent that their populations increase without any change in their circumstances of life, thereby rationalizing another cycle of "trying to save" them. Anyway, as I said, I personally think there's enough truth in Quinn's picture of how things work to make me reluctant to get on board "feed the hungry" plans.
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. I don't follow them that much, but I've never heard anything from Beck or Fox News to make me think they have any agenda other than favoring the kleptocracy. I'm deeply suspicious of many things our governments, federal, state, and local do, but I think the principle of government acting to "support the common welfare" is a good and valid one. So we have to judge each case on its merits.
I admit I don't know how we can realize, short of natural disaster, a lower population in a democratic and popular way. A lot of "the ends justify the means" ideas seem to me to depend upon several things, how likely the outcome is if the means aren't taken, how likely the positive change will be if the means are taken, and how drastic the means are. If we knew for certain that we'd all be dead in 20 years if nothing was done, and knew for certain that things would be great if we'd get some sort of world government to outlaw having more than one child upon pain of severe penalties for the offenders, for me the choice would be easy in favor of doing it. But of course, we don't have any of those certainties or even have very good ways to calculate the probabilities. Everyone has their own opinion so probably nothing will be done, and if population catastrophists (where I tend to lodge) are correct, we'll have a big die-off some time before long, and the survivors will look around later and say it's a pity we didn't do something before turning the whole world into a big Easter Island with no trees or other vegetation, wildlife, or potable water. Hope I'm wrong.
brings to mind the book "Stand on Zanzibar".. same idea, but we've had to go to a bigger island. Good book, too. Prescient in a lot of ways.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by phredo:
This may be true of mice but not of rats, they start to eat their own babies, in this comparison by all appearances I would say humans have much more in common with the rats.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
I agree there are some inexactitudes in the comparison, but, just for the sake of argument, wouldn't there be some amount of food that would keep the rat population the same without any abnormal behavior occurring? Of course, having rats in a cage in the first place is stressful, so the experiment would really require creating a great rat environment with the only restriction being the amount of food available. Just sayin' ....Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Thad:
if you're hoping to get to a place where there's some support for the idea that people, given adequate resources and room, will stop competing destructively with each other, you won't find it in biology. Or anthropology. There aren't examples (well, maybe Bonobos, but they're still stuck in their summer-of-love phase) of nonviolent coexistance. We've moved past the nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw model of biology, but only because that was way too simplified.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by phredo:
Would you, please check out www.ModelEarth.Org and tell me what you think?
In it I am suggesting a peaceful way of resolving our differencies ...
Thanks, Hearthstone.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
I'm kind of hoping to get the thread back to the original question, which was to ask what people think an ideal population number for earth would be along with the implied question of how might that be achieved. My example of a way to do it from Daniel Quinn's novels was meant more as entertainment, because of its drastic,rather cold sound and it's probably oversimple approach. But, as I said, it's caused me to have a certain perspective on pleas that "we must provide more food to feed a starving world" because of the very real, I think, likelihood that "if you feed them, they will come." And, however we decide to treat the problem of hungry people in the world, it seems to me that we should try to avoid helping create more of them.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
And, also, I would rather not fixate too much on the hungry people in the southern hemisphere as if they were the main "population problem", because the worst problems of over-population, in my opinion, are the relatively wealthy consumers of the northern hemisphere, who use most of the world's food and resources and create the most pollution, at least on a per capita basis.
as Phredo points out, we're wandering off target. But since you ask - I think it's a worthy effort; I don't really I want to discourage those trying to move civilization in positive directions, especially when their plans are well thought out. I do often respond when I think I see wishful thinking or flawed logic. Unfortunately I don't think the rats had much to teach us. But to respond (sort of) to Phredo's real question - is our opinion of an ideal population anything more than an idle question? are we to draw conclusions depending on our answers to that?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:
Well, that's a thought, What if the rats weren't desperate? What desperation lies in taking more than you need?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by phredo:
It seems that if you take more than you need, that's just greed....or fear that you won't have enough.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Thad:
If we come to an ideal number to sustain our population, what might come next?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Feeding the hungry is something we can do, but what can we do about the wealthy consumers? Are they really the worst offenders of over-population? It seems that it's mostly the poor that have the most children. Is there a back up statistic on this?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by phredo:
There are many teachings/workshops/groups available on peaceful conflict resolution. So, the resources are there if people really want to learn.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:
It might be so that, roughly speaking, two children in a developed country might use as much as ten (or even more) in a third world one.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ical_footprint
Hearthstone.
But imagine conflict resolution done on global basis, not only among humans, but also involving humans and all other species! A conflict resolution that would primarily aim to prevent, pre-empt conflicts arising in the first place! ( www.ModelEarth.Org/peace.html ) Hearthstone.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
I don't get how conflict resolution can be done on a global basis, before it's done on a one to one basis. Preventing conflict, (difference between two or more ideas, wishes, etc.) seems impossible. People will not all want the same thing, at the same time, unless they were robots programmed that way. Much of the aggressive conflict in humans may be ego related, and some may be survival related, as in other species.
Model Earth seems much like Heaven.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:
You understand the problem: everyone wants something different, but we, collectively, have only one common ground for all of our wishes to manifest (the Earth), and only one collective future, that never ends up to look like any of the individual wishes for future of that whichever individual.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
The answer is to start (and never finish--this goes on forever) to create a vision (a model, a master plan, ...) of what our common existence should look like. This vision (or what would you call it) would become possible, I think, by the virtue of progressively improving enlightened selfishness.
It's like this: either we resolve our differences harmlessly by creating this common model of what our optimal co-existence should look like, or--we'll continue resolving our differences in real life, causing ourselves real damage (just follow the news!). No--we are not robots, and therefore we can evolve continually ...
ModelEarth is only a name for my version of the concept ....
Maybe, if you have a look at an article, "Grass Roots Government--by All for All" - www.modelearth.org/grassgov.html , it would explain the idea better?
Thanks, 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.
This was on the internet this morning ... it seems to make sense ....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT_CxJfFgh0
What seems to make sense?
(Life too short, videos too long ...)Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by 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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:
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.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
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.
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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by 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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
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.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:
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.Quote:
"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)
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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:
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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:
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.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
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.
RE:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by phredo:
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
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 ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. -Christopher Hitchens, author and journalist (13 Apr 1949-2011)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
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
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:
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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
I read the comment as saying you needn't have bothered...Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
Here is a little bit of information from what I have glossed over from credible Internet sources:
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.
"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."
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.
No group? You mean something like this?
https://www.dwfed.org/
or perhaps
https://www.wfm-igp.org/
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:
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.:thinking::nono:
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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
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 ...
RE:
That is a grossly inaccurate inference and is only based on a narrow mathematical formula and doesn't address survivability or even 'sustainability'.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
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.:skullX:
- 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
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 ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:
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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by carpet crawler:
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,:2cents: 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.
:2cents: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.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Thank you for your opinion ....
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:
First question: What should be the sustainable level of human population on Earth?
That depends totally on the socioeconomic systems by which people live and on the consciousness of the people. As an example, people living in a third world country through subsistence farming or otherwise struggling to survive have a very small ecological "footprint." If their way of life is locally sustainable (i.e., not depleting the local resources) and they're conscious of and committed to not exceeding the carrying capacity of those resources, their population would only be limited by the availability of local resources and their ability to use them to greatest advantage.
But let's say a family from Mexico or another Central American country is able to migrate to the US and views the American way of life - with its large houses and SUVs - as a desirable way of life worth striving for, their presence on the earth almost immediately becomes non-sustainable. At least this is true once they're able to afford this over-consuming way of life.
So we have two modes of living - of acting to meet our needs - that stand in stark contrast to each other. One I call the "shopping mentality;" the other could be called living consciously. Shopping mentality is looking outside one's self for what one needs and is not based on a true awareness of what our true needs are or what provides true satisfaction, contentment, fulfillment, etc. It is living by looking at the existing systems and seeing how we can fit into or take advantage of those systems to get what they have to offer. It is also coming from fear, scarcity and powerlessness, viewing the products of those systems as a way of distancing ourselves from what we fear: poverty and helplessness.
Conscious living starts with our real needs, includes our real feelings, and incorporates an inclusive awareness of our fellow humans (or community, if such exists) and the natural world. We are aware of ourselves as individuals and as integral parts of our physical and social contexts or environments. It is a way of life that becomes much more feasible within a community of mutual support where we're able to create with others a way of living that fits who we are and truly meets our needs. This is quite possible, as we all have essentially the same real needs manifesting in many different ways.
Question 2: On what grounds would you justify your answer?
This is what I've come to as a result of many years seeking to understand why we and the society are as we are, what kind of human society we could create and how to get from here to there. Certainly the earth has a finite carrying capacity, but we cannot make any real assessment of that capacity based on the present socioeconomic system that exists much like a cancerous malignancy devouring its host. So we can only imagine what life on earth might be like if human society were designed and built in a sane way. The picture becomes vastly different if we're seeking efficient, harmonious ways to meet real human needs rather than working to sustain a monstrosity that exists primarily for the benefit of a rich and powerful ruling class.
CSummer
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by hearthstone:
From the little I've seen of those two, I think those would be a variation of forms of government that have not worked satisfactorily so far, transposed to global level.
Thanks, Hearthstone.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by carpet crawler:
Again--it is forgotten in our considerations about the optimal human population level that we not only share the resource of the area available for living with other humans only, but also with all other species.
A human population size should be such that would not inconvenience all other species need for their own space for living! So that there is no need for other species to die out, only to accommodate our needs!
Our own wisdom is still not great enough to see to what extends we need all other species for our own life!
Thanks, Hearthstone.
Your video proof is from Dr. Steven W. Mosher, pro-life Catholic, expelled from Stanford for academic fraud.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Thanks for mentioning this ...
Without getting into the whole abortion issue, which could completely take over this thread, this is the story of Dr. Steven W. Mosher ... as you'll see it's complicated and his expulsion from Stanford was not without possible political motivations ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_W._Mosher
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:
This argument is utter nonsense, as not all land is habitable. You can't live on a river, lake, cliff, steep mountain, desert, or many other vast swaths of inhospitable land. You have to have water, septic, access to food, electricity, etc. The city of Sau Paulo Brazil (16 million people) is running out of water. According to this argument they are find because there is space for everyone. Geez!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
maybe we need to go all the way to a Dyson sphere, if we're talking in abstractions anyway....Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:
Yes, you are right but this study is only about the actual space needed if everyone got a quarter acre ... that space could be anywhere ... it's meant to illustrate what proportion of the earth's surface is actually in use by our current population ... and yes, 16 million people in one location is extreme and bound to cause problems ... the question that comes to my mind is, why are all of these people in this one location? ... I doubt that they all have a quarter acre ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:
I think it's good to know the opinions and therefore the possible biases of the people who made those videos (Mosher, the animation), but I don't think it is a sufficient reason to reject them. And I agree that the notion that they presented, that everyone on earth could fit into a small area, is rather silly and does not make any real point, but I don't think it advances the discussion too much to keep whipping it to death. After a while it becomes a distraction from other flaws of the films.
One of the main concepts of the animation (I didn't watch the other video) is that earlier times, when human population was lower, was only privation and suffering and that growing population has coincided with better and better living, more culture, stuff, food, etc., and that even more population than present will result in more culture, stuff, etc. I believe that is an inaccurate picture that is heavily biased to favor modernity and the idea that humanity has been on a straight forward march towards "progress". On the other hand, there is much evidence that early humans worked less and enjoyed life more than later ones, that hunter gatherers had better health, bone structure, teeth, and a lot more freedom and leisure time than later agriculturalists, many of whom were little more than slaves. And you can carry it on into the later stages of development, comparing feudal to early capitalist life, pre-mechanized societies to industrial ones, 1950 culture to 2015 culture, often finding many aspects of earlier times that compare favorably to later times. If that's true or even debatable, it invalidates the main premiss of that animation.
The above is just a starting point. Perhaps others can discuss the films and give more reasons why they are in error, if you think they are.
good points, as usual, phredo ...
this is a multi-faceted issue ... the videos that I posted cover some of the considerations like mathematical calculations of physical space, but there is so much more to this issue ... it's a meaty issue ... Mosher was kicked out of Stanford for exposing forced abortions in China, so the implications are very serious ...
yes, when we consider lifestyle, which ultimately affects consumption, it gets even more complex because lifestyle can also affect where one lives ... and where one lives can affect the distribution of resources ...
several people have cited the overcrowded cities as evidence of over-population ... but in every country, outside of the cities, one will find wide open space that's sparsely populated .. if you drive across America you might rethink the concept of overpopulation ... most of our land is empty ... so why are so many in the cities? ... is it particular features like rivers, and climate? ... or is it because of corporate growth creating jobs there? ... all people really need to survive is water, shelter and reasonably fertile land, and as you pointed out, people of the past might have enjoyed their lives more just doing what came naturally ... without shopping in malls, or cell phones, or plastics, or huge TVs ... so what happened and how do we fix this? ... and is it population that's the problem or lifestyles in the modern world?
I've been invited to participate in a land co-op in Australia ... i can't pull it off right now but it's intriguing ... these folks are producing all of their own food and living free up in the hills ... most of them survive in this way without having to work in a city ... and they are thriving ... this is a movement that is happening around the world in most countries ... look up ubuntu ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by phredo:
.
17 Powerful Images Showing The Devastating Effects Of Overpopulation
It’s no secret that we are exploiting our planet and running out of resources at the speed of light, but many people refuse to take notice. These unbelievable photos of environmental damage, collected into a book by environmental awareness platform Global Population Speak Out, show the harsh realities of the ecological and social tragedies that Earth is suffering. Its title: “Overdevelopment, Overpopulation, Overshoot.
”This book has plenty of powerful images illustrating the problems generated by overpopulation and consumption, together with quotes from famous writers, scientists and ecologists to help understand and raise awareness about the destruction of natural environments.
Global Population Speak Out provides a link for everyone to have a look at the book online for free, but if you want it in your bookshelf, you can also find it on Amazon.More info: populationspeakout.org | Amazon (h/t: boredpanda.es)
Edward,
With all due respect, publishing photos of the most populated places on earth really doesn't explain the true situation that we are in ... there are facts ...
I have published these facts about falling birth rates a couple of times and this information has been completely ignored ... here is yet another article from Time magazine entitled "Overcrowding? Nah - the population may actually be declining" ... there are many other articles, full of facts, which point to the same reality ...
https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/11...-be-declining/
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
As I mentioned before, economists around the world are discussing the economic consequences of population decline ...
https://www.economist.com/node/5358255
Rosanne,
As you often do, you are again misrepresenting the facts. To clear things up a bit:
1. There is population decline in some regions around the world, such as Europe.
2. However, the overall population for the entire world is steadily INCREASING, not declining as you assert.
Try to answer the following question, please. And try to be honest about your reply:
Are you secretly afraid that third world populations and Muslims (or non-Christians and non-Whites) are going to greatly increase their population??? And that Christian, European, and American populations will find themselves as a small minority?
Because if that is the case, I have very bad news for you: you are absolutely correct. Within a few decades time, European populations, and countries with populations of European descent, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, will be GREATLY outnumbered!
So if that is your secret fear, then yes, you can start sweating up a storm as of yesterday. But I'm not worried and neither are most of the people on this list. You are not alone in your fear mongering; there are millions of Americans who harbor your exact same fear.
Here is a song written just for you. It is a famous one; you might actually recognize it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVmB3lRjCmc
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Rosanne keeps this falsehood going: "Mosher was kicked out of Stanford for exposing forced abortions in China", without checking into the facts.
from the new york times letters:
To the Editor:
Steven W. Mosher was not expelled from the department of anthropology at Stanford University, as Bryan Johnson says in his review of Mr. Mosher's ''Journey to the Forbidden China'' (In Short, Aug. 4), because ''revelations . . . in Mr. Mosher's first book, 'Broken Earth' . . . drew tough demands from Peking that Stanford deal with him 'severely.' '' Mr. Mosher was expelled on Feb. 24, 1983, well before publication of ''Broken Earth,'' and the investigation of his behavior while doing his student fieldwork was initiated more than one and a half years before, on Oct. 1, 1981.
CLIFFORD R. BARNETT
Professor of Anthropology, Stanford University Stanford, Calif.
This is a terrific article and you're right--it DOES seem to be happening, and lots of people are talking about it. But I think this quote from it directly expresses the writer's attitude:
"People love to worry—maybe it's a symptom of ageing populations—but the gloom surrounding population declines misses the main point. The new demographics that are causing populations to age and to shrink are something to celebrate. Humanity was once caught in the trap of high fertility and high mortality. Now it has escaped into the freedom of low fertility and low mortality. Women's control over the number of children they have is an unqualified good—as is the average person's enjoyment, in rich countries, of ten more years of life than they had in 1960. Politicians may fear the decline of their nations' economic prowess, but people should celebrate the new demographics as heralding a golden age."
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
Strange response, Edward ...
No, I do not share the fears that you mention ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Edward Mendoza:
You should write to Wikipedia about this because that's where I got my information ... it seemed plausible to me because those who expose crimes of the state are always attacked and discredited ... I think most people are waking up to this, as it's really very obvious ...
anyway, I find it interesting that you focus on Steven Mosher when the facts about declining birth rates are shared by many mainstream publications ... this is good news for those of you worried about overpopulation ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by kpage9:
Rosanne,
Your response reflects a consciousness that doesn't include any unkindness or negativity. I respect that as an example of something I wish we could all strive for....a simple response, devoid of a put down.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
I do think it's good news, and, by the way, I agree that that Mendoza response was puzzling, to say the least.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
But what do you think about those 17 pictures? It's not really the case, you know, that they all were taken of areas where there is especially high population, although several were. In fact, many of the photos showed degradation of nature in the service of the wealthy parts of the world. For example, the harvest of trees that led to the clear-cut forest probably went mostly to benefit first world home construction, and the petroleum extraction that produced the oil well pollution in that photo went mostly to benefit first world automobiles. What this suggests to me is that, while I'm glad to see some indication that first world populations may be heading towards decline, it's not enough or quick enough to avoid massive degradation of environment.
In a very real way, all the resources of the planet are being brought into the service of feeding and in other ways supporting humans. Calculations have been made of the exact percentages over the years of the amount of all the living material on earth that goes to support humans and it's become rather large in recent decades. When you read of jellyfish dying off or bats falling out the sky in massive die-offs or moose becoming extinct in Canada (examples from a Naomi Klein speech I listened to recently), you can connect it directly to human activity. How much of the earth's life forms should be used as "resources" for humanity? Are the birds and the bees and everything else just put here for our use, as the Bible states, or are we no more than one part of the whole?
You've suggested several times that you see large tracts of land that seem undisturbed by humans, which could presumably be made use of by the more humans to come, but I don't think it's an accurate view of the situation. Agribusiness would be glad to build more farms to grow more corn and soy on if they could find the water, fertilizer and other resources to do it, but in fact suitable land is in short supply, as we can see by the fact that there is competition of resources for growing corn for food or corn for fuel alcohol. You can look at maps of the Amazon basin that show the quite dramatic shrinking of the forests their as land is used for cattle and soy. In Africa, Saudi and Chinese interests (besides whatever Bill Gates and his cohorts are doing there) are buying up or leasing large amounts of land for large scale farming, depriving local subsistence farmers from land they've used for millenia, and the local people in turn end up degrading the environment in the search for new ways to support themselves.
It's hard to know just where to put the "blame" for all this, and surely it's not just the fault of population growth. For example, if everyone were to become vegan, there would be lots more food available and that food would require far less water to grow. And we can think of many other changes we could make, especially ones having to do with using a whole lot less oil, that would make things better. You can look at that photo of plastic junk in the ocean surf and say it's an example of first world exploitation of third world peoples, because that junk is probably 100% petroleum products that rich manufacturers have foisted on to third world former agriculturalists who are today big city slum dwellers flushing their trash through inadequate waste disposal systems which formerly could take care of organic waste but are overburdened by plastic junk. I mean, I do say that that's the case, but I also think over population plays a big part in all this, because there wouldn't be as much plastic junk, the Amazon wouldn't be disappearing nearly so quickly, the third world slums wouldn't be such a dominant features of those countries, and American farmland wouldn't be turning into dessert nearly so quickly if there weren't just so gosh-darned many of us!
Yes, there are big problems on earth ... honestly, I think that there are many reasons for this ... yes, fewer people would mean that all of it is reduced, but people are already reducing their numbers, so do we really need to submit to more rules and regulations to bring this about?
I think that most of the problems on earth are due to big business ... there has been a constant effort on this planet to provoke consumerism for the sake of profits ... what we need has been replaced by what we want ... advertising is a form of psychological manipulation that states that you can't be happy without this ... and that ... and that ...
I'm as guilty as anyone else ... I used to go shopping for the entertainment value of it ... that's all changed now ... I still look for art ( hence the name "arthunter" ) but very little else interests me ... I had a house fire awhile back and a lot of my stuff burnt up ... I had to itemize it for insurance purposes and I couldn't remember what it was that I had lost ... that's how dam important it was ... and I didn't miss any of it ... I now wish to get down to one car load of stuff like when I was younger, because flexibility and simplicity have become more important then accumulation ...
So yes, I take it back to big business or corporations convincing the world that we needed all of these diversions in the first place ... and then proceeding to brutally strip the planet of it's resources to provide it ...
But hold on because things are changing .....
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by phredo:
If we look for someone or something to blame - especially outside ourselves - we accomplish nothing. This is especially true of large corporate and governmental organizations: changing them in any fundamental way in the near term is not really within our power. They are designed to resist change coming from outside their own power structures.
Systems (which includes corporations and governments) tend to do what they're designed to do. What is a for-profit corporation designed to do? They're designed to produce and sell products in a profitable way - as they continually grow - so as to provide their investors with a return on their investment. This is their primary function and mandate. They have two main concerns: selling more and doing it for less cost (hence more profit). This purpose or mission often runs counter to meeting human needs or protecting the natural environment. Indeed, harming humans and destroying the environment may make more "business sense" than behaving as responsible global citizens. Given this design function or purpose, there is no reason to expect corporations to be concerned about real human needs or the health of ecosystems.
It makes little sense to blame, berate or try to change these large systems while at the same time supporting them through our participation. They are not the real core of the problem but rather a symptom. The real, underlying problem is the immature and irresponsible way we live, which is much like children who give our responsiblity and power to these parental institutions ("daddy-mommy" government and corporations).
We, like our parents and ancestors, have bought into this way of life, and it's difficult to imagine another way - unless we've seen how indigenous people live without participating in the dominant systems. Part of the problem is that after living within these systems, we have come to believe we need all the technological products they produce, even though many of them do not meet any real human needs. It's also difficult to imagine another way of living because we've lost the skills of mutual support and cooperation that are essential for a healthy, peaceful society.
The design function, purpose or mission of a society that works well for humans and the natural world must offer a radical alternative to that of the present dominant order; i.e., it must be completely "outside the box" of what we know. If we're attached to the way of life we've known or the systems that support it, we're not likely to be able to bring about real change.
And this is where I believe creating the kind of society and world we want (which, by the way, is within our power) must begin: from knowing the true purpose of the socio-economic systems we want to create. Without a clear sense of that purpose or design function, we're likely to end up with something other than what we need or want.
If you'd like to make a guess as to what that purpose might be, here's a hint: Imagine you want to grow some of your own food, and you want it to be truly healthy, nutritious and appealing. To do this, you need to design and build a garden of some sort - one in which each plant can thrive and realize its highest potential. What would be the design function or purpose of this garden? What does it take for cultivated plants (or people) to do really well?
CSummer
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:
According to my research, the people are making incredible progress towards a healthy planet. They are joining intentional communities where resources are shared, they are investing in tiny houses, they are growing their own food, and they are fighting against polluting substances that can destroy the eco system.
A teenager has developed a way to remove plastics from our oceans, salt water cars are being discussed in Europe, solar power is growing globally, a man has developed a mushroom which will replace the need for pesticides, communities are planting food parks instead of ornamental parks,... they are fighting GMOs, pesiticides, unnecessary wars that deplete our resources, geoengineering, health care waste, bloated military budgets, and everything else that is unhealthy to our planet …
The response from corporations and their supporting governments has been predictable …perhaps in order to protect profits and maintain control they are outlawing gardens, buying up water rights, arresting people for collecting rainwater on their own properties, buying up seed supplies, declaring that self sustaining communities are extreme and dangerous … and the list goes on …
This is what we are up against ...
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
This thread seems to be ignoring this link here:
U.S. Whites will be minority by 2024
With the oncoming environmental changes (raising sea level, shortage of water and other resources, shortage of space to live) a small population level humanity could find it easier to move to for life optimal places as required by the changing conditions.
There would be minimal impact of humanity's actions on other humans, on other species, and on the Earth processes. (=less problems to deal with.)
Human intragroup communications would be based on personal (everybody knows everybody in the group--I've done some research into this in the past--it would be, roughly, in the 500 people level region) level. There would be no need for any technological media. Any possible leaders could be directly evaluated "on the spot" seeing how well their leadership contributes to the welfare of the group.
Thanks, Hearthstone.