As for the oceans, we'll never out-eat them. Sharks and tuna get replaced by jellyfish, I don't think the oceans will ever empty.
Why, then, do I find myself eating less tasty fish like tilapia and basa when I'd far prefer to be eating cod, which used to be the staple fish? Cod is still there, but in lesser quantities and far more expensive than it once was.
I'm not sure I want to force myself to try liking the leftover fish once the ones I truly prefer are too scarce to rely on.
Unseen, yes, I find myself making the same food choices (and they're short-lived, which means no mercury, an advantage in itself), but that's the human perspective.I have given up on sushi, one of my lifetime favourite food preparations.
Once our pallets are accustomed to crappier oceanic food, generations having not known the better stuff won't know the difference. This is not good for the ecosystem certainly, but the acid soup is deadlier.
Rightly said Unseen, and too rarely heard. I am in no way Malthusian, I am ecosystemic. Malthus was concerned with resource availability and distribution. To me that is irrelevant, Homo sapiens carrying capacity will ALWAYS be increased by technological advancements. My concern is for quality of life (air-water-space) for humans AND survival of all wild populations of flora and fauna.
Also from an economic perspective, supply and demand, the more humans there are... the more disposable we are, that is not attractive to me.
Abortion is actually one of the main culprits behind the decline in the population of Russia, where there are significantly more abortions than births. China has also used abortions, mostly voluntary but also forced, to control its population for a generation. It is also a widespread practice in India.
If I were to guesstimate a yearly reduction in births of 50m world wide due to abortions, I don't think I'd be completely off the mark. Compare that to around 140m births per year, and it definitely has an impact.
There is no such thing as "a" tipping point, tipping points are found in each system. Indeed, a great many of the important tipping points are already in our past: clean water, clean air, wildlife equilibrium. So everyone who talks about an "eventual" tipping point are really late on the science.
Low breeding rates in the first world are irrelevant, for you must multiply it by 10 or 20 to be able to compare it to the ecological footprint of any newborn on the third world.
Longer lives and prosperity are directly correlated to ecological footprint per per person, I find no joy in that.
Abortion is a wonderful, though second only urgency, to control pregnancies, the first is vasectomy, the third is tubal ligation... in order of degree of invasiveness.
The text link wasn't convincing, but the TED talk was absolutely brilliant, enlightening, entertaining and totally credible. I loved the bit with the boxes, too. I'm convinced, and thank you for sharing it.
Thanks, I spent the morning watching a documentary about Hans Rosling. His personal story is compelling, but the documentary was just ok.
I agree, last year when I watched the TED talk I was so infuriated by his lack of scientific thoroughness that I wrote him a two-page correspondence. He did have the decency to respond to me.
The largest mistake made by a great many people discussing population is comparing modern procreation trends to historical ones... but completely missing the point of the definition of historical. Typically, people talk about reduced breeding effort in terms of the 1950s. The surrounding years saw the largest ever breeding effort by any women anywhere on the planet. When doing statistical analyses, we must not compare the present to the very worst period in history, that is an extremely poor strategy. We must use a reasonable baseline. The challenge is therefore to evaluate the breeding success of females through the centuries, hopefully going back at least a couple of thousand years.
Can you imagine a society where the idea of pro-life is a thinly-veiled scheme to keep enlistment in the christian army at high levels so that they can dominate everyone and everything else and win the ultimate battle of good and evil with all the other heathens?
I can. Wait, that's not my imagination, that's our reality.
cute pets :)
Funny about the healthcare thing, I have a this funny opinion that people in healthcare are the most marriageable people around, since they are the most empathetic, the most compassionate, and the most driven to save lives at all costs. Of course I don't really associate with those qualities, and I am happily bachelor... :)
A vast majority of people on this site have only let go of supernatural in the last few years, some here STILL have not let go of all supernatural. Everything that is modern human is learned. It is the reason our society is so dysfunctional. The very people, such as yourself, who's life purpose is to ensure the earth has the most humans possible, through eschewing death as often and long as possible, are the very source of our dysfunctional humans... sorry, I don't mean this personally, but to all people in healthcare. In a regular biologically driven species, unfit individuals would not survive to procreate. We have skewed this, ensuring that all individuals get their "chance" to breed. You could compare it to salmon farming. Salmon farming is the death of the wild population of salmon, because of all the defective babies that grow to adulthood, spreading disease throughout the wild populations, breeding defective genetic makeups into the general population. This is what pharmaceutical companies are banking on, the more defective genes get to procreate, the more clients the pharmaceutical industry has. It's a wonderful business plan, more sick people, more income, and so on and so on.
It is the ultimate demonstration of the Law of Unintended consequences... good intentions creating bad results. "Good" is often not "good". It's why I dislike concepts of good and bad, they're entirely subjective, to the person who stands to benefit from it.