Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Melvinotis on November 17, 2012 at 3:55pm

My take on:

Pollution--Technology and recognition by governments that energy reduction is cost reduction is going to dramatically change our world in short order. The U.S. Navy is well on its way to being carbon neutral. 

My concern these days regards populous developing countries drawing resources so fast that "dirty" methods of manufacture become profitable again. This is China's problem with coal right now. Once a worker starts making a living wage, he or she all of the sudden wants electricity in his house. With an economy of a billion people and increasing production, if just 1% of them change from not using electricity to using it, the results are staggering. More on this, but maybe for another thread someday.

Climate Change--The forces against the recognition of climate change seemed to have dissolved from the mainstream this past election cycle in the U.S. So if we can all finally agree that it is happening (regardless of the cause) I think we can finally start doing something about it. Jury is out, but I think we will find a way through it.

Overfishing--thats the most important one, and why I mentioned biomass at all. I fear that technology has hurt us up to now in this instance, by providing super trawlers to the fishing industries of the world. Until we start growing and eating proteins similar to meat and fish grown in petri dishes, we run the risk of out-eating the oceans which is a truly scary thought. After all, Solent Green is people!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on November 17, 2012 at 7:53pm

I have zero beef with the numbers in the third world. All they're trying to do is reach economic prosperity, AS WE'VE DONE (wrongly or not). Also, most of what we wear, use, consume, is now made by those very countries through outsourcing. Our government policies reduce international aid if they practice planned parenting, because OUR governments/tycoons NEED the cheap labour in the developing world in order to maintain our hegemony.

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.

Conversely, the biggest threat to ocean health is not fishing but CO2. Right now the ocean is absorbing ALL the extra CO2 that the above ground cycle cannot handle, which is massive. The ocean is becoming an acid soup. If when we kill our oceans it will be CO2 and not fishing. Mind you, I'm not letting overfishing off the hook (pardon the pun), I'm just second in line for deadliest human ocean effect.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on November 18, 2012 at 1:44pm

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.

Permalink Reply by T A A on November 18, 2012 at 3:45pm

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.

Permalink Reply by T A A on November 17, 2012 at 7:46pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on November 17, 2012 at 3:06pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on November 17, 2012 at 7:35pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Strega on November 17, 2012 at 1:22pm

@Melviniotis

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Melvinotis on November 17, 2012 at 2:35pm

Thanks, I spent the morning watching a documentary about Hans Rosling. His personal story is compelling, but the documentary was just ok. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on November 17, 2012 at 7:40pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc on November 20, 2012 at 3:42pm

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.

Marc

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Erin on November 15, 2012 at 10:05pm

I do agree that human beings are a scourge on the planet. How could any sane person think otherwise? I was thinking about the idea to put a moratorium on procreation for fifty years, and I think very few people would still be able to have kids when it was finished.
I wonder how much of my opinions or feelings about what is right and wrong are just products of my upbringing, experiences, etc. if I am not brainwashed just as much as any religious person in many ways. And I'm not a biologist, I'm in healthcare, so that biases me towards sick people in some ways, because that's who I'm meant to care for as my job. But I am sick about the harm done to the planet, and the terrible destruction people, including myself, have done.
Do you think disease will wipe us out, or control the population in a way that is more manageable or are we truly destined for the cannibalistic horror show that kris describes? Thanks T a a for the cute pics.
Here's two of my kids, both adopted, even though they look related.

Attachments:

• image.jpg, 1.2 MB

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 53
• 54
• 55
• 56
• 57
• …
• 59
• Next ›
• Page