Yes.kurtdahl wrote:As to the heart of this discussion - the false dichotomy between population and consumption - I've never understood it. It seems obvious we have to do both.
excellent website on population
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
emordnilap
- Posts: 14815
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
You're extremely welcome to the forum, kurtdahl.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
Re: from obscurity
False dichotomy indeed. Yes there are two factors, but we must not pretend they are equal in weighting, consumption behaviour has dramatically more impact than population, and should receive dramatically more attention.kurtdahl wrote:As to the heart of this discussion - the false dichotomy between population and consumption - I've never understood it. It seems obvious we have to do both.
It's quite possibly for 2bn people living highly profligate lifestyles to exceed the planet's capacity, and for 10bn to live below the limits - it all depends on how the people behave. A critical difference to animals and why the concept of 'carrying capacity' isn't very helpful.
Did you watch all the lectures from the Limits to Growth conference at the Smithsonian last month? A lot of great material here, especially Richard Alley (9th lecture):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiG3I5Da ... 9CA87E5B47
Re: from obscurity
That may be true, but if there is not enough food to go around then it doesn't matter how people behave.clv101 wrote: It's quite possibly for 2bn people living highly profligate lifestyles to exceed the planet's capacity, and for 10bn to live below the limits - it all depends on how the people behave.
"Unfortunately, the Fed can't print oil"
---Ben Bernake (2011)
---Ben Bernake (2011)
-
Little John
Re: from obscurity
EXACTLYkurtdahl wrote:I am the author of the website www.populationelephant.com - so thanks for all of the attention. As with most activists dealing with overpopulation, I am usually ignored - but traffic quadrupled yesterday due to this forum. Thanks!
As to the heart of this discussion - the false dichotomy between population and consumption - I've never understood it. It seems obvious we have to do both.
Yes, we can feed the 7 billion now - and we do. Now. But how can we feed even 3 billion in a post-carbon, climate changed world? All the nice little thoughts of transitions towns, permaculture, simple living will not help support the 10 million people living on Manhattan Island or in London? Would you like to have a million or so show up at the gates to Organicville transitionplace?
-
extractorfan
- Posts: 988
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Ricky
- Contact:
Re: from obscurity
While you're on here, why doesn't The Starfish Challenge link work on your homepage?kurtdahl wrote:I am the author of the website www.populationelephant.com - so thanks for all of the attention. As with most activists dealing with overpopulation, I am usually ignored - but traffic quadrupled yesterday due to this forum. Thanks!
As to the heart of this discussion - the false dichotomy between population and consumption - I've never understood it. It seems obvious we have to do both.
Yes, we can feed the 7 billion now - and we do. Now. But how can we feed even 3 billion in a post-carbon, climate changed world? All the nice little thoughts of transitions towns, permaculture, simple living will not help support the 10 million people living on Manhattan Island or in London? Would you like to have a million or so show up at the gates to Organicville transitionplace?
-
biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
Welcome Kurt. Your point "we have to do both" is not so simple.
First we need to recognise that someone in Bhutan does not have the same impact as someone in California.
Reducing the impact of everybody to the level of the Bhutanese is, at least theoretically, possible without killing people.
Reducing the number of people in less than a generation is not possible without killing people.
We do not have to do both. In fact we must not do both, even though it means working hard on the first task.
First we need to recognise that someone in Bhutan does not have the same impact as someone in California.
Reducing the impact of everybody to the level of the Bhutanese is, at least theoretically, possible without killing people.
Reducing the number of people in less than a generation is not possible without killing people.
We do not have to do both. In fact we must not do both, even though it means working hard on the first task.
either or
Biffvernon,
I was about to launch into a spirited defense of my 'population-is-the-problem' position - but then thought it would be pointless.
This debate has been going on for a long time, and little has been resolved. It goes like this - reducing population is impossible in today's climate reactionary deniers, and the uninformed - no, reducing consumption to sustainable levels is impossible in today's climate - see Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, et al.
The real problem is that we both are right. As much as we want to spread our self-righteous wings and tell everyone what they should do - I think we all know that there just aren't enough of us to make a difference. I don't see that changing until it is way too late. It is essentially a hopeless situation.
But as to the concept of hope - please see the essay titled "False hope" at www.populationelephant.com . Your countryman Fred Pearce's deceits are exposed there.
I was about to launch into a spirited defense of my 'population-is-the-problem' position - but then thought it would be pointless.
This debate has been going on for a long time, and little has been resolved. It goes like this - reducing population is impossible in today's climate reactionary deniers, and the uninformed - no, reducing consumption to sustainable levels is impossible in today's climate - see Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, et al.
The real problem is that we both are right. As much as we want to spread our self-righteous wings and tell everyone what they should do - I think we all know that there just aren't enough of us to make a difference. I don't see that changing until it is way too late. It is essentially a hopeless situation.
But as to the concept of hope - please see the essay titled "False hope" at www.populationelephant.com . Your countryman Fred Pearce's deceits are exposed there.
-
UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13496
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
Of course not. It does not follow that one should shut up and allow the bulk of humanity to march blindly onward.jonny2mad wrote:do you really think you have a hope in hell of getting a one child policy worldwide
"We fail to mandate economic sanity because our brains are addled by....compassion." (Garrett Hardin)
-
extractorfan
- Posts: 988
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Ricky
- Contact:
-
RenewableCandy
- Posts: 12777
- Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
- Location: York
Yes, it was. Spending one's working day looking people in the eye and then shooting them would not do wonders for one's sanity.extractorfan wrote:
Maybe the blindfold was for the benefit of the executioner...
Meanwhile, how do population-reduction fans propose that we carry it out?? I refer back to Biff's post.
-
extractorfan
- Posts: 988
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Ricky
- Contact:
Well there just isn't an acceptable policy is there? You can "spread the word" but it won't make a difference, you can try to selct those to live and those to perish but I doubt that would even work just because of the sheer numbers involved, revolution would ensue followed by die off.RenewableCandy wrote:
Meanwhile, how do population-reduction fans propose that we carry it out?? I refer back to Biff's post.
The only way IMO is to mitigate as much as possible by trying to allocate resources in some kind of market driven way and allow nature to take its course, horrible and hopeless that that seems.
Oh, and hope for the best.
Also, I think the decline in population will happen over a long period of time, maybe with jolts and surges along the way, but massive dieoff in a human lifetime I doubt.
-
emordnilap
- Posts: 14815
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
Aha. TEQs comes to mind yet again. Funny that.extractorfan wrote:The only way IMO is to mitigate as much as possible by trying to allocate resources in some kind of market driven way
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
-
vtsnowedin
- Posts: 6595
- Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
- Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont
extractorfan wrote:[Also, I think the decline in population will happen over a long period of time, maybe with jolts and surges along the way, but massive dieoff in a human lifetime I doubt.
Very optimistic of you. Let the export land model be applied to food exports instead of crude oil and you can see the real pending crisis. If the economies of the worlds food exporting countries collapse in any significant way they will have no excess food to export nor the means to transport it. The people in the countries that are importing that food will have nowhere else to turn to and no one will have any alternative other then war with their immediate neighbors to fight over the insufficient local supply. Currently world grain stockpiles are measured in days, not years, so even one bad year in one of the major producing countries (exporter or not) could start widespread starvation and resource wars.