Save the Planet!

[jongleur]

Mike OReilly said:

"The fundamental problem is not population levels."

and

"Global populations are predicted to peak at around 9 billion, and then decline by the end of the decade."

Overpopulation is the fundamental problem, whether you choose to believe it or not. That is not just a blame game. Simple concept: Too many people going for too few resources.

Where might you have gotten your references for stating that the population will "decline by the end of the decade."? Might you be confusing this with the end of the century?

Nothing I've come across has indicated that the population will "peak at around 9 billion".

If you'd like to enlighten us regarding this, please do.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by jongleur

Mike OReilly said:

"The fundamental problem is not population levels."

and

"Global populations are predicted to peak at around 9 billion, and then decline by the end of the decade."

Overpopulation is the fundamental problem, whether you choose to believe it or not. That is not just a blame game. Simple concept: Too many people going for too few resources.

Where might you have gotten your references for stating that the population will "decline by the end of the decade."? Might you be confusing this with the end of the century?

Nothing I've come across has indicated that the population will "peak at around 9 billion".

If you'd like to enlighten us regarding this, please do.

Yes, sorry. Typo. Meant to say end of the century. As for a source, there is tons out there Bill. I usually prefer not to cite a wiki, but it provides a nice summary of the accessible data. According to UN projections population will continue to increase, but a steadily declining rate, over the next 100 years. Global population expected to reach between 8.5 billion by 2050, and about 10.8 billion by 2100 (revised projections, 2012 ... up from the previous 9.8). After that population is predicted to start falling off.

And since you appreciate actual data (something I appreciate as well), here are a couple of research papers that help explain the duality of the problem (population & intensity of resource use)

http://atlas.aaas.org/pdf/43-46.pdf

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org...production.pdf

If you read my comments, I specifically state that population is an issue. But it is not population per-se, that is the core problem. The real issue is over-usage of finite resources. I'll simply restate what I wrote:

"Large populations drive heavy usage, but high per-capita usage does the same (or more)."

WE in the rich industrialized nations contribute more to the ecological problems facing the planet. Our intensity of resource use is the bigger contribution right now (although it may not be in the future). To ignore this, and to simply state it is a issue of over-population, is to misunderstand the real problem.

[captain58sailin]

Mike you bring up some very good points, thank you for the insight. One question. How do we the manufacturers to stop using that bloody form fitting plastic packaging? That stuff drives me bonkers, I hate dealing with it, and I hate the fact that it just puts more plastic into the environment and it seems to be getting worse instead of less.

[nimblemotors]

The earth will be fine and doesn't need saving.
It is the humans that will be gone or suffering if we don't change to living in a sustainable way. This is primarily consuming oil, coal, and gas at the rate we do, but also underground water for farming, industrial fishing, strip mining, forest clearing, etc. The basic problem is minimal incentive to stop it and huge incentive to continue it. That has to be changed by the people asserting their authority from government, but significant effect can also be done as consumer choices.

My current personal point of contention is that in the US we crush 1 million cars every month. i.e. we consume 1 million NEW cars every month, which is a large waste of resources, but seems to be the goal other nations aspire to.

[Tantalus]

I have to agree with Mike Oreilly. The reading I've done says pretty much the same thing. As literacy rises in a region income and health also improves. Along with that comes a drop in pregnancy rates and family sizes. Just look at western countries. Most would be unable to sustain population if it were not for immigration. The native birth rates are just not adequate to sustain population. And as others have pointed out, the earth will do just fine no matter what. We just might not be here to see it.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Personally, I believe if a pandemic were going to happen it would have by now.

I have a friend that's an epidemiologist. Word is: "hang tight, something will be along in the next couple, the decades." With the over-use of antibiotics and antibacterial soaps something is bound to come along sooner or later.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by nimblemotors

The earth will be fine and doesn't need saving.
It is the humans that will be gone or suffering if we don't change to living in a sustainable way.

You're right...it's not save the planet...it's save the humans from themselves.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

Mike you bring up some very good points, thank you for the insight. One question. How do we the manufacturers to stop using that bloody form fitting plastic packaging? That stuff drives me bonkers, I hate dealing with it, and I hate the fact that it just puts more plastic into the environment and it seems to be getting worse instead of less.

Whenever I can I unwrap the stuff right in the parking lot and ditch it in the store trash can. Leave it where you got it. Make the retailer pay to dispose of it.

Not great but better than nuttin.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Whenever I can I unwrap the stuff right in the parking lot and ditch it in the store trash can. Leave it where you got it. Make the retailer pay to dispose of it.

Not great but better than nuttin.

And how does that help the planet?

[sabray]

Change starts somewhere. Graingers loves packing tiny items in big boxes. I kept calling and telling the sales people how dumb and wasteful they are. Now I just use them as little as possible. Maybe they will hear that we don't want all this packaging.
Check out what we do with trash can liners and the waste because we can't manage trash well. Every office gets a trash can. Everyone wants a liner just in case they get the can dirty. Every year, Americans use approximately 102.1 billion plastic bags, creating tons of landfill waste. I don't know if you can do anything about waste. I can . I don't use plastic bags. I promote the use of unlined trash containers. I try not to support company's that over bundle stuff.
From a finding by a business consultant.
" Just one of their plants alone used 1,225 cases of liners per year, for a total reduction of 15,600 pounds of plastic that was not being used effectively and simply thrown away. Based on the resin market values at the time of service, the reduction in cost was over $15,000 per year for one plant. This manufacturer had 21 plants of similar size, with the same problem in each plant. The total cost reduction certainly turned some heads".
My company recycles and has a compost service. Still I wonder what we are throwing away. The 9 yd compactor is dumped twice a week. Our occupancy is about 1000 people. Pretty sure we are still throwing away trash liners and bathroom paper towels.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

Mike you bring up some very good points, thank you for the insight. One question. How do we the manufacturers to stop using that bloody form fitting plastic packaging? That stuff drives me bonkers, I hate dealing with it, and I hate the fact that it just puts more plastic into the environment and it seems to be getting worse instead of less.

I have no good answer Cptn. The only one that makes any real difference is not buying the over-packaged crap. But this is far easier said than done. It's like trying to buy a T-shirt or underwear that isn't made with near-slave labour. Almost impossible to do those days b/c of the incentives of "the free market" -- where we all pursue the lowest price, at any cost.

The answer is to stop buying all this stuff, stop using so much of energy/water/resources. But this is difficult if you live in, and within, our rich industrialized and globalized world. Our societies are built on cheap inputs, and unaccounted externalities. So the real answer is to change our systems, but this takes time and huge amounts of effort. I used to fight to change the world. Now, in my older age, I just fight for my small part of it, and try very hard not to be part of the problem. I believe cruising can be a way to do this (of course, it can also be the opposite). I have the good fortune of having no fortune, so I've always lived rather simply. When we move onto the boat full-time next spring, I will build on these lessons.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Doodles

And how does that help the planet?

A.. I was replying to Captain58 with a suggestion.

B.. It annoys the eejiots who require the stoopid packing, and costs them money, which is all they understand, thereby, maybe, hopefully causing them to pack more sanely.

C.. It allows me to blow off steam at their eejiocity at the point of contact, not at home with my a Wife, making MY world much nicer.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by David M

I have to disagree that living aboard a boat creates a smaller footprint than living ashore.

That's the craziest thing I've seen today on the internet.
I live on a boat floating on a mooring and this tea party right wing radical has a smaller carbon footprint than all the feel good liberals in San Fran. It's a no brainer.

Sure the boat had to be made and maintained...but can you seriously say that building/maintaining a house for the average american is greener than building/maintaining a boat?!?

I'm obviously a better person that loves mother earth more because I have a smaller carbon footprint than you do...ha ha ha.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by kthoennes

Ah yes, the utilitarian intellectuals opine about the benefits of depopulation, but they (almost?) never have the intellectual integrity to kill themselves to get the ball rolling. And when their mothers are in a nursing home or their wives get diagnosed with cancer, odd how they never think, "great, less of a load on the planet!"

In the abstract it all sounds so pragmatic, but when it's your kid being wheeled into the operating room, that reasoning about this planet being better off with less of us instantly becomes utter nonsense and garbage.

+100

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by kthoennes

You miss my point. Of course death is inevitable for every one of us and every one we love, as we both know all too well. What I have no patience for is this faux-intellectual nonsense that the planet would be better off without us, without my father, without your wife. This assertion that it's a good thing when lots of us die off is a weird self-loathing as a species. By that line of reasoning genocide becomes a very "green" social policy, now there's a happy side effect of death. When the little kid is dying of malaria or cholera you tell him he's doing a favor to the planet, that'll make him feel better. This collective self-loathing as a species is just bizarre evil and ought to be challenged more often. We may indeed damage the planet, sadly, but the answer is to stop doing that and fix it, not mass death. I don't get why so many humans hate their own species to the point of thinking the world is better off with more humans collectively dead.

It's nothing to do with self loathing , it's merely selfishness cloaked in a supposed social policy. The western rich do not want to share their wealth or their planet with the riding tide of " wanna-be" westerners, the implicit assumption in the over population argument is two fold , one, you the third world port, you don't procreate , and secondly, I'm raping the planet, so the hell you can live to rape my bit. It's an Ayan Rand mentality

Not to mention the overpopulation argument withstands no rigorous academic assessment, WHO has already predicted population stability within 50 to 100 years. Large areas of the planet are not even making the replacement rate. Modern food production could feed the population twice over , if we removed protections , tariffs barriers and price supports.

Dave