Save the Planet!

[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.

[hpeer]

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.

These are all very good points, and emotions shared by the vast majority of humanity. Clearly no sane person will volunteer themselves or their loved ones. So this is a position I share.

While I don't want to go too deeply into " why" here (and test the moderators patience with an iffy thread) I have been convinced that the burden of humanity is changing the planet in ways that will favor a dramatic depopulation. Not saying I want it, I fear it. I suspect densely populated areas, such as where I live, will fare poorly.

Still I have ties here I can not shake, yet.

One of our reactions to this situation is to have a well found boat that can take us to other places, far less populated, where we also have ties. It's not the only reason we have boats but it is an important reason.

Sailboats can give you an option to either leave or just stand off until things cool down.

Pelagic offers a different mind set I can also understand and appreciate, but my life has taken my elsewhere, for better or worse.

[Blue Crab]

I often wonder why our personal ideas and opinions are valid and sensible but others' are faux intellectual.

I suspect all readers of CF have experienced great loss of loved ones but I don't think it's germane to the concept under discussion.

[FlightPlan]

"Sailboats can give you an option to either leave or just stand off until things cool downSailboats can give you an option to either leave or just stand off until things cool down."

Like in the movie the Pueblo Incident where the rioting masses came to the dock chasing the mate. The Captain backed off the boat about 50 yards and watched them fuss.

[captain58sailin]

Not germain at all, everyone has suffered a loss of some sort, if not human, then a pet etc... One only needs to look at nature to see the truth of it. When there is lots of food the deer thrive as does the wolf, when the food runs out the deer starve out population goes down, wolves starve. There is no loathing or emotion. The wolves will no longer have litters during the lean times, same for the deer, the population will only be what the resources will sustain.

[robert sailor]

Giving this subject some thought, I have more questions than answers, question...


1) 1 If you do some reading on demographics you’ll find the poorest and least educated countries have the most babies while those with the highest education have the least amount of babies.
2) 2 More often than not these poor Mom’s are not able to properly feed their babies and if you throw in any other issues there are often famines.
3) 3 So we send over money and food because it seems like it’s the right thing to do but now they have more food so they have more babies. The next famine is worse because there are lots more mouths to feed....and on and on.


What’s wrong with this picture??

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by robert sailor

Giving this subject some thought, I have more questions than answers, question...


1) 1 If you do some reading on demographics you’ll find the poorest and least educated countries have the most babies while those with the highest education have the least amount of babies.
2) 2 More often than not these poor Mom’s are not able to properly feed their babies and if you throw in any other issues there are often famines.
3) 3 So we send over money and food because it seems like it’s the right thing to do but now they have more food so they have more babies. The next famine is worse because there are lots more mouths to feed....and on and on.
What’s wrong with this picture??

Actually if you look at the 3rd World historically you'll see that they've always had a high baby output... regardless.. because of the high mortality rate.. its the compulsion to continue the line/blood that is the drive.. in the West.. since we've improved child survival and life expectancy the birth rate has fallen dramatically hence the need for so much immigrant labour.
Food Aid has nothing to do with it..

[robert sailor]

Yes you are right historically the 3rd world has had more babies but we are changing things by huge food aid programs.

[David M]

I have to disagree that living aboard a boat creates a smaller footprint than living ashore. One has to look at all the resources and energy it took to create the boat. One also has to look at all the resources that it takes to keep the boat usable and seaworthy.

The only way to save the planet would be to exterminate the entire human race and thats not happening unless a meteor hits us causing the cessation of photosynthesis for a few years.

[zeehag]

rodlmao....ok you all forget that this planet does catastrophic stuff when it needs to so do .... no one gets to choose how to fix it.. it WILL fix.
arguing wont do jack all about the alleged problem humans allegedly caused...earth will cleanse herself. we just wont be here to watch. is that what everyone is tanked up about????
personally, when i read in 1958 the earth will have an elevated water level, i was happy. and then when i heard we are allegedly still on schedule for the 2025 rising of water... cooolness. i get to watch in my final years as we have a higher water mark. stuff happens. earth changes. sail on and dont piss off mother nature.

i would recommend flotation on your desks, however, if you are still readying your boats for your adventures when it comes on...wont be sudden..gradual increases are fine n dandy. i am ready. have been for a while, now...

[Mike OReilly]

This focus on over-population, and our own personal responsibility around this fact, is certainly interesting. But a more direct and immediate issue for virtually all of us here is the over-consumption of resources by we the global rich.

The fundamental problem is not population levels. The real issue is unsustainable use of the Earth's finite resources and systems. Large populations drive heavy usage, but high per-capita usage does the same (or more). We keep seeing this reference to global population, and pointing to it -- to them -- as the problem. In fact, the rates of population expansion have been declining in the developing world for some time. Global populations are predicted to peak at around 9 billion, and then decline by the end of the decade. So in some substantive ways, the population problem is being addressed.

What isn't being address in any serious way is OUR use of resources. OUR per-capita use of the globe's resources keep going up. WE contribute far more to the global ecological problems than the many billions of people who live on $2/day. The great thing, and the serious challenge for all of us, is the fact that we CAN do something about this. All of us can do many things to make a real a difference here -- and they don't involve suicide. There are tons of details, but they all boil down to each one of us using less.

... but using less is the one thing we're not allowed to do in our consumer-driven economies.


Eaton's Centre (Toronto, Canada), Boxing day

[Celestialsailor]

Why all the talk about dying in order to "save the planet". Is that so you can "win" a debate? How about taking steps towards lessening the population. How about 1 child per family. Next time you buy a vehicle, take into account it's fuel usage. If you're not yet recycling, why not start. Car pool...the list goes on. This black and white approach never gets anyone, anywhere.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

It is my feeling that a pandemic will cure our overpopulation problem. Given the frequency of air travel and use of touch panels in public places, makes it ripe for a bioterrorist or just plain old laws of chance. The other option is put a spay and neuter clinic in front of the feeding places, if you want to eat then snip, snip. With global warming and the waters rising who knows what new disease may come out. Small pox wiped out a percentage of the indigenous population in continental US. Whatever happened to the Ebola virus? That was one of the most promising population control viruses to come along in a long time. I understand it didn't have a long enough incubation period, but hey these things mutate.

The problem I have always had with the pandemic as a "cure" to our overpopulation problem is … and then what? Just because the population takes a big one-time hit doesn't mean we won't just run it right back up to where it was. Seems it's our nature to do just that. Until the population as a whole learns to live at sustainable levels we will continue to have the problem we have now. As someone else said, it's not about too many people, it's about too many people using too much of the limited resources we have.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Doodles

The problem I have always had with the pandemic as a "cure" to our overpopulation problem is … and then what? Just because the population takes a big one-time hit doesn't mean we won't just run it right back up to where it was. Seems it's our nature to do just that. Until the population as a whole learns to live at sustainable levels we will continue to have the problem we have now. As someone else said, it's not about too many people, it's about too many people using too much of the limited resources we have.

Yup, sounds about right to me.

On a personal level, I'm still trying to learn to duck better.

Think of it like an unintentional gybe, it's gonna happen some day. If yo u ain't got a preventer (and we don't) then learn to duck.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Doodles

As someone else said, it's not about too many people, it's about too many people using too much of the limited resources we have.

Exactly! It's easy for to blame someone else. The problem is staring at all of us (OK, most of us) in the mirror. The real issue is over-use of finite resources; and no one over-uses like us in the rich developed world. As CS, Doodles and others have said, the answer is simple: Use Less.

As a first step, change your lights bulbs, recycle, compost, avoid crap with a lot of packaging, don't throw batteries into the landfill ... simple stuff (which really has little impact).

At the second level, try doing something like supporting local business, especially ones engaged in sustainable activities. Shop local, even when it costs more, and avoid giving your money to Amazon, Walmart or Home Depot (examples only, the list is long). When stuff breaks, fix it, even if that costs more. Move closer to work, telecommute if you can, or just work fewer hours. Move your money out of the hands of international corporations (big banks) and into local credit unions. Shift your investments to sustainable companies, and don't drive short-term profit taking over long-term sustainability.

At the third step, just use less. Less energy, less water, less consumer crap. Buy a small car, or better still, get rid of it all together. Move into a small house, or a small boat (since this is CF). Sail, and when there's no wind, stay put. Avoid using the motor. Don't fly for fun, and when you do travel distances, use a train or bus. Vacation locally. And if you must procreate, keep it to two.

All these things (and tons more) can be done individually. But all of this will add up to small changes. For example, the real reason North American's water usage is so much higher than most others is due of our industrial uses, not our individual consumption. The most efficient way to improve this is through legislation and regulation, not individual action. Same goes for all sorts of pollution controls, resource extraction standards, transportation and transmission systems, and energy policies (just to name a few). We also need collective action around social goods such as basic R&D, education, pensions, healthcare, etc. These are all most efficiently done through broad collective action. And while these social investments may seem a tad off-topic, I would argue they are the basis for sound environmental decision making. A population that is stressed through poor education, poverty or bad healthcare is not one able to make rational decisions about their local, regional and global environments.