Don't worry folks, I*'m all over this problem and have been working on the solution. Taking my cue from the original Star Trek I've been making a new planet for us all to emigrate to. It's made of paiper-mache, 1:1 scale of course. I need some help with the fjords.
Recycle, ride a bike, buy second hand things, etc. Take a hard thinker about the things you have, the things you want to have, and so on. Do you need them, or do you just want them?
That's what I'm doing for the environment. No problems for me, since that's more or less my natural lifestyle anyway.
I think a large part of the problem is the values of capitalism, where everyone should consume to keep the economical clockwork going.
We need to have the latest in cellphones, computers, games, movies, etc etc etc.
The thing is, we don't need them. We've just learned that we do thanks to growing up with marketing, commercials, and so on.
We need to change out attitude, and out lifestyles, and our view of nature as the eternal provider.
Rainforest's shrinking, the oceans are getting fished out, and so on. And our economy is dependent on our consumption of resources we don't have.
At least water isn't gonna be any problem for me... The rest might be tricky though.
@Illogic: It's not even as much necessarily Capitalism as it is the idea of the American Dream. Everyone wants to have their big house with a big yard and a white picket fence. If people worried more about using their money to improve their quality of life instead of trying to buy more things and have more land we wouldn't have nearly as many problems as we do now. If everyone bought a house that was just big enough to be comfortable instead of trying to buy the biggest house they can we wouldn't be nearly as wasteful.
@ceilingFANBOY: Yeah, it's the American Dream's fault. that's why most of the world's problems are in places other than here. We need to spread Capitalism, not restrict it.
@ceilingFANBOY: No civil rights problems there. How about blacks? Gays aren't a problem, how about Muslims? Any other minorities you'd like to wipe out?
lol fun fact: in the past, when mankind has gotten too big of a population to get by, a plauge would break out and a huge percentage of the population would die off.
this isnt the first time that we've had too big a of population and it wont be the last. And after the plauge has ran its course, the ones that are still around then have more than enough resources to get by and resume breeding until we get to the point whre we need another plauge
the one thing i'm wondering about though is that how will it work out this time around? if a huge plauge broke out, scientists all around the world would start searching for a cure. if one was found quickly enough, then what? give everyone the cure or allow them to continue dying off until we are at an acceptable level?
sadly...i think due to the level of hygiene, medicine, and technology that we've acquired, i really think there needs to be a limit as to how many children a family can have. otherwise...we'll probably be faced with things even worse than plauges (famines on scales that we've never seen before and violence and barberism on levels than we as the human race are accustomed to) and will potentially face the possibility of extinction.
@jrghoull: That's the problem. Intermediate Disturbance Theory gets completely fucked over by human's ability to overcome the natural threats to population growth. Even if a disease did break out that would normally have corrected our overpopulation, medicine would prevent it from causing too much damage. Then again, it is possible that we could become so overpopulated that diseases would spread so rapidly that a really bad disease could end up wiping out almost the entire human population, but that's not likely to happen.
I don't know about that. Being from Kansas, I can tell you there are PLENTY of areas that are dwindling and could use more people. We just need to expand the smaller population areas.
I think he means: 'Move the people from the overpopulated areas onto underpopulated settlements to ease the strain on certain ecosystems.' Or something.
@Melaisis: It's just too bad that doing so would actually be worse than having big cities. Per person, New York City is one of the greenest major cities because it is so packed. Can you imagine if we gave everyone in New York City a modest 1/4 acre and a house? That would be much worse than piling all of those people up in city. There are 80 people per square mile in the U.S based off of the 2000 census. Therefore, if everyone in the country had an equal amount of land, each person would only have 8 acres of land (less actually because the population has gone up) Also, that would be if all of the land was used only for residential area and all of the land was habitable. Throw in industries, stores, uninhabitable land, and roads and that 8 acres gets even smaller. Clearly, it is better to have cities with dense populations and a lot of open space in between than to have people evenly spread throughout the country.
It bothers me to hear environmentalists use such alarmist rhetoric, particularly since I actually agree with much of what they mean deep down. Truth is our planet is made of resources, and the presence of our species and civilization in comparison to the whole is actually very small. Our practices are a danger to ourselves and some (though not all) other species, but Mother Earth has withstood much worse than us. The issue is resource management, not resource scarcity.
What a load of biased rubbish! The WWF are just trying to use scare tactics for force people to change their ways, we've seen it a hundred times already.
The shock reports are counter productive as they just make people more and more cynical as the years pass.
@zenseeker: It's not a scare tactic to say that urgent action is needed. It doesn't matter if it happens in 2030 or 2300, the planet is finite and our consumption habits are nearly infinite. Sooner or later that mis-match will catch up with us, and the sooner we do change, the sooner fewer problems we and/or our decedents will have.
A finite ecology is just a fact. It's only cynical if you decide you don't want to do anything about it, and continue full steam ahead until the planet dies.
@meirelle: It's true, but unfortunately, the readers of io9 are by and large not the people who need to hear it. The U.S. (and definitely Europe) are not really contributing to the problem in that way.
(1) Western technology and infrastructure could be very helpful in solving the problem. Because people aren't interchangeable pieces, you don't actually want Americans and Europeans to stop breeding—those kids are going to be the ones who play a big role in fixing things. (I will happily agree that more people could adopt internationally, though, and I wish that process were easier.)
(2) "Yes, we should stop breeding" isn't the answer, really, simply because it's not doable without seriously infringing on the basic human rights that most of us here (I hope!) believe in. "Yes, we should have better sex ed and accept that teenagers are going to have sex and give them birth control and make overpopulation something we talk about in school" is awesome, however.
The fact you cant talk sanely about population controll without words like "genocide" or "nazis" cropping up is part of the problem in itself.
Without rational debates about looking at resources, and seeing how many humans can be comfortable supported, humanity dosnt have a good future. Its better to reduce births then let deaths happen in the future. Far more humane.
oh, and Europe and the US most certainly isnt anywhere near reducing population enough to compansate for its resource use extrapolated. (populations are still growing, its the rate-of-growth that has been going down incidently)
This flash thingy is good for looking at this sort of thing;
@Thrubeingcool: You haven't paid attention. Only about two months ago there were some studies claiming that some mineral resourced of earth will be all used in one or two decades. After that, the only way to make more stuff like LCD displays is to mine landfills. After about 20 years usable uranium deposits will be used up. There could be enough oil for a few more decades but the environment's ability to cope with excess carbon dioxide will end way sooner. It is fair to say that our species has soon completely ruined the life supporting capability of the planet and used up its resources.
BTW. Poverty is also only an issue of resource management and look how well we are dealing with that. A few have almost all, some have some and rest have nothing.
@Moff: True but what the post-industrial world needs to hear is,
"Okay good job on the not breeding thing. Thanks! Now hurry up and invent some really cheap and highly efficient technology to reduce the fuck out of your ecological footprint because you're still using 20 times the resources as all the rest of us! Imagine how it will get when China starts doing that?"
11/02/08
11/02/08
I need some help with the fjords.
11/02/08
11/02/08
That's what I'm doing for the environment. No problems for me, since that's more or less my natural lifestyle anyway.
I think a large part of the problem is the values of capitalism, where everyone should consume to keep the economical clockwork going.
We need to have the latest in cellphones, computers, games, movies, etc etc etc.
The thing is, we don't need them. We've just learned that we do thanks to growing up with marketing, commercials, and so on.
We need to change out attitude, and out lifestyles, and our view of nature as the eternal provider.
Rainforest's shrinking, the oceans are getting fished out, and so on. And our economy is dependent on our consumption of resources we don't have.
At least water isn't gonna be any problem for me... The rest might be tricky though.
11/02/08
11/02/08
11/02/08
11/02/08
11/03/08
11/02/08
Am I the only person who is seriously thinking a horse bike might be a solution to an oil-less transport system O_o
I been thinking and....while it seems really silly at first...human bikes are one of the most efficiant drive-trains on the planet.
In terms of energymotion they are the best.
If you could somehow design a system for a quadraped surely you'd have a very fast, very efficiant vechile?
I mean, it wouldnt be really a bike for a horse...more some method to convert 4 legged motion into circlular.
11/02/08
11/02/08
this isnt the first time that we've had too big a of population and it wont be the last. And after the plauge has ran its course, the ones that are still around then have more than enough resources to get by and resume breeding until we get to the point whre we need another plauge
the one thing i'm wondering about though is that how will it work out this time around? if a huge plauge broke out, scientists all around the world would start searching for a cure. if one was found quickly enough, then what? give everyone the cure or allow them to continue dying off until we are at an acceptable level?
sadly...i think due to the level of hygiene, medicine, and technology that we've acquired, i really think there needs to be a limit as to how many children a family can have. otherwise...we'll probably be faced with things even worse than plauges (famines on scales that we've never seen before and violence and barberism on levels than we as the human race are accustomed to) and will potentially face the possibility of extinction.
11/02/08
Also, I think most people want to avoid mass death.
Thus most sensible people are in favor of reduced breading before that happens.
11/02/08
but seriously though i am routing for post appocolyptia by then. shit i beat fallout 3 i think i'm damn well prepared.
11/02/08
11/02/08
11/02/08
11/02/08
11/02/08
11/02/08
(snickers)
yes why didnt i think of that.. :-P
11/02/08
11/02/08
11/02/08
why?
11/02/08
I think he means: 'Move the people from the overpopulated areas onto underpopulated settlements to ease the strain on certain ecosystems.' Or something.
11/02/08
11/02/08
11/02/08
11/02/08
The shock reports are counter productive as they just make people more and more cynical as the years pass.
11/02/08
11/02/08
A finite ecology is just a fact. It's only cynical if you decide you don't want to do anything about it, and continue full steam ahead until the planet dies.
11/02/08
Ludicrous? Yes. Infinite? Nope.
11/02/08
Yes it is. Period.
11/02/08
11/02/08
11/02/08
Aw, recycling's useless Lis. Once the Sun burns out, this planet is doomed. You're just making sure we spend our last days using inferior products.
11/02/08
The world population right now is 6.7 billion. By 2042, the population is expected to reach 9 billion.
11/02/08
11/02/08
But at least China has a one-kid rule in place.
Well, either way, we need to hurry up and terraform Mars.
11/02/08
Just because out populatation is stable dosnt mean its stable at a good number.
We are using up VASTELY more resources then developing countries. The impact per-person is hugely MORE.
So, yes, we should stop breading.
11/02/08
Also, according to the international law if you try and do anything about the population of any group your attempting to commit genocide.
11/02/08
(1) Western technology and infrastructure could be very helpful in solving the problem. Because people aren't interchangeable pieces, you don't actually want Americans and Europeans to stop breeding—those kids are going to be the ones who play a big role in fixing things. (I will happily agree that more people could adopt internationally, though, and I wish that process were easier.)
(2) "Yes, we should stop breeding" isn't the answer, really, simply because it's not doable without seriously infringing on the basic human rights that most of us here (I hope!) believe in. "Yes, we should have better sex ed and accept that teenagers are going to have sex and give them birth control and make overpopulation something we talk about in school" is awesome, however.
11/02/08
The fact you cant talk sanely about population controll without words like "genocide" or "nazis" cropping up is part of the problem in itself.
Without rational debates about looking at resources, and seeing how many humans can be comfortable supported, humanity dosnt have a good future. Its better to reduce births then let deaths happen in the future. Far more humane.
oh, and Europe and the US most certainly isnt anywhere near reducing population enough to compansate for its resource use extrapolated. (populations are still growing, its the rate-of-growth that has been going down incidently)
This flash thingy is good for looking at this sort of thing;
www.gapminder.org/world/
11/02/08
BTW. Poverty is also only an issue of resource management and look how well we are dealing with that. A few have almost all, some have some and rest have nothing.
11/02/08
"Okay good job on the not breeding thing. Thanks! Now hurry up and invent some really cheap and highly efficient technology to reduce the fuck out of your ecological footprint because you're still using 20 times the resources as all the rest of us! Imagine how it will get when China starts doing that?"
11/02/08
No, thats not true.
We are using about the planets ability to support *us*.
Life will be fine though. Its a lot more tough then we are.
11/02/08
11/02/08
It is if it's forcible, which it will be, if it's done at all.
11/02/08
11/02/08