This is what I've been trying to tell everyone.


I agree with Eric Pianka, that people and the ecological balance on earth would all be better off with 10% of the present population.
That could be true, quinton, but there is nothing that can be done to that end.

I don't think that anyone would suggest that we should commence some sort of regulated slaughter of the human species. Besides, I would suggest that it is quite likely that we are going to make advancements in areas that would enable the human population to continue to expand, while ensuring that the environment and the biosphere is protected.
Expanding the human population without sacrificing the ancient processes on earth that occurred long before humans is like saying that humans are independent of their ecosystem which is ridiculous.

Humans are part of this ecosystem. Everything is connected. Humans have the power to destroy the ecosystem, making it uninhabitable for other species.

Humans should take action to stop expanding before they end up diminishing the natural richness of the biosphere beyond repair.

(We already have to some degree impoverished the earth beyond repair)
Quote: Originally Posted by [i

quinton[/i]]Expanding the human population without sacrificing the ancient processes on earth that occurred long before humans is like saying that humans are independent of their ecosystem which is ridiculous.

Perhaps, quinton — however, this argument suggests that ecosystems are static which would be, in my opinion, incorrect. I would suggest that given time, and the proper action on the part of humans where necessary, ecosystems can adapt to circumstances.

Quote: Originally Posted by [i

quinton[/i]]Humans are part of this ecosystem. Everything is connected. Humans have the power to destroy the ecosystem, making it uninhabitable for other species.

I agree, quinton — however, on that same token, humans have the power to protect the ecosystem from those same tendencies. The capacity to destroy is not the same as having committed an act of destruction. I think that it should be acknowledged by the same community promoting this message that humans, where they have the power to destroy, have the simultaneous power to save.

Quote: Originally Posted by [i

quinton[/i]]Humans should take caution to stop expanding before they end up diminishing the natural richness of the biosphere beyond repair.

I don't think that it's expansion of the population, as some sort of inherent action, that is causing problems for the biosphere. Rather, I would suggest that it is the actions that often accompany the expansion of a population. If those actions can be ceased, or at the very least revised, then I think that the "damage" to Earth, on the part of population expansion, could beginą to be repaired — or, at the very least, curbed.

Quote: Originally Posted by [i

quinton[/i]](We already have to some degree impoverished the earth beyond repair)


Revision : (1) Corrected a typing error.
Great post FiveParadox.

May I liken this argument to Fire.

Man is like Fire, destroying all in its path, until
no more is left to feed it.

Then after Fire is long gone, that which was dead
arises RAPIDLY, speedily growing, a vitality that lied
dormant is now in your face.

Most forest rangers will tell you this.

Ecosystems are amazingly resilient, and NOT STATIC,
and much larger than the fireant known as Mankind.

We are kicking and abusing something which is
MUCH LARGER than us.

After we burned it, we move on to the next place
to forage, and then we get smart when we at the
edge of discovering there will be no more.

Crop Rotation was the first example of mankind
getting smart about ruining their fields.
I firmly believe that we cannot prevent extinctions with 6.5 billion people let alone a projected 9.1 billion by 2050.

You cannot have that many people without having a tendency for many of these people consuming as much as possible.

Likewise, we cannot preserve a pristine planet with 6.5 billion people even if they were all vegans living really lowly lives.

We couldn't even have 6.5 billion people today without burning oil, coal, and natural gas.

We need a complete shift of values. People need to wake up.
If we "burn" away all of the resources in our quest for economic growth (population * consumption), things won't regenerate as quickly as you think.

In fact, they will never regenerate. When a species is extinct, it means forever.

Whether or not new species can evolve in our lethal brew of toxic and nuclear waste with our desertified land and extremified climate is another question entirely.
People will not make this individual sacrifice.

You won't give up your car.

You will if someone else will give you a ride.

Market forces are not as efficient as we'd like,
but someone is really going to make a fortune
selling GREEN to you and me.

My simple rendition of the old formula is:

Impact = Population * Impact Per Capita
And then ?
The less "Impact" we put on the earth:

-the more natural wealth the earth has
-the more biodiversity the earth supports
-the more intact the earth is in terms of ecological integrity

Let's face it, we humans are a very unique species. We have the unique ability to eradicate the earth of its biodiversity in our quest for "growth".

Beavers can disrupt the ecological balance if humans introduce them to forests that have not adapted alongside beavers.

However, by themselves beavers cannot disrupt the ecological balance let alone wipe out all life on earth.

No other species alters the landscape like humans.

No other species introduces species to places where they did not evolve to the detriment of native species.
The solution to the problem is not easy for an uneducated public to grasp when they are too zoned out in the economy to even recognize the problem.

The solution is to greatly restrict breeding and greatly restrict reckless resource consumption.

This is the opposite direction of the path of economic growth that we are currently on.
Your passion leads you to an authoriatarian response,
a rule by fiat, handed down in a way that inevitably
is unfair or incompetent.
I don't claim to have a way of making the public wake up and stop this path of human growth.

It seems unlikely that other species on earth have a chance. Historically, the human population has never trended down significantly.

I guess we're all doomed for an impoverished planet with increased war and disease as too many people chase too few resources.

Easter Island on a massive scale.
Meanwhile the public will continue to watch professional sports, talk on their cell-phone and dream of their new automobiles.
Here's a couple of good articles: (external - login to view)

and: (external - login to view)

Keep in mind he has to tone down everything he says in order to stay in the mainstream.
the caracal kid

it has been over 10 years since I first postulated the planet would be better off if the polulation were reduced to by 90%.

The reality is that nobody is going to perform such an exercise. Perhaps the earth herself of humanity will do something that dwindles the population in an unplanned manner. In the meantime, we need to re-invent how we interact with our environment. For too long, man has thought something extracted is worth more than something in its natural state. This thinking needs to change. We need to have our industries operate in a manner that ensures the biosustainability. For an example, farms need to move from the mass till, plant, harvest, till of land process to a mixed use of land process that sees short term crops, long term crops, biodiversity protection, energy generation all on one farm.

We need to return to seeing ourselves a part of the system, and not as separate users/consumers of the system.
You know we laugh at all the religious people speaking
of Apocalypse, but if you'll notice, you're one of the
legions trumpeting a Secular Apocalypse.

I'm no pollyana about the ills you promise coming towards
us, but I have never seen negative cynicsm to ever
be any more right about the Truth than pollyana positive

I don't think the future is easily predicable.

Brazil is promising no dependency on foreign oil,
by getting its sugar cane ethanol production and
pipelines running.

Easier said than done.

But there are builders making mistakes in the game
of trying why all us voyeurs of the headlines succumb
to the relentless bad news.

We really are creatures of the News.

It's a double edge sword that is so subliminal we
don't really admit how much it informs our attitudes.
the caracal kid
I am not saying something "apocalyptic" will happen.

No matter what the population levels, something "apocalyptic" could happen.

I am saying that the lower the population levels, the lower the strain on the ecosystem, no matter how eco-friendly we become.

I actually don't think anything apocalyptic will happen so long as humanity progesses past its greed state. When humanity starts to re-embrace its part in the ecosystem better than it is so far, I think we can find a natural balancing of population levels and ecosystem protection. It will require many sacrifices of the people though. People will have to decide what is important to them, for as the old and over-used saying goes "you can not have your cake and eat it too".
I don't see how Brazil's plan to burn only ethanol could offer us any hope.

That just means that one of the most biodiverse places on earth (the tropical rainforest) is going to have to pay the price.
(As it will be cut or burned away to grow more sugar cane to produce more ethanol.)

For Eric Pianka, Richard Heinberg and a select few of other scientists (myself included); the only hope would be a reduction in human numbers.

Unfortunately there is not much hope of a conscious shift towards that goal by the public; and therefore not by the government either.
Greed ?

This is something that will forever define our DNA,
as does more of our positive attributes define who
we are.

We all must take care of ourselves and make a million
decisions a day that accomodate our own self centerred

You all must not require higher standards for others
and not require the same of yourself.

Then you'll know and appreciate the sacrifice
you demand for change.

By the way, look into China's population control rules.
Look into how it has happened for China. Look
at the inevitable unfairness unevenly distributed,
and its ultimate incompetence of your wish for
some authoritarian fiat.

Instead embrace a more organic longterm view
of process.

You're seeing population limitation now by choice,
not by fiat.

Study your demographics.

Richer whites of the Western First world are procreating
less, by choice.

Wait until we Whites hand down the fiat
on the non-white masses.

There's a law of unintended consequences when
our passions demand a fiat ruling.

This is a more complicated issue that defies
the apocalyptic outlook of secular liberal thinking
which, on these matters tends towards severe

Economics of the critical mass is the one and only
thing that provides lasting, durable change, and
ultimately surpises us all as new powerful nations
emerge from world trade, getting more out of it
than the pittance of foreign aid could do for their
In all due respect, I think anyone who believes the world would be better off with 90% of the population gone should off him/herself.

Remember - Think global, act local!

If not, then at least you should not have children.
the caracal kid
well toro,

the 90% issue is something I postulated quite some time ago, and then moved onto looking into real ways to address the issues. the 90% solution, if it were feasable, would only be the "easy way out" and whomever really did it would be a hypocrite if they ever supported or were indifferent to how animal populations are controlled by humanity.

Indeed, think global, act local. Somthing I encourage everybody to do. The greater the footprint of humanity, the greater the sacrifice of the individual.

I concur on children as well. I decided well before I even could of had children I would not because of the size of the human footprint on the planet.
jimmoyer, you are indirectly making a lot of assumptions.

Not sure what your point is to be honest.

I did not say that a authoritarian government fiat would work.

The public has to want change.

I think positive change (a declining human population that could curtail species extinctions) is extremely unlikely.

Toro, I am not advocating people to kill themselves or have zero children.

I am advocating for people to recognize the problem with our never-ending growth.

I am advocating a public discussion and awareness of this problem of human population growth, what causes it (economic growth) and why it is our biggest, worst, most serious problem.

I personally have decided not to have children; for the environment, for my own wallet, and for the good of all other life on earth.

Yes we humans, and all other life on earth would be in much better shape if we slowed down our reproduction to the point where in the near future we would have 1/10th the population.

We as a species are grossly overpopulated.

If another species spread and reproduced the way we have, we would have organized a huge cull of that species by now.
Well, Caracal Kid, you fit the demographics of
a reasonably financially able White person who has chosen to have no kids.

No government fiat did that.

Those who prefer to make a family have an organic
emotional and psychological right especially during
these times where the secular apocolyptic believers
aren't much more right than the religious apocalyptic
believers who, leaning towards an authoritarianism
that assumes we will not find our way to do things better
in the future.
I don't see growth as a problem. Growth is a good thing because it is driven by technological progress, which makes our lives easier.
SOYLENT GREEN: The only answer.
the caracal kid

You can not have constant growth with finite resources. It is clear such a scenario is unsustainable.

I would challenge you on how growth has made life easier.
I think not
You mean finite in terms of todays technology, don't you caracal?

Because tomorrow, we can very well be filling up with H2O, right?

We may also be planting fruits and vegetables on the moon, right?

Who knows, why think only in present day scenarios?
Toro: oops you forgot about what Caracal Kid said (finite resources) and nothing technology can do will change that.

And Toro you also forgot that all energy comes from the sun and all food originates from plants and moves up the food chain.

If humans sequester all plant growth for their own consumption (including when humans use it as livestock fodder), what happens is that the planet loses its biodiversity and species become extinct.

It seems so obvious to me and it amazes me that people like Toro can say such things.

I am shocked but it is true that Toro is a good example of the current public attitude in Canada and most of the world.

If I were Toro I would look for the nearest rock to crawl under in shame after saying such a nonsensical thing like "growth is good" with no qualifications.

I guess Toro is indifferent to other life on earth besides human pets and livestock and the grass that they eat.

Myself I am sadened whenever a reptile moves onto the endangered list.

I still fear that the recent sighting of the ivory-billed woodpecker is not enough to save that species.

In SW Ontario less than 3% of land is covered by forest.

In Northern Ontario, the forest is being ravaged without anyone knowing about it (besides the soldiers that work for the likes of Domtar, Tembec, Grant, etc)
no new posts