7 Ways to Save the World

[Bar Sinister]

Actually 6.6 billion is not only sustainable but the Earth could easily support even more. It is simply a matter of making better use of land and resources. Using efficient farming methods highly crowded nations like the Netherlands and Japan produce about half of their food and could produce more. Nations like Canada have great capacity to expand agricultural production as does Russia, the United States, Brazil, and so on. Doom and Gloom futurologists like Paul Erlich have been predicting the dire consequences of overpopulation since the 1960s. They have never gotten it right even once. In fact, far from heading for disaster, the world's living standard has actually increased during that time period even as the population has doubled.

I concede that the Earth's population cannot increase indefinitely, but given the recent decline in population growth rates the world no longer faces that problem. There will, of course have to be adjustments for the people of the world to have a decent living standard. For example, it might be necessary to require that the richest 10% of the world's population stop hogging more than 50% of its wealth, and it may also be necessary to convince humanity to stop devising ways of killing one another and put the resources devoted to the arms race to better use.

 

[AnnaG]

Actually 6.6 billion is not only sustainable but the Earth could easily support even more.

Not at our present status. Otherwise there'd be no starving people, right?

It is simply a matter of making better use of land and resources.

There's nothing simple about it. We obviously can't sustain 6¼ billion people.

Using efficient farming methods highly crowded nations like the Netherlands and Japan produce about half of their food and could produce more. Nations like Canada have great capacity to expand agricultural production as does Russia, the United States, Brazil, and so on. Doom and Gloom futurologists like Paul Erlich have been predicting the dire consequences of overpopulation since the 1960s. They have never gotten it right even once.

I don't know about those people.

In fact, far from heading for disaster, the world's living standard has actually increased during that time period even as the population has doubled.

For humans, yes. But not by that much as there are still people starving, the planet's fresh water supply is dwindling, etc. Besides, humans are not the entire world. There are other species. And to a lot of ecologies, those other species are vastly more important than humans.

I concede that the Earth's population cannot increase indefinitely, but given the recent decline in population growth rates the world no longer faces that problem. There will, of course have to be adjustments for the people of the world to have a decent living standard. For example, it might be necessary to require that the richest 10% of the world's population stop hogging more than 50% of its wealth, and it may also be necessary to convince humanity to stop devising ways of killing one another and put the resources devoted to the arms race to better use.

So basically you just reversed your opinion that 6¼ billion people are sustainable. Or rather qualified your opinion to include a great big pile of "ifs".

 

[Bar Sinister]

Not at our present status. Otherwise there'd be no starving people, right? There's nothing simple about it. We obviously can't sustain 6¼ billion people. I don't know about those people. For humans, yes. But not by that much as there are still people starving, the planet's fresh water supply is dwindling, etc. Besides, humans are not the entire world. There are other species. And to a lot of ecologies, those other species are vastly more important than humans.

So basically you just reversed your opinion that 6¼ billion people are sustainable. Or rather qualified your opinion to include a great big pile of "ifs".

Starving people have very little to do with the ability to produce food. Each year the world produces more than enough food for the current population. The problem is something I alluded to in another part of my post and that is the fact that there is an extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few people, leaving only what is left over for everyone else. It would take very little effort to feed those areas of the world where people face starvation if the wealthier areas of the world really cared about them.

As to reversing my position I suggest you read my post again. What I was trying to point out is that in order to treat everyone fairly there will have to be changes. There cannot be economic democracy with a few very wealthy individuals paying themselves obscene salaries and bonuses. And I also pointed out that the huge amount of resources devoted to devices intended to kill one another make very little economic contribution to the average person.

Of course there are "ifs." Certain of world's resources are limited and cannot be used as if they were inexhaustible as has been the pattern in the past. I am well aware of the fact that certain resources are under pressure. However, there is nothing that is not solvable given the desire to do so. What we have right now, especially in the case of water, is a considerable amount of waste. A classic example of this is the huge amount of water consumed by the average household in places like the USA and Canada without any real effort being made to use it wisely.

Given a concerted effort on the part of humanity there is no reason why the world could not support up to nine billion people at a decent living standard. I have chosen nine billion because that is the number predicted by demographers as the most likely number of humans before the world's population stabilizes.

If you want to see just how wrong the doom and gloomers were when predicting the problems of world population you might want to look at a few titles by Paul Ehrlich.
Paul R. Ehrlich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no problem with Mr. Ehrlich. He was very well-intentioned in trying to warn the world of a coming demographic apocalypse. The only problem was that almost all of his predictions were wrong. Given that fact, there is no reason for the world to continue to be as wasteful as it is in the use of resources. Given enough time if no changes are made he will eventually turn out to be right. It is interesting to note, however, that every year since the writing of the Population Bomb the world has produced an overall surplus of food, indicating famines and food shortages are not so much a problem of production but rather a problem of distribution. There is more than enough food, but so far humanity has lacked the will to make sure that everyone gets an adequate supply of it.

 

[Cliffy]

Ah Bar Sinister, I used to be idealistic like you but I saw the light. I agree with everything you say but the truth is that you would never get the ruling class to give up anything, especially their obscene share of the pie or their strangle hold on power.

 

[AnnaG]

Starving people have very little to do with the ability to produce food. Each year the world produces more than enough food for the current population. The problem is something I alluded to in another part of my post and that is the fact that there is an extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few people, leaving only what is left over for everyone else. It would take very little effort to feed those areas of the world where people face starvation if the wealthier areas of the world really cared about them.

Like I said, the present population is unsustainable.

As to reversing my position I suggest you read my post again. What I was trying to point out is that in order to treat everyone fairly there will have to be changes. There cannot be economic democracy with a few very wealthy individuals paying themselves obscene salaries and bonuses. And I also pointed out that the huge amount of resources devoted to devices intended to kill one another make very little economic contribution to the average person.

Yup. I did mention that you either reversed your position or qualified your remarks by adding a variety of "ifs".

Of course there are "ifs." Certain of world's resources are limited and cannot be used as if they were inexhaustible as has been the pattern in the past. I am well aware of the fact that certain resources are under pressure. However, there is nothing that is not solvable given the desire to do so. What we have right now, especially in the case of water, is a considerable amount of waste. A classic example of this is the huge amount of water consumed by the average household in places like the USA and Canada without any real effort being made to use it wisely.

"Ifs" are not reality. The reality is that the present population of the world is unsustainable. The fantasy is that if we do this, if we do that, and if we do the other, then it might be sustainable.

Given a concerted effort on the part of humanity there is no reason why the world could not support up to nine billion people at a decent living standard. I have chosen nine billion because that is the number predicted by demographers as the most likely number of humans before the world's population stabilizes.

So? Do demographers have a clue as to where all these people will be located, wherew they will get decent water from, what will happen as these people squeeze out a few other species, etc.? I have my doubts.

If you want to see just how wrong the doom and gloomers were when predicting the problems of world population you might want to look at a few titles by Paul Ehrlich.
Paul R. Ehrlich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no problem with Mr. Ehrlich. He was very well-intentioned in trying to warn the world of a coming demographic apocalypse. The only problem was that almost all of his predictions were wrong. Given that fact, there is no reason for the world to continue to be as wasteful as it is in the use of resources. Given enough time if no changes are made he will eventually turn out to be right. It is interesting to note, however, that every year since the writing of the Population Bomb the world has produced an overall surplus of food, indicating famines and food shortages are not so much a problem of production but rather a problem of distribution. There is more than enough food, but so far humanity has lacked the will to make sure that everyone gets an adequate supply of it.

Yup. Thanks for making part of my point. What we have is not sustainable. The other part of my point is what happens to the other species while we do our thing. If we continue to reduce biodiversity, muck up envirornments, etc. then eventually the population will have to shrink anyway.

 

[countryboy]

Like I said, the present population is unsustainable.

Yup. I did mention that you either reversed your position or qualified your remarks by adding a variety of "ifs".

"Ifs" are not reality. The reality is that the present population of the world is unsustainable. The fantasy is that if we do this, if we do that, and if we do the other, then it might be sustainable.

So? Do demographers have a clue as to where all these people will be located, wherew they will get decent water from, what will happen as these people squeeze out a few other species, etc.? I have my doubts.

Yup. Thanks for making part of my point. What we have is not sustainable. The other part of my point is what happens to the other species while we do our thing. If we continue to reduce biodiversity, muck up envirornments, etc. then eventually the population will have to shrink anyway.

We humans are essentially our own worst enemies...your point on fresh water is a "good" case - for one simple example, the amount of fresh water expended in processing something as simple as corn into various food additives is astounding, and it's increasing every day. Why? Well, it's "progress", of course...we sometimes have some strange and narrow definitions of that word.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Ah Bar Sinister, I used to be idealistic like you but I saw the light. I agree with everything you say but the truth is that you would never get the ruling class to give up anything, especially their obscene share of the pie or their strangle hold on power.

You sound as if you are much older than I am - something I very seriously doubt. However, you are quite right. I remember a Tommy Douglas quote "Nothing can be quite so resentful as a man who has ridden on your back for fifty years, and then you make him get off and walk.”
He was certainly very accurate in that quote. I have no illusions about the very wealthy giving up their share of the world voluntarily. It will have to be taken from them through the use of progressive taxation and through democratic reform. Americans and Canadians do not realize how poorly our democracies work compared to other nations. This is one of the changes that will have to be made if the world is to offer equal opportunity for all.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Like I said, the present population is unsustainable.

Yup. I did mention that you either reversed your position or qualified your remarks by adding a variety of "ifs".

"Ifs" are not reality. The reality is that the present population of the world is unsustainable. The fantasy is that if we do this, if we do that, and if we do the other, then it might be sustainable.

So? Do demographers have a clue as to where all these people will be located, wherew they will get decent water from, what will happen as these people squeeze out a few other species, etc.? I have my doubts.

Yup. Thanks for making part of my point. What we have is not sustainable. The other part of my point is what happens to the other species while we do our thing. If we continue to reduce biodiversity, muck up envirornments, etc. then eventually the population will have to shrink anyway.

I am sad to see that you are reading things into my posts that are not there. I did not say that there would not be problems. However, I see few problems that cannot be overcome given the will to do so. What your arguments remind me of is the 18th century doomsayers who prophesized the end of civilization because Europe was cutting down the key resource needed for industry faster than it could be replaced. The resource in question was wood, and shortly after their predictions it was discovered that coal could replace wood as the key industrial material. It was this development along with developments in science and agricultural that has allowed the world to reach its current population. There will be further developments in the twenty-first century that will allow the Earth to handle its increased population with ease. As a matter of fact many of these discoveries have already been made.

Demographers, by the way, do not suggest that any space be found for the coming three billion as the space is already there. I suggest you take a look at some of the most densely populated nations such as the Netherlands or Britain and decide whether or not these countries consider themselves overcrowded. A country is only overpopulated if it cannot support the population it has. I will probably not live long enough to see this, but I expect that the Earth will pass the nine billion mark without serious incident.

Essentially you seem to have adopted a position of the world is doomed no matter what happens. I would like to see some support for this argument other than the simple assertion that is is so.

 

[Cliffy]

You sound as if you are much older than I am - something I very seriously doubt. However, you are quite right. I remember a Tommy Douglas quote "Nothing can be quite so resentful as a man who has ridden on your back for fifty years, and then you make him get off and walk.”
He was certainly very accurate in that quote. I have no illusions about the very wealthy giving up their share of the world voluntarily. It will have to be taken from them through the use of progressive taxation and through democratic reform. Americans and Canadians do not realize how poorly our democracies work compared to other nations. This is one of the changes that will have to be made if the world is to offer equal opportunity for all.

I'm 64 and have been railing against the machine since the 60s. Tried building alternative communities, learned the ways of the indigenous peoples, written books on the subject of alternative ways of viewing our lives and our place in the scheme of things. It nearly killed me several times. I prefer to let the world work out it problems and I will deal with what is possible within my realm of influence.

 

[Bar Sinister]

I'm 64 and have been railing against the machine since the 60s. Tried building alternative communities, learned the ways of the indigenous peoples, written books on the subject of alternative ways of viewing our lives and our place in the scheme of things. It nearly killed me several times. I prefer to let the world work out it problems and I will deal with what is possible within my realm of influence.

Got you beat in age. I'm 66. Never got into the alternative lifestyles thing, although I had nothing against it.

 

[AnnaG]

I am sad to see that you are reading things into my posts that are not there. I did not say that there would not be problems. However, I see few problems that cannot be overcome given the will to do so.

We haven't done that, aren't about to do that any time soon, so as I said, what we have is unsustainable.

What your arguments remind me of is the 18th century doomsayers who prophesized the end of civilization because Europe was cutting down the key resource needed for industry faster than it could be replaced. The resource in question was wood, and shortly after their predictions it was discovered that coal could replace wood as the key industrial material. It was this development along with developments in science and agricultural that has allowed the world to reach its current population. There will be further developments in the twenty-first century that will allow the Earth to handle its increased population with ease. As a matter of fact many of these discoveries have already been made.

I don't really care what my point says to you. The fact is that however many "ifs" you bring up, we are not feeding all the people we have, fresh water is dwindling, we are still crapping in our own nest, etc. If you want to call that sustainable, you go ahead, but I won't. Another simple fact of the matter is, the more people there are, the less other stuff there is. We occupy more space, that's less space for other species. We grow more people, we need more water.

Demographers, by the way, do not suggest that any space be found for the coming three billion as the space is already there. I suggest you take a look at some of the most densely populated nations such as the Netherlands or Britain and decide whether or not these countries consider themselves overcrowded. A country is only overpopulated if it cannot support the population it has. I will probably not live long enough to see this, but I expect that the Earth will pass the nine billion mark without serious incident.

Can any country existing feed itself completely under its own resources? No. Can Japan motor its way around without other people's oil? No.

Essentially you seem to have adopted a position of the world is doomed no matter what happens.

Wrong.

I would like to see some support for this argument other than the simple assertion that is is so.

And I'd like to see some support that we can continue growing our population without detrimentally affecting the other species on the planet.

Here is one example of why I assert that we should be concerned.

The World's Water

Human Appropriation of the World's Fresh Water Supply

Fresh Water Resources Around the World - Earth Web Site

When can I expect to go live on the moon? Mars?

 

[countryboy]

We haven't done that, aren't about to do that any time soon, so as I said, what we have is unsustainable. I don't really care what my point says to you. The fact is that however many "ifs" you bring up, we are not feeding all the people we have, fresh water is dwindling, we are still crapping in our own nest, etc. If you want to call that sustainable, you go ahead, but I won't. Another simple fact of the matter is, the more people there are, the less other stuff there is. We occupy more space, that's less space for other species. We grow more people, we need more water.

Can any country existing feed itself completely under its own resources? No. Can Japan motor its way around without other people's oil? No.

Wrong. And I'd like to see some support that we can continue growing our population without detrimentally affecting the other species on the planet.

Here is one example of why I assert that we should be concerned.

The World's Water

Human Appropriation of the World's Fresh Water Supply

Fresh Water Resources Around the World - Earth Web Site

When can I expect to go live on the moon? Mars?

I think it goes beyond just total numbers only. The fact is, as certain highly-populated countries "progress" toward our model (?) of a consumer society, the rate at which the world eats up resources increases. We've been facing some pollution problems in Canada but that is, and will be, nothing compared to what's going to be coming at "us" from China, India, and some other countries.

Just take a simple flush toilet as an example...if you add a few billion people to the list of us who blow away x litres of water every time we flush, imagine how quickly the fresh water will be used up. Of course, some of it is quite recoverable but it takes some thinking (and doing) to get to that point.

Some very innovate, creative, and focused thinking will be required on both pollution and management of resources or we will indeed be in some very deep trouble.

 

[Bar Sinister]

We haven't done that, aren't about to do that any time soon, so as I said, what we have is unsustainable. I don't really care what my point says to you. The fact is that however many "ifs" you bring up, we are not feeding all the people we have, fresh water is dwindling, we are still crapping in our own nest, etc. If you want to call that sustainable, you go ahead, but I won't. Another simple fact of the matter is, the more people there are, the less other stuff there is. We occupy more space, that's less space for other species. We grow more people, we need more water.

Can any country existing feed itself completely under its own resources? No. Can Japan motor its way around without other people's oil? No.

Wrong. And I'd like to see some support that we can continue growing our population without detrimentally affecting the other species on the planet.

Here is one example of why I assert that we should be concerned.

The World's Water

Human Appropriation of the World's Fresh Water Supply

Fresh Water Resources Around the World - Earth Web Site

When can I expect to go live on the moon? Mars?

Actually I think you and I are on the same page. Quite obviously it would be in the interests of humanity to manage its resources more efficiently. I'm playing a little bit of devil's advocate simply because so many doom and gloomers have been wrong before. I expect that one day you will be right but only if humanity is too stupid to do anything about using resources more efficiently. I happen to be optimistic enough to think that this will happen eventually.

To answer a couple of your questions - yes several nations are net food exporters. They would have to exist or the world would already be starving. The list includes Canada which produces considerably more food than it consumes. The fact that Canadians choose to import many foods that won't grow here like oranges does not mean that it cannot feed itself.

The ability not to harm other species is more difficult as the more people there are obviously the more space they take up. However, nations like Britain, France, Germany, Spain and even Japan still have large areas of wilderness where native flora and fauna flourish. This is due party to a deliberate decision on the part of these nations to preserve natural areas and also the fact that these nations are highly urbanized. Most people are squeezed into cities which take up relatively little space. The same urbanizing trend is now occurring in nations like China and India making it possible for these nations to preserve natural areas as well provided they choose to do so. Currently Africa is the continent least able to do this as much of its population is still rural, however, even Africa is rapidly urbanizing.

You are quite right to point out that water is a problem. However, water does have one thing going for it. It is a resource that can be continually cleaned and reused. It is simply a matter of practicing better water conservation. Currently the biggest users of water in North America are the large agricultural establishments which tend to use water rather inefficiently. Using appropriate water conservation techniques as practiced in countries like Israel would solve much of these problems.

Living on other planets I suspect is rather far fetched and you are right to suggest that we solve our problems here rather than depend on some far-fetched and unproven technology to get us to other planets, most of which are uninhabitable in any case.

 

[AnnaG]

Actually I think you and I are on the same page.

I doubt it. I seem to be a bit more sensitive to the planet. I don't think we can add more people without doing more harm to the planet and you said a while ago, basically, we should use it all up and move on. We can agree on a few things, I have no doubt, but definitely not in attitudes towards our crib.

Quite obviously it would be in the interests of humanity to manage its resources more efficiently.

Without screwing up any more of the planet, I agree.

I'm playing a little bit of devil's advocate simply because so many doom and gloomers have been wrong before.

Is that what I am? You don't think I am being realistic in my attention to how we treat our planet?

I expect that one day you will be right but only if humanity is too stupid to do anything about using resources more efficiently. I happen to be optimistic enough to think that this will happen eventually.

One day I might be right? lmao I think it's blatantly obvious we can't sustain the present population, let alone a bigger one. Fresh water is becoming scarcer. People around the world are starving. We are still polluting as if it doesn't matter.

To answer a couple of your questions - yes several nations are net food exporters. They would have to exist or the world would already be starving. The list includes Canada which produces considerably more food than it consumes. The fact that Canadians choose to import many foods that won't grow here like oranges does not mean that it cannot feed itself.

My questions were rhetorical. There are countries that CAN'T feed themselves and have little to contribute to the rest of the world.

The ability not to harm other species is more difficult as the more people there are obviously the more space they take up. However, nations like Britain, France, Germany, Spain and even Japan still have large areas of wilderness where native flora and fauna flourish.This is due party to a deliberate decision on the part of these nations to preserve natural areas

Exactly. And what species are left are a small fraction of what used to be.

and also the fact that these nations are highly urbanized. Most people are squeezed into cities which take up relatively little space. The same urbanizing trend is now occurring in nations like China and India making it possible for these nations to preserve natural areas as well provided they choose to do so. Currently Africa is the continent least able to do this as much of its population is still rural, however, even Africa is rapidly urbanizing.

Yeah. So people prosper as we continually degrade the planet. So? Eventually we will have to smarten up or adjust to the idea that we will eventually disappear. Earth's resources are limited. Using them up more efficiently is still using them up and it's a simple fact that the more people there are, the less other stuff there is. Earth's mass is pretty much a constant.

You are quite right to point out that water is a problem. However, water does have one thing going for it. It is a resource that can be continually cleaned and reused. It is simply a matter of practicing better water conservation. Currently the biggest users of water in North America are the large agricultural establishments which tend to use water rather inefficiently. Using appropriate water conservation techniques as practiced in countries like Israel would solve much of these problems.

No shyte, Sherlock.

Living on other planets I suspect is rather far fetched and you are right to suggest that we solve our problems here rather than depend on some far-fetched and unproven technology to get us to other planets, most of which are uninhabitable in any case.

Ya think? lol

 

[Bar Sinister]

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this topic. I refuse to concede that the world's current population is unsustainable. I maintain that as the world's population grows toward nine billion, not only will the Earth sustain this number but also that the overall living standard will actually increase - just as it has done for the last three decades. Time will tell which of us is correct. If you are right then humanity is going to experience a massive die-off; if I am right then nothing will happen other than a general and continual increase in the world's living standard.

BTW - I doubt very much that you are more concerned about the environment than I am. And please do not put words in my mouth. I did not at any time say that we should use up the Earth's resources and then move on. In fact I said quite the opposite. It seems to me you are interpreting my posts in a way favourable to your point of view rather than noting what I actually say.

 

[YukonJack]

Human beings have this interesting ability to overcome hardships, as long as they are not shackled by liberal/communist (pardon the redundancy) idealogy.

As long as the producers are allowed to produce, they will produce enough to support evetone, including the freeloaders.

 

[YukonJack]

I could name seven posters here, whose absence would DEFINITELY contribute to improving and/or saving the world.

 

[gerryh]

I could name seven posters here, whose absence would DEFINITELY contribute to improving and/or saving the world.

well then, why keep us waiting.......show your list..... enlighten us with your wisdom.

 

[YukonJack]

gerryh, you would only have to be curious about six.

 

[Avro]

Human beings have this interesting ability to overcome hardships, as long as they are not shackled by liberal/communist (pardon the redundancy) idealogy.

As long as the producers are allowed to produce, they will produce enough to support evetone, including the freeloaders.

What's an evetone?