Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970

green shoots

Mooooo wrote: »

I can't seem to get in to those links. It has become a feedstock because in an individual plant approx 20% is oil content, the remaining 80% is the leftover meal and hulls which are sent for animal feed., the vegetable oil is in in thousands of different processed products. For pigs and poultry it is more common but grass based livestock it is unlikely to make up 1% of the diet.

It wont let paste links. Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a Meat V Vegan argument. I'm no expert in these things but the general consensus now seems to be that moving to a more plant based diet is healthier for the environment. Whether that's more true in some countries rather than others I don't know, but across the world we would be better off, cutting down at least.
I just wish people were a bit more mindful when buying things. There's absolutely no reason for bottled water to exist in this country for e.g. Fresh sell f**king Fiji water, water imported all the way from the middle of the Pacific.

wexie

green shoots wrote: »

Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a Meat V Vegan argument. I'm no expert in these things but the general consensus now seems to be that moving to a more plant based diet is healthier for the environment. Whether that's more true in some countries rather than others I don't know, but across the world we would be better off, cutting down at least.

While I'm quite happy to accept that I think it's important to point out that this is not because of the act of eating meat, it's because how we produce our meat ie. factory farming, importing animal feeds etc. etc. shipping animals all over the place.

green shoots wrote: »

I just wish people were a bit more mindful when buying things. There's absolutely no reason for bottled water to exist in this country for e.g. Fresh sell f**king Fiji water, water imported all the way from the middle of the Pacific.

It's marketing innit? Who doesn't want to live the dream of being rubbed all over with oil by a gorgeous Pacific beauty, never mind that you're drinking this water stuck on the Luas surrounded by cheap deodorant, guinness farts and Goodfella's pizza burps, you're living the dream cause you've got Fijian water!!!

silverharp

green shoots wrote: »

It wont let paste links. Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a Meat V Vegan argument. I'm no expert in these things but the general consensus now seems to be that moving to a more plant based diet is healthier for the environment. Whether that's more true in some countries rather than others I don't know, but across the world we would be better off, cutting down at least.
I just wish people were a bit more mindful when buying things. There's absolutely no reason for bottled water to exist in this country for e.g. Fresh sell f**king Fiji water, water imported all the way from the middle of the Pacific.

even that depends, grain areas end up with depleted soils, grass fed beef and dairy wouldn’t deplete the soils so much. I think the consumer would be better off if grain fed animals were to disappear for sure, but generally this push to an industrialised grain based food chain isnt good for people’s health or the land.

green shoots

wexie wrote: »

While I'm quite happy to accept that I think it's important to point out that this is not because of the act of eating meat, it's because how we produce our meat ie. factory farming, importing animal feeds etc. etc. shipping animals all over the place.

I think we do this because of the amount of meat that we eat nowadays though. I was in Dunnes at lunch and there were 3 kids around 15 eating half a chicken each, they cost 2.95 I think from the deli. And kids eating chicken fillet rolls for lunch every day.
When I was in secondary school in the 90s it was jam sandwiches or crisps or a thin slice of ham if you were lucky, whatever your ma gave you really!
We grew up ok anyway! I just think we need to reduce our intake, that's all. And stop buying so much plastic crap.
I wish a store opened here where you could buy everything packaging free. I'm sick to death of all the stuff I get through even when being mindful of it.

facehugger99

So basically, it sounds like we're winning?

wexie

green shoots wrote: »

I just think we need to reduce our intake, that's all. And stop buying so much plastic crap.

Yup, couldn't agree more. And then be more mindful of how what we do consume is produced.

green shoots wrote: »

I wish a store opened here where you could buy everything packaging free. I'm sick to death of all the stuff I get through even when being mindful of it.

Ironically enough I'd say that H&S policies have probably made that entirely impossible....

green shoots

wexie wrote: »

Yup, couldn't agree more. And then be more mindful of how what we do consume is produced.



Ironically enough I'd say that H&S policies have probably made that entirely impossible....

I think there may be such a shop in Cork, someone mentioned it to me...

green shoots

facehugger99 wrote: »

So basically, it sounds like we're winning?

Winning what?

facehugger99

green shoots wrote: »

Winning what?

The war of course

pwurple

We are consumer-bots though. I mean really, who needs a car every 3-4 years, but that's what some people seem to do with PCP. What's that about?

And don't get me started on seasonal decor. Has anyone seen this? Duvet set, plates and cutlery, vases... specific to Christmas, Halloween, Springtime, Summer. So the drive is to "update" your homeware every few months. Even down to fairy lights. I saw pumpkin and ghost fairy lights being hawked. Seasonal cushions lads. Come on. I'm all for having some craic, but absolutely no need for that. 

Imported food. There's no end to it. 

Fast fashion , it's hard going finding something just... basic? Like a good quality white shirt that washes well. And kids too, they grow, and the quality of stuff is so poor, that they wear through stuff as well. I'm able to do some basic repairs, but crikey. 

So oddly, it's surprisingly expensive to be a non-consumer in a western society!
And then back to your day to day... it's actually fairly difficult to practice reduced consumption.A lot of our day to day items are effectively throw-away in the first place.  We had to replace a roof a few years ago, the joists were damaged. It cost us more money to take the (perfectly good) slates off the roof, stack them, and put those back on the roof when the joists were done, than it would have cost to chuck the lot into landfill and buy new ones. Labour was more expensive than the materials you see. It takes longer to stack, than it does to fire into a skip. Now, we sucked it up, paid the extra dosh for the principle of it, we couldn't stomach the waste. but most of our family and friends thought we were nuts. 
I've started looking for reviews and brands of products that are built to last. They are of course more expensive, but the idea is that over their lifetime, it lasts longer, or can be handed down to your kids. 
Buy Me Once

topper75

CalamariFritti wrote: »

...

Capitalism may work in a way. As in actually get some stuff done. But it is incredibly wasteful at the same time. Incredibly wasteful...

You don't want to know what the communist regime in USSR put in the Arctic forever.

And neither do I to be honest.

Maybe you meant to say consumerism or materialism.

whisky_galore

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Sure, but Irish agriculture could quite possibly survive without feed stuffs, American agriculture probably couldn't.

maybe Dev was right?

Was offered a job once in an animal feedstuffs company and most of their ingredients were imported, not grown here.

Fourier

green shoots wrote: »

Hi all. I've been checking here the last few days to see if there's a post about this, I find it remarkable how little anyone cares really!
We seem to be destroying our ecosystem, worldwide, and 60% of all wildlife has now perished since the 70s.

Just to be clear on what the report says. It says that the average loss in population among animal groupings is 60%. This can be complicated both within a species and across species.

So for example imagine there is a species of lizard with three known populations, one in Spain, one in France and one in Germany. Their 1970 numbers are:

Spain: 200
France: 150
Germany: 6,000

And the 2018 numbers:

Spain: 40
France: 30
Germany: 5,600

That's a drop of:

Spain: 80%
France: 80%
Germany: 6.7%

Leading to a species average of -55.56% drop in population group numbers, even though the species as a whole has dropped by -10.7%

In the case of some species the population group loss is around 50%, even though the numerical loss is only 4%, due to the extinction of small population groups.

At the inter-species level the figure is driven down by reduction in numbers for species with small populations as a whole. So for example the crow wouldn't have declined at all practically, but the Rhino with a small population will have any reduction show up as a large negative.

Overall the report shows a very bad decline in species with natural small population numbers, who nevertheless form an important part of their ecosystem. In addition to that many middle population species have had small local groups nearly wiped out, even if their main enclave (like the German cohort of lizards above) remain largely untouched.

The Rape of Lucretia

How many species of lizard do you want though ? No one is advocating wiping out other species. We dont want a collapse of the ecosystem of the planet, and we want clean air to breathe. But losing 1000 species of fly in South America or whatever. Is that really bad news to be bothered about ?

Capt'n Midnight

https://xkcd.com/1338/


There's not many wild mammals anymore.

Sycamore Tree

Brayson Itchy Wish wrote: »

I reckon future generations will look back at our generation as the dumbest generation of all time. To know the damage we are doing and yet to pay lip service to fixing it while dwelling on other silly stuff.

Capt'n Midnight

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-world-wilderness.html

"A century ago, only 15 per cent of the Earth's surface was used by humans to grow crops and raise livestock," he said.

"Today, more than 77 per cent of land—excluding Antarctica—and 87 per cent of the ocean has been modified by the direct effects of human activities.

Spudmonkey

https://youtu.be/3oT4AEJL3yI

Fairly emotive video from WWF. Only seems to have gone up in the last few days so probably a reaction to their report.

green shoots

No one cares, it's mind boggling really. I guess people just want to wear blinkers regarding the situation, and are unwilling to make even small changes. Slowing down the economy and buying less stuff goes against the world order. If it doesn't change we're doomed, quite soon. At least I've no kids to worry about...

markodaly

People lose their **** when the Donald tweets something or someone misappropriates gender or someone calls someone a bad name.
E.g. RTE gave prime-time coverage to the Google Walk out over conditions for women, yet barely a peep over this report.

Says it all.

Fourier

green shoots wrote: »

No one cares, it's mind boggling really. I guess people just want to wear blinkers regarding the situation, and are unwilling to make even small changes. Slowing down the economy and buying less stuff goes against the world order. If it doesn't change we're doomed, quite soon. At least I've no kids to worry about...

I think though news outlets should really accurately report these kind of findings.

For example, the report only deals with 6.4% of all vertebrate species (invertebrates, the vast majority of life, don't really feature in it) with some statistical methods used to enlarge the conclusion to all vertebrate species (and I have seen other biologists question these methods). Even then of the 6.4% of all vertebrates covered, about half are actually having their numbers increase.

What the report really shows is that we are killing off vertebrates (if you accept their methods of extending to all vertebrates) with naturally small population numbers and pushing moderate population vertebrates back to their home territories (i.e. wiping out their colonies).

If we don't make changes now, rarer vertebrates will be critically endangered and moderately populous ones gone from any satellite locations, meaning they will only be found where they evolved.

Kuva

They over-complicated things with emissions, 2 degree from disaster etc. Governments haven't a clue where to start, the economy needs to grow/consume yada yada.

Should have kept it simple - Ireland, theirs 1.5 million to many of ye, sort that out.
England - 20 million (or whatever) sort that out.
etc


What to do about Africa’s dangerous baby boom

Kuva

markodaly wrote: »

People lose their **** when the Donald tweets something or someone misappropriates gender or someone calls someone a bad name.
E.g. RTE gave prime-time coverage to the Google Walk out over conditions for women, yet barely a peep over this report.

Says it all.

Today it was some lad got killed, trump had a rally, some bus crashed in china and some other lad got shot 2 years ago - why or who decided that this sh1t is what should be reported, I literally couldn't care less about this and it's the same every day.

MadYaker

Since I was old enough to think about such things I've always believed that humanity will eventually destroy itself. I don't think we'll destroy the planet along with us but we will definitely erase a lot of the other life forms here before we eventually burn out.

But then life will just start all over again and new species will evolve to replace the ones we destroyed (including ourselves) it's a big cycle so I'm kind of resigned to it now. If you look at the timeline of our planet humans have only been around for a tiny percentage and when were gone it will still only have been a tiny part of this planets life.

4068ac1elhodqr

Ireland with the lowest broadleaf tree coverage of all countries in Europe (barring random small island states) certainly isn't helping.

The best hope is for an:
all-knowing, all-seeing AI superconsciousness-omnipresent-neural-cloud-pathway
to tell everyone what to do after 2030.

e.g. Only press short-flush after a number 1, or there'll be trouble.

A bit like Kit from KnightRider, but just a bit smarter!

markodaly

Kuva wrote: »

Today it was some lad got killed, trump had a rally, some bus crashed in china and some other lad got shot 2 years ago - why or who decided that this sh1t is what should be reported, I literally couldn't care less about this and it's the same every day.

Because they have a business model of trying to stir up fear?
When we actually should be fearful of destroying our planet and wiping out most of the wild habitat and mammals.

The Greens should be first and foremost a party for those with concerns about the environment, but I can't vote for them as they are because of the crap they come up with about gender issues and all that **** about virtue signaling, that really doesn't matter. They have lost sight of their main aim.

To put it bluntly, there are too many people in the world. Advances in modern western medicine have meant an explosion of the human population since WWII.

This ironically will be our undoing.

vistafinder

MadYaker wrote: »

But then life will just start all over again and new species will evolve to replace the ones we destroyed (including ourselves) it's a big cycle so I'm kind of resigned to it now. If you look at the timeline of our planet humans have only been around for a tiny percentage and when were gone it will still only have been a tiny part of this planets life.

The difference from any other time there has been a mass extension and whats happening now is All the pollution, All the dangerous chemicals and All the radioactive power plants that will just spill out into the world.

Sad really how few post are on this thread.

The biggest difference you can make to the world is you... Anon

Other than that I find you are just wasting your time talking about it. The disconnect has never been greater.

EdgeCase

I think the sad reality is we are clever enough to realise what's going on but as a species were not really smart or organised enough to plan ahead beyond a single lifetime and don't think multi generationally.

Most of us in the developed world are only a few generations away from having been serfs or living hand to mouth for survival - the majority of us still live wage packet to mortgage / rent payment and most of the developing world is in a situation of having to think about survival and not lofty ideas.

I think we're basically going to deal with climate change and other environmental problems when they bite us in the ass as there's no other way people will be motivated.

So when cities actually start flooding or oil runs out, maybe then people will snap out of it but until then it's just short term planning and no view or the big picture.

The planet is self balancing as a system. If we don't get into equilibrium, I get the strong impression the systems will just snap us back into equilibrium because a large % or our population won't be able to survive.

Fourier

vistafinder wrote: »

The difference from any other time there has been a mass extension and whats happening now is All the pollution, All the dangerous chemicals and All the radioactive power plants that will just spill out into the world.

There's nothing yet observed that would make the current human driven extinctions worse than previous mass extinctions.

Again a mass extinction is bad, but all the pollution, chemicals and radioactive power plants would have a hard time matching the Permian extinction.

Igotadose

green shoots wrote: »

No one cares, it's mind boggling really. I guess people just want to wear blinkers regarding the situation, and are unwilling to make even small changes. Slowing down the economy and buying less stuff goes against the world order. If it doesn't change we're doomed, quite soon. At least I've no kids to worry about...

Your last sentence is where it's at. The problem is human overpopulation. Choosing not to use soybeans doesn't matter. Recycling doesn't matter. Electric solar powered whatever doesn't matter, only reducing human population will make any kind of difference. More humans, more demand.

And it's probably too late anyway. Just a matter of time now.

Fourier

Igotadose wrote: »

Your last sentence is where it's at. The problem is human overpopulation. Choosing not to use soybeans doesn't matter. Recycling doesn't matter. Electric solar powered whatever doesn't matter, only reducing human population will make any kind of difference. More humans, more demand.

And it's probably too late anyway. Just a matter of time now.

Human overpopulation is not the problem.

One could have the same population, but if humanity had renewables (or better nuclear fusion) powering it's industries, climate change would be drastically reduced.

In fact most studies show that a sudden drop in human population wouldn't fix the issues and that of the two switching over to other forms of power would be the preferable option if you could only do one. Look at Britian where switching to renewable has cancelled the carbon impact of all people in excess of the 1890's population.

Note, I am not saying overpopulation is not a problem. Although certainly in Ireland it is not a major issue. Here our environmental issues have little to do with overpopulation as we are well below carrying capacity (due to the Famine in the 19th and the Year of Slaughter in the 18th centuries)

youtube!

It took 200,000 years of evolution for the Human population to finally reach 1 billion people around the year 1800. A mere 200 years later we have 7.6 Billion, it doesn't matter how many times I read that , it always just blows my mind .

Wanderer78

Continual growth is good, good for the economy, but strangely enough doesn't seem all that good for all living species, including ourselves!

Ineedaname

Fourier wrote: »

Human overpopulation is not the problem.

One could have the same population, but if humanity had renewables (or better nuclear fusion) powering it's industries, climate change would be drastically reduced.

In fact most studies show that a sudden drop in human population wouldn't fix the issues and that of the two switching over to other forms of power would be the preferable option if you could only do one. Look at Britian where switching to renewable has cancelled the carbon impact of all people in excess of the 1890's population.

Note, I am not saying overpopulation is not a problem. Although certainly in Ireland it is not a major issue. Here our environmental issues have little to do with overpopulation as we are well below carrying capacity (due to the Famine in the 19th and the Year of Slaughter in the 18th centuries)

Anybody care to take a guess what the most irrigated crop in the world is?

Wheat? Corn? Nope it's grass. We put more resources into maintaining our lawns that we do into any other crop.

We produce enough resources every year to feed 11 Billion people yet we only have 7 Billion and 1/8 of it is starving.

Overpopulation is not the problem. Resource management is.

green shoots

Renewable energy would help, but what will be done to stop the mass production of things we don't need? All those popcorn makers and waffle machines you see in Lidl are junk, going into the ground one day, and it took energy and toxic materials to make these things in the first place. They just mentioned this animal reduction on Futuretalk on Newstalk, and gave it 2 or 3 minutes because it was "too depressing", the posh presenter said. That says it all, no one wants to know. The Government could introduce lots of schemes in Ireland to help our wildlife and insects but it might annoy a few farmers, so it'll never happen. It's hopeless really.

pnecilcaser

I switched over to Ecosia as a replacement to Google serach engine. works the exact same except they make money from it to plant trees. ive made at least one small change to help the world today. it's not hopeless.

WinnyThePoo

According to un figures the human population will cap out at about 10-12 billion. The more people out of extreme poverty, the more woman educated the less children they have.

An issue will be the rising sea levels and low lying areas such as bangledesh which will force mass movements of people.

zapitastas

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

It would be fairly easy to ban soy (sorry vegans). Irish beef is largely grass fed summer and winter and extra feed could be sourced locally.

It’s true that Ireland is largely pasture based but that’s been the case for centuries if not millennia.

There is definitely room to encourage farmers in regions with poorer quality lands to move into native forestry. Would be good for the areas as might attract more rural recreation and be good for the local environment. A lot of beef farming has become a hobby as few can make it pay full time

Dakota Dan

archer22 wrote: »

Talking about simple things that can be done to help...one never mentioned is if Farmers simply stopped flail mowing their hedgerows down to skeletons.

Nothing can survive through the winter in these hedge remnants and there is no food berries or nothing of value left in them.
This is one of the big causes of bird decline in Ireland...and I can't see what logic there is in any sense to cut hedges like that.

It even deprives the farm animals of shelter from cold winds and rain.

Shocking, but not all farmers cut all their hedges. The hedges you see must be on the roadside as I have yet to see all hedges scalped.

Dakota Dan

green shoots wrote: »

I'm pretty sure most of it's been used for meat production unfortunately, you can't blame the vegans here.

Only by products of soy is being used as animal food, it was mentioned already but carry on.

Igotadose

Fourier wrote: »

Human overpopulation is not the problem.

One could have the same population, but if humanity had renewables (or better nuclear fusion) powering it's industries, climate change would be drastically reduced.

Doesn't matter. Wave you magic wand, everything's switched to renewables. Then what? Species lost are lost, population continues to grow out of control, and more species lost. As for climate change, we're in a feedback loop now, hotter world leading to a hotter world even without more contributions by humans.

All you can do is strive to limit population growth, so that subsequent generations (what few there'll be, given climate change), suffer less. But remember if you choose to add to the future generations, you're condemning them to live on a hotter, more crowded, more polluted, less water, less food world.

seamusk84

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

According to un figures the human population will cap out at about 10-12 billion. The more people out of extreme poverty, the more woman educated the less children they have.

An issue will be the rising sea levels and low lying areas such as bangledesh which will force mass movements of people.

That makes me feel a bit better....except for the mass movements part 🀔

Anyway the report does suggest moving away from a meat and dairy diet is the single most thing an individual can do to reverse the impact.
I gave up red meat 3 years back and I’m now also 4 months poultry free. It’s easy to do and you just also try and eat as natural products as possible..avoid processed crap.

Makes life more straightforward and you will feel a lot better...Even if you are dubious on the environmental effects.

Fourier

Igotadose wrote: »

Doesn't matter. Wave you magic wand, everything's switched to renewables. Then what? Species lost are lost, population continues to grow out of control, and more species lost. As for climate change, we're in a feedback loop now, hotter world leading to a hotter world even without more contributions by humans.

As WinnyThePoo mentioned, population isn't projected to grow out of control (in fact in some bands of the 85% confidence interval it decreases a good bit). Of course if there is never ending exponential population growth then renewables cannot prevent the consequences of overpopulation, but that's not considered a very likely scenario and so my post is discussing the likely scenario. And in the most likely population curve cases, switching to renewables does prevent the vast majority of climate change.

Also there is no proof we are in the kind of catastrophic feedback cycle you mention. At least in any of the parameter fittings I've read which have good statistical confidence.

Just as some people are sitting around ignoring the problem, others are just irrationally cynical and negative. It cuts both ways. Basically you are responding with a conjectured nightmare scenario at the extreme ends of both population and climate models (such a nightmare scenario being made very unlikely in the most recent models).

Igotadose wrote: »

All you can do is strive to limit population growth, so that subsequent generations (what few there'll be, given climate change), suffer less

In any kind of sober discussion I've read striving to limit population growth is not characterised as "the only thing one can do" with industries switching to renewables and cleaning up their act, more communal living, development of alternate power technologies, etc. conjectured to have a greater impact.

erica74

green shoots wrote: »

I think we do this because of the amount of meat that we eat nowadays though. I was in Dunnes at lunch and there were 3 kids around 15 eating half a chicken each, they cost 2.95 I think from the deli. And kids eating chicken fillet rolls for lunch every day.
When I was in secondary school in the 90s it was jam sandwiches or crisps or a thin slice of ham if you were lucky, whatever your ma gave you really!
We grew up ok anyway! I just think we need to reduce our intake, that's all. And stop buying so much plastic crap.
I wish a store opened here where you could buy everything packaging free. I'm sick to death of all the stuff I get through even when being mindful of it.

I could be wrong but I think consumers can remove excess packaging in the shop, leave it there and the shop has to dispose of the packaging correctly, recycling where possible. This may just be in Aldi/Lidl but I'm sure I read that somewhere.

I was in Lisbon recently and they have full recycling facilities out on the streets free to use by the public. So, from what I can remember, there was bins for plastic, paper, cans and then actual waste, there was 6 bins together but I can't remember them all. Now, obviously these aren't available on every single street corner but they were plentiful.
I know in other European countries, there are plastic bottle recycling machines which scan the barcode of the bottle and refund you an amount of money based on the bottle. If you want to encourage people to recycle, particularly young people, put money in the mix.

It seems to me that people find it very easy to say ah sure we're fucked anyway so what's the point in making an effort but this isn't just about now, it's about the future and what we'll leave behind.
I bring a reusable cup everywhere with me and I even get funny looks off the people who work in coffee shops, as if it's some novel idea. It's something small but, if I was to use a disposable cup every time I bought a coffee, that's me contributing at least 350 disposable cups to the planet every year. I have also become more conscious of researching the products I buy and the companies I buy from. I'm not perfect and I don't always make the right choices but I have made a few changes which I think are helpful that I think most people could make.

Igotadose

Fourier wrote: »

As WinnyThePoo mentioned, population isn't projected to grow out of control (in fact in some bands of the 85% confidence interval it decreases a good bit). Of course if there is never ending exponential population growth then renewables cannot prevent the consequences of overpopulation, but that's not considered a very likely scenario and so my post is discussing the likely scenario. And in the most likely population curve cases, switching to renewables does prevent the vast majority of climate change.

Also there is no proof we are in the kind of catastrophic feedback cycle you mention. At least in any of the parameter fittings I've read which have good statistical confidence.

Just as some people are sitting around ignoring the problem, others are just irrationally cynical and negative. It cuts both ways. Basically you are responding with a conjectured nightmare scenario at the extreme ends of both population and climate models (such a nightmare scenario being made very unlikely in the most recent models).


In any kind of sober discussion I've read striving to limit population growth is not characterised as "the only thing one can do" with industries switching to renewables and cleaning up their act, more communal living, development of alternate power technologies, etc. conjectured to have a greater impact.

Limiting population growth is the one thing *each of us* can do through our choices. The rest is 'hope as a strategy' - *hope* you can restrict industry usage, *hope* you can switch people to more environmentally friendly diets, *hope* you can reduce consumerism. Heck, *hope* we can colonize some other planet and move people to it, is occasionally thrown out as a 'strategy' and is beyond ridiculous.

If you reduce demand (renewables, diet change) without reducing population there'll be a perception that 'there's plenty.' This has been the one constant factor in humanities history - when the Mesolithic transitioned to the neolithic, population boomed but the new farmer communities were *far* more fragile than their predecessors - blights, famines, weather, floods, became a reality for them and the farmers were slaves to the land. Wars started over land because of oversupply *of people*. Nothings changed - now we war over energy (middle east strife) and ideology, which is really another way of saying, 'i want to overpopulate and you're in my way.'


To date, hope has not worked - consumption and pollution continue to grow, but grow they do, and as I think you'll admit, we need to *lower* not grow because we've outgrown the planet.

Fourier

Igotadose wrote: »

If you reduce demand (renewables, diet change) without reducing population there'll be a perception that 'there's plenty.' This has been the one constant factor in humanities history - when the Mesolithic transitioned to the neolithic, population boomed but the new farmer communities were *far* more fragile than their predecessors - blights, famines, weather, floods, became a reality for them and the farmers were slaves to the land. Wars started over land because of oversupply *of people*. Nothings changed - now we war over energy (middle east strife) and ideology, which is really another way of saying, 'i want to overpopulate and you're in my way.'

I've never seen the Mesolithic farmers characterised as "more fragile" or any kind of comparison like this a historical text, they're just different, able to withstand some things better and others worse.

Historical wars rarely started over land due to an over supply of people. Any account I've read of Babylon, Egypt and other ancient kingdoms does not present such an issue. This is just a personal "grand narrative" of history.

Igotadose wrote: »

Limiting population growth is the one thing *each of us* can do through our choices. The rest is 'hope as a strategy' - *hope* you can restrict industry usage, *hope* you can switch people to more environmentally friendly diets, *hope* you can reduce consumerism. Heck, *hope* we can colonize some other planet and move people to it, is occasionally thrown out as a 'strategy' and is beyond ridiculous.

This is silly, many countries are switching to renewables and you are ignoring the reason this is recommended. Casting scientifically well characterised solutions as mindless "hope". Also it is a fact that limiting population growth is not "the one thing each of us can do", there are several other things we can do and it's not even conjectured as the main thing we can do.

Look at Britain where switching to renewables and other controls on pollution now has emissions at their 1890 level. Even drastic attempts at population control wouldn't have achieved this as quickly. The carbon impact of effectively millions of people nullified.

screamer

We've been wiping each other out for years.... Animals matter little. In the future the only animals that will exist will be us and whatever domesticated animals we chose to keep for food etc.... that'll be the way of it.

Igotadose

Fourier wrote: »

I've never seen the Mesolithic farmers characterised as "more fragile" or any kind of comparison like this a historical text, they're just different, able to withstand some things better and others worse.

Historical wars rarely started over land due to an over supply of people. Any account I've read of Babylon, Egypt and other ancient kingdoms does not present such an issue. This is just a personal "grand narrative" of history.

One example: Bronze Age ireland corresponded with much worsening weather - basically, a warm period (went to a talk on fualactha fia in west kerry). So, population for a relatively low-population area started competing for prime living area. What shows up in the historical records? Swords. Spears. Tribal conflicts due to bad weather and low usable land availability due to climate impact.

This was obviously a natural, climate induced change, *but*, and it's a big *but*, the obvious difference being a higher population in what's historically been a very low population area, led to conflicts. Bad climate, growing population->conflict.

This is silly, many countries are switching to renewables and you are ignoring the reason this is recommended. Casting scientifically well characterised solutions as mindless "hope". Also it is a fact that limiting population growth is not "the one thing each of us can do", there are several other things we can do and it's not even conjectured as the main thing we can do.

Sorry, renewables and lowering the emissions levels to pre-1890 levels per capita don't matter when 'capita' is 7 times the 1890 level (roughly, but I think the world was about 1 billion pre-20th century.) It's the absolute levels that matter and as long as population keeps growing, they keep going up.

Look at Britain where switching to renewables and other controls on pollution now has emissions at their 1890 level. Even drastic attempts at population control wouldn't have achieved this as quickly. The carbon impact of effectively millions of people nullified.

Hence, room for a few more million. How do they get enough water and food?

Again, if you have *one* thing you can do as a human being, it isn't recycle more or drive an electric car or put up solar panels and install heat pumps. It's not to add to the overpopulation. Easiest thing too, just *not* do something.

Fourier

Igotadose wrote: »

One example: Bronze Age ireland corresponded with much worsening weather - basically, a warm period (went to a talk on fualactha fia in west kerry). So, population for a relatively low-population area started competing for prime living area. What shows up in the historical records? Swords. Spears. Tribal conflicts due to bad weather and low usable land availability due to climate impact.

This is just your personal attempt to reconstruct Bronze Age sociology, no historian would be this confident. Many historical societies, such as Rome in the 2nd Century AD, suffered from under-population. I don't believe this has been some kind of constant problem in humanity's history in an major sense, as I have never seen it presented as such in histories of the ancient world. It is a more modern problem.

Igotadose wrote:

Sorry, renewables and lowering the emissions levels to pre-1890 levels per capita

This indicates to me that you are just being negative and not actually reading the statistics. Britain's emissions are at 1890 levels in total, not per capita.

Population control could not have done this as fast.

Fourier

I want to respond to this separately.

Igotadose wrote: »

Again, if you have *one* thing you can do as a human being, it isn't recycle more or drive an electric car or put up solar panels and install heat pumps. It's not to add to the overpopulation. Easiest thing too, just *not* do something.

The first world, which is disproportionately contributing to global warming, is already moving toward population decline and in many areas of Eastern and Central Europe the population is declining. Europe is projected to have declined by 2050.

Also as I mentioned above, since Ireland is well below carrying capacity due to two enormous population loss events in the last two centuries, over population is not an issue here.

Population reduction isn't the main or most pressing method of carbon emission control for the First World, it couldn't act in time. Either industries etc clean up quickly or climate change will get worse, we can't reduce our numbers fast enough like you are suggesting. If we switch to renewables (or even better obtain Nuclear Fusion) in time, then population won't even be issue with regard to carbon emissions.