Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
what is the point of going green, if there's going to be 8 billion people, then 9 billion, etc all using up resources ?!
If the population was only 5 million, or whatever arbitrary number we use, even if we lived not so green, it would use WAY WAY less resources than 9 billion people going green ... !!!
Yes, we would.
I read an article citing a calculation that figured up 4 acres for each person alive on this earth today, right now, if the land were to be divided equally among the population.
That means, if not for trees/terrain, if everyone were distributed equally, there would be SEVERAL people in sight from anyone's vantage point.
You seem to be confused about something - stopping breeding and using less resources would be a good thing but it isn't going to stop global warming. It can't be stopped, it can only be "not contributed to" by humans. Unfortunately humans have been and still are contributing to it in a big way. I agree that run-away population growth should be stopped and restrictions put in place, and the current population numbers should be allowed to decrease and brought down to manageable numbers. But if that happens don't expect run-away climate change to come to a stop.
Although less population would need less resources that doesn't necessarily mean that people would stop using all the resources they don't need. If there is less people then there should be less wastage and less pollution but having less people doesn't necessarily mean that people would stop their wasteful and polluting ways.
It's the lazy wastage of essential resources that didn't ever need to be used in the first place, and the world-wide pollution, poisoning and willful abuse of earth's many environments that needs to be stopped. Those are the main human activities (very bad, lazy human habits) that have triggered the rapid run-away climate change the planet is just beginning to experience now. This is only the beginning with worse to come now, no matter what humans do to try to stop it.
People don't only need to stop producing higher populations, they also all need to stop all their environmentally abusive habits. That's hard for humans to do because humans are abusive and careless by nature.
There could be 20 or 30 billion people on earth and if all of them were living gently and wisely on earth and treating it as the delicately balanced living, breathing organism that it is, not being lazy, not polluting, using only the resources that are needed and replacing all resources as they are used, not abusing the earth then it would all be fine with that many people.
There is never any excuse for not living green no matter how many people are living on earth, whether it be 1 thousand people or 30 billion people. But living green won't stop global warming or global cooling, it will only "not trigger it" to start and "not contribute to it" speeding up when it has already started happening the way it is happening now.
Have things really changed substantially due to recycling, bringing in your own grocery bag, using paper bags (not plastic).
I have always preached that smart phones, ocean pollution, & increased travel by people are the main culprits.
And now people want 5G???. You don't truly need 5G. It's a want. I could easily go back to simple calls and msging or even just calls. I understand productivity will decline but so will warming.
There needs to billions of people less and that can happen only by a massive deadly plague or war. Population control isn't working and neither is a change in human wastefulness to have a real effect. Laws and fines may force people to change.
We can't protest about freedoms being taken away if you really want to see a positive change happen quicker.
How about these for the regular people?
Put a hefty tax on people or couples that own 3 or more registered cars?
Put a hefty tax on people who stream videos on their phone or tablets over 20 hoursPut a hefty tax on people who engage in social media on their smartphone or tablets over 30 hours/week
If you're a frequent flyer and do over 30,000 domestic miles or 50k Int'l, you should pay a 2% tax, simply add it to the airfare.
Taxing people will decrease the pollution.
I'm not well versed in how companies pollute but I know Amazon & large Tech companies contribute largely to pollution irregardless of their efficiencies and logistics.
Major oil spills in the ocean should mean the corporation cleans it up, pays a big fine and shares 20% of future profits with all states it directly affects.
Please send it to Bloomberg, Warren and get it out there.
People don't only need to stop producing higher populations, they also all need to stop all their environmentally abusive habits. That's hard for humans to do because humans are abusive and careless by nature.
There could be 20 or 30 billion people on earth and if all of them were living gently and wisely on earth and treating it as the delicately balanced living, breathing organism that it is, not being lazy, not polluting, using only the resources that are needed and replacing all resources as they are used, not abusing the earth then it would all be fine with that many people.
.
I would say we have a better chance of reducing the population through natural means like family planning than we do for 20-30 billion people to all live wisely and within their means.
We are already living way beyond our sustainable means and people tend to want at least what everyone else had, so today's standard for consumption will be the standard for a long time. Human behavior is a tricky thing and it is like herding cats to get everyone aligned on a common goal, like fixing climate change. I am skeptical that we all get it together to reverse climate change and I am even more skeptical that we will suddenly become a kinder, gentler species.
Really technology that allows us to terraform other planets such as Mars we can save Earth plus all the neat spin off tech we would learn from doing so...We would advance many fields in things like medicine, Nuclear Fusion and stopping massive Natural Disasters as well.
I also would love to see fewer people on the planet. But many people here don't seem to know that birth rates are already dropping world-wide, in some cases precipitously. It's called the demographic transition - https://populationeducation.org/what...nsition-model/ - and it happens as societies move from traditional, rural economies to higher tech economies. And it especially happens when women become more educated and move from being homemakers to participating in a larger economy.
So if you're really concerned about overpopulation, the answer is simple - help poor girls around the world go to school in whatever way you can, and help poor women around the world become entrepreneurs. The really great thing about these actions is that they are clearly the right thing to do, whether you are worried about over-population or not.
Population increases the absolute number of minds we have solving problems. Witness the rapid pace of technological innovation in the last 100 years. Solar power, atomic power, medicine, genetic engineering, space travel.
Population also increases the consumption of resources, but the speed of technological progress easily outpaces the excess consumption of extra minds. Conservation lessens the impact of extra population and buys us more time to solve problems.
Earth's resources are somewhat finite, but the solar system's resources are essentially unlimited. Our ability to access extraterrestrial resources is rapidly improving and we will be able to meaningfully utilize near-earth resources in the next few decades.
Climate change is a threat, but it still moves at a geologic pace. Hundreds of years to get a few feet of sea level increase. With today's techonolgy we could launch space-based sun shades to mitigate the most catestrophic of climate change's effects in less than a decade. Likely faster.
Reduction in population would do little to mitigate climate change. It would take thousands to millions of years for the Earth to "naturally" restore some form of pre-industrial balance, and the radical population reduction necessary would disrupt the human economic systems necessary to create faster and better technology-based solutions.
Population increases the absolute number of minds we have solving problems. Witness the rapid pace of technological innovation in the last 100 years. Solar power, atomic power, medicine, genetic engineering, space travel.
Population also increases the consumption of resources, but the speed of technological progress easily outpaces the excess consumption of extra minds. Conservation lessens the impact of extra population and buys us more time to solve problems.
Earth's resources are somewhat finite, but the solar system's resources are essentially unlimited. Our ability to access extraterrestrial resources is rapidly improving and we will be able to meaningfully utilize near-earth resources in the next few decades.
Climate change is a threat, but it still moves at a geologic pace. Hundreds of years to get a few feet of sea level increase. With today's techonolgy we could launch space-based sun shades to mitigate the most catestrophic of climate change's effects in less than a decade. Likely faster.
Reduction in population would do little to mitigate climate change. It would take thousands to millions of years for the Earth to "naturally" restore some form of pre-industrial balance, and the radical population reduction necessary would disrupt the human economic systems necessary to create faster and better technology-based solutions.
Geo-engineering is the better solution.
What problems have those extra minds solved so far? Humans learned how to make a snowball of problems progressively larger. Nothing else.
Population increases the absolute number of minds we have solving problems. Witness the rapid pace of technological innovation in the last 100 years. Solar power, atomic power, medicine, genetic engineering, space travel.
Population also increases the consumption of resources, but the speed of technological progress easily outpaces the excess consumption of extra minds. Conservation lessens the impact of extra population and buys us more time to solve problems.
Earth's resources are somewhat finite, but the solar system's resources are essentially unlimited. Our ability to access extraterrestrial resources is rapidly improving and we will be able to meaningfully utilize near-earth resources in the next few decades.
Climate change is a threat, but it still moves at a geologic pace. Hundreds of years to get a few feet of sea level increase. With today's techonolgy we could launch space-based sun shades to mitigate the most catestrophic of climate change's effects in less than a decade. Likely faster.
Reduction in population would do little to mitigate climate change. It would take thousands to millions of years for the Earth to "naturally" restore some form of pre-industrial balance, and the radical population reduction necessary would disrupt the human economic systems necessary to create faster and better technology-based solutions.
Geo-engineering is the better solution.
The fundamental flaw with your ideas is that not all human beings possess intelligence and those who are not intelligent just float through the educational system. More human brains =/= more problem solving.
Why? Once the infrastructure is in place the cost of new turbines or photo cells is a fraction of the total plant cost and the replacement will almost always be bigger, cheaper, and more efficient than it's predecessor. Who wants to be stuck with the same cell phone for 100 years?
This issue is, to continue to manufacture solar panels they way they currently are, all we are doing is trading one problem for another. The chemicals involved in solar panel production are very toxic to all life forms, what do we do with the millions and millions of solar panels once they have exhausted their usefulness? This has the potential in creating a huge environmental problem. Why do you think that most solar panels are manufactured in China, cheap labor isn't the only reason, lax environmental laws have a lot to do with it.
We have developed a mindset of a throw away society, this is why I made the statement that we really need to start thinking long term in solving our problems instead of short term solutions. If we continue down this path overpopulation is going to be the least of our problems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
