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.
I was just thinking the same thing. If Greta really wants to be a positive influence for the planet I think she should be making her main focus be in encouraging everyone everywhere in the world to be decreasing the rate of births. If the world population could be gradually brought back down and maintained to more manageable levels it would do the whole world a "world of good".
I was just thinking the same thing. If Greta really wants to be a positive influence for the planet I think she should be making her main focus be in encouraging everyone everywhere in the world to be decreasing the rate of births. If the world population could be gradually brought back down and maintained to more manageable levels it would do the whole world a "world of good".
.
The thing is, my opinion at least, is that the global population growth we have is a recent thing in human history, only accelerating in the early 1900's.
We have taken for granted that technology has generally taken care of things, like not surpassing the K-line. However, one day there is a possibility technology is not going to take care of things. But we will not know it until it happens, and by then it will be too late for that.
Of course the immediate reaction would be at all costs, to accommodate the billions of more people, however, that will just allow for billions more, and eventually something is going to give, and it will be us humans that suffer, Earth in the long run will be fine.
This is just speaking to basic living, not even getting into quality of living, which arguably the West has set the standard on, and many people try to reach such goal.
The numbers seem correct. Would like be better for Earth, Animals and Humans.
She wants to put S. American and African ranches out of business which can then be bought up by European agribusiness. The problem is that not all land is suitable for farming crops as we found out in the Dust Bowl of the 1930's. Africa has a lot of prairie land which doesn't need a lot of rain.
The numbers seem correct. Would like be better for Earth, Animals and Humans.
The article is utter nonsense. Most infectious diseases use the successful survival strategy of making use of alternate hosts-- Malaria is a good example. Diseases don't "come from animals." Don't forget, humans are part of Nature too.
Typically, the factors that contribute to the carrying capacity of a population include things like predator/prey relations and the availability of habitat, food and water.....For H. sapiens, resources are generally widely available, limited only by the ability of the individual to purchase them....That means the economy is now the real "limiting factor" in attaining the carrying capacity.
It's a complex relationship in industrialized areas where our way of life is based on consumerism--Poor economy means less money to buy, which means lower demand to produce, which means fewer jobs.
This shift in attack strategy from GW-->Climate Change-->Climate disruption--> Food production/animal production is based on the failure of the earlier strategies to convince the masses that we have a problem to solve. The ultimate goal of those doing the strategizing is not to save the world, but to attain and maintain control of power...What better way than to control our food supply?
About the article, I'm interested and I wish I could read it but it's one of those sites that you have to have a subscription to be able to read it and I can't do subscriptions. Is there any chance you could give a quick, short summary of it, or maybe recommend some other non-subscription site that features the same or a similar article to get the gist of it?
They're going to cut down the trees for wood pellets.
Quote:
In January of this year, even as the Parliament of the European Union admirably voted to double Europe’s 2015 renewable energy levels by 2030, it also voted to allow countries, power plants and factories to claim that cutting down trees just to burn them for energy fully qualifies as low-carbon, renewable energy. It did so against the written advice of almost 800 scientists that this policy would accelerate climate change1. This Renewable Energy Directive (RED) is now finalized. Because meeting a small quantity of Europe’s energy use requires a large quantity of wood, and because of the example it sets for the world, the RED profoundly threatens the world’s forests.
The numbers seem correct. Would like be better for Earth, Animals and Humans.
She means well but she's misguided. The only things she knows about farming come from books and TV and misguided social influencers who don't farm and get their ideas from books and TV and misguided social influencers.
Going from an animal-based monoculture to a plant-based one won't help the environment; it's just exchanging one set of insects, diseases, and problems for another. Unlike monoculture, regenerative agriculture increases soil fertility, reduces pests and diseases, reduces desertification and flooding and it produces more food per acre than monoculture farming does while allowing animals to live a happy life.
This is a partial list of permaculture farmers: Bill Mollison, Sepp Holzer, Gabe Brown, Geoff Lawton, Brad Lancaster, etc.
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.
