The resources of the earth

[Stormshield]

I was recently having a discussion with a local politician (who happens to be father of a friend of mine) about the general crappines of the capitalist system, and generally of global politics.

In one way or another, we came to the question of equality for ALL people on earth, i.e equal standards of living, enough food for everybody.. You know, stuff which would be good.

But he came to the conclusion that this is IMPOSSIBLE, due to lack of resources. Not of actual food, or basic products needed to actually live, but for example not enough material to make food containers, toilet-paper, and not enough transport capacity to keep it all functioning.

And, to top it all, he said that it would be impossible for the larger part of the first world to adjust to the lesser degree of luxury and the lower standard of living. Apparently there has even been some scientific tests to proce that fact, dunno.

What do you think? Is it possible, AT ALL, to achieve a world with acceptable standards of living for everyone on earth, without killing off half the population?

[slim]

How much food do we waste in Britain alone?

Think for a moment, of all the food that we do not choose in the supermarket. The food that goes down in price and is eventually thrown away by the shops.

Think of the food that is thrown away within your household. It may not seem like much but it adds up to a hell of a lot nationwide.

Now the killer. Think of all the food that doesnt even make it to this country. That either rots in transportation to the west when it could be distributed and eaten in the places it was grown; or is destroyed by customs.

This is just the tip of the iceberg that we will never really know until we are told by our capitalist rulers. They would rather let us wallow in ignorance and let the problem of world hunger fester.

The solution is simple. Efficiency. If it wasnt all about money orders and priorities because of the biggest buyer of crops then i can almost guarantee that there would be no major problem. I am no economist (not yet anyway) but i can tell these things from common sense. Ask someone who has not bought into the capitalist way of defeatism, who knows the truth of the world's food market and also knows economics and we may have a solution.

Do chara.

[which doctor]

Scientific tests huh? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see how scientific tests could be conducted that decide that rich people wouldn't be able to cope with a loss of luxuries.

[Stormshield]

Well, the test was not the focus of this question either. Apparently they simply moved families to worse houses, and put some restrictions on what they were allowed to buy and do, such stuff.

[Stormshield]

Slim, I've already stated that the food itself won't be a problem :) And the man I talked to is quite at home in world politics, I believe, and he knows A LOT about economics.

[Decolonize The Left]

Storm, your friend's father states an interesting argument. It seems to hold some ground on the surface, yet with a little thought we can see that it is severly flawed.

Firstly, in regards to the fact that we don't hace the resources, he assumes that should we attempt to provide basic human rights and needs to everyone, we will do so in the fashion that we are currently supplying the welthier countries. This is a risky and convenient assuption, as it eliminates the possible of sustainable energy (which, sadly, has not been regarded as a possible alternative to oil/coal). It also assumes that we will be producing these goods and food in certain countries and shipping them everywhere else, which when you think about it, is totally ridiculous. While many countries cannot priovide certian goods or food for their population, they CAN survive with other alternatives as has been demonstrated in the past. Therefore we can assume that these countries can at least provide a meager, yet sustainable, amount of food for their people. Secondly on the topic of resources, our friend's father conveniently forgot about recycling, and other forms of sustainable re-use, which are not implemented on any sort of a large scale at this moment. The point I am trying to make is that, sure, with the way we live today, with the waste we make today, this situation is impossible. BUT if we change the way we address the environment, which will lead to all forms of sustainability, I think it is possible.

Now, as to whether or not people can adjust to a lesser standard of living, I would like to know how many people were surveyed, and what their Standard of Living was before the test. I believe that many, if not most, people would make the sacrifice of their excess-comforts for the saving of millions of people. It's a matter of how it is presented to them.

It's a great question, and I am no scientist, but those are my thoughts.

-- August

[Mujer Libre]

Well, in a communist society we'd save a whole heap of resources that were used for unnecessary means, like extravagant packaging and advertising. Think of all the cardboard that alone would save. Things that are consumed for the sake of consumption would be a thing of the past.

[Che NJ]

There is more than enough food inthe world, it just isn't distributed equally. And don't think that living like a westerner is the humane standard of living. Having something packaged in three layers of plastic isn't a human right. We just need to lower western standards and help the third world. Did you hear that if everybody in the world lived like an american, we would need four planet Earths to supply the resources. I think we know who is causing these problems

[DaCuBaN]

Is it possible, AT ALL, to achieve a world with acceptable standards of living for everyone on earth, without killing off half the population?

It's possible to live "equally", but not at current population levels:


The human population of Earth reached 1 billion in 1804, 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1959, 4 billion in 1974 and 5 billion in late 1986. Last year on October 12th 1999, the human population of Earth reached 6 billion. In my lifetime the population has doubled from 3 billion in 1959 to the 6,034,213,000 today. This doubling of population which occured over the last 40 years will never come close to happening again.

The exponential growth of human population peaked in 1987. That year 87.01 million more people were added to the Earth. Since 1987, the population has declined on average by 2.1 million less people added per year. In this year of 2000 the population will increase by 60.1 million people. If we maintain this 13 year average of 2.1 million less people added per year, we will peak in population reaching zero population growth in 2029 with 6.90 billion people.

The decline of human population has been even more dramatic over the last 6 years. In 1994 we added 78.5 million more people, this year we will add 60.1 million. This is a decline of 3 million less people added per year. If we maintain this 6 year average of 3 million less people added per year, we will peak in population reaching zero population growth in 2020 with 6.64 billion people.

When demographers from the United Nation's did their biennial update of world population numbers in October of 1998 they reduced their projected average population for 2050 from 9.4 billion to 8.9 billion. They also reduced their low number, saying we will reach zero population growth in 2038 @ 7.47 billion. People that are somewhat aware of human population numbers are talking about the 8.9 billion in 2050. Some people are saying it will go higher and a few foolhearty cornucopians are still saying that our population is nearly limitless. All the while no one seems to be looking at nor talking about their low number which has constantly been reduced for the last 13 years. When the United Nations meets again this fall, the projected high, average and low numbers will be reduced once again.

If you take a look at the 2 charts we have produced from the United Nations year by year population figures you can see the declines for yourself. Our population has been going down faster for the last 6 years than even their low numbers for reaching zero population growth in 2038 @ 7.47 billion. This is shown by their low number for January 1, 2000 which is 6,027,534,000, yet on October 12, 1999 they said we reached 6,000,000,000. We could not have added 27,534,000 people in 80 days. We actually added 13,880,000 to make it 6,013,880,000 in the last 80 days of 1999. What this all means is we will reach zero population growth somewhere between 2020 @ 6.64 billion and 2029 @ 6.90 billion.

Perhaps the powers that be have an interest in keeping you thinking we can expand forever, implying that the Earth's resources are limitless. Perhaps the capitalistic economic system that rules Earth does not want to let you know the truth about our crashing population and that we will reach zero population growth very shortly.

The true reasons why our population is crashing is we have passed our sustainable limits for both of our major food energy sources, grains and fish, as well as very quickly reaching our fresh water limits. This awareness is not what the capitalistic economic system powers that be want you to know. It would be bad for their business.

Our crashing population is both good and bad. It is good because these numbers show the indisputable evidence of the collapse that has been under way now for the past 13 years. This is the ultimate wake up call for Homo Sapiens. If there were ever a sign to take a long hard look at what we as a species are doing to all of the life sustaining ecosystems on Earth, this is it.

On the other hand this is bad because we have yet to recognize the alarming facts that for the last 16 years we have passed the sustainable food limits that Earth can produce relative to population. This plus our population is going down faster and faster each year for 13 straight years. Meanwhile 3.6 billion people are barely getting enough to eat with more than 1 billion of them in total abject poverty. And let us not forget that somewhere between 10 and 30 million children die every year of the worst possible death, starvation and starvation related diseases.

Why did the exponential growth of human population peak in 1987? Why has our population been going down every year since? Why is our population declining more each year than the preceeding one? Why is this crashing slowdown in our population happening? And why will our population reach zero population growth somewhere between the years 2020 and 2029?

In the following areas you will find the major factors that have caused our population to peak in 1987 with 87 million more people added and decline on average by 2.1 million less people per year over the last 13 years.

Sustainability Of Soil Energy:

The rise in Grain Yield per hectare is slowing in all major grain-producing regions. Since 1984, grain output per person has fallen on average by .6 percent per year. In 1998, the per capita grain output further declined to 695 pounds, this is an 8 percent decline from the peak in 1984 when the per capita grain output was 755 pounds. The slower growth in world grain harvest is due to the lack of new land and slower growth in irrigation and fertilizer use. Irrigated area per person, after expanding by 30 percent from 1950 until 1978, has declined by 4 percent. Since then the growth in the irrigated area has fallen behind that of population. With biotechnology neither providing nor promising any dramatic breakthrough in raising yields, there is little hope for restoring growth in food output.

Sustainability Of Fisheries Energy:

The worldwide Fish Catch peaked in 1989 at 100 million metric tons. Since 1989, the seafood catch per person has fallen by 2 percent per year. Marine biologists at the Food and Agriculture Organization report that all 17 of the major oceanic fisheries are being fished at or beyond capacity. Nine are in a state of collapse.

Fresh Water Limits:

Since the amount of fresh water available for human consumption is constant, as population grows, the supply of fresh water per person declines. As a result, the amount of water available per person is expected to decline by 74 percent between 1950 and 2050. Nearly half a billion people around the world face water shortages today. By 2025, the number is expected to grow to 2.8 billion people. Of these, at least 1 billion people will be living in countries facing absolute water scarcity. Most overpopulated, fast-urbanizing countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa have to survive on largely polluted rivers and wells. Water is a major carrier of disease bearing germs. As many as 2.3 billion people in the world today suffer from diseases linked to water, such as dysentery, cholera and typhoid. Less than 1 percent of the Earth's water is fit and available for human consumption.

Family Planning For Women / Literacy Rates:

Successful family planning programs have led to many positive developments. Women's literacy rates have gone up and they are now given a much greater role in the society of many countries. This has increased their knowledge of their reproduction cycles and bodies. As a result, as many as 75 countries from all regions of the world now have achieved replacement level fertility rates of 2.1 children per woman or less.

Infant And Child Mortality / Starvation And Its Related Diseases:

10 million children died before reaching their fifth birthday in 1998 and nearly 8 million of them did not reach their first birthday. About 98 percent of child deaths occurred in developing countries, with the least developed countries accounting for a third of all deaths under age five. In the developed world, only eight out of every 1,000 newborn children died before they reached their first birthday in 1998; in the developing world, the number of deaths was 64 per 1,000 newborns. Infants in the least developed countries fared even worse, with 109 of every 1,000 newborn children dying before age one. Similarly, mortality under age five was seven times higher in developing countries and 12 times higher in least developed countries than in developed countries.

HIV Infection Rates:

All industrial countries have held HIV infection rates of their adult populations under 1 percent but in some countries of sub-Saharan Africa, they have climbed above 20 percent. In Botswana, the adult infection level is 26 percent. In Zimbabwe, 25 percent, and in South Africa, 22 percent. Countries with infection rates of 18 to 20 percent include Namibia, Swaziland, and Zambia. Aside from raising mortality, the virus also reduces fertility. With new infections at the highest level in the 15- to 24-year age group in sub-Saharan Africa, many young women will die before they complete their childbearing years. In addition, as the infection progresses toward full-blown AIDS, ovulation often ceases, reducing fertility further. In 1981, there were 200,000 new infections; in 1998, there were 5.8 million new infections. Preliminary data indicate a far bigger jump in 1999.

Awareness:

The work of many great people throughout history to bring awareness of the catastrophic problems of exponential population growth and the disasters it will create when the sustainable limits of Earth are reached.

http://www.overpopulation.net/

[Mr Flibble]

i think the idea about not having enough materials for packaging and all is a load of lies. Use plant rests to make cases or use bio fuel. We just have to inovate our current production system.