"Earth is too crowded for Utopia"

[eremon]

Earth is too crowded for Utopia
The global population is higher than the Earth can sustain, argues the Director of the British Antarctic Survey in the first of a series of environmental opinion pieces on the BBC News website entitled The Green Room. Solving environmental problems such as climate change is going to be impossible without tackling the issue, he says.

do you believe it?
if not what else can be happened?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 11:44 am
Earth is too crowded for Utopia
The global population is higher than the Earth can sustain, argues the Director of the British Antarctic Survey in the first of a series of environmental opinion pieces on the BBC News website entitled The Green Room. Solving environmental problems such as climate change is going to be impossible without tackling the issue, he says.

do you believe it?
if not what else can be happened?
Im no expert, but I've heard it cited that the potential food could adequately sustain a population 3 times bigger than our own. And this is without utilising all arable land, and using the most efficient farming methods.

So no, I do not believe the earth is over populated, and will not be for a very long time.


if not what else can be happened?

When the world is over populated, it will naturally sort itself out, if we cannot feed everyone, the people we cannot feed will die. Though this is an absurd scenario.

There is of course the option of space colonisation. Mars is a potential candidate for this, though there are issues. The environment is remarkably friendly to humans already. Nasa suggests that if you were to stand on mars in a warm jumper and hat you'd have about 2 minutes before passing out and dying.

So I'd be willing to say that colonisation is a real possibility.

[RebelDog]

He is dancing around the real issue; its capitalism that is unsustainable.

From article;

Let us assume (reasonably) that an optimum human population level exists, which would provide the physical and intellectual capacity to ensure a rich and fulfilling life for all, but would represent a call upon the services of the planet which would be benign and hence sustainable over the long term.

Clearly such a senario doesn't exist under capitalism irrespective of human population. There are billions of people on this planet in the third world who are contributing very little to the 'human footprint'. The bourgeoise are producing profit in the manner they always have, with no general regard for the human, social or environmental consequences of such a single principle priority. Globalisation has helped make a mockery of regulation and developing countries have few options when considering their immediate economic needs.
All this need not happen. We have all the tools and resources for everyone right now to at the least be fed, clothed and sheltered. This doesn't happen because billions cannot afford such basic human requirements. The power of global communism could and would meet global challenges with the immense weapons of co-operation, human solidarity and planning. It is only in the perverse logic of capitalism that things like living longer and population increase become problems. These things will never be problems for the ruling class though, they will always enjoy the fruits of human progress while others must pay for their decadence.

[Sadena Meti]

The earth is finite, it does have a limit. It also depends on lifestyle level.

If you don't mind everyone living on subsistance farming, just above the hunger line, we could sustain 18.40 billion. That's the "3 times" number that is thrown about.


For a wealth of data, check out this report

http://www.mnforsustain.org/erickson_d_det...tion_levels.htm (http://www.mnforsustain.org/erickson_d_determining_sustainable_population_leve ls.htm)


Personally, I think it would be nice if we could roll back to about 5 billion and spread out the population better, just like the manifesto suggested (the spreading that is, not the number).

But if we are looking at 10 billion by 2050, shit we are talking about needing a 50% population reduction. Yikes.

Here's an interesting moral thought when it comes to population control. Let's say the world agrees that we need to reduce the population to 5 billion, and everyone goes along with it, and we do. In some ways, it is a form of racism against "those that don't exist". Funny thought, neh?


So that's my 2 cents. 5 billion would be ideal, but i bet we could EVENTUALLY stretch utopia to 10 billion, but we are currently nowhere near ready to feed 10 billion. The rest of this century is going to be nasty.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Originally posted by rev-[email protected] 05, 2006 04:52 pm

Here's an interesting moral thought when it comes to population control. Let's say the world agrees that we need to reduce the population to 5 billion, and everyone goes along with it, and we do. In some ways, it is a form of racism against "those that don't exist". Funny thought, neh?



It sounds like something you would hear at an abortion rally. How can you be prejudice against something that doesnt really exist? Those that arent born arent missing anything or aware that they arent born. They simply are not.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by The Crying Orc+December 05, 2006 12:23 pm--> (The Crying Orc @ December 05, 2006 12:23 pm)
rev-[email protected] 05, 2006 04:52 pm

Here's an interesting moral thought when it comes to population control. Let's say the world agrees that we need to reduce the population to 5 billion, and everyone goes along with it, and we do. In some ways, it is a form of racism against "those that don't exist". Funny thought, neh?



It sounds like something you would hear at an abortion rally. How can you be prejudice against something that doesnt really exist? Those that arent born arent missing anything or aware that they arent born. They simply are not. [/b]
I said it was a funny thought, not an important one. But interesting to think of non-existent people as "foreigners" trying to "immigrate" to this "country" who are being turned away because the current lot don't want to share resources.

I love interesting thoughts like that.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Yeah, I guess it could sorta fit that profile. Im not really sure who would look at it that way but ok.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by The Crying [email protected] 05, 2006 12:33 pm
Im not really sure who would look at it that way but ok.
People like me who like to get high while they read philsophy and economics :D


"Man... it's like... they're like foreigners right... from like... another country dude! Whoa! Wicked!"

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Oh. Yeah it makes more sense if your baked im sure. I cant do challlenging things when Im baked. You are very lucky.

[Dimentio]

Church of euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org')

Heh, Pentti Linkola must cheer. Reactionaries dream of a genocide of Asians and Africans to make the world less "crowded". I agree with you that it depends on how we generate growth. That is one of the preconditions of NET.

[ichneumon]

consider: modern wheat farmers use around 100lbs of fertilizer per acre per year.
consider: agriculture in the US uses about 1 billion pounds of pesticide per year, yet we lose a larger percentage of crops to pest than we did 75 years ago.

modern agriculture is based on converting petroleum into chemical energy that humans can use. this process adds CO2 to the atmosphere, which ultimately reduces the amount of arable land on the planet. it is a viscious cycle.

feeding the 7 billion people on earth today involves the use of tremendous amounts of petroleum. there is no alternative, and the supply is limited. using this resource degrades the planet's base ability to support life, meaning that more petroleum must be used to produce the same amount of food every year.

[Dimentio]

We could use other kinds of energy. For example we could have hydrophonic vertical farming.

[Vargha Poralli]

As a person living in the 2nd populous country in the world I say "YES"

[Sentinel]

The threat of overpopulation is heavily exaggerated as a strategy to make people blame themselves, or even 'better', the peoples of the third world for our environmental problems as well as scarsity of resources. Instead of the real culprit, the global capitalist system.

Capitalism as a system fails to deliver the goods, that is to bring food to the starving, to optimise production in general, and to protect the environment because of it's ineffective nature. It's a shit system, but it benefits the minority. And that minority will come up with anything to keep it that way. Overpopulation is a perfect excuse for the capitalists: 'There are too many of us for everyone to be well off, it's not realistic' they say. Fucking liars..

I'm not a big fan of Socialist Alternative in Australia, but there was a quite brilliant article on this issue in their newspaper I came to read while visiting that country:

Overpopulation -- A racist myth, by Andrew Cheeseman (http://www.sa.org.au/10914.htm)


Originally posted by The article
So why is our planet in such a sorry state? One of the most common arguments is that there are simply too many people on the planet for nature to handle – that with six billion people on the planet, the environment cannot be saved. However, the last 200 years have shown two crucial facts about the overpopulation argument – firstly that it is a conservative argument that leads to racism, and secondly that it is just plain wrong.

The “overpopulation” argument is much older than most realise. It was first advanced by Thomas Malthus, who argued over 200 years ago that increasing world population would cause scarcity, starvation and environmental devastation within the 19th century, and that the world couldn’t possibly produce enough food for one billion people. Malthus’s “solution” was for efforts to be made to reduce birth rates and living standards – but only those of the poor and/or “undesirable”.

In other words, rich whites could consume all they liked, while those poor or coloured enough to earn Malthus’s contempt would suffer. Today, theories of overpopulation cause people to blame populous countries like China for environmental destruction – when the USA, with 78 per cent fewer people than China, uses 78 per cent more energy, and, according to the International Energy Agency, creates over 60 per cent more greenhouse gases.

If you follow the overpopulation argument to its logical conclusion, the solution to environmental crisis is one of two things – at best keeping countries like China in underdeveloped poverty, or at worst, advocating genocide.

Serpent, your link doesn't seem to work. Have you read Linkola? What a whacko! :lol:

To those who didn't know, he is a Finnish primitivist who can best be described as a genocidal lunatic.. Of course totally harmless as primitivist ideas never will be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain. But a disturbing fellow none the less.

[ichneumon]

The human race now appears to be getting close to the limits of global food productive capacity based on present technologies. Substantial damage already has been done to the biological and physical systems that we depend on for food production. This damage is continuing, and in some areas is accelerating. Because of its direct impact on global food production injury and loss of arable land has become one of the most urgent problems facing humanity. Of these problems, this is perhaps the most neglected.

Controlling these damaging activities and increasing food production must now receive priority and resources commensurate with their importance if humanity is to avoid harsh difficulties in the decades ahead.

Attempts to markedly expand global food production would require massive programs to conserve land, much larger energy inputs than at present, and new sources as well as more efficient use of fresh water. all of which would demand large capital expenditures. The rates of food grain growth required to increase the per capita food available, in the light of present projections of population growth, are greater than have been achieved under any but the most favorable circumstances in developed countries.

Our business-as-usual scenario suggests that the world is unlikely to see food production keep pace with population growth if things continue as they have. If they do continue then the world will experience a declining per capita food production in the decades ahead. This decline would include spreading malnutrition and increased pressure on agricultural, range, and forest resources.

Should climatic alteration from greenhouse warming and enhanced ultraviolet levels impose further stress on agricultural systems, the prospects for increased food production would become even less favorable than they are at present.

In our opinion. a tripling of the world's food production by the year 2050 is such a remote prospect that it cannot be considered a realistic possibility. If present food distribution patterns persist the chance of bettering the lot of the majority of the world's peoples vanishes. The likelihood of a graceful and humane stabilization of world population vanishes as well. Fertility and population growth in numerous developing countries will then be forced downward by severe shortages of food, disease, and by other processes set in motion by shortages of vital resources and irreversible environmental damage.

from: CONSTRAINTS ON THE EXPANSION OF THE GLOBAL FOOD SUPPLY (http://dieoff.org/page36.htm)

[Janus]

Overpopulation is not the main problem, rather what we attribute to overpopulation is really the work of the maldistribution of goods and wealth/resources on this planet.

[Red Tomato]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 09:09 pm
Overpopulation is not the main problem, rather what we attribute to overpopulation is really the work of the maldistribution of goods and wealth/resources on this planet.
yes, i agree. we need to redistribute wealth and resources greatly :P

[ichneumon]

Overpopulation is not the main problem, rather what we attribute to overpopulation is really the work of the maldistribution of goods and wealth/resources on this planet.


ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY

there is NOT enough of it to redistribute it, not is there any way of getting more of.

besides, are you planning on taking the resources of 1.2billion first worlders and sharing them with 5 billion 3rd worlders? how would this work out - you having 20% of the energy available that you once had? there is enough food to go around, barely, if everyone eats a vegetarian diet, but even the cost of transporting it is prohibitive. how are you going to like have 20% of your current level of medical care? how about one car per five people?

[NZ_Commie]

NERGY ENERGY ENERGY

there is NOT enough of it to redistribute it, not is there any way of getting more of.

Interesting....might ponder it next time i sit in my Hummvee BILLOWING carbon and unburnt fuel at the intersection idle-ing. Or as i flick the light switch illuminating my room using inefficient fillimant lightbulbs, powerd by a cheap by highly inefficient coal power plant etc etc etc

Bottom line; Capitalism operates by expedience and ECONOMIC efficency, not scientific efficency.

We are squandering our resources, wasting and under-utilising SO much that any measures to how many people we could sustian with current resources are just a waste of time.

[Janus]

there is NOT enough of it to redistribute it, not is there any way of getting more of.
Redistributing energy is too costly, rather we should seek to find better and more energy sources.


besides, are you planning on taking the resources of 1.2billion first worlders and sharing them with 5 billion 3rd worlders?
But you are assuming that the latter 5 million aren't working at all. What I meant by economic redistribution was not only economic equality between the various classes in the world itself but also economic equality between the various nations too. The fact of the matter is that the top 10% of the world's pop. controls over 95% of the world's resources. There needs to be some type of redistribution of wealth and goods there.

[Ol' Dirty]

Overpopulation is going to be a big problem in our future. Not our kid's future, but our future. It's been happening for a while, and if it doesn't stop some pretty radical things will happen that most certainly do not involve leftists.

Where I live, in the Northeast, we didn't have one single day of snow. Thirty years ago, we would have had at least seven or eight. This is the product of not only overpopulation (which is a rather misunderstood topic, but more on that later), but the vast innequalities of human societies (which is more and more becoming one society).

[NZ_Commie]

Overpopulation is going to be a big problem in our future. Not our kid's future, but our future. It's been happening for a while, and if it doesn't stop some pretty radical things will happen that most certainly do not involve leftists.

Care to back this up? This entire thread is about overpopulation and wether its actually occuring or not. No one seems to disagree that OVERCONSUMPTION is occuring in the west, and sure, there are plenty of issues relating to over-density of population.


Where I live, in the Northeast, we didn't have one single day of snow. Thirty years ago, we would have had at least seven or eight.

Im sure a small HEAVLY Polluting population could acheive that type of effect as well....What about a large sustainable and clean living one?

[Dimentio]

Reminds of RedEurope on www.technocracy.ca who were hell-bent Pakistani migration caused urban warming.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:36 pm

Overpopulation is not the main problem, rather what we attribute to overpopulation is really the work of the maldistribution of goods and wealth/resources on this planet.


ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY

there is NOT enough of it to redistribute it, not is there any way of getting more of.

besides, are you planning on taking the resources of 1.2billion first worlders and sharing them with 5 billion 3rd worlders? how would this work out - you having 20% of the energy available that you once had? there is enough food to go around, barely, if everyone eats a vegetarian diet, but even the cost of transporting it is prohibitive. how are you going to like have 20% of your current level of medical care? how about one car per five people?
Not according to factor 10 attributed by the Wuppertal institute.