I agree that the statistics for these countries suggests that overpopulation should not be a regional concern, but those numbers do not reflect the current overpopulation pressure from what could be called the 'stealth' or 'ghost' population. By that I mean the demands on Brazil's resources by globalization.
Besides Brazil's 200 million population, an additional 500-800 Million are dependent on it's resources in China, Europe, Africa, and the U.S.
Those numbers may expand to over 1.5 Billion as India and China's population expands while their agricultural lands shrink in the next 5-15 years.
GASMON wrote:Some sad photos here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lanet.html
I won't comment as I'm buggered if I know an answer to all this.
Gas
It is so alive and graceful. What do you call it?
It's a dolphin.
Dolphin?
You know, it swims in the ocean. Like a fish, only it's not a fish.
Ah. A fish. We used to have them in our oceans. I've never seen one before.
"Black Capped Chickadees and their cousins, the Carolina and Boreal Chickadess, and a few other species, are doing quite well."
is so TRUE. Climate change is sucking all of the oxygen out of the room.we spend a lot of time talking about consequences of climate change or peak oil when the actual apocalypse is already happening right before our eyes which is biodiversity loss.
ffkling wrote:Ibon stated,"Black Capped Chickadees and their cousins, the Carolina and Boreal Chickadess, and a few other species, are doing quite well."
While this individual example, thankfully, may be true, the vast majority of American songbirds are declining in population. This is an undeniable fact. According to National geographic report, a National Audubon Society report called "Common Birds in Decline," shows that some widespread species generally thought to be secure have decreased in number as much as 80 percent since 1967, and the 19 others in the report have lost half their populations. The figures reflect an array of threats faced by birds throughout North America.
Newfie wrote:
I tend to think that we are at or have seen peak world order, and that we are now seeing the top of the roller coaster ride, the futre will be a downhill thrill.
ennui2 wrote:I just don't subscribe to this romantic notion that this breakdown into smaller and smaller units will wind up with a more just and peaceful society. I see it breaking down into warlordism/feudalism, just as it did during the dark ages.
onlooker wrote:I agree with Timo, that history affords us some reference points. However, I propose that humanity is at a different stage now then it ever was before. We have created a more or less civilized world. We are not the same as our ancestors who habitually went into battle, had a deep mistrust of others and did not live within the parameters of a civilized educated culture. Modern humans for the most part have not lived the brutish violent life of our ancestors. My point being that when collapse gains momentum I think their is a good chance people will chose cohesion over competition or outright internecine conflict.
The true balance between consumption and demand for resources will appear even more unfavourable when the progressive reduction towards zero use of non-renewables is factored into the numbers. A satisfactory way to do this has yet to be devised. It also assumes that 100% of biocapacity is allocated to humans, since there is no agreed figure for the necessary share needed to conserve biodiversity.
No, and there’s a very good reason why not. In the 2018 Annual Letter event of the Gates Foundation, American entrepreneur and Microsoft founder Bill Gates chose a tough question to answer. Does saving lives contribute to over-population? Gates took up the question asked by many. As people get healthier and live longer, will feeding everybody without damaging the environment be possible? Gates showed viewers a chart, giving them a glimpse into the world’s population growth over several hundred years. He acknowledged the massive growth in the number of people: “At first glance, this is a bit scary.” But his discovery is fascinating. When the quality of health increases, more people choose to have fewer children. “This effect is very, very dramatic,” Gates explained. “We find that in every country in the world, this is repeated. The population rate goes down as we improve health.”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests