Depleting our Environment - We should Panic!

[NavajoEverclear]

First off, why is there not an enviromental science forum section?

 

Anyway, i am taking an enviromental science class this year, and recently we had our first big class discussion about all the damage that our technology, pollution and deforestation and everything is turning the enviroment into shit. Sure we're alive now (a lot of people(none here obviously)) are in terrible impovershed positions. I am not totally against this. In a Richard Dawkins book i read that this is the way it has alway been, that the majority suffers and dies. Also i love diversity, i dont want everyone to have all the same technology crap and all the same lifestyle. But the thing is, our population is out of control, and industrialized countries consume vast more resources than all the people unindustrialized lives.

 

In 50yrs our population will be fricken doubled. I've heard that the planet will be uninhabitable by then. Probably who said that was blowing some statistics out of proportion, but common sense and accepting the evidence will show that there is at least definately going to be a major extinctions of most larger life forms, obviously including humans.----- unless there is a drastic revolution in our relationship with the enviroment.

 

What do you think about this? Do you think we'll have population controls in all countries in time to save ourselves? (like in the Ender books).

I am seriously considering starting a counter-culture on a crusade to destroy technology and break down all centralized governments and corporations. Break humans into small communities and our combined forces wont be so destructive. We'll have to work directly with the enviroment and think about what we're doing.

 

Well tell me your thoughts. There is no denying we have a huge problem, what are we going to do about it?

[pulkit]

Population control may be achieved in the developed world. But such things will be out of reach for developing countries not only at the present but for some time to come. A major hinderance there is illeteracy.

 

I'd like to say that population control can't be enough. It would stop or halt degredation of the environment, but it won't repair it. You have to start getting pro-active. Nature's self-healing is not a quick process, and we can't depend on its occurance.

 

Starting a counter-culture ..... going a bit too extreme !

[NavajoEverclear]

with the scale of damage going on, it could be hundreds of years before we see the results of attempts to heal. So i think its best that we start with not continuing to damage. Not to mention there may not be a way to fix some problems, mainly atmospheric. We can replant trees, but plants dont make most of our oxygen anyway. Do you think it will be possible to fix the ozone in time? My guess isn't that we'll destroy the ozone, but we'll die out before we have a chance to do that much damage. The planet will eventually recover from our extinction, but i'd rather that the future includes humans.

 

Population control isn't even the most important step. So lets ignore that for now. For now lets just stop driving cars, stop all dumps, burnplants, and powerplants, stop building houses, stop harvesting cows and other farm animals (they consume way too much food and all they do is give us colon cancer). In short stop consuming so much crap. Fine if the effects wont reach developing countries, its the developed countries that consume the majority of everything (by far).

 

Counter-culture to extreme? Think of the chaos that could become in 50 years if we keep pretending nothing is wrong and that we have plenty of resources to last forever. Well it'll last a lot longer if we get over all the unneccisary stuff.

[NavajoEverclear]

excuse, even ignore my ridiculous propositions about how to change the world. I'm not entirely serious, i would definately think out a more structured movement---- though if anarachy can save the enviroment, maybe that would make it a good thing, guess its a matter of opinion. Though that sounds a lot like the 'means justifies the end' philosophy, which we know didn't work out with communism. Social chaos would not be my prefered tool for saving the planet, but ignore that what i think about the issue completely.

 

What do YOU think about it? What do YOU think we should do? To me the question seems more like, do or dont you care? The evidence is clear that we're headed for deep shit at an exponential acceleration. You just going to enjoy the ride until a self inflicted armagedden? (i by the way do not believe in the christian armageddon idea, but scientifically there is plenty of evidence to show that we are highly capable of exterminating ourselves)

[coquina]

Sometimes people pass laws that they think will help, which may have been good at the time, but don't apply anymore.

 

For example - take the concept of "zoning". During the Industrial Revolution people lived where they worked. The factories were run by coal, and billowed smoke that was unhealthy for people to breathe. Zoning ordnances were put into effect insuring that factories would be in one area and residences in another. This eventually even spread to retail areas. Zoning prohibited store owners from living over their establishment as had been the custom forever.

 

With the advent of the automobile, it became easier for people to live far away from the dirty, unhealthy city.

 

Well - times have changed. Factories are no longer run by coal fired steam boilers but by non-polluting electricity. There is no longer the need for zoning.

 

Some city planners are beginning to recognise this fact and revitalize their downtown and working areas. In some areas, new towns are being planned that put people's work and recreational areas within walking distance of their homes. Tax incentives are given to businesses who cooperate and who provide day care centers for preschool children.

 

I believe that that rezoning and revitalization is one step that can be taken which will help both the economy and the environment.

 

1. It eliminates long commutes, saves millions of gallons of gas, and puts millions of dollars of spending money back in the consumers' pockets.

 

2. It allows people to have more time to spend with their families rather than driving to and from work.

 

3. It makes cities become attractive places to live, bringing the people back which provides government with a higher tax base, (not by raising taxes, but by providing more higher income people to contribute) which in turn leads to better schools and other community services.

 

I believe we need to support candidates for public office who are forward thinking enough to adopt this concept.

[badchad]

I'm pinning my hopes to the solution of this predicamenton "Survival of the Fittest". As someone previously said, the population problem is occuring mainly in impoverished and third world countries. While the population in these countries will grow exponentially, the availabilty of resources will not (mainly because industrial countries monopolize the majoirty of these resources). Thus, the impoverished countries will reach a "carrying capacity", after which they will completely be devoid what little resources they have now. (no sanitation, healthcare etc.) When this happens, the death rate will spike large enough to counter the population growth.

 

This is just my personal hypothesis though.

[Lance]

I say we place a ban on toilet paper and start using toilet plastic.

[Martin]

Everclear

I believe that the 30 years war cut the population of central europe by about 50 percent between the years 1618--1648 [edit: I still have to check this and correct it some more, if wrong]

 

it was a quarrel between two divisions of christianity that got started

when someone in Prague was pushed out of a window around 1618

 

 

human history is to some extent a history of genocides, famines, plagues (like the Black Death that cut all europe's pop by some like amount)

 

humans have not yet figured out a way of collectively imposing population limits that are accepted by the majority as FAIR.

they divide the land up---often very unequally---and even those who dont have very much land usually dont think it worth going to war about.

 

they dont know how to share the finite pool of reproductive rights in a way that will be thought fair----or at least not worth going to war over.

 

our species knows how to share land (with some unfairness and some war, but mostly peacefully)

 

our species does not know how to share the rights to bear children---to treat this as a finite resource that can be allocated or traded or alloted or somehow divided up.

 

in the 21st century there may possibly be "population wars" about population control---and also side issues like the environment (the water, the fish in the sea, the air, the resources, the rainforest, the extinction of tigers and coral reefs, the CO2 greenhouse etc.)

 

humans might be less likely to have "population wars" in this century if they could figure a fair way to limit population collectively----like UN imposed regional caps etc.----but so far no hint of this.

 

the only reason I know a bit about the ThirtyYears War in Germany is I saw a play by Berthold Brecht called "Mother Courage". People, including me, dont know enough history.

 

[edit: I just looked it up in Britannica and it said there is this common belief that plague and famine wiped out a large percentage, like a third or half, at that time but the Encyclopedia article challenged it and said that population of Germany was about same in 1650 as in 1600. According to them the reputed mortality around Thirty Years War is a misconception gotten from fact that there was a lot of displaced people and devastation in some locales]

[Thales]

The sad reality is that there will be some form of global mass extinction that culls a significant portion of the human population within 50 years. Be it a global pandemic or a major war most population models dictate that if a populus either extends its reach beyond the means of the environment or, as is the current case, undergoes a rapid and unchecked expansion, mother nature employs some fight back mechanism to trim the numbers back. Now the question is whether or not we let her do it, particularly seeing as technology can keep us one step ahead of the games in that respect.

 

What we really need (and I'm not being melodramatic) is a revolution. The systems of control are steering us in the wrong direction. The rich get richer and the poor stay poor, all while, as you rightly point out, the environment withers before our eyes. Technology, in the form of renewables and atmospheric 'mop-up' operations can save us but major investment is chronically needed and soon, before even the most advanced technologies are left to merely prolong our decline in a vastly different and desolate environment.

 

There will always be poor people, people with less than yourself.Its a hierachy that helps define your position as well as giving the elite some shoulders to stand on(as harsh as it sounds). But they needn't be impoverish. Investment in health, education and clean technologies in these poorer countries will do alot to alievitate the massive extent of the poverty that exists. The importance of good governace can also not be understated, particularly seeing as most money given to impoverish nations disappears in the bureacracy before it ever reaches the people. The fundamental problem with trying to rebalance the global socio-economic position is that it means the rich will have to make sacrifices, something that they are not reknowned for.

 

Overall I think a shift in focus of what is important, in all countries it's needed. In the election camaign down here in Australia the environment hasn't once been outlined as a significant issue facing, if not my generation then the one that follows. And it is an accumulative problem with no quick fix, so the only way we can make a serious dent in the amount of restoration required when the shit hits the proverbial fan is to act now. Unfortunately such impassioned pleas as ours all to often fall upon deaf ears, because who in their right mind, in the present political environment(and lets face it thats where these issues are unfortunately won/lost) would seek to implement policies which do not maximise the amount of economic rational.

[NavajoEverclear]

Coquina- Like the idea, it would work even better with an even more conservative (conservative of resources) focus. People should live in smaller amounts of space, only what is needed (some extra space obviously, but no mansions), along with whatever else can be done to maintain the enviroment. It would also help if we got more energy from natural forces- solar power, wind mills, water turbines.

 

Badchad- very true. Sparks the imagination to think how such extinction may work as an evolutionary tool as the most capable humans survive on as little as possible. Think there may be any major divergences in lineage? ---- That is for the imagination however. I know i originally mentioned population being a problem, and it is, but realized it is more important to identify who is doing the most damage to the enviroment. The mass of the population is in unindustrialized cultures and countries, they don't have a very devasting impact on the enviroment, while the U.S. alone consumes 75% of the worlds resources that are being used (might have been U.S. along with Europe or something, but it still shows that the countries with the biggest populations have the smallest hand in pollution and depletion of nature). Just because we are the rich and safe in our cities for now, doesn't mean we'll be protected forever. We are high on the food chain, and we depend on everything and everyone below us. We cant survive if they die out.

 

Nice idea Lance, you most certainly have won a seat in the New World Order.

 

Martin-- same thing as I say to badchad, population isn't the worst of our problems

 

Thales-- We need to work together in the revolution. But it cant be sloppy or it will die just like the hippies, but we cant afford to be choked out. My hopeful philosophy I've grown, is hope that making individuals aware of our direct connection with nature which we are destroying will be enough to overpower the greedy voices of the corporate world. The bigots suck their power from the masses, but what if we refuse to give them it? A sort of idea i've devoloped is that the whole world be broken up into communities which are self sufficient. In these seperated units, those who want to suck resources will have to go begging one community at a time to support them. The bigots will have to compromise. They wont go extinct immediatly, but their power will me much more limited. We will not allow them to take advantage of us.

 

This does not neccisarily mean dissolution of the country/countries, it means that the countries will be broken smaller groups that will unite because of trust, not fear. No centralized government making decisions for everyone. Any groups who have the drive to try to dominate the others, will simply be cut off until they learn their lesson.

 

A very naive and impossible idea, but something could evolve from the concept. And it could start with the youth. Youth have and always have had a drive for rebellion, whatever the cost. The youth could support the movement and make a loud voice. The trick is taking it beyond the youth. Making sure its not just another short lived hippy rebellion. There must also be a way for the idea to transcend all cultures. Perhaps different models of the the rebellion to appeal to different groups of people.

[atinymonkey]

Everclear

I believe that the 40 years war cut the population of central europe by about 50 percent between the years 1618--1658

 

 

No, sorry. It didn't go down like that in teh hood.

[Martin]

No, sorry. It didn't go down like that in teh hood.

You are right. I went and checked in the nearest Britannica. It was called

Thirty Years War and was 1618-1648 and it was NOT accompanied by a big mortality (according to the Encyclopedia article) although some people used to think that it was. My mistake.

[NavajoEverclear]

apologies my last post was probably unbearably large. I myself get impatient with long posts, so i know how they can piss people off. But i needed to say everything I did. I'm hoping more people will respond to this thread. There are few things more important. Society needs to change quick or we wont get a second chance.

[Thales]

One of the easiest ways to affect change in theis regard is to start informing the people. All to often green movements, collapse to obsucirty because their leaders spin too much rhetoric or they don't know how to connect with people. The seeds for any revolution start with the masses, who on this particular issue, are decidely uninformed about the urgency of the looming crises.

 

My advice is to join an existing local community based group and start garnering support for practical means of addressing the issue, from letters to your local MP to community meetings/forums where the issues can be openly discussed, increasing the chance that governments will take you seriously. I have recently joined a local support group and while I was skeptical at first I have found an overwhelmingly positive response to people's want and need to affect change on environmental issues.

 

Once people begin to understand, then we can begin to rally the economic sector. Without some form of monetry gain to be had there is unlikely to be any real forward progress. Unfortunately such is the world in which live.

[NavajoEverclear]

thanks for the advice. That issue about the rhetoric was important too. I was realizing today as was explaining my political views to my sister (who asked) that I didn't really know how to express myself, and that if i were to try to convey my ideas to other people, i'd better find a more efficent way. I'm sure that those with enough knowledge give very meaningful speaches and all, but what we really need are some quick, too the point principles and facts that can be spread around simply to lots of people. Simple and too the point pieces of information are more likely to spark interest anyway.

 

So i have some things to work out. I'll see about joining a local group, it probably wont be hard to find, a few of my friends are enviromentalists anyway, (and more of them becoming enviroment conscious), so theres even a good possibility of being able to start a group.

 

Good luck to a fellow enviromentalist. I'm out

[SketchTurner]

I figure if the human population does go extinct then so will nearly everything else. At the moment we can 'care' for the environment but if it got to the point where it was either save a species from extinction and die ourselves or shoot it and eat it then i think most people would value their own life over the suvival of an entire species. The same with trees. If you were next to the last forest on earth and it was freezing cold but you knew you could start a fire with the wood from the forest then you would go cut down the tree if it was your only source ofheat. Look on this as a generalisation of all the worlds resources and all the population stood around using the resources. Noone is going to kill themselves just so there will be 1/7m more fuel, food and water for the rest of the planet. This self serving mentality which is deeply present in (nearly) all humans by their very nature would lead to a devestating destruction of life before the last human died. We would use all possible knowledge and resource to keep ourselves going until there was nothing left to use. The only life left would be that which was inacessable to us (in the deep ocean or in sealed caves).

[Thales]

No offense but that is a very naive attitude that underscores the lack of understanding among most people about the symboytic relationship man has with nature. Nature has regenerative properties and managed carefully can prosper, whilst yielding functional if not abundant resources for us to utilise. The problem centrally revolves around the ease of slash and burn tactics (along with their short term rewards) when weighed up against a more long term considered approach, that places the environment in which we live on the same level as our own immediate prosperity. If you slash and burn the last forest on earth, you are effectively killing yourself as the trees produce the oxygen you breathe. If you erradicate biodiversity you sow the seeds for man's downfall as the entire food chain implodes.

 

It seems to me that education is needed more than anything else, as our much more primitive anscestors seem to have a much more functional and harmonious relationship with the world in which they lived, than the general urban populus, which accounts for the largest proportion of resource wastage.

 

Biology on this planet is pretty durable and can (and has) fight back from the brink again and again. However the more complex the organism, the more it relies on other organisms survival and the less easily it can itself adapt to a rapidly changing enviroment. The moral of this story is that without caring for nature we(or more likely our descendants) stand little chance in the polluted, deforested and all round dirty world we are passing on to them. The opinion expressed above about the aparrent 'hopelessness' of the situation frightens me, as it is this kind of naivity all to often used as the central crux against a fundamental shift in humans mentality when dealing with the environment. Negativity and doubt are not the way forward. Neither is denying the existance of the problem or dismissing it as 'human nature'. We control our future, nothing else so its about time we grabbed the reigns and steered it toward a better world.

[NavajoEverclear]

Thanks for your post Sketch, but i hope you rethink your attitude. We should conserve now to minimize the chance of such dire situations ever happening. We could make HUGE changes in our lifestyle that wouldn't kill us. Individual houses? we dont need those. We do need shelter of some sort, but a large amount of people could be put into a much smaller space than we are accustomed to. Cars? no need for them at all. Money, material pocessions. Completely unrelated to survival. We could subsist off of local crops and break into tribes.

 

Such extreme changes need not be the case, as if people would ever agree to such a thing. My point is to show you your stated opinion is an enourmous exaggeration. We could make huge material sacrifices that would have absolutely no effect on our health, if anyone it would be an improvement because all the processed fatty crap that is so popular is incredibly unhealthy---- as you surely already knew.

 

And like Thales said, if humans went extinct, most other things would not go extinct. We are among the most complex organisms, nothing relies on us, but we rely on everything 'below' us. If we die it might even be good for them.

 

But if we learn to respect the resources we depend on, we dont have to die. This is the outcome I, and every other human would prefer. Its just unfortunate that the people doing the most damage do not understand their direct relationship with the enviroment. They take it for granted and abuse it. Of coarse for the most part no one person has a huge impact, its a collective effort of destruction. And so we much collectively realize and change our behaviors.

[SketchTurner]

I'm not saying we're going to try to destroy the planet, just that if it came down to it we wouldn't go without a fight

[YT2095]

Depleting our Enviroment-- We should Panic![/b']

NO! Panic is BAD. in any situation, a calm way of thinking and basic common sense is always preferable, those that panic need a good slap!

[5614]

i think what he's trying to say is that, in the end, if we depelete all of our energy reserves [or all of the non-renewable one anway] then in the end we will use nuclear energy, even if it does produce radiation and toxic/radioactive waste which last for thousands of years, because that will be all that we can do. after all, renenwable energy, such as waves, wind and light do not produce that much power.

 

however hopefully it will never come to that and we should all care a lot more for our environment than we do at the moment.... esp/ with car exhausts and other vechile exhausts, im not saying dont drive, but put filters on your exhaust and stuff like that.

[YT2095]

Panicing is STILL BAD! and so the answer`s NO.

 

calm logical steps to avert potential disaster is what`s needed and is what I`m trying to say.

[Guest HaReLdNkUmAr]

Dont worry theres more planets

[5614]

now that is the wrong way to go about it.... our planet is unique [as far as we know] even if we did discover a distant planet, it would be hard to get the whole world there!

[Guest HaReLdNkUmAr]

But this ones turning into a second hand pair of underwear we got to run.