This post is presented as a counter to the attitude that we must have continual growth and if we reduce our population it will spell economic disaster. Well unless we reverse that way we look at life and the way we live, it is highly likely we shall experience not only economic disaster, but annihilation.

>>If Earth’s history is compared to a calendar year, modern human life has existed for 37 minutes and we have used one third of Earth’s natural resources in the last 0.2 seconds.

The Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago and modern humans have existed for about 315,000 years. According to a study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), more than a third of Earth’s natural resources have been destroyed by humans in just thirty years.

The environmental footprint (or eco footprint) is a measure of human demand on the Earth’s ecosystems. It says something about how many planet Earths we need to support our way of life. If the impact is over one, we are “borrowing nature” from future generations. The measure of ecological footprint is developed by the Global Footprint Network.

Not only has humanity used up a third of nature’s resources. We keep on consuming them. At an increasing rate. Today we need about 1.75 planets to provide the resources for our consumption and absorb our waste. By 2030, we will need 2 planets. We only have one.

Ecological overshoot occurs when humanity’s demand on nature exceeds what ecosystems can supply. In other words, when we use more natural resources than the biosphere can regenerate. Earth Overshoot Day is the day of the year when we have used up one year’s supply of “nature”.

In 2019 “Earth Overshoot Day” was July 29 meaning that from this day humanity lives beyond the ecological capacity of planet earth. Every year the day arrives a little earlier… In 2012 the day was August 22, in 2009 it was September 25.

The ecological footprint measures how fast we consume natural resources and generate waste compared to how fast nature can generate new resources and absorb our waste. In includes our consumption of:

Fossil fuels (and the release of CO2 into the atmosphere)
Fish and seafood
Forest products
Meat
Cereals
Build-up land (buildings, asphalt, concrete)

In 2020 “Earth Overshoot Day” was August 22 meaning that from this day humanity lives beyond the ecological capacity of planet earth. Earth Overshoot Day keeps arriving earlier and earlier. In 1970 it arrived on December 29 meaning 1970 was the last year when humanity (almost) lived within Earth’s capacity.

1970: December 29
1980: November 4
1990: October 11
2000: September 23
2010: August 7
2019: July 29
2020: August 22
The fact that Earth Overshoot Day in 2020 happened later than in 2019 is very much due to the global covid-19 pandemic that has slowed down economic activity worldwide.

The global footprint measures human demand on nature. To illustrate, we extract 88 billion tons of natural resources from Earth every year (In 2017).

Biomass: 22.5 billion tonnes
Fossil fuels: 15 billion tonnes
Metal ores: 9.1 billion tonnes
Non-metallic minerals: 41.7 billion tonnes
This is a lot. Over 11 tons of natural resources for every single person on Earth. And the numbers keep going up. By 2050, we will use twice as much. Unless we change.

The human impact on Earth is so massive that it has resulted in the formal denomination of a new geological Epoch: The Anthropocene Epoch. Alternatively: The Human Age or the Era of Man.

Characteristics of the Human Age
The reason for the naming of a new Epoch is the massive impact the human population have had on Earth – especially since around 1950. The effects include:

Cutting down of forests: Since 2016, an average of 28 million hectares have been cut down every year.
Extinction of species and destruction of wildlife: Over 20 % of species is in critical risk of extinction.
Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change: If no action is taken, global temperatures could increase by a massive 5 degrees celsius by 2100.
Pollution of air, oceans, land: The rate of groundwater pollution doubled between 1960 and 2000 and is now over 280 square kilometers per year. 8.9 million people are killed by air pollution every year.

We are all part of it
Current overuse is due to our consumption of goods and services. The extraction, production, distribution, use, and disposal of the stuff we buy. As a consumer you have the possibility to make a positive difference.<<

https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/planet-earth/state-of-the-planet/overuse-of-resources-on-earth

How much of that is wasted I wonder, even reducing wastage could help

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

I’ll let rev handle this one

Been there, done that.

right but Your ABC has more to say today

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-01/china-ageing-population-burdening-one-child-policy-generation/101389682

obviously the correct solution to an excessive aged population is to breed harder to create an even more excessive population that will also in time age

wait

Carlo Pietro Giovanni Guglielmo Tebaldo must have been onto something

but wait there’s more

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

but wait there’s more

Been there, done that.

Did it turn out he was correct?

Is it more economic expansion is at risk if we don’t continue to produce more workers to work plus look after all the oldies

consider the history of human civilisations and how every single one of them up to the modern globalised industrial civilisation relied on having thousands of millions of people to generate wealth for the rich pricks

I’m pretty sure that having > 2000 million people is a pretty recent thing.

ah so you agree that all those other civilisations had fewer people, and they are no longer around, so clearly they didn’t have enough overpopulation

anyway

PermeateFree said:

Earth Overshoot Day keeps arriving earlier and earlier. In 1970 it arrived on December 29 meaning 1970 was the last year when humanity (almost) lived within Earth’s capacity.

1970: December 29
1980: November 4
1990: October 11
2000: September 23
2010: August 7
2019: July 29
2020: August 22
The fact that Earth Overshoot Day in 2020 happened later than in 2019 is very much due to the global covid-19 pandemic that has slowed down economic activity worldwide.

https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/planet-earth/state-of-the-planet/overuse-of-resources-on-earth

OK so we take it all back as you know we’ve been overly vocal about the dickheads trying to kill and maim everyone with uncontrolled spread of this dementiavirus thing but we’d failed to realise that they were actually doing it out of a sense of altruism, of enlightenment, of righteousness and it was all just to Save The Planet, they were pushing for the health and economic disaster that our idiot societies are sliding into, such that our natural resources may be preserved just that little bit longer.

We apologise.

COVID-19, is there any Planet it can’t Heal¿

> Subject: We are consuming the future

This post is presented as a counter to the attitude that we must have continual growth and if we reduce our population it will spell economic disaster.

We must reduce our population.

As for economic disaster, that’s a given anyway. There is absolutely no way to avoid it. And following economic disaster will be environmental disaster on a scale that will leave the future wondering why anybody bothered with environmental issues at the present time.

Thankfully, following that environmental disaster will be a slow rebuild. Worryingly , a very slow recovery, taking well over a thousand years to recover.

As for consuming the future, hard to avoid as 99 per cent of diet plans (and that includes diet of all resources) are a bust.

mollwollfumble said:

> Subject: We are consuming the future

This post is presented as a counter to the attitude that we must have continual growth and if we reduce our population it will spell economic disaster.

We must reduce our population.

As for economic disaster, that’s a given anyway. There is absolutely no way to avoid it. And following economic disaster will be environmental disaster on a scale that will leave the future wondering why anybody bothered with environmental issues at the present time.

Thankfully, following that environmental disaster will be a slow rebuild. Worryingly , a very slow recovery, taking well over a thousand years to recover.

As for consuming the future, hard to avoid as 99 per cent of diet plans (and that includes diet of all resources) are a bust.

If we overstep a co2 tipping point, it could take many thousands of years for any type of recovery, then it will be a matter of what has survived and it may not be us.

>1970 it arrived on December 29 meaning 1970 was the last year when humanity (almost) lived within Earth’s capacity.

I thought it about 1976, but I have an active forgettery, maybe it depends how you factor trajectory

to bring some cheer to your day, i’d suggest that the entire life thing on earth functions on death, certain death, it’s a death machine

so lower population reduces the rate of death

some good news in that

transition said:

>1970 it arrived on December 29 meaning 1970 was the last year when humanity (almost) lived within Earth’s capacity.

I thought it about 1976, but I have an active forgettery, maybe it depends how you factor trajectory

to bring some cheer to your day, i’d suggest that the entire life thing on earth functions on death, certain death, it’s a death machine

so lower population reduces the rate of death

some good news in that

Pretty much doesn’t it, even most of our energy sources are from something dead

Cymek said:

transition said:

>1970 it arrived on December 29 meaning 1970 was the last year when humanity (almost) lived within Earth’s capacity.

I thought it about 1976, but I have an active forgettery, maybe it depends how you factor trajectory

to bring some cheer to your day, i’d suggest that the entire life thing on earth functions on death, certain death, it’s a death machine

so lower population reduces the rate of death

some good news in that

Pretty much doesn’t it, even most of our energy sources are from something dead

Think the gold fillings has already been done.

Cymek said:

transition said:

>1970 it arrived on December 29 meaning 1970 was the last year when humanity (almost) lived within Earth’s capacity.

I thought it about 1976, but I have an active forgettery, maybe it depends how you factor trajectory

to bring some cheer to your day, i’d suggest that the entire life thing on earth functions on death, certain death, it’s a death machine

so lower population reduces the rate of death

some good news in that

Pretty much doesn’t it, even most of our energy sources are from something dead

The population reducing thing will obviously mean controlling births, so those not to blame don’t get a chance to exist and those most responsible get to live even longer.
I’m assuming we will find a semi solution to aging within the next century or less

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

transition said:

>1970 it arrived on December 29 meaning 1970 was the last year when humanity (almost) lived within Earth’s capacity.

I thought it about 1976, but I have an active forgettery, maybe it depends how you factor trajectory

to bring some cheer to your day, i’d suggest that the entire life thing on earth functions on death, certain death, it’s a death machine

so lower population reduces the rate of death

some good news in that

Pretty much doesn’t it, even most of our energy sources are from something dead

The population reducing thing will obviously mean controlling births, so those not to blame don’t get a chance to exist and those most responsible get to live even longer.
I’m assuming we will find a semi solution to aging within the next century or less

The only thing we need to do to control the birth rate – in the places where it already hasn’t been suppressed – is raise the schooling of females and raise the living standard of the general population.

sibeen said:

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

Pretty much doesn’t it, even most of our energy sources are from something dead

The population reducing thing will obviously mean controlling births, so those not to blame don’t get a chance to exist and those most responsible get to live even longer.
I’m assuming we will find a semi solution to aging within the next century or less

The only thing we need to do to control the birth rate – in the places where it already hasn’t been suppressed – is raise the schooling of females and raise the living standard of the general population.

Anything below 2.1 and you are losing population.

If we were to cull the human population how could it be done, I was thinking keep all the left handed people and get rid of the rest.
Leaves 10 – 12%

Cymek said:

If we were to cull the human population how could it be done, I was thinking keep all the left handed people and get rid of the rest.
Leaves 10 – 12%

There was a science fiction short story where aliens were asked to help with the problem. The governments of the world got together and decided that 50% should be culled but would let the aliens decide as they could do it instantly and painlessly.

The aliens chose women.

sibeen said:

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

Pretty much doesn’t it, even most of our energy sources are from something dead

The population reducing thing will obviously mean controlling births, so those not to blame don’t get a chance to exist and those most responsible get to live even longer.
I’m assuming we will find a semi solution to aging within the next century or less

The only thing we need to do to control the birth rate – in the places where it already hasn’t been suppressed – is raise the schooling of females and raise the living standard of the general population.

With higher living standards, come higher consumption of goods (resources) including food, clothing and housing. Means we eat the future even faster.

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

Cymek said:

The population reducing thing will obviously mean controlling births, so those not to blame don’t get a chance to exist and those most responsible get to live even longer.
I’m assuming we will find a semi solution to aging within the next century or less

The only thing we need to do to control the birth rate – in the places where it already hasn’t been suppressed – is raise the schooling of females and raise the living standard of the general population.

Anything below 2.1 and you are losing population.

Countries with a reducing birth rate are increasing their immigration, so their aging population can be paid for. Hilarious isn’t it! :)))))

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

The only thing we need to do to control the birth rate – in the places where it already hasn’t been suppressed – is raise the schooling of females and raise the living standard of the general population.

Anything below 2.1 and you are losing population.

Countries with a reducing birth rate are increasing their immigration, so their aging population can be paid for. Hilarious isn’t it! :)))))

Not a lot can be done, unless technology bordering on magic can fix the myriad of problems

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

The only thing we need to do to control the birth rate – in the places where it already hasn’t been suppressed – is raise the schooling of females and raise the living standard of the general population.

Anything below 2.1 and you are losing population.

Countries with a reducing birth rate are increasing their immigration, so their aging population can be paid for. Hilarious isn’t it! :)))))

There are another 80 years or so before the estimated world population peaks. These people will want things like food, clothing and shelter and if they cannot get it, they will take it by invading richer countries as is already happening in Europe and the UK. Then after 2200 the population must reduce that will take around 3 generation to reach our current level, which as this thread indicates is already using more resources than the environment can supply. The maths are not very complicated to see the real problems that are just around the corner.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Anything below 2.1 and you are losing population.

Countries with a reducing birth rate are increasing their immigration, so their aging population can be paid for. Hilarious isn’t it! :)))))

Not a lot can be done, unless technology bordering on magic can fix the myriad of problems

No, we have a number of really big problems that we are mostly sweeping under the carpet, but we cannot do that for much longer as the problems are growing bigger and bigger, so no matter what we do, they will be ignored no longer and that is when it hits the fan.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Countries with a reducing birth rate are increasing their immigration, so their aging population can be paid for. Hilarious isn’t it! :)))))

Not a lot can be done, unless technology bordering on magic can fix the myriad of problems

No, we have a number of really big problems that we are mostly sweeping under the carpet, but we cannot do that for much longer as the problems are growing bigger and bigger, so no matter what we do, they will be ignored no longer and that is when it hits the fan.

Something simple could be to provide free birth control up to and including voluntarily sterilisation.
No excuses based on culture or religion

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Countries with a reducing birth rate are increasing their immigration, so their aging population can be paid for. Hilarious isn’t it! :)))))

Not a lot can be done, unless technology bordering on magic can fix the myriad of problems

No, we have a number of really big problems that we are mostly sweeping under the carpet, but we cannot do that for much longer as the problems are growing bigger and bigger, so no matter what we do, they will be ignored no longer and that is when it hits the fan.

It seems also that with the political systems we have not much gets done as vested interests prevent or minimise it.

One also must wonder if the human race is worthy of continual existence, if we wreck this planet they maybe not.
Plus a broken planet combined with who knows what sort of dreary existence might not be desirable anyway

Over time the amount of metals in the world will stabilise. Steel for example is one of the most recycled and recyclable materials in existence. As world population declines the percentage of recycled metals will overtake new metals made from ores. The energy for recycling them can come from renewables.

It is not a one way path to oblivion. With better technology and a focus on system and recycling loops, the world can attain a more sustainable economic system.

The current linear system of economics has to change. That is inputs —> process —> outputs —> consumption is what needs to change, into a loop. Everything from agriculture to heavy industry. For example in agriculture the process does not end at consumption, the next stage natural stage is excretion. We need to stop treating excrement as a waste product to be gotten rid of, it is the nest process in the chain and can be recycled and used for something else, eventually ending up as the input for next years crops. Same for everything else, steel, aluminium etc.

Control third world populations – these are the populations rapidly increasing and consuming resources. In the third world they rarely give a damn about their environment, rubbish, shit is strewn everywhere – they refuse to clean it up.

On a Nile cruise I’d see black dustbin bags floating by towards the ocean.

wookiemeister said:

Control third world populations – these are the populations rapidly increasing and consuming resources. In the third world they rarely give a damn about their environment, rubbish, shit is strewn everywhere – they refuse to clean it up.

On a Nile cruise I’d see black dustbin bags floating by towards the ocean.

I don’t dispute what you say, except third world countries do not consume much at all, although their numbers and their basic needs are damaging the environment. Nevertheless, it is the rich countries that pay these often very poor people to supply them with things they want, which they readily do and being poor and uneducated do so in the most convenient way they can, with little or no regard for the environment.

It is the people with money who buy the meat that is raised on the land once covered with forests and supported indigenous peoples and sustainable wildlife. It is the more wealthy people who buy the fish caught by factory ships that strip the ocean of life, or encourage the fishermen to trespass on marine reserves and small countries exclusive economic zones to steal the fish from people that must survive upon it, or just the continued wellbeing of the marine life.

It is the rich people who purchase the plundered forest timber, or encourage local people to clear the land to grow desirable crops to sell to them. It is the rich people who buy the cars and most things made from metals that are often mined with little consideration of the land, or the local people, or the flora and fauna that live there and so it goes on, and on, with the rich either taking what they want, or getting poorer people to supply it to them.

When I look around my house, there is so much stuff that has been sourced from around the world. I look in the refrigerator and pantry and there are foods from far and wide, but most has been produced from land cleared for the purpose or caught and killed for my consumption and for the standards of this country, I am not a rich person, yet I too draw down on the worlds resources at a far greater rate than those in third world countries and all at the expense of the environment.

i’d expect the evolution of AI will offer solutions to present problems, working hard on some of them right this moment i’m sure, I bet there’s a monster computer somewhere analyzing risk and making investments

perhaps its good work in more ubiquitous than most might be aware

as it further evolves it may strategically assist the collapse of civilization, happen upon a better way for the future, help it happen, you could call it the great reset, or the big reset, whatever something Darwinian that doesn’t mind finding opportunity in disasters, something that will promise you resilience and really test it

transition said:

i’d expect the evolution of AI will offer solutions to present problems, working hard on some of them right this moment i’m sure, I bet there’s a monster computer somewhere analyzing risk and making investments

perhaps its good work in more ubiquitous than most might be aware

as it further evolves it may strategically assist the collapse of civilization, happen upon a better way for the future, help it happen, you could call it the great reset, or the big reset, whatever something Darwinian that doesn’t mind finding opportunity in disasters, something that will promise you resilience and really test it

….its good work is more ubiquitous…

IMHO, you needn’t worry about controlling population
if you factor in the fact that the changing climate is about to
make it nearly impossible to produce enough food to consume

as a farmer about things that the average person never considers…
…such as the changing bloom time for a fruit tree to require pollination
no longer coincides with the time the pollinators emerge to do their duty.

…or that changing temperatures move the ideal conditions to a different
geographical zone… where the soil may not include vital constituents for the
successful production of nutritious food… or the soil may be to thin for growth.

and that don’t begin to address the availability of sufficient water even via irrigation
or the pathogens and pests farmers will be forced to deal with in a changing climate

Soylent Green Preview

Soylent Green
The Full Movie (…if you can get it…)

Ogmog said:

IMHO, you needn’t worry about controlling population
if you factor in the fact that the changing climate is about to
make it nearly impossible to produce enough food to consume

as a farmer about things that the average person never considers…
…such as the changing bloom time for a fruit tree to require pollination
no longer coincides with the time the pollinators emerge to do their duty.

…or that changing temperatures move the ideal conditions to a different
geographical zone… where the soil may not include vital constituents for the
successful production of nutritious food… or the soil may be to thin for growth.

and that don’t begin to address the availability of sufficient water even via irrigation
or the pathogens and pests farmers will be forced to deal with in a changing climate

Soylent Green Preview

Soylent Green
The Full Movie (…if you can get it…)

Yes just another of our little problems. It’s coming at us from all directions making it difficult to decide which is worse.

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

Control third world populations – these are the populations rapidly increasing and consuming resources. In the third world they rarely give a damn about their environment, rubbish, shit is strewn everywhere – they refuse to clean it up.

On a Nile cruise I’d see black dustbin bags floating by towards the ocean.

I don’t dispute what you say, except third world countries do not consume much at all, although their numbers and their basic needs are damaging the environment. Nevertheless, it is the rich countries that pay these often very poor people to supply them with things they want, which they readily do and being poor and uneducated do so in the most convenient way they can, with little or no regard for the environment.

It is the people with money who buy the meat that is raised on the land once covered with forests and supported indigenous peoples and sustainable wildlife. It is the more wealthy people who buy the fish caught by factory ships that strip the ocean of life, or encourage the fishermen to trespass on marine reserves and small countries exclusive economic zones to steal the fish from people that must survive upon it, or just the continued wellbeing of the marine life.

It is the rich people who purchase the plundered forest timber, or encourage local people to clear the land to grow desirable crops to sell to them. It is the rich people who buy the cars and most things made from metals that are often mined with little consideration of the land, or the local people, or the flora and fauna that live there and so it goes on, and on, with the rich either taking what they want, or getting poorer people to supply it to them.

When I look around my house, there is so much stuff that has been sourced from around the world. I look in the refrigerator and pantry and there are foods from far and wide, but most has been produced from land cleared for the purpose or caught and killed for my consumption and for the standards of this country, I am not a rich person, yet I too draw down on the worlds resources at a far greater rate than those in third world countries and all at the expense of the environment.

You worry way too much

Third world nations don’t worry much at all, they turn everything into matchsticks and throw rubbish everywhere – they need to do something for themselves – they need to stop buying weapons , they always have money for that. They smash up their lands to buy weapons, billions and billions and billions of dollars of them.

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

Control third world populations – these are the populations rapidly increasing and consuming resources. In the third world they rarely give a damn about their environment, rubbish, shit is strewn everywhere – they refuse to clean it up.

On a Nile cruise I’d see black dustbin bags floating by towards the ocean.

I don’t dispute what you say, except third world countries do not consume much at all, although their numbers and their basic needs are damaging the environment. Nevertheless, it is the rich countries that pay these often very poor people to supply them with things they want, which they readily do and being poor and uneducated do so in the most convenient way they can, with little or no regard for the environment.

It is the people with money who buy the meat that is raised on the land once covered with forests and supported indigenous peoples and sustainable wildlife. It is the more wealthy people who buy the fish caught by factory ships that strip the ocean of life, or encourage the fishermen to trespass on marine reserves and small countries exclusive economic zones to steal the fish from people that must survive upon it, or just the continued wellbeing of the marine life.

It is the rich people who purchase the plundered forest timber, or encourage local people to clear the land to grow desirable crops to sell to them. It is the rich people who buy the cars and most things made from metals that are often mined with little consideration of the land, or the local people, or the flora and fauna that live there and so it goes on, and on, with the rich either taking what they want, or getting poorer people to supply it to them.

When I look around my house, there is so much stuff that has been sourced from around the world. I look in the refrigerator and pantry and there are foods from far and wide, but most has been produced from land cleared for the purpose or caught and killed for my consumption and for the standards of this country, I am not a rich person, yet I too draw down on the worlds resources at a far greater rate than those in third world countries and all at the expense of the environment.

You worry way too much

Third world nations don’t worry much at all, they turn everything into matchsticks and throw rubbish everywhere – they need to do something for themselves – they need to stop buying weapons , they always have money for that. They smash up their lands to buy weapons, billions and billions and billions of dollars of them.

A real worry is that poor people deserve a better quality of life but for it to happen if would likely finish the planet off.
Perhaps a certain standard of living is considered a human right and anything above this is not allowed.
Some ultra rich people must use the resources of thousands of people to have the life they do.

Cymek said:

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

I don’t dispute what you say, except third world countries do not consume much at all, although their numbers and their basic needs are damaging the environment. Nevertheless, it is the rich countries that pay these often very poor people to supply them with things they want, which they readily do and being poor and uneducated do so in the most convenient way they can, with little or no regard for the environment.

It is the people with money who buy the meat that is raised on the land once covered with forests and supported indigenous peoples and sustainable wildlife. It is the more wealthy people who buy the fish caught by factory ships that strip the ocean of life, or encourage the fishermen to trespass on marine reserves and small countries exclusive economic zones to steal the fish from people that must survive upon it, or just the continued wellbeing of the marine life.

It is the rich people who purchase the plundered forest timber, or encourage local people to clear the land to grow desirable crops to sell to them. It is the rich people who buy the cars and most things made from metals that are often mined with little consideration of the land, or the local people, or the flora and fauna that live there and so it goes on, and on, with the rich either taking what they want, or getting poorer people to supply it to them.

When I look around my house, there is so much stuff that has been sourced from around the world. I look in the refrigerator and pantry and there are foods from far and wide, but most has been produced from land cleared for the purpose or caught and killed for my consumption and for the standards of this country, I am not a rich person, yet I too draw down on the worlds resources at a far greater rate than those in third world countries and all at the expense of the environment.

You worry way too much

Third world nations don’t worry much at all, they turn everything into matchsticks and throw rubbish everywhere – they need to do something for themselves – they need to stop buying weapons , they always have money for that. They smash up their lands to buy weapons, billions and billions and billions of dollars of them.

A real worry is that poor people deserve a better quality of life but for it to happen if would likely finish the planet off.
Perhaps a certain standard of living is considered a human right and anything above this is not allowed.
Some ultra rich people must use the resources of thousands of people to have the life they do.

I’d wager the resources sustaining the first world working classes are more alike the ultra wealthy than those of the global billions living on a dollar a day. So change starts at home.

And leaving aside air travel even more so.

For once, i agree with wookie. They need to stop buying weapons.

I’ve been to, and done business in countries where, gosh darn it, they just never seem to have any money to help feed all those poor, hungry people, honestly, i don’t know what we’re gonna do about it all.

But, did i hear someone say they have a few used fighter-bombers for sale? Only $US25 million each? Hang on, let’s have a look down the back of the lounge cushions , maybe…yeah, here we go, we’ll take a dozen.

wookiemeister said:

PermeateFree said:

wookiemeister said:

Control third world populations – these are the populations rapidly increasing and consuming resources. In the third world they rarely give a damn about their environment, rubbish, shit is strewn everywhere – they refuse to clean it up.

On a Nile cruise I’d see black dustbin bags floating by towards the ocean.

I don’t dispute what you say, except third world countries do not consume much at all, although their numbers and their basic needs are damaging the environment. Nevertheless, it is the rich countries that pay these often very poor people to supply them with things they want, which they readily do and being poor and uneducated do so in the most convenient way they can, with little or no regard for the environment.

It is the people with money who buy the meat that is raised on the land once covered with forests and supported indigenous peoples and sustainable wildlife. It is the more wealthy people who buy the fish caught by factory ships that strip the ocean of life, or encourage the fishermen to trespass on marine reserves and small countries exclusive economic zones to steal the fish from people that must survive upon it, or just the continued wellbeing of the marine life.

It is the rich people who purchase the plundered forest timber, or encourage local people to clear the land to grow desirable crops to sell to them. It is the rich people who buy the cars and most things made from metals that are often mined with little consideration of the land, or the local people, or the flora and fauna that live there and so it goes on, and on, with the rich either taking what they want, or getting poorer people to supply it to them.

When I look around my house, there is so much stuff that has been sourced from around the world. I look in the refrigerator and pantry and there are foods from far and wide, but most has been produced from land cleared for the purpose or caught and killed for my consumption and for the standards of this country, I am not a rich person, yet I too draw down on the worlds resources at a far greater rate than those in third world countries and all at the expense of the environment.

You worry way too much

Third world nations don’t worry much at all, they turn everything into matchsticks and throw rubbish everywhere – they need to do something for themselves – they need to stop buying weapons , they always have money for that. They smash up their lands to buy weapons, billions and billions and billions of dollars of them.

I don’t worry about it wookie, am only trying to stress the dire straight humanity and the environment are in, plus the need for urgent, enlightened action, but alas it all seems to be too little, too late. Just feel very sad for the lightly outcome, not for humanity but the incredible diversity of life that will probably be sacrificed for our stupidity.