Family Planning for the Environment
You all know that an average person has exudes 880 tons of carbon dioxide per year right? And we live to be 80 years old. So imagine that in one lifetime, a typical person emits around 70,400 tons of carbon dioxide. That doesn't include the amount of damage he does to the environment while still living on earth.
So I guess, what I'm trying to say is, limit your kids. A child you do not bear would save the world 70,400 tons of carbon dioxide in his lifetime.
Oh no. Please don't tell me that you're trying to propose aborting babies. Why don't we just kill off those people who buy plastic bags and throw them on the sidewalk? Just kidding!
Seriously, I think this is a great idea. Instead of having kids, consider adopting one. That way we minimize carbon emissions, we fill that space in our lives (if you are one who loves kids), and we get to help out a child have a good chance at life.
Like it or not, Jonathon Porritt, chairman of UK's Sustainable Development Commission, wants to legalize abortion to achieve this end!
Porritt did provide some interesting statistics though... saying that each baby born will, in his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to "2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland"
Porritt also said that global population would hit 9.2 billion by 2050. YOu can read the article here: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/l...cle5627634.ece
I think it's crazy. But seeing how even adults destroys the environment unknowingly... well... it makes the proposal more sensible!
Lindsey Grant wrote a book in the mid 1990s called "Juggernaut" about overpopulation. We would like to think that family planning education with free birth control, et al, will stop the ecocidal population far into overshoot, in time to stop a massive rapid decline caused by the fact that the maximum food available by 2050 will be the equivalent of near starvation level (with working to produce food calorie expenditure) for only about 3 billion. More on it here: scroll down to the post with graphs and detailed explanations--
http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/fo...tml#post396973
Val, I find this very, very interesting! The graphs seem to indicate that the relentlessly growing human population will eventually oustrip and exhaust its ability to produce more food. Is that right? Is there an estimate when that may be likely to happen? Could it possbly happen BEFORE the biosphere collapses from the growing mass of human-generated pollution? If it does, then there may actually be hope for some form of human life to survive, if the planet can heal itself with a massive die-off and its traditional weather movements! I'm almost 80, so I'm not likely to see it, but at least there might be a glimmer of hope that the beautiful things in our human culture may not be lost forever (like classical music which I listen to every day).
The food peak already happened, probably around the time peak oil happened in 2006. A rounded peak. Peak grain was 1986. The soils used for agriculture in much of the world have no organics left and only support less nutritious plant growth with petro-chemicals, which are now in decline. The aquifers are nearly pumped dry in India, much of Africa, and parts of China. In the USA the major growing areas will be without aquifers just before 2040. So-called dry farming produces 1/6th the yield of irrigated(from "Out of the Earth", Hillel, 1992), with a good climate. The climate by 2050 was estimated to have crop failures one out of three years from global warming effects of fluctuation beyond historic. Early or late frosts, flooding, drought, and high wind events. Much of the river irrigated soils have become salinized from accumulated river salts, like the Imperial Valley in California, with few salt tolerant crops of any kind. With expensive oil, food prices increase in a world where people are poorer from too many people and not enough jobs. As oil runs out it will be often unavailable for massive farm machinery, ships, and semi-tractor-trailers to distribute what food there is. 3 billion people get 60% of their protein from oceanic fisheries that will be gone between 2035 and 50. The UN projections are for 9.1 billion in 2050, but that is impossible with the declines, so the population must collapse sometime prior to 2050. It can be mitigated somewhat.
The condition of the biosphere will depend on if people reduce fossil fuel burning 90% to mitigate AGW below passing the tipping point of tundra methane self release ( an induced positive feedback loop). It was reported in 2009 we were already at the threshold of that feedback loop. Methane hydrates are very sensitive, and there seems to be a consensus that if fossil fuel burning and slash and burn agriculture are reduced a lot and soon, the greater chance of preventing the completion of that tipping point--holding AGW to just one more degree F, or so. As that temperature goes up, the chances of stopping an irreversible methane turnover get less.
It will take many thousands of years to absorb the six giant trash gyres in the oceans, to clean the soils of various contamination, and for the system to re-sequester the CO2---as it is. If the tipping point is breached, it will progress to the Anthropocene Epoch Thermal Maximum at 10 times the rate as the PETM, too fast for most life to adapt, and thus an ELE probably worse that that caused by the meteor impact 65 million years ago. The PETM recovery time was about 3 million years with 60-70% of species making it through the bottleneck. I found out that it would take about a half million years for a major portion of the biosphere to improve for life, with the completion taking as long or longer than it did from 55 million years ago to 52 million years ago. Hansen says in his book that there is more carbon sequestered in methane hydrate deposits now than back then. It is possible people could make it through the bottleneck like they did 73.5 million years ago after the Toba super volcano eruption.
Another kink in the story is that Earth is due for the Yellowstone super volcano eruption. That has the capability of cooling the planet 10*F for years. It is probable in 2000 years, after the AETM max of ~+26*F is reached ~2300 to ~2500AD, but could happen before. Krakatoa is due in about 1500 years but is not a super volcano, and would only cool 2-4*F for 2-4 years. The Malenkovich cycle is about 2500 years or less from solar minimum with maximum ellipticity of orbit and maximum axis tilt. This is usually the start of the glacial epoch from the interglacial.
Hansen, in his book, "Storms of My Grandchildren", states that because of AGW, the ice ages are over. However, if CO2 from human activities is reduced enough to keep the warming slower and within the cooling of Yellowstone, AGW would then stop with the possible return to glaciation. People, or their relatives, made it through a number of ice ages, where much of the temperate and all of the tropical zones are still liveable. He states that he guarantees a runaway "Venus Effect" IF people burn all the oil and coal. However, if the population crashes 90-95% as it must by 2050, then some of the oil and a lot of the coal would be left unburned. No biosphere destroying runaway, even if there is an AETM ELE.
So population reduction is something to try for in addition to the reduction of human CO2 and other GHGs. Both are necessary to mitigate the effects yet to come. Massive cleanup efforts and composting to rebuild soils, and the use of water recycling and high efficiency systems, replacing coal power with sun, wind, tide, waves, and safe, fast, waste burning reactors, a moratorium of ocean harvesting, and planting of a billion trees or more, are all in the interests of future life.
Naturally, people must be educated in the urgency of the campaigns. Leadership must overcome strong business, cultural, and religious resistance. The education must include free contraception, women's rights, and the whys of what they see happening, like the transition to a steady state economy. The US and other powerful nations should lead the way in the necessary sacrifices for the good of our planetary ecosystem and future children.
I've heard there is a growing movemnet toward family-owned organic garden-farming to create pesticide-free bio-natural areas. Corporate mega farms must be devolved and dispersed to save the planet from the massive amounts of pesticide used to market gigantic crops for nationwide chain stores serving the overpopulated millions and billions around the World..
I was shocked to find out one child will use up about 700 diapers til they reach 2yrs of age. And for just 1 diaper to degrade it takes over 500yrs. I can't even start to imagine how many diapers are on landfills now but what's the alternative? Cloth diapers! I used them and they were great and plus we saved money having to buy disposable ones.
You think that's bad? A recent documentary described the "plastic ocean" completely sprinkled with various discarded pieces of plastic, hundreds of millions that float just below the surface because plastic in not quite heavy enough to sink to the bottom -- and the various sea creatures are mistaking it for food and eating it.
The problem is too many people producing too much garbage. Reasonable women want only one, two or three children at most, but too often a poorly educated macho husband thinks a large family will make him rich when he sends them out to work, but soon finds all the good jobs have been taken so they never get out of poverty. Meanwhile, the corporations get rich when they can pay low wages to the millions of workers competing for never enough jobs. Some one should tell them when a commodity is in short supply the price goes up, and that also applies to labor. If all the workers of the World had only 1, 2 or 3 children, there would be a labor shortage and they could demand higher wages. That's what a union does when it goes out on strike against a corporation. They can bargain for higher wages by making their labor temporarily unavailable. All the poor families in poor neighborhoods should go on a birth strike, refusing to have children until they're given decent jobs and paid decent wages.
Meanwhile, all the millions of unemployed could be given work recycling the tons of garbage, until they are trained for better jobs. All this could be done, but the big corporations are trying to drag people back down into the wage slavery of the 18th, 19th and early 20th century when the people were mostly ignorant and defenseless. Only when free public education was made available did the people really start to organise for a better way of life. That's why the big corporations try to cut back on government spending for education because they want all education to be privately financed so only rich people can afford to send their children to school.
Last edited by nrdthxpr; 10-28-2011 at 02:07 PM.
Seeing you have not been back as albannet or jaunty, here is one from last week;
Originally Posted by martinhanzalek ;
"although reducing the global population is one great way to improve the environment, it is an unethical undertaking. If we don't find a way to live within our means, mother nature will take care of reducing out population for us"
My response; "There is nothing unethical about attempting to reduce population to mitigate what nature does. We are already living far beyond our means, and many eco-problems are global and not regional. Malevolent climate fluctuation affects everyone's food supply, while toxics, especially mercury from coal fired power plants is more global. The economic effects of overpopulation hit worldwide, except for the top 1% in the USA who have 50% of the money. The continuing overpopulation induced migrations are affecting the host counties negatively.
Eventually when aquifer depletion, water pollution, post peak oil, soil degradation and loss, and fisheries pollution and collapse all hit to varying degrees, area to area with migration and collapse, and the world depression---the horrors build. More crime, people killed for the food in their pantry and eventually for the meat on their body, riots from lack of water and jobs worse than this year, resource wars even within countries boiling into race/religious wars, malnutrition rampant with lowered immune systems open to more diseases, trash building up with more squalor, starvation and death from not enough water, waterborne diseases, as heat waves and fires continue with droughts and floods. If we can mitigate and lessen this horror to our children and grandchildren by population reduction and HGHG reduction, it is the moral and ethical thing to do.
Sure, the economy will be difficult until and during the transition to an environmental steady state economy. It will be difficult to educate billions on ecologically correct living, and many are just too low in learning ability to ever get it. The transition to localized food, all solar, wind, wave and tidal, and safe fast waste burning nuclear will take enormous effort. Transitioning to a simpler way of living with still having things like TV and internet, electric and hybrid biofuel vehicles, and having one or no kids until sustainability is reached, is certainly better than nature taking us back to the stone age. We will still have to adapt to the warmer climate and fluctuation, much of the pollution is just too much to clean up and will take many thousands of years to absorb naturally. Rebuilding our soils and recycling our water will take effort.
Business as usual will just lead to first the crash with its horrors, stone age survivors, and the passed tipping point of tundra then oceanic methane self release (positive feedback loop induced by HGHGs and the resultant AGW)will take us to much higher temperatures faster than most life can adapt, in 300 to 1800 years, with a recovery time of around 150,000 to 200,000 years, maybe much, much more. Different species will be here, probably without an humans, unless we lessen the impacts by mitigation measures now and in the near future. We owe it to unborn future kids, and our species, and most others"
Val, I agree and I support the "Occupy Wall Street" movement and Michael Moore's call to replace robber-baron capitalism with economic democracy in which the people themselves decide how they need to manage it. Then their smaller population can safely recycle their smaller amount of pollution instead of being overwhelmed by millions of tons from 7 billion people everywhere else.
I know 350.org is doing some of the demonstrations. The rest---????
The environmental/ecological steady state economics of Herman Daly's books is what is needed. True cost, non-growth economics. Certainly a fairer economy uncorrupted by those who are grossly overpaid such as government workers and politicians, lawyers, and regulating profiteering like "whatever-the-market-will-bear" overcharging. Human greed, lust, and sloth must be addressed on both a regulatory and a spiritual level. IMHO
What oppresses me is the degree of self-deception involved in struggling to get rich as fast as possible. Everything else is ignored in favor of money. So, even as the planet turns sour from the growing mass of garbage, sludge, chemical waste, smoke and fumes, the corporate idiots imagine it's all "liberal BS" and go right on dumping because if they had to safely recycle it they couldn't pay themselves 6 figure salaries and million dollar bonuses. They seem to think their money will save them from the death of planet Earth. I call them insane criminals and I think human survival depends on stopping them; but who exactly are they? We need a rogue's gallery of the corporate big boys who are killing the biosphere.
Here is the latest from Peter Goodchild;
Overpopulation, Resources & Famine | Brave New World
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Green Forum Posting Rules 
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote