It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Overpopulation, Oxygen and Deforestation

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I'm no scientist here but we all know the world's population is increasing rapidly with better health care, nuitrition etc. Deforestation is caused by overpopulation but apart from less carbon dioxide to like convert to oxygen, I was wondering, could we reach a stage in the human population where we breath so much oxygen we are using it all? Havent a clue by the way how much humans breathe and use the oxygen but I'm sure oxygen is decreasing currently at todays world?




posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
Forests do not create near the amount of oxygen as does grasslands. Think about that the next time some idiot tell you to save the earth and plant a tree.

We are not over-populated. What we do have is a logistical and logical problem. It is not logical for so many people to live where there is scarce food and little logistical support to get food there.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   


Forests do not create near the amount of oxygen as does grasslands. Think about that the next time some idiot tell you to save the earth and plant a tree.


Hey Thomas you've said this before but have not elaborated or provided any evidence and is usually followed with some offensive remark, care to say anything other then Grass is better, Trees suck as do the people who hug them remark? Can you show me anything other then the typical rhetoric you usually spew?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Forests do not create near the amount of oxygen as does grasslands. Think about that the next time some idiot tell you to save the earth and plant a tree.


Last time I checked it was the plankton in the sea that contributed the most to the O2 production.



We are not over-populated. What we do have is a logistical and logical problem. It is not logical for so many people to live where there is scarce food and little logistical support to get food there.


I suppose you pretty much defined overpopulation in your statement. If the logistics fails on such a massive scale, it's overpopulation by definition.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Half the earth's O2 is generated by Plankton. Source
Algea accounts for most of the rest. Over 98% of the earth's O2 is produce in the oceans.

Also, ants use more oxygen a year than humans do because thier biomass is much higher than ours.

Source

No worries. =)



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Notice, I did not compare trees or grass to plankton.

You want me to prove it to you? Yes, I've said it before, and I'll say it again if need be. However, I can also tell you that the sun is the center of our solar system, but can't take you to the text from which I learned that, either. What is probably driving you nuts evertime I make the statement is that the tree-huggers push for trees, at the detriment of grasslands, thereby doing more damage (as they always do), and someone (me) refuses to blindly buy into their crap!

Sardion, grow up with your spew and do your own reading. I can't read for the both of us, and there's no need in wasting your abilities on only "I love trees and hate meat-eaters" websites!



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   
That was a good one.. Hey I always thought that we needed more trees, never thought about needing more grass though
it sounds logical.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Channy
I'm no scientist here but we all know the world's population is increasing rapidly with better health care, nuitrition etc. Deforestation is caused by overpopulation but apart from less carbon dioxide to like convert to oxygen, I was wondering, could we reach a stage in the human population where we breath so much oxygen we are using it all? Havent a clue by the way how much humans breathe and use the oxygen but I'm sure oxygen is decreasing currently at todays world?

As for overpopulation, the answer is no and here is why,


PROFESSOR BUDZISZEWSKI'S REPLY:

Thank you for your questions. Actually, the planet could support far more people than there are now. Children starve because no one on the planet will give them food, not because there is no food on the planet to give them. Time and time again the don't-have- children lobby has predicted that we will reproduce beyond the food supply, and each time the doomsayers have ended up with egg on their faces. Of course there are many local reasons for famine — for example inefficient traditional farming methods, natural disasters and socialism — but too many people on the earth isn't one of them.

Warnings of "population explosion" have been inflated grossly. The U.N. has released three different population scenarios, each based on slightly different assumptions. According to the "low variant" model, overall world population may begin to decline as early as mid-century. Of course no one knows which of the three scenarios is correct, but fertility is already declining in every region of the world, and population growth has been slowing down since the late 1970s. In the developed countries, the net reproduction rate is 0.7 and dropping, which means that the next generation will be only 70% as large as this one. Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute suggests that we may one day face not an explosion but an "implosion" of population.

What about the countries that are overpopulated now? Can they wait until midcentury, or whenever it is that population levels out? Curiously, "overpopulation" is in the eye of the beholder. China, everyone's favorite supposed example, has fewer than 60% as many people per square mile as the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). Obviously, then, China's problem is not overpopulation, but underdevelopment. Many people think that population growth prevents the economic growth of poor nations, but a number of economists now suggest the opposite: Every new person brings not only another mouth to feed, but two hands with which to work. Misguided efforts to help poor countries by suppressing their natural population growth may actually hurt them.

Your arguments (and those of other readers, for which we have no space) seem to suppose both (a) that the poor should not have children because they cannot afford them, and (b) that the well-off should not have children because every bite their children eat means less food for the children of the poor. I think you are terribly mistaken on both counts. Of course parents may use natural family planning to space their children so that they can take care of them. But remember that God chose to send Jesus to a poor family; no Christian should suppose that He denies the gift of children to the poor.

As to the latter point — that by having a child in America you are somehow starving a child in Bangladesh — remember that agricultural economics is not a zero-sum game. Farmers want to make a living, so as demand increases, so does production. Not only that, but agricultural productivity has increased so rapidly that in some countries the government pays farmers not to plant crops in an effort to keep food prices from dropping.


LINK


But since God is mentioned on that page,





Overpopulation indicates a scenario in which the population of a living species exceeds the carrying capacity of its ecological niche. In common parlance, the term usually refers to the relationship between the human population and its environment (the planet Earth). (For a discussion on species other than humans, see the article on animal overpopulation.)

Overpopulation is not a function of the number or density of the individuals, but rather the number of individuals compared to the resources they need to survive. In other words, it is a ratio: population over resources. If a given environment has a population of 10, but there is food and drinking water enough for only 9 people, then that environment is overpopulated, while if the population is 100 individuals but there are food and water enough for 200, then it is not overpopulated.

Resources to be taken into account when estimating if an ecological niche is overpopulated include clean water, food, shelter, warmth, etc. In the case of human beings, there are others such as arable land and, for all but tribes with primitive lifestyles, lesser resources such as jobs, money, education, fuel, electricity, medicine, proper sewage and garbage management, and transportation.

Every year the world's human population grows by approximately 80 million. About half the world lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility and population growth in those countries is due to immigration.



LINK


But that in itself raises questions. What about all them deadly cow and sheep farts that are to cause global destruction soon? Personally I think the Tulipwalker hot air accounts for its share also.

Heck, maybe this is even Bush's fault at the evil direction of ol Cheney...



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Forests do not create near the amount of oxygen as does grasslands. Think about that the next time some idiot tell you to save the earth and plant a tree.


Interesting cultural beliefs.

Irony:
Having a day for earth in which you plant a tree. Earth Day
Having a day for God in which you cut one down. Christmas

I gotta go cut the grass in my yard, before my neighbors turn me in to the Home Owners Association.


EDITTED TO INCLUDE:
I'll try not to breath too heavy.



[edit on 08/12/71 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher


Interesting cultural beliefs.

Irony:
Having a day for earth in which you plant a tree. Earth Day
Having a day for God in which you cut one down. Christmas



To honor One Who came to offer the free gift of salvation to all mankind? Ever thought that someone somewhere feeds his family on the money he makes selling these trees (often planted just for that exact purpose) and therefore is being fruitful and multiplying?



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher


Interesting cultural beliefs.

Irony:
Having a day for earth in which you plant a tree. Earth Day
Having a day for God in which you cut one down. Christmas



To honor One Who came to offer the free gift of salvation to all mankind? Ever thought that someone somewhere feeds his family on the money he makes selling these trees (often planted just for that exact purpose) and therefore is being fruitful and multiplying?


It would still be a good promo for those "plastic" commercials I keep seeing every once in a while.

I meant no offense. Just a spin. easy.

And, I refrain from being negative.

Having said that:

To honor One Who came to offer the free gift of salvation to all mankind?

Was it free? It seems that it has cost money, resources, sweat, and blood, and one tree a year to propel the message.


Ever thought that someone somewhere feeds his family on the money he makes selling these trees ....

He could have planted a tree that grows food, and let it live.
It would help clear his schedule on both Earth Day and Christmas.

Don't get mad.
I'm not.
What Would Jesus Do?
I think he's had his fill of timber being cut down for him.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
i can still remember studying overpopulation in geography and biology. the graph was the same in both subjects. it started from 0AD to today and the generally impression was straight line until the 1800s when it began to curve upwards. yes and it was the worlds not just one country!

didnt learn the oxygen bit but i also learned about deforestation and not once was grass or plankton mentioned, just deforestation was ruining the world. speeding up global warming....ha


oh well, so much for GCSEs and i got good grades...
maybe the education in england is poor...



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric TeacherWas it free? It seems that it has cost money, resources, sweat, and blood, and one tree a year to propel the message.



I rest my case, you fail to understand what 'free' means in this context.

























Just so you know, its your salvation that is free, all you have to do is ask and believe...



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Interesting that we have so many people who believe tha trees are the best thing going. America, for example, has a LOT more trees now than it did when we settled here. This being the case, we must not be having eco-problems after all!
But we are, and planting trees are what is good. Sure.
Nope. Plant grass. No, not left-handed Lucky's, but create grasslands. Sure, they aren't as nice to look at as a big oak, but it's not your feeeeelings that count, but the end result.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Funny how the treehuggers (Tulipwalker trainee's) have not countered this thread. I guess they are moving on to save them 3-toed sabre toothed panty crickets.....



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
"3-toed sabre toothed panty crickets"



I figured it was because they were trying to figure out how to hug a blade of grass!



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Nah they train em young






[edit on 15-8-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Forests do not create near the amount of oxygen as does grasslands.


Partially true. Incomplete at best.

Plant decomposition roughly consumes the same amount of oxygen they produced during life. Likewise for carbon. Decomposition releases the stored carbon back into the environment.
Annual grasses are carbon and oxygen neutral on an annual basis. Perennial grasses take a few years to be neutral. Forests are neutral over decades/centuries. But all plants are carbon and oxygen neutral over time. It's merely a question of how long a time frame.

Carbon sequestration of forests can be increased significantly by intensive management (i.e. carefully timed harvesting). Not really an option in grasslands. Tree huggers always preach 'save the old growth'. Yet old growth forests, by definition, are carbon and oxygen neutral while still alive. In senescence, old growth forests can become net oxygen consumers and carbon emitters.

There are many reasons to protect our natural plant communities, but oxygen and carbon are not one of them.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Deforestation, hah, so exaggerated. Get out of the city for once.
Here where I live there's trees, lawns, forests etc. everywhere.
I've been in many european countries aswell, like in France, Greece, Germany etc., when you leave the big cities there's the same phenomenon.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
Half the earth's O2 is generated by Plankton. Source
Algea accounts for most of the rest. Over 98% of the earth's O2 is produce in the oceans.

Also, ants use more oxygen a year than humans do because thier biomass is much higher than ours.

Source

No worries. =)


Could you provide a link for the 98% factor?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join