Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Planet needed by 2050

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
We all know it and we all try to repress it. The warning signs getting more frequent and louder and louder.

This latest one gives us another four decades before it's over, all over, there won't be no more left to sustain our lives. No more oil for cars and fabrics, no more copper to make circuits, no more trees to maintain the ecological system.

Our children will curse us, condemn us in all eternity as they wither and perish.

WWF has issued their reports for decades and been shouting: "wolf is coming" for just as long, but the day it WILL come - it is getting ever closer.


The group's biannual Living Planet Report said the natural world was being degraded "at a rate unprecedented in human history".

Terrestrial species had declined by 31% between 1970-2003, the findings showed.

It warned that if demand continued at the current rate, two planets would be needed to meet global demand by 2050.

The global footprint is a term that approximates the amount of ecologically productive land and sea area required to sustain a population, manufacture a product, or undertake certain activities, by accounting the use of energy, food, water, building material and other consumables.

Consider your morning cereals, what went into them to bring them to your table? Much more than the peasant who is self-sufficient with his own oatmeal. Now, I'm not saying everybody go grow their own oat, but merely promoting the old sixties slogan: "Act global, Buy local".

Your morning cereals most likely will have nuts from South Amerca, fruits from Asia etc, and the package it comes in will be made from oil-based polymers from the Middle East (if it's enviromental-friendly, it'll take wood pulp from Canada).
All the energy, transportation, production and so forth it takes to bring it to you, will make up the ecological footprint, and almost certain it will be much bigger than what is the fair share for each of the six billion+ world inhabitants.

In Afghanistan they have to survive on 0.2 hectars, while the US sustains their lifestyle on 9.6 hectars. The odd picture this makes up if the worldmap was to reflect the comsumption, would look like this:




[edit on 25-10-2006 by khunmoon]




posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Khunmoon, whats your answer to this problem, many believe that there's thousands of years of resouces locked up in the Earth so its not a problem. But if the problem is real they only way to control it is population reduction, yes we can recycle, we can use less, we could use alternative fuel sources but it still comes back to the population question.

Personally I believe that Mother Earth will sort us out on way of the other, its happened before civilisations come and go you cannot stop nature.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Magic, I sure would like to know who those "many" are, believing " thousands of years of resouces locked up in the Earth". But as I said, when you shout "wolf coming" long enough nobody listens.

But ok, I won't dispute you on that one. It also more about the breakdown of ecosystems, than the stripping of commodeties. When ecosystems break down a reduction of renewable ressources will occur, like wood, fish and the crops on the field.

The only way to change the direction, is if the mind, the attitude of the individual would change. When enough people wish something strong enough, it might happen. If enough people stop buying useless goods, because they realize it don't make their lives any better or more happy, then it might change.

If the government of the biggest consumer culture on earth would start cooperate with other governments on reductions on greennouse gases for instance, a great deal could be achieved.

But I agree, what is done to day, even by government acting ecological responsible, is hardly enough to save us.

When 5 percent of the global population uses close to half the resources and energy it is bound to go wrong. With just a normal common sense you don't even needs a calculator to figure that out.

I don't know what to do, only if we don't adjust it will go terrible wrong.

You know when you don't face a problem, getting it solved on your premises, the problem will face you and solve itself - then you can do nothing, but take what comes. It's seldom pleasant.

Of course, if you have money you can buy protection and time, but you can't run away from problems, they will take over sooner or later. And this problem we have together, we can only solve together. Waging war is another way to buy time, and you can kill everybody but yourself, but you'll be left with a devastation that only can sustain misery.

Change is the key, but personally I believe it's too late. Folly made an end to us.

And yes, you sure are right mother nature will manage. But it'll be without us.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
We all know it and we all try to repress it. The warning signs getting more frequent and louder and louder.

This latest one gives us another four decades before it's over, all over, there won't be no more left to sustain our lives. No more oil for cars and fabrics, no more copper to make circuits, no more trees to maintain the ecological system.

Our children will curse us, condemn us in all eternity as they wither and perish.

WWF has issued their reports for decades and been shouting: "wolf is coming" for just as long, but the day it WILL come - it is getting ever closer.


The group's biannual Living Planet Report said the natural world was being degraded "at a rate unprecedented in human history".

Terrestrial species had declined by 31% between 1970-2003, the findings showed.

It warned that if demand continued at the current rate, two planets would be needed to meet global demand by 2050.

The global footprint is a term that approximates the amount of ecologically productive land and sea area required to sustain a population, manufacture a product, or undertake certain activities, by accounting the use of energy, food, water, building material and other consumables.

Consider your morning cereals, what went into them to bring them to your table? Much more than the peasant who is self-sufficient with his own oatmeal. Now, I'm not saying everybody go grow their own oat, but merely promoting the old sixties slogan: "Act global, Buy local".

Your morning cereals most likely will have nuts from South Amerca, fruits from Asia etc, and the package it comes in will be made from oil-based polymers from the Middle East (if it's enviromental-friendly, it'll take wood pulp from Canada).
All the energy, transportation, production and so forth it takes to bring it to you, will make up the ecological footprint, and almost certain it will be much bigger than what is the fair share for each of the six billion+ world inhabitants.

In Afghanistan they have to survive on 0.2 hectars, while the US sustains their lifestyle on 9.6 hectars. The odd picture this makes up if the worldmap was to reflect the comsumption, would look like this:




[edit on 25-10-2006 by khunmoon]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Sorry about that... accidental premature click.

Khunmoon - What's your angle with this post?

1) World being destroyed or
2) World being destroyed by US overconsumption

Either way I encourage you to not worry about it too much. We'll be cleansed from the earth by an asteroid, comet, solar/cosmic radiation, pandemic, or warfare well before the resources run out or we destroy the planet through resource over-consmption.

If, on the other hand we're lucky enough to avoid those pitfalls, We'll figure out new and better ways to generate power and produce food when our resources really begin to run low.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
This is an interesting read

www.overpopulation.com...

It illustrates how dire predictions of impending doom as a result of polution/overpopulation/overconsmption always seem to go unfulfilled.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
From what I've read in the book, "Consilience; The Unity of Knowledge", by Edward O. Wilson, if we don't reduce birth rates down to 2.1 children (the ".1" to allow for infant mortality rate) per woman NOW, then we'd need two more planet Earths by 2050.

[edit on 27-10-2006 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Hello Dark, Yes, "I'm a worried man, no one in front of me, no one behind".
I would say though, it's not as bad, as when I was young. "I used to care, but things have changed".

No, my point is to draw attention to the problem. Sometimes when I'm optimistic, I believe the old proverb: It's never too late. But on this one it's hard.

I try not to blame any - we are not much better in Europe, but you just can't ignore it and pretend everything will be fine - all by it self. It's just too damn ignorant to do so.

If I should blame anybody, it would be myself and my generation. We became aware of these issues some forty years ago - and acted and reacted - and was rediculed.

Anyone touching them today, to a certain degree still are. Not that I care that much, I just think it's too damned foolish to pretend the problem doesn't exits.

What has a beginning has an end, so why worry.

But you're right, if ingenuity instead of folly was to prevail, yes, things could change.

I just saw your new post coming up, and I can agree in that.

When I went to school, they told us in 25 years the oil would be finished, and that's 45 years ago. On the other hand, in 25 years we where quite sure then, new technologies would be in place.

In fact I think they are, but they have to wring the last dollar out of the oil, before they release them.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:36 AM
link   




You figure it out..


Enough said.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Now it's getting interesting.

But Midnight, I think the population question will be solved by natural disasters and war. When an imbalance is great enough it will equalize in one way or another. That's the way Mother Nature works. And Man too. He mostly settle his imbalances by waging war.

You have a link, Midnight and I'll study your source. Right now I has to go to bed (my wife says).

I'll be back in 7-8 hours.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I think we are already "doomed", it IS too late, and that the "Day After Tomorrow" scenario is just around the corner. Being in my early thirties, I can tell you (born, raised, and currenlty) living in California I have seen our own weather pattern has changed durastically. Today it is 85 degrees and a massive wildfire is burning 25 miles from my office. 15 years ago I can remember riding my bike to school, teeth chattering in the brisk early fall mornings. California is not so much a climate zone that promotes seasonal change like the East Coast, but you could certainly discern a summer day versus a winter one.

We Americans I don't think, have really paid attention to "weird weather" much more than it being just an inconvenience. We are so caught up in reality T.V. that we don't even take notice to the reality right outside our own doors. We are so focused on technology and the next "big idea", etc.....screw the newest fastest computer....the mobile phones that let's you watch movies playing in friggin' Buhdapest.... technological research should be immediately applied to finding future life-stabilizing advancements (pocket sized personal ozone inhibitors, etc) or we'll all be walking around in hampster balls within 20 years



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon

When I went to school, they told us in 25 years the oil would be finished, and that's 45 years ago. On the other hand, in 25 years we where quite sure then, new technologies would be in place.

In fact I think they are, but they have to wring the last dollar out of the oil, before they release them.


I agree.."Just one more barrel of oil before I go"

IMO there is little doubt that a tacit agreement between various governments and the big oil companies ensure's that alternative energy sources do not become commonplace before the oil is played out. Pesonally, I'm not worried about human carbon consumption in relation to the environment. It's a matter of scale. Over-population, disease, and war are much higher on my list of likely human induced global catastrophes.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 04:28 AM
link   
You are right Echo, wierd weather patterns are all over the globe now.

In Denmark, when I was a kid, winter used to come by the end of November with freezing tempratures and snow. It would be on and off like that until Marts, with rain and sleet in between. Now we are joking about the green January and winter weather seldom comes before February and can stay into May.
It means summer tempratures seldom come before July, but I remember real warm months of May in my childhood.

On the other hand we have really beautiful indian summers now, far into October.

Same here in Thailand where I stay. According to the calender it's the dry season now, but I've never seen so much rain like this fall - everyday - and it's raining right now. Makes it a little cooler.

Something is definitely wrong with the climate and it can be disputed forever whether it's a natural phenomena or it's caused by man.

Old Mother Earth is freaking out - and we are as well.



posted on Oct, 28 2006 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by khunmoon
But Midnight, I think the population question will be solved by natural disasters and war.

Oh yes, the problem will be solved one way or the other. Even the most extremist of the environmentalist groups are not really trying to save the planet...They're really trying to save the human race!
Humanity's problem is that we've used our "superior intellect over the animal kingdom" to the point where most people believe that we've above Nature itself, when that's clearly a self-deluding attitude.
I chalk up a lot of it to the greed of the corporations that continually strip-mine our resources for today's profit-margin & keep telling the "masses" that it's okay--They're not willing to let future generations have anything to live on...Including their own future descendants!


Originally posted by khunmoon
You have a link, Midnight and I'll study your source.

I have no link...The book, "Consilience; The Unity of Knowledge" isn't available on the internet, except perhaps to buy it. It's not reprinted in its entirety anywhere on the net. However, you should be able to Google the author, Edward O. Wilson, to get some background material about him; He's an extremely accomplished biologist & considered to be one of the greatest living scientists in the world...He's retired now, though.
I got my copy of the book through Colombia House book club, if that helps any.



posted on Oct, 29 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   
Thanks for responding, Midnight.

As for Edward O. Wilson and his book, I've found a Wiki article. Sure sounds interesting, worth further research.

Just wanna say, you're right on this:

I chalk up a lot of it to the greed of the corporations that continually strip-mine our resources for today's profit-margin & keep telling the "masses" that it's okay--They're not willing to let future generations have anything to live on...Including their own future descendants!

But remember, "all the money you made can never buy back your soul".

They make hell to us, but they'll be the ones to burn in it - forever. HA!






top topics



 
0

log in

join