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.

 

The Earth Is Full

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
The following is a lecture by Paul Gilding.



Have we used up all our resources? Have we filled up all the livable space on Earth? Paul Gilding suggests we have, and the possibility of devastating consequences, in a talk that's equal parts terrifying and, oddly, hopeful.

www.ted.com...






posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Heres a few good excerpts:



So the idea that we can smoothly transition to a highly-efficient, solar-powered, knowledge-based economy transformed by science and technology so that nine billion people can live in 2050 a life of abundance and digital downloads is a delusion.





See what happens when you operate a system past its limits and then keep on going at an ever-accelerating rate is that the system stops working and breaks down. And that's what will happen to us
...
In my view, it is well underway. I know most people don't see it that way. We tend to look at the world, not as the integrated system that it is, but as a series of individual issues. We see the Occupy protests, we see spiraling debt crises, we see growing inequality, we see money's influence on politics, we see resource constraint, food and oil prices. But we see, mistakenly, each of these issues as individual problems to be solved. In fact, it's the system in the painful process of breaking down -- our system, of debt-fueled economic growth, of ineffective democracy, of overloading planet Earth, is eating itself alive.


I thought this was a particularly insightful lecture on what is arguably the most important issue we will face this century. Gilding paints a pretty bleak picture, but it is stark, realistic, and based in reason.
Highly recommended! A call to action at a conference that is renown across the US and Europe, in front of an audience of intellectuals. These are the types of things we should all be taking seriously.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Your man is talking hocum. He's good as scaremongering himself into a long term speaking career. Only human beings would ever think they are so superior to nature that we see ourselves as being apart from it rather than a part of it. So much so that we reckon that we have to do nature's job for it. Nature will find our population numbers equilibrium.. Any deliberate intervention by humans in regard to population control will turn itself into a misguided eugenics project.

If we recognise that we live as part of nature people like Paul Gilding would find his speaking diary rather empty. 'Choose life over fear' is his motto !!!! He is a fear generator - what's his 'life' option?



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by christina-66
 


Whether or not you like the man is a non-issue. He brings to the table an informed and realistic perspective on global sustainability.

Humanity is indeed unique, whether or not you would like to admit it. We are a force on this planet unlike anything in recorded history. I'm all for harmony with nature, but we need to recognize that we are, in fact, not in harmony with nature.

Sustainability is going to become a very real problem as humanity continues to balloon over the next 100 years, and it would be dangerous not to discuss the unfortunate possibilities.

"fear-mongering" is one thing. Rationally promoting awareness of an issue important to the future existence of humanity is another. Ignoring our problems will only cause them to blow up in our face.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Sorry but Pauly is terribly mistaken.
We could have 10x the people we do now and still be comfortable.
This is more globalist propaganda.

6000 Lbs of ORGANIC food on 1/10th an acre.
How much space do you need?
How many hundreds of acres do many well off people have?
Yeah were not overpopulated, we're greedy.
Really, please do the math.
Every man woman and child on this earth could fit into an area the size of Australia and each have a 1/4 acre apiece.
Overgreedy, not overpopulated.
I wish those who believe that the world was overpopulated would remove themselves from the population and please not breed.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ClydeFrog42
 


He does do a good job of painting what I suspect the future could be like but at the same time he has the same problem that I think everyone does when they bring things like this to light. Lots of observations but not a lot of solutions. I have some ideas but I don't really have the funding to get them done....I know that tree grafting can be done in such ways as to create structures from furniture to buildings. I would like to see it done that farms could be made out of tree buildings....sky scrapers even with multiple floors....each floor having open air walls possible in the correct climates at least...so that crops could be grown on each floor. I think this would make farming more realistic for metropolitan areas and it would also substantially increase farming area that would be usable for a given area of land just by creating multiple floors. Then crop rotation could be done a easily as changing floors for what crop is planted where in a given year. Check out stuff about tree grafting. I think this is possible.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


The idea is that humanity's current trajectory is unsustainable. He does discuss hopeful prospects and the possibility of innovative solutions near the end of the lecture.

reply to post by GrimReaper86
 


You should check out some of the other lecture on TEDtalks. It showcases amazing technology and ideas that could basically revolutionize the way we live. There's lectures on vertical farming, architecture that promotes interaction, community, and healthy living (not to mention beauty)... I cant get enough of them!



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Whenever I see STUPID claims that the planet is too full of people, I think to British Columbia! Where I live.
Here is a nice little link that should give EVERYONE some perspective into the LIE we have been told!

wiki to crown land b.c.

"British Columbia

94% of the land in British Columbia is Provincial Crown land, 2% of which is covered by fresh water. Federal Crown lands make up a further 1% of the province, including Indian Reserves, Defence Lands and Federal Harbours, while 5% is privately owned. The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands issues Crown land tenures and sells Crown land on behalf of the Province of British Columbia."


So, Only 5% of British Columbia is owned by real people.......the rest is owned by the QUEEN! Thats a lot of land that is just sitting there.....owned by someone who is just sitting on it.

Amazing, and that is just B.C. that's a lot of land that just is not being used for farming or anything. Sure you can get a grant to mine it......for a tonne of cash, but really......it's not being used at all!

people like this guy should just not be allowed to talk!



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ClydeFrog42
 


If we're not in harmony with nature there will only ever be one winner....nature. In case you hadn't noticed we humans have played a part in the history of this planet for quite some time now.....and this planet will continue to survive with or without us. There is nothing we can do that will destroy this planet - we will destroy ourselves. As a part of nature - that will be the natural course. Only a human would be so arrogant as to think that nature needs our help to sustain this planet.

What's this guy advocating? A return to the dark ages? Limitations on travel (unless you have money)? Forced sterilisation? Euthanasia? Limiting food supplies? Restrictions on child numbers per family? All highly invasive, intrusive, and bloody cheeky solutions. Or....is he simply carving a career on the speakers circuits?



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ClydeFrog42
 


The earth is not full, It's only how things are done. Instead of living in harmony we rape the earth. If we somehow could work together and not against each other and share everything, Things would be different. But in a society where scarcity creates wealth and the wealth is only for a select few, Things doesn't work. We have lots of energy we could harness from the earth/sun but the technology gets held back by those who think burning fossils is a good idea because they make billions of it. And there is not too many people on the earth, we could grow a lot more food in say high buildings so we can compact the size.

It's just done stupidly with no thought of the future, that is all.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
All right people....... you heard the man

Could you all please stop having sex

(this add sponsored by your local government)




posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Village Idiot
All right people....... you heard the man

Could you all please stop having sex

(this add sponsored by your local government)



No!

2nd line.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
If we continue to live destructively like now, humanity will eventually die.

But the earth isn't full, it's just not managed correctly.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
The entire population of the world would fit standing shoulder to shoulder in the city of Los Angeles. You're right....there's no room left.


A family of four needs only 1/4 acre to be able to fully support themselves. The problem is how many people aren't -- or wouldn't be willing -- to take care of themselves. Therein lies the real problem.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
www.overpopulationisamyth.com...






According to the U.N. Population Database, using the historically accurate low variant projection, the Earth's population will only add another billion people or so over the next thirty years, peaking around 8.02 billion people in the year 2040, and then it will begin to decline. Check their online database.





According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft). So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house. Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66' plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.





Both of the world's leading authorities on food distribution (the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] and the World Food Programme [WFP]) are very clear: there is more than enough food for everyone on the planet. The FAO neatly summarizes the problem of starvation, saying that "the world currently produces enough food for everybody, but many people do not have access to it." Food is a lot like money: just because some people have none doesn't mean that there isn't enough of it--it's just spread unevenly.


We really miss the point when we start talking this way, and it makes it easier for eugenics and bizarre methods of population control.

It's just bad science to say the planet is full. The actual issues are far more complicated then simply saying we're over populated... it takes away from the Corporate control over resources and people (although in their model people are resources) ... If only we could focus on the actual issues instead of lumping numerous problems into one "Over population" problem we might actually be able to accomplish some changes that would have a drastic effect on our use of resources.



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I believe the gentleman is talking about 9 billion people being able to live on planet earth.... which is a far cry from calling the planet "overpopulated", as we only have 7 billion right now.

He says "we have the technology right now..." for the survival of 9 billion (of course I don't know where he gets the arbitrary number or if that is any limit, but it certainly surpasses the number we already have on the planet).

What he possibly means by his TED talk is that using the way we currently manage the planet's resources, we are "FULL" - ie if we were to try and get 7 billion people to live the way we are currently GOING (emphasizing this) about it - we will require 1.5 earths to do it.

The examples of people surviving on 1/10th of an acre is a good example of what he is talking about - He says we are capable of living comfortably, provided we manage our resources better. (if I understood correctly - and I agree). The example of people surviving on 1/10th of an acre of land is certainly the exception not the rule - unless someone can prove to me otherwise?

I believe he also touches on the idea that expansion ad-infinitum is simply not feasible. I personally agree.

There are those that suggest allowing nature to take it's path - I personally believe that this *could* lead to significant and bloody conflict - with the kind of technologies we have to run conflicts today - I'm not sure I like that idea. On the other hand, he hasn't suggested by what means he believes we can control growth ad-infinitum... but he suggests that it might be wiser to do it intelligently - as in: under some intelligent form of control. This might possibly be preferable to having nature take it's toll?
edit on 13-3-2012 by sensibleSenseless because: Adding



posted on Mar, 13 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensibleSenseless

What he possibly means by his TED talk is that using the way we currently manage the planet's resources, we are "FULL" - ie if we were to try and get 7 billion people to live the way we are currently GOING (emphasizing this) about it - we will require 1.5 earths to do it.


Exactly. The idea is that our current mode of operation is unsustainable. Not that Humanity isnt capable of changing course. But, in order to rectify our situation we would need to invest massive amounts of money into completely redesigning our global infrastructure.

At the moment, I don't think there are many people who can afford (and are willing to) invest their money in a trillion dollar project. That would spell devastation for all of us. We simply cant afford to "change course" in any radical way, at this point.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join