reply to post by trancedanne
Animals die mostly because we take their water, plants and space. You cant really blame anyone but ourselves for that, those you would call
Is having more people really more important then the biodiversity?
10 billions people will take 0.035 to 2.4% of Earth's land surface. Everyone, with our current production, has 1 kilogram of wheat/oats/rice, plus
the potatoes, per DAY. That is without all the other vegetables and fruits. We have now the technology to transform sea-water drinkable, so animals
can have all the non-sea water in the world for themselves.
The space needed for plants and housing would, at the maximum, take 5% of Earth's surface, IF, the distribution would be better planned. The
ressources are there just unequally distributed.
So that means, animals will have all their space and food needed.
The pollution produced by the current population is murdering every ecosystem imaginable. Oceans are dying, coral reefs are dying, rivers are
dying and rainforest's are dying. If the human population were small compared to the total carrying capacity, we shouldn't see the natural
ecosystems dying all around us.
It's the corporations that are doing all the pollutions. Because polluting coal mines are more profitable than solar cooker. Because they don't care
how much chemicals they put in the water, as long as they get the profit on fish. They're draining the rivers for water instead of concentrating on
the nearly unlimited supply that the ocean is. They are the one cutting the rainforest.
To support life, people need far more land mass on the planet than their physical bodies occupy.
How much land you need?! 1000 acres per person?! A 10 000 square feet house?
As for land for food, have you ever visited a commercial greenhouse? I did, and in the space of 10 000 square feet, there was literally thousands of
mature plants. Now put greenhouses on the top of towers, in-between them, or undeground, and you'll see that we wouldn't take as much space as the
Given that all these things are finite -- and therefore not unlimited -- the global population that depends on these things for sustenance
must obviously be finite as well. Anyone who argues that the human population can be "unlimited" even while depending on finite resources is being
Clearly, by all foundations of logic, there is a limited "carrying capacity" of the planet, meaning there is a finite number of human beings who can
be supported by the biosphere.
Water is infinite, because everything we drink goes back in Nature after being assimilated by us.
We "only" just have 5 billions years of solar radiation left.
The air you breathe is composed of 73% of nitrogen which isn't even used by human respiration. You can only recycle the air. So technically, it is
Sure, in the far far future, we will become over-populated. But by the time this happens, space travel and planet colonizing will be well underway. It
is estimated that the ressources of the solar system can support 10^16 individuals.
If that were true, then the current population would need to be living in harmony with the planet, with an excess buffer of fresh water, food,
topsoil, ocean life, watershed areas and so on. Today, we are as far away from living in harmony as it possibly can get...
Because of whom? Do you hear about sea-water being made drinkable? Do you hear about greenhouses being built to protect crops instead of letting them
at Nature's mercy? Do you hear about towers being build for housing? No. Everytime you hear a new technology appearing, it goes all to the military.
I agree with you, we do need to live in harmony, but you don't see the corporations and the Elite give us the means to do so.
Over 70 % of Indias population lives with under 2 usd per day. Sure they can afford food and water, but is that a life worth living?
No, it is not worth a life living. And why do you think they lives with under 2$ per day? Because they're expendable to the Elite's eyes. They
can't give troubles, because it will lower their income. If one day they all die, it's a land more for the Elite, and a land less to control. So why
give them an actual salary, and an actual life? Why care about the 3rd world population? It's been more than 30 years that people donate money to
help the Africans. By now, amelioration should be more than underway for their lives. Yet, we are still donating, and they are still homeless,
education-less, and hungry.
Again, our fault? No, we tried for 30 years to help them. And the money always went elsewhere.
Your youtube link doesn't work, btw.