Why Aren't We Talking About OVERPOPULATION??

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by forestlady
Here's the problem with overpopulation - what do we do when all the forests are gone? They're rapidly getting there already.

Did you know that there are more trees in the United States now, then there were 100 years ago? I am not arguing that deforestation is not a problem because it is, but I was just wondering if you knew this little tidbit of information.

Do you have sources for this? I find this very difficult to believe. We had wilderness in many places 100 years ago, today those same places now have condos, etc. on them. Can you explain why there are more trees now than 100 years ago, if indeed that's true?

Yeah that's right, liberals cannot see all the trees because of the forests, literally. Here's why. The statistic quoted most often is that there are 40% fewer forests in the US than 400 years ago. But fewer forests do not mean fewer trees, just as fewer farmers than 100 years ago does not mean fewer farm-stuffs produced.

Urban areas are not forests, yet they contain billions of trees. That's right billions. Urban areas in America cover 3.5 percent of the total land area and contain more than 75 percent of the population. In addition, urban areas contain approximately 3.8 billion trees with an average tree canopy cover of 27 percent. [Nowak, David J.; Noble, Mary H.; Sisinni, Susan M.; Dwyer, John F. 2001. Assessing the US Urban Forest Resources Journal of Forestry. Vol. 99 no. 3.:p. 37-42. (2001).] So although we have 40% fewer forests, per se, that does not mean we do not have the urban equivalent of forests in our cities.

One may wonder how many more trees these non-forest areas add to defined forests. Fortunately there are a number of studies that have done the research for us. Nonforest plots may have trees on them, but they do not fit FIA’s definition of forest because the area covered by trees is too small, too sparsely populated by trees, too narrow (e.g., trees between fields or in the middle of a divided highway), or has a disturbed understory (e.g., mowing or grazing) such that natural regeneration of trees probably does not occur. Recent inventories and associated photointerpretation work showed that 30 to 50 percent of these nonforest plots contained trees and were located in urban, suburban, industrial, and rural areas. Data were collected for trees on traditionally nonforest plots in a five-county area in Maryland that was 30 percent forested in 1999. Nonforest plots added at least 43 percent to the total-tree basal area measured on forest plots. [Riemann, Rachel 2003. Pilot Inventory of FIA plots traditionally called ‘nonforest' Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 44 p..] This means that for every 100 trees in an area defined as a forest, the non-forest areas add another 43 trees. Add that to the trees in the 60% forests and we are up to 85% of the number of trees we had 400 years ago.

Now while it is true that in earlier centuries the lumber industry raped our timberlands, they changed their method of operations over a century ago to m

Trees

[edit on 10-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Sorry speaker. I will completely disagree with that statement..

First off.. Trees in ubran centers are typically extremely small, very unhealthy and spaced far apart. How that study found 27% canopy I am at a loss for..

Just think, originally, almost half of the United States, three-quarters of Canada, almost all of Europe, the plains of the Levant, and much of the rest of the world were forested. The forests have been mostly removed for fuel, building materials and to clear land for farming. The clearing of the forests has been one of the most historic and prodigious feats of humanity.

Global Change

Today, forests cover more than one quarter of the world's total land area, excluding polar regions. Slightly more than 50% of the forests are found in the tropics and the rest are temperate and boreal (coniferous northern forest) zones.

Seven countries (Russia, Brazil, Canada, the United States, China, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) account for more than 60% of the total.

Please.. do NOT tell me that city centers are good for forest..
When a forest is burned down or cut down, it takes almost 100 years for that same forest to return to its formal state before the clearing.. and most likely it will be destroyed well before it becomes a mature forest..

SOME STATISTICS

There are over 25 countries in both North and Central America. Each one has its own reason for deforestation in their place. Some of such countries are Mexico, Canada, Dominica, Costa Rica, Honduras, and the United States which are examples of the ones considering deforestation in their areas. In all of North and Central America there is 549,304 hectares of forest area in 2,136,966 hectares of total land area. Of all 17,533 hectares is plantation area. Seven of the forests existing in these continents are are in danger of being deforested. Mostly they are threatened by logging, mining, and pollution. There are many cultures that are being vanished along with the forests. Along with all of that could be a plant that could give a cure for cancer or even help end world hunger.

Deforestation

It is of course not limited to the United states..

Africas rainforest are dissapearing as well..

Forest fragmentation by roads in Central Africa. This study shows that 42% of forest area in the six countries is within 10 km of a road and more than 90% is within 50 km of a road (Source: WRI Earthtrends).

Deforestation..

In Europe, The German highway, the Autobahn, along the Black Forest has been questioned.. should the speed limit be lowered around the forest? The reason is because at higher speeds automobiles burn more feul, the forest in surounding areas of the Autobahn are dieing because of the exsessive polution..

Resort back to the map of the Congo region Rainforest.. and the effect even the simplest roads have on forest..

Historically, Europe has over cut their forest to the point of no return.. much of the forest on the British isles where cut down and have been slow to come back.. timber was a huge industry in the New World because there was little of it in the Old World.. Ireland has little forestation left, most of it cut down rather recently a few hundred years ago by foriegners, and has been slow to return.. as is the same in Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, China .. huge industrial nations that take down forest for expansion, will suffer in the future because it will not grow back..

Most people assume that global warming is caused by burning oil and gas. But in fact between 25 and 30 percent of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year – 1.6 billion tonnes – is caused by deforestation.

About 200 experts, mostly from developing countries, met in Rome last week to address this issue in a workshop organized by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and hosted by FAO. “We are working to solve two of the key environmental issues – deforestation and global warming – at the same time,” said FAO Senior Forestry Officer Dieter Schoene.

Trees are 50 percent carbon. When they are felled or burned, the C02 they store escapes back into the air. According to FAO figures, some 13 million ha of forests worldwide are lost every year, almost entirely in the tropics. Deforestation remains high in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia.

Deforestation Causes Global Warming

Interesting.. we blame cars and their emitions, but the effects of just burning a forest are far more reaching, not including of course the fact that trees turn green house gasses into oxygen as a biproduct, which we live on.. no trees green house gases stay in the atmosphere..

Speaker of Truth you are correct there are more trees than there were a 100 years ago, Mr Puck is incorrect he depicts a map from 1920 but show nothing for the current times. There are less farmers and land under cultivation therefore there are more trees and many government sources confirm this!

Nice try Mr. Puck!

............................................Was that sarcasm?

There are .. "less" farmers yes.. "less" farm land? No. Does a forest re-grow in a matter of decades? No. Not naturally. Unless someone planted the the entire forest and let it grow untouched.. who is this johny appleseed?

Please, if you wish to act obnoxious, please bring with you tangable proof.

Say.. where is this credible government proof?

[edit on 4/10/2007 by Rockpuck]

Something like 90% of Earth's oxygen is from sea plants.

From the linked report: "Now while it is true that in earlier centuries the lumber industry raped our timberlands, they changed their method of operations over a century ago to managed plantations for their timber needs. In addition, these plantations produce timber at 5 to 10 times the average forest yield. What this means is that we need only one-fifth to one-tenth of previous forest space to have the same number of trees for timber. The plantations produce the same number of trees as do 20% of our forests. For those with a pencil, for every 100 trees in a forest there are 20 plantation trees; bringing our total tree count to 105%; that is, even with 40% fewer forests we have 105% of the trees we had 400 years ago."

This guys' talking about tree plantations, where they cut down trees for lumber. How can you count those trees, they're quickly used for lumber.
And for every tree farm, there are companies clearcutting entire areas of forest and NOT replanting them. No. California and Oregon are 2 very good examples. Add to that the fact that entire species of trees are threatened by various ailments. We have no more American chestnut trees, there are way fewer redwoods then there used to be and then there's the disease that strikes oaks and it goes on and on.

The other thing is that this guy has an agenda - he's out to prove that liberals are wrong. How he comes to the conclusion that it's the liberals who aren't seeing that we have more forests today than before. Right, blame the liberals. We may have more forests today, depending on how you count them, but certainly we have less trees. That's just a no-brainer if you use common sense.

So show me some of these govt sources. Not, of course, that the govt might skew the numbers so people don't freak out. But I'd still like to see these govt. sources.

well thats what I thought the moment I read the thread header??!!! lol

It is a very obvious issue though and a very big problem. Earth cannot sustain humans at present, resources are stretched to the limit.

We need some natural attrition to occur and this is where Mother Nature comes in... there must be a balance and somewhere at some point, humans just didnt think long term. Too much shagging...well the shagging is ok but the breeding...

Firstly, all of this talk about the lack of trees is much ado about nothing. What??!! Yeah, that's right. Here's why:

Genetically Engineered Trees:
Promise and Concerns

Transgenic trees offer potential solutions to a number of forestry problems, yet the regulatory history for these trees in the United States is very short, explains RFF scholar Roger Sedjo in his new report, Genetically Engineered Trees: Promise and Concerns. The report focuses on the implementation of the Plant Protection Act and related regulations as the Act has been applied to transgenic trees.

Timber sources in the United States and throughout the world have evolved in recent decades, so that by the end of the 20th century, plantation forests accounted for about one-third of harvested industrial wood globally.

In addition to providing wood at a lower cost, these high-yield planted forests have the potential desirable environmental side effect of drawing timber harvests away from natural and old-growth forests.

Trees

Ya'll have a good day now. Ya hear?

[edit on 11-4-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

I didn't mean to kill the thread... Sorry.

The use of GM trees, or any other plant, is problematic:

1) The technology is very new and very invasive and its long term effects are unknown.

2) The population pressure that makes the use of these products seem desirable brings us right back to the over-population issue.

So in my opinion, saying that the use of GM trees (or other) means there is no problem is a bit iffy. For these and the reasons forestlady outlines... mono-cultural crops are a big problem disease-wise.

As an aside, I have a good friend who works for the US Forest Service, who told me something interesting. I don't have any sources to back this up; it is anecdotal at this point - but she said that when the USFS talks about 'sustainable' logging, it is amortized over a century. So what this allows them to do is cut down everything in sight as quickly as they can, then the land has no more trees for the next 60 years... but the rate of logging is 'sustainable' when calculated over a century.

I'll see if I can find any source to back this up when I have the time.

Really, there's enough living space and food and water for everyone, it's the distribution that's messed up.

It's a little disheartening to see Westerner's who utilize 80% of the world's resources, wastefully, bemoan the birthrates.

I'm not anti-contraceptive or anything, but it's mainly our lifestyles that threaten the world, not the population.

The paradigms are sick. It's been a competitive war for resources for years. Without a compromise, it's going to end as a war for resources.

It sounds like looking forward to a massive decline in the population instead of altering lifestyles has become the catchword for all the problems facing the world. Not that I think we're really at fault for that. If it wasn't us it would be someone else. We just got lucky for awhile, but economic trends imply the decline of the Western empire. Most likely it's going to blow up in our global faces before there's a substantial paradigm shift.

Continuing on with health care practices that ignore impoverished areas and makes medicine unavailable, or not even researched, will ensure a drastic rise in disease. Economies based on waste-making and consumerism will ensure destructive environmental consequences. Looks like numbers are our best bet for whatever catastrophes, the imbalances will engender.

[edit on 11-4-2007 by clearwater]

"Westerners" use resources for manufacture. They manufacture to trade. They trade to satisfy a demand.

Last I heard, "westerners" traded with other countries, too.

Years ago I watched a TV documentary about an anthropologist who's specialty was ancient governments - especially those run by women.

He found women run governments/tribes to be more harmonious - had lower birth rates - better nutrition - and fewer wars.

posted by forestlady

I conclude the root cause of almost all of the world's ills is overpopulation. There would be less hungry people, less poverty, less violence less anthropogenic global warming, less impact on the environment and less crime. I want to ask on this thread:

Why aren't we addressing the overpopulation problem? We are beyond Earth's capability of supporting us . . The prehistoric ancients practiced birth control . . They recognized too many people meant everyone starves. Why can't we see that? Why are there articles lamenting the lowered birth rates in France and Italy? I'd like to know what everyone's thoughts are on this - why aren't we talking about overpopulation? [Edited by Don W]

I offer you that the 18th century’s Malthus was right in his theory, but wrong in his calculations. Actually he was right in his calculations but what he did not foresee was the improved farming techniques made possible by the nascent industrial revolution. One farmer could feed more and still more people. Instead of his dire predictions coming true in his 10 generations, it may be take 20 but no more. His predicted consequences will happen.

Malthus had said populations increase geometrically - exponentially we say today - but food production increases arithmetically. That is, in direct proportion to the amount of land involved and the energy expended.

Malthus did not foresee the chemical industry’s achievements with artificial fertilizers or the mechanization of the farm. The 1950s Green Revolution (chemical fertilizers) again raised food productivity by several orders of magnitude. Some scientists warn that the overuse of chemicals is creating a false and non-sustainable level production from soils which will crash as more of the basic components of soil are irretrievably and irreplaceably lost. Food output will fall precipitously when that happens.

China adopted the one family one child policy in the 1970s, and it is finally bringing their population growth to a halt. At around 1.3 billion. China has about the same area as the United States not counting Alaska, so can you image how you’d feel if there were 4 people every time you see 1 person in the US of A?

India, which talks the talk, but does not walk the walk on population control, has but 900,000 square miles - I used 3 million for both the US and China - for its 1.1 billion people. Demographers tell us for certain, India will pass China - in numbers of people - by 2040, at around 1.5 billion. Add one more problem abetted by sheer numbers of people; India’s dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. A welcome freak of the region's nature, born of seasonal winds and tall mountains, the 80,000 square miles of verdant highlands, is the place we know as Kashmir. It could produce a lot of much needed food to feed India. Of course, dry and arid and over populated Pakistan sees that same advantage in Kashmir.

Religions have added much to the population problem. As Reagan liked to say about government, “Religion is the problem, not the solution.” It was not a bad idea - maybe - to urge large families after the decimation of Europe by the 14th century’s 3 major plagues of the Black Death, but times have changed. Religion seems all too slow to accommodate to changing needs of society. Institutional inertia.

I read some 30 or more years ago some researchers who concluded the Earth cannot sustain more than 2 billion people, in the western style, over a long - several centuries - period of time. When you look at the alarming and deplorable condition of the oceans fish stocks, when you learn how farmers use more fertilizer each year to get essentially the same crops, you don’t have to be very bright to see trouble ahead. Even if we issued free condoms to every male over age 6, the earths 6.3 billion people will grow to 8 billion by 2030. If we ignore the adverse effects of too many people we will hit 10 billion by 2060. And then the crash?

There is no good news on this topic. It gets only bad and worse. Couple this uncontrollable population explosion with the equally uncontrollable spread of nuclear weapons and I can foresee hungry African countries blackmailing rich western countries for food or suffer an Atom Bomb in Trafalgar Square or the Champs-Elysees or the Washington Mall. Our future on Planet Earth looks bleak if we continue to wander about aimlessly and leaderless.

Aside: Lamenting lower birthrates is as much due to ever larger social security payments as to raising false hopes of restoring former glories. In mockery of the civilized care for elders - who fed them when they could not feed themselves - some economists label it “generational” shifting of wealth as if that was inherently uneconomic and therefore undesirable. Perhaps forgetting my reworked “There but for 30 years go I?”

[edit on 4/20/2007 by donwhite]