overpopulation or greed and waste

So we have a thread explaining how the worlds population can fit into a small US state, launching some to suggest (like me) that the world is not overpopulated, others arguing as they believe, that it is
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Overpopulation and limited resources causing our planet no limit of harm, or just simple greed and consumerism causing our planet harm

Ultimately I am supporting my argument by linking a site showing in images the average weekly food consumption of familys from different cultures.
Dont just take note of the amount of food consumed but also take note of the size of the familys

timhalberg.com...

As for me I eat like somebody from the US and live a very selfish consumerist lifestyle. I am making no judgements, thought the images were informative.

For mine we are not overpopulated on this planet, just some, a little to self absorbed.

reply to post by borntowatch


Okay, so if we are to follow your line of thinking that we all just need to eat a little less and use a few less resources, how do you propose we motivate society to make the change?

How many more people could the world support before we get to the same position as we are now?

What about the continuing desertification of farmlands?

What about climate change causing crops to fail on a more regular basis these days?

What about the problems of having enough clean drinking water?

What about the ever shrinking areas of virgin land - where will nature get to exist the way it always has?

If you can solve all of the above, then I will agree with you

We are not over populated. We are not running out of room.

It is the quivalent of saying the earth will stop spinning because of all the things we are building on it.

A tiny seed grows into a huge oak tree, it has not taken up any extra space because the elements used to create it are drawn from the earth.

EVERYTHING on the earth made by man is just re-moulding natural elements that already exist on earth.. There is as much"stuff" on the planet as there has always has been, it has just been altered and changed about.

Its really hard to explain what I am trying to say, Maybe someone can help me out?

definite greed and waste ... most of those shown would feed a family here for at least 3 months ...

Originally posted by Briles1207

EVERYTHING on the earth made by man is just re-moulding natural elements that already exist on earth.. There is as much"stuff" on the planet as there has always has been, it has just been altered and changed about.

Its really hard to explain what I am trying to say, Maybe someone can help me out?

What you are trying to say is that we are living in a closed system - nothing is gained or lost. This is not entirely true as some water is lost to outer space every year from the outer atmosphere and some space junk makes it through to the surface, but for the most part everything that is on the planet stays here.

The thing is though, we change the state of things i.e Carbon dioixide is stored in the earth's soils and also absorbed by plants and converted back to oxygen. We have changed the balance by creating loads more CO2 than nature would by itself and we are clearing forests at an alarming rate to this very day.

We humans are burning off millions of years worth of fossil fuels in less than a century and these are not self replenishing, we are clearing forest lands and destroying natural ecosystems for our farming, we are building immense 'hives' with our megacities that pour mega amounts of pollution into the air.

And these are just a couple of examples of the way we humans are altering the natural order of the planet.

So, here's the crux of the argument - you could fit trillions of us here on the planet if you are just talking about physical space. But the planet's resources would not support it because we need to eat.

Originally posted by markosity1973
reply to post by borntowatch

 

Okay, so if we are to follow your line of thinking that we all just need to eat a little less and use a few less resources, how do you propose we motivate society to make the change?

How many more people could the world support before we get to the same position as we are now?

What about the continuing desertification of farmlands?

What about climate change causing crops to fail on a more regular basis these days?

What about the problems of having enough clean drinking water?

What about the ever shrinking areas of virgin land - where will nature get to exist the way it always has?

If you can solve all of the above, then I will agree with you

Did I make a proposition

or

Did I link some images I found interesting and thought worth sharing

Originally posted by markosity1973

Originally posted by Briles1207

EVERYTHING on the earth made by man is just re-moulding natural elements that already exist on earth.. There is as much"stuff" on the planet as there has always has been, it has just been altered and changed about.

Its really hard to explain what I am trying to say, Maybe someone can help me out?

What you are trying to say is that we are living in a closed system - nothing is gained or lost. This is not entirely true as some water is lost to outer space every year from the outer atmosphere and some space junk makes it through to the surface, but for the most part everything that is on the planet stays here.

The thing is though, we change the state of things i.e Carbon dioixide is stored in the earth's soils and also absorbed by plants and converted back to oxygen. We have changed the balance by creating loads more CO2 than nature would by itself and we are clearing forests at an alarming rate to this very day.

We humans are burning off millions of years worth of fossil fuels in less than a century and these are not self replenishing, we are clearing forest lands and destroying natural ecosystems for our farming, we are building immense 'hives' with our megacities that pour mega amounts of pollution into the air.

And these are just a couple of examples of the way we humans are altering the natural order of the planet.

So, here's the crux of the argument - you could fit trillions of us here on the planet if you are just talking about physical space. But the planet's resources would not support it because we need to eat.

Yeah but how much do we need to eat and how convenient do we really need that food to be.

We are not overpopulated. just greedy and wasteful

Originally posted by borntowatch

We are not overpopulated. just greedy and wasteful

To a certain extent this is true, Western society is greedy and wasteful, but a large part of the world (think of Africa and parts of the Middle East) goes to bed hungry at night. If we were to change our ways, everyone on the planet would be well fed.

A number of scientists have argued that the current global population expansion and accompanying increase in resource consumption threatens the world's ecosystem, as well as straining humanity's ability to feed itself.[137][138] The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth, which was ratified by 58 member national academies in 1994, called the growth in human numbers "unprecedented", and stated that many environmental problems, such as rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and pollution, were aggravated by the population expansion.[139] Indeed, some analysts claim that overpopulation's most serious impact is its effect on the environment.[14] At the time of the 1994 IAP statement, the world population stood at 5.5 billion, and lower-bound scenarios predicted a peak of 7.8 billion by 2050, a number that current estimates state will be reached in the late 2020s.

Source

The point I am trying to make is that if we all change our ways, it will slow down the inevitable, but as the population continues to rise, demand will eventually outstrip supply of food and resources.

Countries like China, Japan and Indonesia already have one and 2 child policies in order to curb their population growth. These nations have seen the writing on the wall a long time ago. Eventually we in the west will catch up with them.

Originally posted by markosity1973
reply to post by borntowatch

 

What about the continuing desertification of farmlands?

There are actually methods in use in China, Yemen, and several other regions where desertified farmland and other land suitable for agricultural use, has been bought back from being desert, into verdant, flourishing greenspace. Normally the problem is over grazing and over farming. The solution is to plant certain plants which just by being there, improve the soil quality, retain moisture beneath the ground, and so on. I will not pretend that these methods are fast, but they are effective, and they are in use as we speak. They are not well publicised, probably because of the massive lobby power of the green bloc, who have more clout the closer people think we are to extinction, and the total destruction of our ability to farm and to live.

What about climate change causing crops to fail on a more regular basis these days?

Given that volcanic erruptions make our contribution to carbon and greenhouse levels in the atmosphere seem utterly insignificant, this is a problem that would be coming about with, or without industry and technology, so no amount of greed and consumerism is going to make a vast difference to wether a crop fails, except in terms of how abused the land itself is, by the aggressive agricultural methods practiced upon it. Other than that, we are at the whim of nature, as we should be. We have no business surviving anything, if we cannot survive that, since a failiure to survive that is the boot of Darwin being placed firmly upon our fundaments, and rightly so.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
There are actually methods in use in China, Yemen, and several other regions where desertified farmland and other land suitable for agricultural use, has been bought back from being desert, into verdant, flourishing greenspace. Normally the problem is over grazing and over farming. The solution is to plant certain plants which just by being there, improve the soil quality, retain moisture beneath the ground, and so on. I will not pretend that these methods are fast, but they are effective, and they are in use as we speak. They are not well publicised, probably because of the massive lobby power of the green bloc, who have more clout the closer people think we are to extinction, and the total destruction of our ability to farm and to live.

I am aware of such reclamation projects, they are trialling them here in Australia too. But some countries and Australia is a big one with this problem are suffering from a slow decline in annual rainfall over the years. This kind of desertification cannot be reversed without irrigation

Speaking at Greenhouse 2007, CSIRO’s Dr Wenju Cai said the latest modelling by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) showed a 5 to 15 per cent rainfall decrease by 2070.

CSIRO link

Given that volcanic erruptions make our contribution to carbon and greenhouse levels in the atmosphere seem utterly insignificant, this is a problem that would be coming about with, or without industry and technology, so no amount of greed and consumerism is going to make a vast difference to wether a crop fails, except in terms of how abused the land itself is, by the aggressive agricultural methods practiced upon it. Other than that, we are at the whim of nature, as we should be. We have no business surviving anything, if we cannot survive that, since a failiure to survive that is the boot of Darwin being placed firmly upon our fundaments, and rightly so.

There is much conjecture about human activity on the planet and it's direct effect. It is indeed true that volcanic activity alters things quickly due to the scale of ash, CO2 and other gases emitted. But one fact remains - all the CO2 we emit from burning fossils fuels that were buried deep within the earth would not be in the atmosphere if we had left it buried beneath our feet. We are changing the atmospheric composition of the air we breath. The moot point is what that change is doing to the planet overall, if anything at all.

"You can’t have infinite growth in a world of finite resources."-Andrew Simms.

We are overpopulated and wasteful. We cannot expect the population to grow and still expect enough land, water, and natural resources to sustain us.

Even if people reverted back to the basic staples such as grain, rice, and water, the growing population would still require more land for sowing and housing.

And water is becoming scarce as well. Rich people are investing in water because it's a finite resource and we are consuming more of it than nature is producing it.

I agree with Stephen Hawking: expand or die.

I vote for consumerism and people consuming too much food chemistry that causes reward centers of the brain to be continually activated. Another words it makes us feel that we need to buy things. This tactic is a definite creation of consumerism, going back thousands of years.

What is greed, it is runaway desire which can be caused by overeating food chemistry. Problem is that if the chemistry ends, it can cause severe depression. These chemicals are naturally in some foods we consume. People tend to like the foods that cause this euphoria feeling and overconsume them in the USA and other countries a lot. Greed or obsessive compulsive disorders are a problem with the reward centers of the brain caused by too much of this chemistry in our diet. Food suppliers know people crave this chemistry and have created chemicals to add to food and get us addicted. The FDA seems to approve this chemistry because it helps to keep the economy growing. Talk about society living in a big lie. Everyone hooked on drug chemistry found in our foods whether natural or created by man.

I wonder if perfumes, colognes and soaps can also make a person buy or consume more I have looked at pheromones and scents but not as related to causing excessive buying. I know that stores supposedly incorporate scents and sounds to increase consumer buying but I am not sure of what we put on our body. If you smoke cigarettes, the Pheromones don't work well, so I guess the simplest way is to just smoke a but before going into the store.

reply to post by borntowatch
One need only to peek into the dumpster outside of any restaurant to get a picture of how much food is wasted that could have fed many families. I live in the good old USA and usually spend between $45-$60 per week on groceries for 4 people and still end up giving some of it to the animals. I wonder how much gets wasted by people who spend a few hundred per week on groceries?

Originally posted by markosity1973

Originally posted by borntowatch

We are not overpopulated. just greedy and wasteful

To a certain extent this is true, Western society is greedy and wasteful, but a large part of the world (think of Africa and parts of the Middle East) goes to bed hungry at night. If we were to change our ways, everyone on the planet would be well fed.

A number of scientists have argued that the current global population expansion and accompanying increase in resource consumption threatens the world's ecosystem, as well as straining humanity's ability to feed itself.[137][138] The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth, which was ratified by 58 member national academies in 1994, called the growth in human numbers "unprecedented", and stated that many environmental problems, such as rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global warming, and pollution, were aggravated by the population expansion.[139] Indeed, some analysts claim that overpopulation's most serious impact is its effect on the environment.[14] At the time of the 1994 IAP statement, the world population stood at 5.5 billion, and lower-bound scenarios predicted a peak of 7.8 billion by 2050, a number that current estimates state will be reached in the late 2020s.

Source

The point I am trying to make is that if we all change our ways, it will slow down the inevitable, but as the population continues to rise, demand will eventually outstrip supply of food and resources.

Countries like China, Japan and Indonesia already have one and 2 child policies in order to curb their population growth. These nations have seen the writing on the wall a long time ago. Eventually we in the west will catch up with them.

edit on 11-7-2013 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)

Its terrible that the majority of the world goes hungry, still there is nothing I can do about it and these images will be forgotten in a week

Originally posted by Thecakeisalie
"You can’t have infinite growth in a world of finite resources."-Andrew Simms.

We are overpopulated and wasteful. We cannot expect the population to grow and still expect enough land, water, and natural resources to sustain us.

Even if people reverted back to the basic staples such as grain, rice, and water, the growing population would still require more land for sowing and housing.

And water is becoming scarce as well. Rich people are investing in water because it's a finite resource and we are consuming more of it than nature is producing it.

I agree with Stephen Hawking: expand or die.

edit on 11-7-2013 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2013 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)

There always seems to be a population correction, natural or man made.

reply to post by borntowatch


It's never been about space. We have plenty of space, and will continue to have plenty of space for many many years to come.

It's about resources. Our comfy way of life in the West is not sustainable. Our food production is destroying the land, air and water. Our addiction to technology is raping millions of acres of land to get at the precious metals we need to make our devices. the waste of which, piles up. Cobalt for instance. Any other number of elements required for our electronics, the waste produced from the mining and refining of these elements alone is alarming, but to find out it's a limited resource that is only half assed-ly being recycled is a scary thought too.

If you look at food production alone, you can see the nightmare coming. We're one or two bad seasons away from disaster. We rely on massive factory farms that pollute the food, air and water around them. And once that land is destroyed, there's no quick fix. Once that land is tainted with high levels of phosphorus and arsenic, it is no longer viable for food production.

But the demand doesn't decrease, it only increases.

there's plenty of room, but only limited resources, and we're blowing through them at an alarming rate just assuming the planet will balance itself out.

Sure, we will end up with about the same amount of "stuff" we started with, but by changing elements we're changing the whole system, a system we don't even fully understand. We are putting radioactive elements into the environment, carcinogenic elements into the environment, we're cutting down forests to build more urban centers and plowing rainforests so wendy's has enough room to graze their cattle.

We aren't really adding any carbon into the system that wasn't there before, but we are sure as hell changing where in the system it resides. The same goes for all of it, we're not taking anything away at the fundamental level, but we're changing it enough that we can safely assume it's gone.

Helium. Helium is a great example, natural element, we fill tons of balloons with the crap that let them float away. They go up into the atmosphere and release the helium. It's still in the closed system, but we no longer have access to it. That's why there's a helium shortage. Hell, the US even has a strategic helium reserve.

We don't have a reliable method for waste. We bury it, float it out to sea on barges, even burn it, but we're not taking it out of the system.

Every ecosystem, big or small, is a matter of balance. There IS a tipping point. The best we can hope for is to limit our impact, we can't control the whole system, but we can limit OUR direct impact. We wouldn't be here if nature couldn't restore that balance on it's own, but we've adding a new variable, us, and we really have no idea how that will impact in the long term.

I'd say we're fairly over populated. Just my opinion. But I read that if all the people in the world were standing side by side they'd only take up the area of Los Angeles. Maybe what they could do eventually is build floating cities, underwater cities, and cities that hover in the air. That would create more space. And maybe even in space. Personally if it was me, I would almost prefer to have been born way back in the pioneering days. I just don't like how the modern system has taken over and already controls so much of our lives. It's just insane. They're just way too many useless burueacrates and yet they're only hiring tons and tons more, and implimenting more and more laws to make more and more money off the sheep.

reply to post by markosity1973


Thanks for putting it so succinctly.

I suppose I am refering more to manufcaturing resource rather than physical sustainability.

What happens over a period of millions of years when a food source disappears? The species evolve and end up eating something else.

Unfortunatley the "inbetween" part would be very grim.

I may train my body to live off my own toenails & hair. Unlimited sustainability!

Originally posted by borntowatch
So we have a thread explaining how the worlds population can fit into a small US state, ......

Actaually, if all the space was removed from between our atoms we could fit into a space the size of an apple.

Just thought I'd throw that in for consideration and perspective.

If only we could live on the simple stuff.....like apples, and stop all the processing and packaging.

Greed is rampant in some areas of modern society, the fresh produce in some off those photos in the link compared with the super consumer fare is rediculous.