The rapid decline of the natural world

Post Reply New Topic

Is a crisis even bigger than climate change:

http://huffp.st/dmVMrzA

I think the data is forecasting one crucial piece of information for the environment "naysayers"

That countries are using natural resources at a rate that far exceeds its ability to renew itself, and how nature’s ability to contribute food and fresh water to a growing human population is reducing

Let's hope that strategies can be put in place to both tackle climate change and concurrently protect natural environments from further exploitation. But the rise of neo-liberal and far right leaders who want to fast track development at the expense of the environment is going to be a challenge
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... rotections

Mmhmm, all of this is why I predict that the powers that be are going to start a war of epic proportions over a bunch of stupid s**t with the ultimate purpose of rescuing the human population as rapidly as possible as it is, quite simply, the fastest way to get ourselves back into harmony with what the Earth can provide us with.

Culling the masses?

We need a one world government system to be put in control over everything asap in order to achieve survival.

Indeed. I can’t recalk the name of the documentary but there was some rich woman asked about depopulation and she replied “You mean the great cull? It’s already begun.”

Some figure that’s why we’re seeing lower fertility rates around the world (chemical castration via air, water, food etc) and it wouldn’t surprise me one bit of our financial systems have been rigged to make it too expensive to have kids and thus that’s why people are opting to be childless. Etc.

But war = very efficient way to reduce the population ASAP.

The world is massively overpopulated, and reducing that population is the only way of saving it, but there are ethical means of achieving this end: something like a one child policy, as unpalatable as it is, may need to be introduced, but I recommend using the media and education system to convince people, rationally, of the need to practice what Malthus called "moral restraint". This seems to be the best and most humane method, and it's clearly necessary, owing to the fact that the masses, by and large, are totally unaware of the problem of overpopulation. If it were given as much attention in schools and on news bulletins as global warming itself, I see hope for solutions to the problem that don't involve Chinese coercion.

Yes I think she is referring to "rat models" which were conducted in the "Mouse Utopia" studies back in the 1960s in the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) which found that overcrowding creates a "behavioral sink:" where a reduction in resources (food and water) gave rise to destructive behavior resulting in reduced fertility where the rate of population replacement was lower than death.

The concept became part of popular culture and what the "rich woman" you mentioned is referring to

The irony is that fertility is already falling in the western world. However the concept of "populate or perish" continues in the developing world. Education can make an impact but at least in the islamic world it's considered a religious duty to have many children to "spread the word of allah". In poorer rural communities children provide economic support for families.

The world's not overpopulated. We just need to distribute the population more evenly over the planet's land mass.

It would be nice if we can make vast stretches of land habitable for more than a few people (e.g., the Russian Steppes, the Russian Taiga Forest, the Sahara Desert).

I think there's vast tracts of land unoccupied across the globe but there are reasons they are unoccupied.
1. Climate is inhospitable
2. Soils aren't arable (often due to overfarming leaving little or no topsoil left
3. No water (a big issue)
4. Land lacks natural resources

Here in Australia almost 90% of the population live on a thin strip of land along the coast. Almost nobody lives in the bush, it's akin to Alaskan wilderness, Siberia, Gobi or Sahara desert...

Secondly migrants to western countries choose to live in cities not in regional areas. Young people in regional/rural areas across the world are moving to the cities (internal migration). Rural towns are becoming ghost towns.

So population increase only puts pressure on the small amount of land people are willing to live on...

There's also the problem that development causes the destruction of wildlife habitat. If people are going to go live on an "undeveloped" piece of land then most of the animals have to go find somewhere else to live to make room for them. Also it often requires activities like clearing forests and draining wetlands which can cause issues down the road because you've entirely changed the ecosystem of a region and species have to either adapt to the human presence or perish.

One thing that seems for sure in America, is that people are willing to live in any environment. Wherher it's the tundra of Alaska or the scorching barren desert of Nevada.

I remember when we were driving through Nevada once, one of the passengers said, "no wonder they chose this environment to set off nuclear bombs". In other words it's so barren it looks the same before and after an atomic explosion. But millions of people choose to live there and equally inhospitable areas like Arizona. Some even choose to live in small isolated towns in the middle of the desert.

But most of the US land mass is basically uninhabited. Even areas that are much more habitable than areas like Alaska and Nevada.

Where I live now in the Pacific Northwest, vast areas of what once was lush forest, was turned into Seattle and Tacoma and Portland and all the places in between. Yet most of the Pacific Northwest is still lush forest.

An interesting thing though is that the same wildlife that exists in the undeveloped wilderness areas, exists in the developed areas too. I've seen just about every indigenous creature close to home. Eagles, beavers, racoons, deer, elk, owls, possums, cyotes, woodpeckers, ducks, geese, frogs, seals, sea lions, orcas etc etc.

Yeah, nothing like a little worldwide genocide to fix all our problems.

~100 years ago we had a little over a 1/4 the population. Too many humans = a huge part of the problem. Fewer humans consuming resources = back in better balance with the Earth. I'm sure you can grasp that concept just fine and can see why powerful people would opt for it... too many poor people breathing the air and poisoning the water. Get rid of a bunch of people and things return to being better for those that survive.