[One Degree]

All of the arguments against limiting population have the same theme;
"We will figure out something. We have not figured it out yet, but I hope we will, so let's keep having children."

Would it not be simpler to not have so many children?

[Jim4120]

Would it not be simpler to not have so many children?

We've already been going this way. The average number of births in the world has decreased over the past 60 years from 35.3 children/1000 people to 20.1 children/1000 people. Population growth is expected to level out over the next century, resulting in a population of around 11 billion.
http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?q=world+po ... crID%3A900

[One Degree]

You are quoting one of three scenarios the UN projects.

The other two are not so optimistic.

[Jim4120]

You are quoting one of three scenarios the UN projects.

Actually, the only part of my that I pulled from the UN source I linked to was the data from 1960-2010 that showed the declining birth rate.

But the UN does have different possibilities. However, there's a >80% likelihood that population rates will either level out or start declining over the next century.


http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q- ... ilable.png

[One Degree]

The only problem I have with the UN's figures is they are based upon a very short trend period that has no historical equivalent.

No one knows if the trend will continue.

I believe we need to actively keep people aware of the danger to our environment from over population, even if we manage to achieve a balanced population.

I don't have the source handy, but we are using 18 months of the earth's resources every 12 months now. The scenario will be much worse with 11 billion people.

[Jim4120]

I don't have the source handy, but we are using 18 months of the earth's resources every 12 months now.

A source is really needed to claim something like this and have anyone believe it.

[One Degree]

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/inde ... shoot_day/


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... th-ran-out

Here are two that both refer to overshoot day. The day of the year that we have used up the renewable resources the earth can replenish in a year.

[Jim4120]

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/earth_overshoot_day

This is a measure of our "Global Footprint," which is not just when "we have used up the renewable resources the earth can replenish in a year," but rather

its ability to replenish the planet’s resources and absorb waste, including CO2

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/ ... eneral.pdf

Most of the "footprint" in the report comes from Carbon, and its pollution-causing effects. Without the carbon, or with reduced carbon, we would or could be well below the line of "world capacity."
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/ ... Report.pdf

A more useful measure of the earth's ability to support more people would be to take away the measure of absorbing carbon, and then we could better see how much of our renewable resources we are consuming each year. This is especially true as we are generally heading towards getting away from using carbon as an energy source, which will greatly reduce this burden on the environment. Again, this is a look at the environment as a whole, not just what percentage of the world's natural resources we are using each year. This also doesn't take into account improvements in technology that, for example, leads to less land used to produce more food, as the data in the study is based upon land use, not actual resource totals.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139832/carter-roberts/the-day-the-earth-ran-out

This article cites the first as its source, so the same problems apply.

[Just my view 46]

Until the industrial evolution in the 19th Century, the planet could cope with approximately 2 Billion people without any harmful effects. Since then the Earth's population has grown to over 7 Billion and widespread environmental damage has become the norm. Hundreds of Flora and Fauna species have become extinct and this process is speeding up at an alarming rate. It has been proposed by scientists, that many species will vanish before we even know they existed.

Global climate change is already patently obvious to those who see. Storms, floods, droughts and unseasonal weather are becoming more frequent and severe. IMHO this trend is now irreversible - we dug our own graves. Now we have to live with it.

[Rancid]

We can probably due with about half the people we have now. This will never happen because Capitalism demands growth in consumption.

[oscar]

The more CO2 we dump into the atmosphere via fossil fuel burning, the greater the probability that a catastrophic collapse of oxygen-producing phytoplankton populations because of rising temperatures. Should such occur, the number of people who can survive maybe those lucky few who find homes in hermetically sealed domed colonies on a planet with an unbreathable atmosphere.

"...“By 2100, the earth at sea level could have atmospheric oxygen levels comparable to the top of Mount Everest today. And as far as I know, people cannot normally stay on Everest without oxygen masks for more than a few minutes,” Petrovskii said.

Professor Petrovskii explained: “Global warming has been a focus of attention of science and politics for about two decades now. A lot has been said about its expected disastrous consequences; perhaps the most notorious is the global flooding that may result from melting of Antarctic ice if the warming exceeds a few degrees compared to the pre-industrial level. However, it now appears that this is probably not even close to the biggest danger that the warming can cause to the humanity.”
..."

http://russgeorge.net/2016/06/17/plankt ... f-century/

[Danielacare]

Just how I interpreted the phrase. Figment is generally used to speak of something that's not real. Thought is considered to have real impact. Just semantics. I could go with us being the result of God's imagination, as you're using the word.

I'm getting the ultimate point of your posts here to be that our planet and the life on it can't really exist in the universe as it is, yet does. Am I off?

.

[Truth To Power]

The more CO2 we dump into the atmosphere via fossil fuel burning, the greater the probability that a catastrophic collapse of oxygen-producing phytoplankton populations because of rising temperatures. Should such occur, the number of people who can survive maybe those lucky few who find homes in hermetically sealed domed colonies on a planet with an unbreathable atmosphere.

"...“By 2100, the earth at sea level could have atmospheric oxygen levels comparable to the top of Mount Everest today. And as far as I know, people cannot normally stay on Everest without oxygen masks for more than a few minutes,” Petrovskii said.

Professor Petrovskii explained: “Global warming has been a focus of attention of science and politics for about two decades now. A lot has been said about its expected disastrous consequences; perhaps the most notorious is the global flooding that may result from melting of Antarctic ice if the warming exceeds a few degrees compared to the pre-industrial level. However, it now appears that this is probably not even close to the biggest danger that the warming can cause to the humanity.”
..."

http://russgeorge.net/2016/06/17/plankt ... f-century/

What an absurd load of bollocks. This is like something some junior high school student might dream up.