Man Will Consume the Planet

by joelbear 23 Replies latest jw friends

  • I quit!
    I quit!

    I think that it depends on where you are speaking of as to whether the world is over populated. The Mojave Desert no other parts of Southern California a big YES. Try getting to work on the 405, 91 or 5 freeways if you don't think there is a problem. I see very little planning that take the environment into consideration. I'm not taking about planning to save some rare rat. I'm referring to having things like green belts instead of urban squal for hundreds of miles. In a few years Southern California will be nothing but housing tracks from San Diego to San Bernardino. One of the main problems with this type of developement is that many of the areas with the best top soil for growing food will be covered by housing tracks. This is happening in other states also not just California.

  • joelbear

    Doom Doom I say.

    Its just not based on population growth but on rate of consumption of natural resources. Even if population stabilizes people will continue to want more more more stuff. Plus numerous resources are non-renewable or very slowly renewable, take water for instance or fish populations. If the stuff per person ratio doesn't level off, resources will be used up even if population growth does stabilize. And this also doesn't figure in nuclear accidents or attacks in developing countries.

    Collapse by Jared Diamond is an interesting book.

  • Cygnus

    I think the earth, properly advanced, can handle 10 to 15 billion people, no problem. And I think science will copy what Star Trek called replicators, machines that could on command reproduce "stuph", even food that satisfies our palletes without the need to slaughter millions of non-humans sentients.

    I used to espouse Ben Franklin's philosophy: "Always be a pessimist, that way you'll never be disappointed." Phooey on that now.

  • tetrapod.sapien

    hey joel ,

    i agree we are stupid apes for behaving the way we do. and if things are to get better, we will have to change the way that we think. the way we see the natural world, and our relationship with it. "our right" to the earths resources have not been given by anyone. we are not special. we do not deserve to use resources the way we do.

    that said, i am not a doomsayer. even if we achieve some sort of ecological disaster, it will not be the end of life on earth, and it will not even be the end of our species. many may die, probably more from wars over resources, but some will survive. it would be really difficult to kill every human and every other organism. and in that sense, even though the world may change very drastically in the next couple of hundred years, we will still retain some level of modernity and technological knowledge.

    i always hear people blame the governments. and to a degree, they're right. some of the people in government are complete short sighted jack asses. on the other hand, we voted those governments in. the only way they will change, is if we change, and i personally do not think that we learn from our mistakes very well, or think very often past the ends of our noses. even with all this stupidity , however, the change will be slow, ecologically and intellectually, if you get my meaning.

    i like a david suzuki quote regarding ecological problems we are facing. and i paraphrase, as memory fails me:

    "we are in a speeding car headed for a brick wall at a 100 KMs an hour, and all we can do is argue about where we want to sit."

    i don't think that a disaster will be abrupt, but i do think we are not focused on the right issues ecologically as a society. that said, it could be argued that we are already in the middle of the disaster. how does it feel?

  • tetrapod.sapien
    As for extinctions, i wouldn't worry about that. Extinctions have been going on for eons. During the dino extinction period, 70% of all species went extinct, yet, here we are.

    yes, i agree. except that it takes millions of years of evolution to reach biological diversity again. no species should be going extinct due to human negligence. sadly though, it's like sand slipping through our fingers, and there isn't much we can do about some species on the verge of extinction. but, i'm sure you would agree that extinctions should be avoided.

  • DannyBloem

    Interesting, most pessimitic voices here.

    I am not too pestimistic about the future.
    Things will change, but I think we are much more able to adapt then most people think.

    A world population of 100 billion, is not unthinkable, and I think we can manage that. If it is fun, well we'll get used to it...


  • John Doe
    John Doe

    I think my views are best left to Lord Thomas Macauley who said nearly 200 years ago: "We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is it that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?"

  • Darth Yhwh
    Darth Yhwh

    Man will consume as long as there is something valuable and readily available that is worth consuming. The life span of the Earth and its resources, however will long out live that of our species. The fate of the Earth lies not with man but with the Sun. Several billion years from now the Sun will swell into a Red giant, perhaps even consuming the orbit of the Earth. That will be the end of our home and it’s resources, , and debatable of life itself.

  • the_classicist
    Provide we assholes in the developed world aren't too greedy, and the people in the developing world learn from our mistakes, things will be fine.

    Then we truly are boned.

    You know why we are going to Mars, don't you? For all that valuable Mars Oil.

  • joelbear

    i lost a lost of hope when Bush was re-elected simply because people didn't want gay marriage. what goofy priorities.

    crush kill destroy.

Share this