Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.military.naval    |    Navies of the world, past, present and f    |    118,661 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 117,778 of 118,661    |
|    David P to All    |
|    Has the Population Bomb exploded? (1/2)    |
|    23 Aug 23 09:51:44    |
      From: imbibe@mindspring.com              Has the Population Bomb exploded?       by JULIAN CRIBB, NOV 2, 2022       On Nov 15, 2022 – according to the UN – human being number 8,000,000,000       entered the world. But what sort of a world are they inheriting?              The scientific evidence is already amassing that the Earth has far more       humans, living at far higher levels of consumption and pollution, than it can       possibly carry in the long run.              The proof of this is all around us, in our faces and on the news, every single       day: wild floods, heat waves, fierce droughts, raging wildfires, dust storms       sweeping topsoil off our farms, dying rivers and lakes, melting glaciers,       staggering losses of        birds, animals, fish, insects and other life, shrinking forests and spreading       deserts, polluted water, oceans, food and air, declining oxygen levels, hunger       and starvation, the spread of formerly unknown diseases, the mass migration of       350 million people        a year, the uncontrolled rise of dangerous new technologies, and the insidious       worldwide spread of misinformation and delusion about it all.              Overpopulation is not a matter for individual or group opinion, or for       ideology. It is defined as the point when a creature begins to exceed and then       to destroy the resources that support and give it life. It can be measured,       with precision. In countless        ways, the evidence is accumulating that humans have overpopulated Planet Earth       by exceeding the boundaries that ensure the renewal of life.              Early warnings of this danger were uttered by Prof Paul Ehrlich in ‘The       Population Bomb’ (1962) and Club of Rome in ‘Limits to Growth’ (1972).       Then in the 1990s Matthis Wackernagel developed the Global Footprint Network       whose work now shows we        exceed the Earth’s renewable carrying capacity by July each year, making the       world economy nothing more than a giant Ponzi Scheme. More recently Johan       Rockstrom and colleagues devised the Global Boundaries concept, which shows       humanity has now exceeded        its safe limits in four out of nine fields:       [CHART]       Yet these sober, well argued, firmly-evidenced warnings have all been       dismissed or belittled by various vested interests – political, religious       and commercial – who care not about the survival of humanity, but only what       they can gain from it in the        short run. Overpopulation is the word no politician, priest, economist or       business executive dares to utter. It is the unmentionable – but inescapable       – elephant in the room of the human future.              The advent of the eight billionth little human gives us sober reason to       reflect on the dangers of overpopulation              In the space of a single lifetime our numbers have swollen from 2 billion to 8       billion and continue to burgeon at a rate of around 80 million (1 per cent) a       year. Anyone who considers the matter soon realises that the resources needed       to support such        gigantic numbers will run out – and there will be an exceedingly painful       crash.       [CHART]       That, of course, is why nobody likes to talk about it. Instead, even many who       recognise there is a dreadful problem building up in everybody’s future, try       to divert attention from population growth and towards other issues such as       ‘overconsumption’,        ‘equity’ or ‘right to have children’.              While our numbers were quadrupling, it is true our consumption has also run       off the rails and is generating the resource and environmental crises that now       loom. Since 1972 human consumption of material resources has tripled from 29       billion tonnes a year        to 101 billion tonnes in 2021 – and is on track to reach 170 billion tonnes       by 2050, as documented in The Circularity Gapreport.              The other thing that has run off the rails is pollution. All told humans       release over 200 billion tonnes of wastes into the biosphere every year,       including 2.5 billion tonnes of chemicals, mostly toxic. This is having a dire       impact on the ability of all        forms of life, ourselves included, to survive in the long run. The universal       vanishing of insects, bees, frogs and birds is almost certainly related to       this uncontrolled toxic avalanche.              So yes, the bomb has already exploded, though the full impact of the blast is       yet to be felt.              This raises the essential, though unpalatable, question of whether we must now       take deliberate, voluntary, steps to reduce the human population – along       with its consumption and pollution – back to a size the Earth can sustain.              The central issue of human population growth is not whether it is good or bad.       It is: can we avoid a devastating crash, caused by our outrunning the       Planet’s ability to support us? Voluntary population reduction is therefore       about sparing billions of        people needless and agonising deaths by starvation, war and disease, which       will otherwise result from a collapse in our resources. To prevent the crash,       we have to prevent and reverse the growth. There is no real alternative.              Those who advocate a larger population, for either the planet or country, are       calling for disaster. Whether they admit it or not, in the same breath they       are advocating:               – Rising scarcity of resources such as water, soil, timber, fish and       certain minerals, leading to a greater risk of war.              – Accelerated climate change              – Worse pollution, environmental degradation and extinction of species,              – Higher food prices for all; greater risk of famines.              – More child deaths and greater human suffering.              – Increased risk of pandemic diseases; poorer levels of population health.              – An increase in mass population movements, potentially reaching 1 billion       a year.              – Increased risk of megacity collapse and government failure.              – Increased risk of worldwide economic and civilizational collapse              – Housing, food and other basic goods that are unaffordable to the young       or the poor.              Every person who insists on their ‘right’ to have more children,       diminishes the right of all children – including their own – to live on a       safe, habitable planet.              Fortunately, a growing number of thinking people are embracing the idea of       ‘one child fewer’ per family, and many are even taking the decision to       remain childless – because they foresee what a fearsome world a child born       today will face. If        universal family planning is made available, and ‘one child fewer’ becomes       an accepted global norm, then UN projections suggest it is possible to reduce       the human population to 6.5 billion by 2100 – and lower still beyond that.                     [continued in next message]              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca