so page seven and the "easy" solution appears to be You need to live (probably as a wealthy white person preferably) somewhere between 1800-1960 or there abouts.
Cool.
The easy solution now does not exist
The best i can offer is carbon based taxation and people paying the full costs of unsustainable lifestyles.
Add to that stuff like insulation and it will make a difference
To pretend that we can even slow global warming without majir lifestle changes is unhelpful. We cannit. We simply consume too much energy for that
Molgrips. Wr cannot sustain the current world population without massivw lifestyle change. Remember most people are in developing countries and want the lifestyle we have
Your argument kicks the can down the road. Kids are not going to sort shit out – because we’ve left it too late. We needed to do this 30 years ago but we didn’t.
Let’s just sit back and watch the world burn then. I’ve put hundreds of hours in to playing Fallout so I’ll be grand. Telling people not to have kids will not work. Chinas one child policy didn’t work. It needs wide scale engagement and to be all over the news and media.
This is 100% true @Tjagain:
Only radical change across the world will do
Without raducal change then the planet becomes uninhabitable
No we don’t. We can support many more if we manage things better.
This, however, is bunkum. We already know that the planet is beyond any sustainable level of consumption. And we haven't got the time to do the decades-long process of transforming societies to consume less before we get to a point we're we're f00ked anyway.
We've multiple existential threats facing humanity - and we're not intellectually equipped to face those threats.
The obvious one is the planet cannot support our level of population (this isn't me saying that -it's the science, even Attenborough has come out and explicitly made that point - and he felt he needed to restate that deliberatedly ignored fact because nobody listens without "celebrity weight" behind it).
But we're going to continue to deliberately ignore all of the things we don't like - radical lifestyle change, population reduction etc. etc. - because we're not wired intellectually and socially to make those changes.
So we don't make it.
Frankly, have as many kids as you like tbh. We don't make it anyway. But you're making your own lives miserable - something else the science shows is that people without kids self-report significantly higher levels of life satisfaction than people who have kids.
Anyway. I'm off to stand on the wing of a jet aircraft, with the engines on full-burn, so I can lower a whole cow in front of the flames to barbecue it - and I will probably not eat it all anyway. Such massive waste!
And I'll feel smug in the knowledge that in my choice to not have kids I'm both happier and a morally better person - because I'm not the problem 🙂
Insulation of buildings is a good one. In Scotland we are supposed to have an energy efficiency cert for any flat for let.
Is that not the current status ?. Im Glasgow south side(A nice part) and we had the walls insulated a couple of years ago free gratis. Part of some GDC initiative.
We cannot sustain the current world population without massive lifestyle change.
I'd like to know where people are getting this info from, because as far as i can see there has never been a study done on the subject. Seems to be more a case of 'that's what I think, so therefore.....'
Crikey, this is all getting a bit STW.
Having not mowed my lawn this year, I'm not intending to mow it next year. Biodiversity n all that.
We need major lifestyle changes all round. Even my lifestyle is unsustainable.
THat is the fundamental problem. No one wants to do that, or at least not enough to make any difference in the real world. We dont want to change our lifestyles, big business doesn’t want to change its behaviour or our lifestyles. Even if we as a country did unless its done on a global basis then it still wont make any difference.
It might be defeatist but IMHO its gone beyond the point of caring about it. There simply isn’t the will globally to do anything meaningful about it so I wont bother unless it benefits me eg insulation to reduce bills, less waste because I dont need it etc. Yes it means that the future for the human race is not good but thats just the way it is. The planet will be fine and another species will become the apex predator just as has happened many times in the past. As a middle aged bloke with no kids the odds of me or anyone I care about, being alive still when it all goes completely pear shaped is very low
I’d like to know where people are getting this info from, because as far as i can see there has never been a study done on the subject. Seems to be more a case of ‘that’s what I think, so therefore…..’
No. This is a case of you've never heard of any studies, so they must not exist.
But I'm not going to argue this with you. If you're particularly concerned about educating yourself why not write to David Attenborough - he'll put you straight.
BTW - the world makes it to 8 billion people in 20 days 11 hours and 51 minutes from .... Now.
Urgh, Population Matters formerly the Optimum Population Trust (the group behind @chevycahase link) shares some of its leading members and Trustees with Migration Watch. straying into dangerously "Scientific racism" now.
Frankly, have as many kids as you like tbh. We don’t make it anyway. But you’re making your own lives miserable – something else the science shows is that people without kids self-report significantly higher levels of life satisfaction than people who have kids.
So not only am I scum, I also don't know what I want and my kids are awful.
Are you still wondering why noone is listening to you?
Also you’re going to die without any satisfaction, don’t forget that bit!
20C, low spin speed clothes washing.
The single biggest thing you can do for the planet is not have kids.
Another way of twisting this is asking: If we are here ultimatly to reproduce and pass on our genes, surely by NOT having children, your own existence is selfish: You consume an entire lifetime of resources, and leave nothing to the future in terms of diversifying the genepool. You selfish so and so.
You could argue that you make contributions to society, but so could anyone so i dont know if thats a discerning trait.
even Attenborough has come out and explicitly made that point
He is not a scientist
The obvious one is the planet cannot support our level of population (this isn’t me saying that -it’s the science, even Attenborough has come out and explicitly made that point
Is that the same David Attenborough that spend an hour of my Sunday night telling me how bad global warming was with no sense of irony. I wonder what the carbon footprint of the 4 years it takes to travel the world doing all the filming to provide a few 1 hour episodes of some nice animal pictures for us to watch for entertainment
Is that the same David Attenborough
I think they use him because otherwise the message of "It was all going fine until those poor brown people started having lots of babies" is pretty unpalatable to anyone with a reading age in double figures. Anyone who claims that population control is an environmental issue is just shifting the blame from the rich to the poor.
Is that the same David Attenborough that spend an hour of my Sunday night telling me how bad global warming was with no sense of irony. I wonder what the carbon footprint of the 4 years it takes to travel the world doing all the filming to provide a few 1 hour episodes of some nice animal pictures for us to watch for entertainment
if him (and a van load of crew) do a bit of globetrotting, but it gives a million people an hour of entertainment and education; thats probably a fair bit more eco than any trip any of us have ever been on.
Another way of twisting this is asking: If we are here ultimatly to reproduce and pass on our genes, surely by NOT having children, your own existence is selfish: You consume an entire lifetime of resources, and leave nothing to the future in terms of diversifying the genepool. You selfish so and so.
Very true, but seen Im here Im going to enjoy the ride as much as possible
Another way of twisting this is asking: If we are here ultimately[sic - had to correct it] to reproduce and pass on our genes, surely by NOT having children, your own existence is selfish: You consume an entire lifetime of resources, and leave nothing to the future in terms of diversifying the genepool. You selfish so and so.
Have kids, kill yourself. The cycle can go on. [Intentionally nonsense post btw, not suggesting this is a valid response at all]. The population AND the way the population is maintained is unsustainable, global farming, green beans do not need to come from Kenya to Tesco, mass production, reliance on technology, energy.
Currently thinking about how to go about getting to an alpine resort in 2023, fly - horrible environmental impact, but that plane will go whether we fly on it or not, someone else will just be in the seat, so unless I can get a plane load of people to take an alternative method it makes no difference. Take the train, better environmentally, longer elapse time overall and still not zero impact, or drive, I presume if I could get a plane load of people to not fly, but they all drive are 100 cars (assuming 3 people per car and an average of 300 on the plane) better for the environment, probably not that good. Best would be to not go of course, but I'm both selfish and I promise to cycle to work on the days I go in all through winter!
but that plane will go whether we fly on it or not
Perhaps, but if 100 people don't go then the plane won't fly... All these comments about not flying are not aimed solely at you...
Don’t fly to an Alpine resort at all would be my answer. Or if you do don’t do it every year.
drive, I presume if I could get a plane load of people to not fly, but they all drive are 100 cars (assuming 3 people per car and an average of 300 on the plane) better for the environment, probably not that good
Last time I looked into it, 1 seat's share of the emissions on a plane was roughly equivalent to 1 whole car (including effect of releasing the emissions high up in the atmosphere where they do the most damage). So 3 people to a car cuts the emissions per person by a third. The train of course is even better.
low spin speed clothes washing
Probably depends if you dry them inside or outside. If inside, best to max the spin speed to minimise the water evaporated into your house - moist air requires much more energy to heat from your heating system.
There might be a little deliberate provocation in this post but some deserve it tbh. - It's (predictably) nice to see the anger the factual argument that we have too many humans for the planet to sustain always provokes.
People cherry-picking half-sentences and making ad-hominem attacks is always the result. Of course, knowing this I made sure I'd already answered all of the so-called "questions" now being raised in the previous posts, but expecting people to take a wholistic view of the whole argument, when they've got a load of rage they could feel instead, was hoping for too much.
This, of course, is why we don't make it as a species 🙂
For my part - I'll take all the actions I reasonably can to minimise my impact before I die. I'll continue to put my hard-earned where my mouth is (insulate to passivehaus standards, fully generate my own renewable energy to run 100% of the house and transport for 9 months of the year and be as good as anyone can be for the rest. I've always had a "do I need it" lifestyle - (without living like a monk which is just unrealistic). Minimise flights and other forms of transport. I'm in the process of planting an orchard. Didn't have kids by choice, eat significantly less meat once I understood the impact and 90% the meat I do eat I now produce myself - to higher welfare and environmental standards than any legal mandate on the planet. My family think I'm bonkers, I think they're a bunch of consumptive wastrels obsessed with throwaway fashion, jet-set and incredibly wasteful lifestyles (but I still love them)). So *smug face* - I don't really care what anyone else thinks - especially if they think this post is "holier than thou" - because, by any objective environmental measure, I am.
In the meantime, keep on pumping out the kids, crying "eugenics" "racist" "think of the kids!!11!1!" - whilst refusing to face up to the obvious reality people. I'll sit back with my heating off, under an ethically-sourced woolen blanket, grow a beard, see if I can find a shirt that's made out of hair, change my name to "tristan" and munch on some mung beans whilst I watch you lot burn the world.
🙂
It’s (predictably) nice to see the anger the factual argument that we have too many humans for the planet to sustain always provokes.
Hmm. Describing your arguments as 'facts' really discredits them, unfortunately. Science and especially predictive modelling does not work like that.
In calculating how many humans can be sustained I can see a huge stack of assumptions that would need to be made about the desired living standards. I've certainly seen studies that suggest 15bn which is a long way from your sub-3bn.
The kind of hyperbolic language and argument you're using achieves nothing except irritates people. If you want to effect change you need to be much better at this stuff.
Exactly what molgrips said. You’re coming across as condescending and smug. If you want folk to change that isn’t the best place to start from. I too work in Sustainability. New to it but doing what I can. A big part of my role is to get others invested and believing they can make a difference. Be that colleagues or speaking at community events. Funnily enough abusing them or providing links to dubious and racist research doesn’t help. Odd I know!
the factual argument that we have too many humans for the planet to sustain always provokes.
You're in bed with a bunch of very right-wing Tory eugenicists who think the problem is the lower classes and brown people breeding too much, who have policies that are more extreme than the BNP, and who's sister organisations - such as Ecopop used the word Lebensraum to describe the need to cut immigration to Switzerland calling it "a land for Swiss people"
There are no facts to be found amongst these folks.
The planet cannot support a western lifestyle for the entire population. Its unsustainable while many people still live in conditions far worse than we do in thecwest. When they all have cars and tellies and fridges tben how much worse will climate change be?
I too have given up trying to convert people. The number of folk who will even acceot any compromise is tiny. Just look at the response on here. Folk will not accept the radical changes needed. Its nit helped by folk cliaming EVs or led lights or wind turbines are the solution. These sorts of things are just fiddling around the edges we need radical steps world wide to make a real difference.
Ill be dead before the planet is by a decade or two. I have no kids.
Describing your arguments as ‘facts’ really discredits them, unfortunately
Fortunately - I've got a lot of really solid backing - the Union of Concerned Scientists:
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229
20,000 of them have now signed the "Warning to Humanity" - which states (amongst other things) that there are way too many bloody humans.
When you pull 20,000 scientists - people who live and breath the data every single day of their lives - and understand it on a deep intellectual level - that share your view of "nah, it's OK, overpopulation isn't a problem", then maybe I'll listen to you.
Until then, I'll take your completely unsubstantiated view and poop it into the u-bend, which is more respect than it deserves.
The planet cannot support a western lifestyle for the entire population
This is true, but that's not what chevychase is saying, is it? You've already qualified your argument which is good progress.
I too have given up trying to convert people.
Good, you are incredibly incredibly bad at it and are actually making things worse.
Fortunately – I’ve got a lot of really solid backing – the Union of Concerned Scientists:
That article isn't saying what you're saying though, is it? Did I miss that?
7.98 billion people in the world. We need to lose about 5 billion of them. No ifs, no buts.
So your assertion is that the world can only support 3bn people. THAT is what I am questioning. I am very much on the same side as you, but I really don't like shit arguments that actually damage the cause that we both aim to support.
@molgrips:
If you want to effect change you need to be much better at this stuff.
No. If you want to effect change then you need political leadership to force idiots to do stuff they don't like. Talking about it has achieved precicely dick in the more than 70 years we've known - unequivocally - about the multitude of pending (and actually current) environmental disasters that humanity (and the rest of the natural world) is facing.
We won't ever get that political leadership. I'm 100% certain we don't make it as a species. All I'm doing is pointing out the facts. And the facts annoy people.
Fair enough. I'm not making things worse - I've done pretty much everything an individual can to make the necessary changes and when scientists come up with more, I'll do them too. It's up to the rest of humanity now - including you. And getting angry about the facts and whining about them (with nothing to back you up) is your bag, not mine.
That article isn’t saying what you’re saying though, is it? Did I miss that?
Nope. You didn't miss it. But I'm not spoon feeding you everything in an attempt to win an argument on the internet.
I've pointed you in the right direction. If you care then you will do your own heavy lifting of researching and taking action.
I've already done it for myself.
No. If you want to effect change then you need political leadership to force idiots to do stuff they don’t like.
Yes, and how do we get that leadership in a democracy? It has to be voted for. And how do you get people to vote for it? You need to get them to believe in the environmental movement. How do you get them to believe in it? By making them feel good about doing the right thing.
NOT BY PISSING THEM OFF AND SUGGESTING UNACHIEVABLE THINGS
Nearly everyone on this forum is concerned about the environment and wants to do the right thing just like you. But you've got all of us arguing against you. How the **** is that helping? You're muddying the waters and handing ammunition to the anti- brigade on a silver plate.
And getting angry about the facts
I'm not getting angry about "the facts" I'm getting angry about your bone-headed attitude making our job harder.
Nope. You didn’t miss it. But I’m not spoon feeding you everything in an attempt to win an argument on the internet.
Ah, so you say one thing, then when challenged provide a link that asserts something else, and then when I call this out it's my fault for not going and doing more research? Yeah, no. You'll need to do better than that.
Patrick Gerland of the UN population division agrees with me (quoted from a different article):
The number of people Earth can support is not a fixed figure. The way humans produce and consume natural resources affects how our environment will be able to sustain future populations. As Gerland said, "When it comes to carrying capacity, it's a matter of mode of production, mode of consumption, who has access to what and how."
That is what I am trying to say ^^
Christ. I really hope you’ve never tried to convince others to do the right thing. If your 20k other scientists are anything like you I’m not surprised we’re screwed. You’re also the only one coming across as angry in this thread. Bitter, even.
Edit - what molgrips said. You don’t get people to change by being a dickhead about it or using the look how environmentally friendly I am stance. You need to educate people regarding what they can do and show that it can make a difference. Then, guess what? They’ll want to do more.
You’re in bed with a bunch of very right-wing Tory eugenicists who think the problem is the lower classes and brown people breeding too much
If a bunch of idiots also think that overpopulation is a problem then it doesn't make that idea wrong. All that's happened is that horrible racist idiots can also sometimes think correct thoughts.
EVERYONE is breeding too much. Rich, poor, white, brown, yellow. Too many f*cking humans.
@molgrips:
NOT BY PISSING THEM OFF AND SUGGESTING UNACHIEVABLE THINGS
It's perfectly achieveable not to have more than one kid.
100% achieveable.
Sorry you hate that idea. Do you have more than one kid? Maybe someone should tax the sh1t out of your lifestyle choice. - because, frankly, as much as you would be pissed off by this "unachieveable thing" - if we don't achieve it we all die.
Capiche?
EVERYONE is breeding too much. Rich, poor, white, brown, yellow. Too many f*cking humans.
that’s not true though is it? There are countries, including the UK, projected to see a decline in population over the next few years.
Also not EVERYONE, there are a few on here who don’t have kids, including you
Nearly everyone on this forum is concerned about the environment and wants to do the right thing just like you.
Only so long as it has no effect on their lifestyle. There are about 3 people on this thread actually willing to do the things needed. The rest of you want some fig leaf so they can think they have done their it.
Everything that is suggested that will make a real difference is shot down as impossibke
This is what you need to understand. Western lifestyles must change dramatically. If you are not prepared to do this then you are not seeking a solution.
EVERYONE is breeding too much. Rich, poor, white, brown, yellow. Too many f*cking humans.
It’s perfectly achieveable not to have more than one kid.
100% achieveable.
Sorry you hate that idea.
How long would it take to reduce population to 3bn just by letting families shrink on that basis? Is that going to be quick enough? Do you want to implement a one-child policy? How're you going to fund everyone's pension when the population shrinks that much? It's probably going to result in severe economic disruption. And you can kiss goodbye to any kind of technological solution in that case. There might only be 3bn of us in 150 years' time but we'll still be burning coal and using plastic and all the rest of it.
As I said earlier, if people have TWO kids only, then the population will shrink but much more slowly, which will likely not result in economic collapse and gives us a fighting chance. And this is what's happening in the west - birth rate in the UK is currently 1.59 - and yet we're still ****ing things up. So really, this isn't much of a solution.
because, frankly, as much as you would be pissed off by this “unachieveable thing” – if we don’t achieve it we all die.
Capiche?
The more sustainably we live, the more people we can support. So picking an arbitrary 3bn figure based on nothing just looks like misanthropy, and is easily dismissed. Capiche?
This is what you need to understand. Western lifestyles must change dramatically.
I do understand that. No arguments there. What I am disputing is the means to achieve that change. Your method seems to be insulting people, annoying them, proposing solutions that require a dictatorship to achieve and are poorly thought out; and then giving up when they push back. I can't see that ever working tbh.
That is what I am trying to say ^^
Well aware of it. I'm also well aware of the fact that we're not going to radically change our consumption models - and certainly not in the timeframe we need to change them in.
Any population level of above about 3bn needs *massive* changes to our consumption models. If you read the actual studies (rather than post a normal distribution curve of studies that have been done (regardless of quality)) that becomes really clear.
Given the idea we might not subsidise families with more than two children causes whole populations to meltdown and causes voting habits to change, how the hell do you think we're going to achieve that - for both the "rich" west and the "poor" developing world?
There is literally no problem that isn't made worse by the addition of more humans, and no problem that's very much eased by less.
(And no, I don't need to do any better than what I posted tbh - we'd be going round in circles for days. Like I said - I've already done everything I possibly can).
So molgrips. Are you prepared to give up one of your two cars and make the other one something small and light? How about all your consumer electronics? Going to keep them all for a decade?
@molgrips:
How’re you going to fund everyone’s pension when the population shrinks that much?
We can't achieve the radical transformation of society that we need to have any chance of continuing as a species and retain the same economic model we currently run.
Zero chance.
(Which is about the same amount of chance I give humans of surviving).
