Reuters: Humans living far beyond planet's means: World Wildlife Fund

[DeepModem Mom]

Humans living far beyond planet's means: WWF
Oct 24
By Ben Blanchard

BEIJING (Reuters) - Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.

Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.

"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.

"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing....

***

(The report) said that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain....

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20061024/2006-10-24T102931Z_01_L19402119_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-ENVIRONMENT-WWF-PLANET-DC.html

[Gormy Cuss]

1. Some sobering estimates.

The key quote for me was this:
"People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."

[Vox Acerbus]

2. This is a top reason why I choose not to have children...

For me, personally, reproduction at this point is just wrong. I try not to judge other's choices, but I can't justify adding a child to this overpopulated, wasteful planet. It's cruel to the earth and it's cruel to the child.

[texastoast]

7. A-freaking-men

It would be one thing if couples would have one or two children. The population would decrease, but NOOOOOO, we have to continue to "be fruitful and multiply" to the point that we will wipe out the resources for our progeny.

What a world! What a world!

[Zhade]

8. Would that I had been aware 8 years ago.

I absolutely love my son - and absolutely feel like a shitheel to bring a child into a world like this.

(Reminds me, I should get that vasectomy...)

[Viva_La_Revolution]

22. and if I'd only known 21 years ago or

18, or 17 years ago. :(


:hug:

[bluestateguy]

10. Perhaps

But that might involve making some pointed criticisms of non-Western cultures where having many children is a tradition. Many on the Left are reluctant to criticize non-Western cultures.

[RapidCreek]

23. Many on the left are reluctant to criticize NON-WESTERN

cultures? What about those who are to chikenshit to citisize there own? You know, where having many children is a tradition....like Catholics or Mormons....and they damn well know better but do it anyway because they're monumentaly selfish...selfish to the degree that they don't give a shit about there own kids beyond pleasing the church they attend.

RC

[Phrogman]

29. Hold on a second please....

First off Mormons are an American invention anyway, Utah might be out there but they're still in America and the last I heard it was a Western country.

As for Catholics, I live in the Philippines and I've seen families here in with 8-10 kids that were much more resource friendly than lots of American families with 1.7 children.
They grow their own food, they build their own house and they don't much petroleum at all.
So don't blame "those foreigners with their big families".

Thats pretty silly.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

31. agreed...most of the third world lives in poverty which sucks for the

individuals who are in poverty but is better for the world at large...

[RapidCreek]

34. Yea that's pretty much what I alluded to...

I said....Many on the left are reluctant to criticize NON-WESTERN cultures? What about those who are too chikenshit to citisize there own? You know, where having many children is a tradition....like Catholics or Mormons....

You should read my post, you know, really read it....before you so valiantly endeavor to protect our "religious" bretheren.

Now that you bring it up though. You say you live in the Philipines and a family with ten kids is resource friendly? I won't even address the rather obviose stupidity of that remark but how about the shit they create and the food necessary to create that shit...and this brings me to the crux of my arguement....What about the space required for both? What about our MOST PRECIOUSE resource...which is SPACE. By monopolizing space they consume the fucking ENVIROMENT. What about that is so damn difficult for people like you to absorb? The animals and plants which support our life processes are inhibited when they no longer have the SPACE to exist. I guess you assume we are able to maintain life processes by magic....oh wait, I forgot, it's because of god.

[Phrogman]

35. Learn to use the spell check feature...

You've earned the lash of my ignore button, goodbye.

[RapidCreek]

37. Gee wiz, that breaks my heart

My browser doesn't allow the use of the spellcheck feature. It's a java script...java scripts leave you open to all sorts of internet attacks. Why believe me though. But more to the point, I notice that you failed to address anything I said. That's the problem with folks like yourself. When your faced with logic you tend to ignore it. Good job!

RC

[pitohui]

52. we let ourselves be outbred by fundy hate-mongers

our lack of courage has earned what lack of courage always earns

[entanglement]

44. OTOH, isn't it the (Western) Catholic Church encouraging people to

breed like rabbits? Not to mention that Westerners consume way more per capita than denizens of the third world.

[mom cat]

30. I so totally agree with you. I only had one child and she decided at

age thirteen that she would not bring another child onto this planet. I totally agree with her decision.

[Lorien]

46. I feel the same way. Personally, I would have liked to have a child

but I keep thinking of the horrors ahead and I simply can't bear the thought of what that child would be facing in the not too distant future. As much as I would love to know what it's like to be a parent, I just can't bring myself to act that selfishly. Not that others are selfish...they're just unaware of what's right around the corner.

[DrunkenMaster]

3. I WANT A BIGGER SUV!

It's my "god-given right"! Or so I've been told here at DU...

[bloom]

5. I was thinking about that, too.

Some people still arguing for their "right" to be excessively wasteful.

[Zhade]

9. And shop at Wal-Mart, even though I know better!

:sarcasm:

[bloom]

4. And how many planets if we lived like the people with the mega-yachts?

1000 ? 10,000 ? 100,000 ?

"Oh NO! Miami has run out of spaces for Mega-Yachts! If that doesn't..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2468741

________________________

It's too easy to live and to have too much stuff. There needs to be a good way to shame people (and I'm sure that includes many of us) for their excess. Either that or rationing laws. Or both.

Turn those yachts into homeless shelters. Instead of having them just sit there. Use up the extra rooms in the Mansions/those second and third and fourth homes - with people who need a place to live instead of constantly building new places. One of these days it's going to come to that.

Or maybe more people will just kill each other - or die in the streets.

[Amonester]

26. Or an idiot chimp will just push THE button...

being, as he is, obstinately (and stupidly) convinced he has been chosen to make an imaginary rapture happen on purpose, only to realize afterwards that not even one flying white-winged body dared showing-up, let alone any almighty white-beared elderly...

only deadly-poisoned white-flaked radioactive Snow (nu-kul-hur winter). :scared:

[Boojatta]

6. The full meaning of "living as those in America"?

"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing....

Is the immigration rate part of how people in a given country live? If all countries had more people entering than leaving, then at least one additional planet would be required to supply immigrants.

Is the fertility rate part of how people in a given country live? If, for the past two hundred years, the rest of the world had had the same fertility rate as the USA, then what would be the population of the world? If that calculation would give a lower number than the actual population of the world, then there would also be a correspondingly lower resource requirement for all people in the world to live like Americans.

[Psephos]

24. self-delete (double post)

[ItNerd4life]

54. Also, don't we produce more food than we consume?

From what I recall, America exports more food than it imports. So which natural resources are we consuming too much of? If it's rocks, well we just need to shake a few Republican heads. Plenty of rocks in there.

[sugapablo]

11. So what are you going to do about it?

Besides vote for candidates who won't put any real legislation together that could be effective.

[texastoast]

12. We'll all get to watch our kids suffer

And grandkids, because we didn't do anything meaningful, especially not modifying our own habits.

[jody]

13. Thomas Malthus said it first in his "An Essay on the Principle of Populatio...

QUOTE
The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.
UNQUOTE

[Psephos]

25. I completely agree. But there's a downside to population shrinkage...

This doesn't get talked about often enough during discussions of population growth limitation. (Mind you, I'm a proponent of ZPG.) But the truth is, future benefit promises already in place act as a blind force for stripping the Earth of its resources, because to stay solvent these programs require ever-increasing legions of future workers paying into the system. We can all differ on how much or how little impact this force has, but it takes an act of denial to think it has no effect.

Social "safety net" programs of Western democracies are generally built on tacit assumptions of population growth. That's true of Social Security and Medicare in the U.S., and doubly true of many European schemes with their larger nets.

As population growth slows (or even reverses, as it has in Japan and Russia), more and more seniors must rely on fewer and fewer workers paying into the system. The math ain't pretty.

We're truly screwed here in the U.S., because, since the 1960s, the trust funds for SS have been spent rather than saved. (Of course, there are promissory notes there instead. LOL. Which means "we" have to pay "us.") But many European countries are doubly screwed, because they have liabilities proportionate to ours, but even fewer people coming up to pay them. In Japan, the solution (honest to God)now being funded is to develop robots to take care of old people in the future.

In the US, unfunded future liabilities are projected at anywhere from 50 to 70 trillion dollars. The US federal budget this year is about two trillion dollars. Think about it.

Peace.

[The2ndWheel]

28. This is why everyone can't have everything

This is one of the problems we've created by artificially extending our lifespans. I still think that the ultimate "progressive" ideal has to be to cure death. We shouldn't, but I'm guessing we'll give it a shot if we can.

The funny thing is that we won't be stopping voluntarily. That blind force you speak of, that's basically in every aspect of our lives. More people continually use, want, and expect more. The only thing we'll do is build more complexity into the system to keep it alive(see entropy), and we'll get less out of it. Ultimately it will collapse(like every system does), and when it does, thanks to our attempts to keep it going, it's going to be worse than if we stopped today. But we can't stop today, because if we did, it would be killing billions around the planet(and not just people).

When I say stop voluntarily, I mean on a mass societal level. Individually, you can do some things(or not do some things, as the case may be). However, when our institutions(which are more important than people today) require what you have(be it a little land, your life, your child for war), it will take it to stay alive. That's all any empire has ever done.

[Psephos]

32. A thoughtful and sensible post. n/t

[MisterP]

14. kick for everyone who thinks we can't just move on to the next

planet and suck that dry too

[The Stranger]

15. SUPPORT ZERO POPULATION GROWTH.

[Delphinus]

18. That would be a start,

but it would have to be every person in the world. And, there's something, a phrase, I'm searching my brain for that Jared Diamond has talked about in "Collapse" that even if we stopped tomorrow, there's so much momentum going in the wrong direction it would have to get there and THEN we'd begin to see the effects of our actions NOW.

Anybody no what I'm talking about? I do, I just can't find the right words to explain it.

[nam78_two]

50. seconded/nt

[Canuckistanian]

16. The Great War of 2067

Where Europia, the Federation of Chinese States, the African People's Federation and Bolivania launch an attack on the US and US enterprises everywhere to force a mass redistribution of resources, food and water.

This will be necessary to keep 2 billion people alive.

[Wise Doubter]

17. Same thing happened on Mars.

:tinfoilhat:

[Jcrowley]

19. Use Less Everyone

Much less.

And then halve that.

[RapidCreek]

20. No...human beings are overpopulating themselves out of

existance. Human beings are living beyond the planets means? What a patently assnine thing to say!!!
It makes no difference how long human beings live if they don't procreate like fucking rabbits...or Catholics. The idiocy of such a statement is beyond even remarking on really...but I'll give it a try.

If the planet is capable of supporting a finite number of individuals (which of course it is) the answer is obviouse...when one lives more successfully one need not make up for a short lifespan by having more than no, one or two kids. This bit of logic seems to escape the vast majority of people, however.

Another reason we shouldn't let 20,000,000 illegals into the country that don't give a shit about birth control. If each one of the fuckers has 4 kids (which most, if not all, are doing) it'll be 80,000,000 in 3 years. Gosh, but think how many low wage workers we'd have. Even YOU can work for a lower wage after we've committed to such a surplus in the employee pool. Golly, won't that be great??? That's why Kennedy and Dorgan are working so hard for a COMPREHENSIVE immagration policy....oops I meant to say comprehensive illegal immagration policy. Got Republicans and Clinton letting them into the country and Democrats keeping them here. That's why there ain't no October suprise kids. Nope, it's time for the Democrats to do there part, now....just ask Bush.

RC

[Nihil]

27. Re-read the article: It's not "how long" they live but "how" they live.

Skipping the hysterical rant on immigration, the point is that even
with a warren full of small children (to use your more charming analogy),
a family in Malawi will do far less damage to the planet than a pair
of childless Americans (or Brits or everyone else in the >1.0 bracket).

THAT is what the article is talking about.

It is only when this gross, cancerous, wasteful lifestyle is addressed
that the focus needs to come to the simple number of people in a family.

Now when you *combine* the obscene lifestyle of an American with the
profligate breeding of a Third World culture, *that* is when the true
horror arises. This applies whether the "breeding" is done concurrently
(e.g., a single nuclear family with 2+ kids) or sequentially (e.g., two
or more marriages, each producing "only" two kids per "family").
Guess where America stars again? (And this is the standard white or
black "families", nothing to do with immigrants legal, illegal or refugee).

Even for those who have already had children, the only course for
survival is reduce your own consumption ... it's not only charity
that beings at home ...

[RapidCreek]

33. self delete

[RapidCreek]

38. It is huh.

You say that a warren full of small children belonging to a family in Malawi will do far less damage to the planet than a pair of childless Americans (or Brits or everyone else in the >1.0 bracket).
How about the shit they create and the food necessary to create that shit?...and this brings me to the crux of my arguement....What about the space required for both? What about our MOST PRECIOUSE resource...which is SPACE. By monopolizing space they consume the fucking ENVIROMENT. What about that is so damn difficult for people like you to absorb? The animals and plants which support our life processes are inhibited when they no longer have the SPACE to exist. I guess you assume we are able to maintain life processes by magic....oh wait, I forgot, it's because of god.

RC

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[judaspriestess]

21. I think I'm the #1 birth control advocate on here

when it comes to overpopulating the earth. Humans reproduce like maggots all the while the Hippos in the Congo are about weeks away from extinction because they are killed for their meat. Its just a matter of time before humans start eating each other.

People can bitch and get pissed off all they want about illegal immigrants, they are a product of their overpopulated countries and where does anyone expect these hungry people to go? They sure as hell ain't going to stay in their homelands, they are going to head to where they can eat.

Oh but the Bible and the Church says you must reproduce as much as you can. Bullshit!!!

[Deja Q]

39. Well, why aren't those countries doing anything about it?

Except letting their people go? Because letting people go is far easier than being responsible for their people residing in the plot of land with the invisible line that separates it from everything else, perhaps? The leaders of said countries have some explaining to do too.

I dunno. The US has its usage problems, but we're only 300 million - many of which nowadays are due to cheap laborers who don't want to do anything in their country but prefer to come here and foist up their flag as some sort of bizarre token allegiance ritual... Funny how that works. "I'll come here because I hate it there, but I'm going to boast the flag of the country I left because I am proud of it!" Bull shit. It's not about the home country at all. Or even the country they go to. (note I'm not putting in names because, 9 times out of 10, people leave solely for selfish reasons.)

Nobody does a damn thing and THAT is why there are so many problems today. People are content to let things happen, damn everyone else. Countries with 1.4 billion, what's their excuse? (apart from trying to control 1.4 billion people; and we think Bush's attempt to control 300 million was bad... those countries are exponentially closer to true fascist rule and they're pretty powerless and/or stupid too.)

As for the Bible, it was written in a time when survival was more difficult. Hence the claim to be fruitful and multiply. Well, times have changed. It's time to use protection, get 'fixed', whatever. The population expansion must be contained. (not ended, obviously, but contained.)

[The2ndWheel]

43. China tried

Didn't work. They have more people than anyone.

To start, you have to stop industrial agriculture. Also, you have to stop the globalizing process. As long as the food is available, humans will not stop producing in more and more numbers.

You have to stop overconsumption as well, since it's as big a problem. That means everyone can't have a middle class lifestyle. That means poverty will never go away(since you can't have a MIDDLE class without it), since in a top down world, there must be poverty. Obviously we have to fight against poverty, even though by definition it must be there. So each time we raise the bar, and the poor get a little less poor, they'll still be poor. You could cap the maximum, and bring that class down towards the middle to balance out the increases by the poverty class, but then everyone has an increased standard of living, which must always grow, because every generation must have it better than their parents.

[stepnw1f]

36. Unless We HUMAN BEINGS DO Something COLLECTIVELY...

we will all die. This is one reason I "HATE" the right wing so much. They are literally killing us all with their ignorance and greed.

[Deja Q]

40. Everybody dies eventually.

Maybe we should all enjoy what we've got left?

[The2ndWheel]

42. So which is it?

Is it humans, or just the right wing? Is the left wing not greedy in those same terms? As you pointed out, we'll all die if we don't do something. As if death is some unnatural force that humans must battle against at all cost. The left wants everyone to have every choice possible. How is that not greed?

You're right, we will all die. Yet everything we've done for thousands of years has been in an attempt to stop it. And in doing so, we're creating problems that will eventually have to be dealt with, unless we continually find more and more energy to keep this thing(the system, civilization, society, whatever) growing. It must grow, all the time, or else it collapes. We end up living in smaller bands of humans. Which is really the natural way of living. Well, as long as someone doesn't concentrate power into a centralized hierarch which always builds upon itself with increased complexity. When that happens, we end up literally killing us all with our ignorance and greed.

[moondust]

53. Don't hold your breath.

I doubt all the wealthy countries will alter their lifestyles enough to turn things around or even avert disaster. Wait until China and India really get their materialism revved up!


Good article with charts on this at BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6080074.stm

[Megahurtz]

45. Definitely in the U.S.

I see so many wealthy and well-off people, even "Middle-Class" people,
with so many unnecessary "toys" and "stuff" that it makes my head spin.:crazy:

And their unneeded behemouth SUV's (Stupid Ugly Vehicles) certainly contribute to the problem.

Oh and of course I can't forget to mention those greedy wasteful Corporations ala Bush&Friends.:puke:

Hey! It's the American Way! :sarcasm:

[kineneb]

47. Club of Rome

predicted this in the 1970s... no surprise to me.

It took a little longer than they thought, due to "improvements" in agricultural output. However, those improvements were bought by the expenditure of lots of oil products, which is no longer sustainable.

kineneb is having a "duh" moment... like, duh, guys, didn't you see this coming?

Unsustainable population growth will eventually lead to resource depletion.

Soylent Green, anyone?

[humbled_opinion]

48. And people just keep buying SUV's...n/t

[nam78_two]

49. Why do I see all the good threads so late-oh well k even if not r/nt

[pitohui]

51. "if everyone lived as we live in america"

america is a big place, w.out going into details, i live in louisiana and in recent years have started to travel, everybody is richer than we are and lives bigger than we do

i bet people in harlan county, kentucky would say much the same

the problem is that you cannot use this to justify keeping the poor poor forever -- although i know everyone would like the fuel producers of the world (whether the fuel is oil or coal) to be mindless cattle demanding nothing, we are not cattle, we are people

people in louisiana, people in china, people in uganda -- they all deserve a better standard of living just as good as yours

how do you reconcile this?

so far it seems too many want to reconcile the issue by telling the poor to stand down and shut up

it seems an insoluble problem unless we get a breakthrough technology

[jus_the_facts]

56. My uppity NE La. self uses things until they're unuseable...to a fault some say.....

...my car is almost 20yrs old...all my furniture was given to me at least 20yrs. ago..some older...and I only own 5 pairs of shoes and most of my clothes except underwear...socks and bras are hand-me-downs that I wear until they're too threadbare to wear..regardless of what's the latest FAD...I hate to shop with a passion even for groceries...and I chose not to breed....still I'm a hypocrite because I love my a/c and takin' long drives just for fun sometimes...and I don't recycle as there aren't any places to take them in my area. :nopity:

[Bushwick Bill]

55. Ya mean, this isn't sustainable?

[Jcrowley]

57. Kicking