Can we talk about overpopulation now?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

MODS----ican this be moved to GD? I meant to post there.
Thanks

......................................


This is something I've wanted to blurt out before, but held back for the sake of good manners.
However, I seem to have crossed some inhibition line.....

It's the baby dolphin that just did it to me.

I just ran into another reference to that and haven't been able to stop sobbing.

I'm not feeling very articulate right now, but combining our various human activities with our sheer numbers and the space and resources necessary to support one human, just where do we think we're going with our habitual tendency to act on our biological urges?

The planet needs a lot of saving from human invasion; do we think that glaring at Science or Policy or Jobs or Environmental Activists to fix things can succeed when there are SO many of us?

That baby dolphin.....
Innocent little creature........

suffering because there are a fuck of a lot of people, each of us using a lot of space and resources...........

[Wilms]

1. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

“May we live long and die out”

http://www.vhemt.org

[BlancheSplanchnik]

2. sometimes....

I've thought that seemed like a good idea..... :(


Populationconnection.com is a little more practical, though.

[bluestateguy]

3. Take it to the Duggar family

I'm one of those deliberate childlessness people, so I am not at fault.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

4. me too, deliberately childfree.

Yes ................... the human tendency to deny ourown individual actions and impact.

The Duggars are one hell of an example

[Cleita]

5. We will limit our numbers when women have complete control over

their reproductive capabilities. That means no male interference from religions and other practices that are abusive to women. No limitations on birth control and access to abortion. In industrialized countries where women can choose to limit the number of children that they can have, population numbers have stabilized or even decreased.

But I don't think population is the problem as much as getting soulless corporations to toe the line by putting up a lot of regulations and laws that force them to behave and to respect all the life around them. I also think we need a world commitment to protecting our oceans. Somehow there is going to have to be a global authority who does this.

[chowder66]

6. Something to keep an eye on....

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/04/19/population_crash_ext2010


......But according to the veteran environmental writer Fred Pearce, they’re all wrong. In his latest book, "The Coming Population Crash: And Our Planet's Surprising Future," Pearce argues that the world’s population is peaking. In the next century, we’re heading not for exponential growth, but a slow, steady decline. This, he claims, has the potential to massively change both our society and our planet: Children will become a rare sight, patriarchal thinking will fall by the wayside, and middle-aged culture will replace our predominant youth culture. Furthermore, Pearce explains, the population bust could be the end of our environmental woes. Fewer people making better choices about consumption could lead to a greener, healthier planet.

much more at link

[LWolf]

9. I wish I could believe he is correct. nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

14. thanks chowder, very interesting article.

I could see the logic.

Wish we could experience the benefits he foresees sooner. Immediately. Like right now.





can't get that poor little dolphin out of my mind...and I haven't even looked at the pics, vid, article -- nothing. Much too good at imagining it, and then drowning in the sorrow.

[Oregone]

7. Beyond population, over development is also a problem

We may be 6 billion strong, but only a small percentage actually creates large demands for oil and rare metals. If you killed off 80% of humans, demand for many resources would not be that significantly changed out of 'tipping point' range. Not only are there too many of us living, we just aren't living "right". We are constantly building, producing, consuming, and destroying the earth. My big fear is what happens when more of these low-tech nations start having their industrial revolutions due to globalization; the end result can be the quick death of the earth.

6 billion people may actually be a sustainable population (though still very high). What is unsustainable is 800 million or so driving their petro fueled, planed obsolescent cars, eating their big ag meat and corn products, living in their 2000 SQFT homes, using their heavy metal electronic consumer devices, etc.

[Jennicut]

8. It is the industrial populations living to the extreme compared to the rest of the world.

Only a small percentage of us is creating the most damage.

[arcadian]

11. I think it's supposed to be 7 billion by 2011 or 2013

I remember when it was 4 billion.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

15. I checked several weeks ago, the number given was OVER 7 billion. n/t

[KingFlorez]

10. Well, there's not exactly much that can be done about that

We can't lower the population, at least not ethically. And besides that, even if there was a way to reduce it, the problems wouldn't go away, because the majority of them don't have anything to do with too many people on the planet.

[secondwind]

12. I purposely had only one child - when it was PC to do so. No regrets.

[and-justice-for-all]

13. Mother Nature will take care of our overwhelming numbers...

either with a plaque or major global catastrophe; perhaps both.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

16. wars are another way we keep our numbers down.

Without our self-culling, we'd be farther above 7 billion than we already are.