Human Population and Climate Change

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Afriendof B on March 15, 2008 at 12:34pm

Ed,

Population growth is a factor of food not climate. Populations will grow to the limit of their food supply. Always. Despite hunger being in the news a lot, we have been producing more food than our current population needs. We have done it every year for a long time. And every year the population has expanded. We produce food in excess because we grow it using resources from other places (or times, i.e. petrochemical fertilizers). If we only used local resource for the food we consumed, and consumed it locally, returning the waste to the local resource pool, the population would quickly stabilize.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ed Jonas on March 15, 2008 at 1:12pm

Hi friend...
well in a primative life style what you say would be and is true but when concerned and connected with a very technological or civilized creature such as humans where along with the many people of the planet comes their use of fire for heating and cooking, their car, trains and planes for transport, the burning of fossil fuels for electricity and heating, the use of fertilizers and energy for food production and processing, and the exploitation of and processing of various resources for goods and services as is now the case in most of the Western Nations, all of which contribute to the co2 and temp equation and footprint then it goes I feel without saying that the more populus this advanced creature is then the more contributions it makes to climate change per person. I guess a question might be do we sacrifice lifestyle to accommadate more people or children on the planet which now in the west would require 7 additional planets to sustain or do we limit or cap population to maintain our advanced life style.
I haven't broken down the data as yet to determine how many people at a given lifestyle the planet could accommadate as with China and India's advance to western life styles the climate change will grow increasingly worse even with economic interventions. They may have to settle for less to have less of a ecofootprint on the planet and the west will most likely have to downgrade its life's style.

Interestingly many studies are beginning to show the increase in planetary temperature is beginning to reduce global crop production so even if .... well more temperature increase less food and more famine and hence less people I guess so either way its somewhat tied.

Maybe you misunderstand I am not saying climate change is causing more population I am say more population is causing climate change.

ed

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Afriendof B on March 15, 2008 at 1:33pm

Ed,

You are saying that we humans are not subject to the laws of nature that all other creatures living on the planet are. Our technology etc was developed to give us the ability to continue to produce excess. Our population has been growing exponentially for the last 10000 years (about the same time as the "agricultural revolution" really took hold and we started "recorded history") This idea that we are somehow separate from nature is so deeply ingrained in our collective psyche that it may take near extinction to get rid of it. Saying our advanced 'civilization' exempts us from natural law is like saying that our advanced aeronautical engineering exempts us from the laws of gravity. In the engineering instance we at least are using the law. The way we live is in absolute defiance of the law and will result in our extinction. Global Warming (as painted in the popular science press) is a symptom of our defiance of natural law, just like population growth.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ed Jonas on March 15, 2008 at 1:44pm

I am not making a judgement or judging us or saying one way is better than the other, I am just presenting the facts as they stand and I am not saying that climate change is causing excessive population but that excessive population is causing climate change and the correlation and probability of its truth and veracity according to the independent info I gathered off the internet is very high and consistent.
As to how we should live, I suppose various cultures make that decision independently, whether as a global society we are able to forge a common natural or semiunnatural way is a difficult question. I though, suppose that I do not really want to sratch out a living as a nomad, cave dweller or subsistence farmer but look I suppose for a balance of sorts of the old and new.
The data I give suggests that simply to maintain our current lifestyle or the status quo or world as is now would require a immediate limiting of global human population and more preferably a reduction back to maybe 3 or 4 billion. Actually our population exponential growth started around 1800 AD the same time as climate change according to the pdf graphs.

There is though a somewhat inherent contradiction in your arguement as here we are using a highly advanced technology to actualize and have this very conversation which would never have been possible with out all that has gone before. We though must weigh the benefits and advantages I agree that are a detriment to the mother planet and make adjustments accordingly. I would never as well have been able to put together the evidence of the pdf as well without all that has gone before. So its a bit of a catch 22 of sorts for all concerned.


ed

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Afriendof B on March 15, 2008 at 1:59pm

Ed,

Could it be that the correlation between population growth and climate change instead of showing causality is just showing two byproducts of a deeper cause? I know the numbers never lie, but sometimes they were generated by people asking the wrong question.

I am in no way proposing we go back to being hunter/gatherers or the like. Our vast creativity has created the technological marvels that continue to allow us to defy this fundamental law of nature. Maybe if we accept it as a law and apply out creativity to the problem we could maintain most, if not all of, the benefits of an "advanced civilization" while living in ways that are evolutionarily sustainable.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ed Jonas on March 15, 2008 at 2:13pm

A deeper cause....
well it was difficult enough just to conclusively tie climate change and humans together.
Yes there is perhaps still a deeper cause but I sadly don't feel up to or the ....??? well I'm not a philosopher and regardless as one astute philosopher put it the best philosophy deals with practical and profound problems and not word meanings. I don't feel up to the task of compassing human nature which I suspect would be where the deeper cause is seated.
Human nature is a mysterious thing it seems to me magical and seemingly ignorant at the same time. As long though as we are able to acknowledge our own apparent unconscious hypocrisy and try or endeavour to transcend our species inherent death wish then that seems enough for me.


ed

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Afriendof B on March 15, 2008 at 3:35pm

How about we keep it simple?

Lets try to meet our basic needs from local resources. By basic needs I mean food, water, energy and waste (it must be returned to the local resource pool). By local I mean within 20 miles of where we live (this is ideal, some places and some things require greater range, but 20 miles is a human scale.) Forget the deep philosophical crap. Forget saving the world. How close can YOU get when meeting your basic needs? I don't mean companies in your area, I mean basic resources used to produce the things we need to live. It's a great experiment. Fifty years ago I could have gotten within 60 miles of where I live for everything except petrol. Now its a challenge to find many of the basic things produced within my state boundaries. This isn't about becoming hunter-gatherers or squidgy philosophical/religious revolutions. It is simply about living locally.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ed Jonas on March 15, 2008 at 8:26pm

Ho there
well I don't know if simple is still an option, in the choice between more people or better life style, what is the humanitarian or moral thing to choose. Yet it is not that simple either as there would also be a minimum number of people required to achieve a certain higher life style too. The cause or deeper cause you refer to thus might simply be children themselves or more specifically "unconscious procreation". But hold on all is not lost. Lets put a face and number on this vision I had as well of what could be called "GLOBAL FREEDOM".

Consider this...
It took and thus would take between 2 billion to 7 billion people globally to achieve, have and maintain the mean global life style from say 1930 to 1970 give or take, so with approximately a sustained population of 4.5 billion people we, humanity could probably achieve a similar global mean life style for everyone on the planet of around say 1944 to 1956.
Adding more people would cause or could cause global warming and environmental degradation, having less people would not be sufficient to maintain the life style of that time or .... well or something to that effect.

so if we can wrap our heads around the complexity and numbers of that then....
there is a chance to achieve this vision of " GLOBAL FREEDOM"

ed

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ed Jonas on March 15, 2008 at 8:40pm

Global Freedom you ask?
Well here is the concept as a music video.
Not sure doth where forth and whence it comes but heres an
attempt at its elucidation.

link = http://youtube.com/watch?v=BguBkhTX8VY

ed

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ed Jonas on March 16, 2008 at 6:22am

Ah yes the Cat Lady syndrome. I think what we're beginning to see with the planet as a whole is similar to the cat lady syndrome where a person has like 60 cats and kittens in their house. Such thus maybe be similar to what has happened or is happening to the human community on the planet . We have inadvertantly gone past a certain point, threshold or range of optimum living and population and going past that is resulting in a break down of good order, health and reason. If we need 8 planets thus to sustain our current population and life style then it would suggest that the Earth is only capable of meeting the needs, wants, lifestyle and dreams of 1 billion people. That perhaps is no longer achieveable perhaps so 4.5 would have to be managed and maintained and achieved somehow. I suppose the reason for the situation is that beyond a point or number the complexity of so many is to great to manage and handle, thus straining health care and all system institutions and causing many to seek outside of the planet for some force to save us in leu of our ability to save or manage ourselves.


ed

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ed Jonas on March 17, 2008 at 8:22pm

Well I'm a bit miffed or confused...
"Be Fruitful and Multiply....
and then????????"

Replenish????

re·plen·ish (rĭ-plĕn'ĭsh)

v., -ished, -ish·ing, -ish·es.

v.tr.

1. To fill or make complete again; add a new stock or supply to: replenish the larder.
2. To inspire or nourish: The music will replenish my weary soul.

v.intr.

To become full again.

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

Does this suggest that it was known that the accomplishment of being fruitful and multiplying would require the damaging and sacrificing of some of the planet... and now that we have fulfilled the first two....
then now we are to replenish the Earth in our company to it former pristine nature and glory?????.....

but how could anyone have known that ????
How could anyone have foreseen the damage that being fruitful and multiplying would and has caused to the planet.....

this is weird..... that is seeing into the future like by about 5 or 10 thousand years.....

and that I would suggest is not possible....

spooky stuff.

well any thoughts....

replenish.... anyone know anything about replenishing?


ed

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ed Jonas on March 17, 2008 at 8:40pm

Ah the beauty of the internet

WILDLIFE GARDENING FOR EVERYONE
By Malcolm Tait (Editor), Royal Horticultural Society, Wildlife Trust Staff, Wildlife Trusts

* Publisher: Think Books
* Pub. Date: August 2006
* ISBN-13: 9781845250164
* Sales Rank: 743,107
* 288pp

This strikes me as a book on "Global Replenishment"....

carry on...

ed

Attachments:

• wildlife.jpg, 45 KB

▶ Reply to This