70% of animals wiped out in 50 years

I am not at all religious BUT If there were a God I can imagine him looking down and saying what the f**k have they done to that wonderful beautiful planet ?‍♀️..

And sorry, but so is yours, of a planet that can survive an increasing human population if only we get smarter.

I don't think that's the answer either Lathyrus, I think we do agree more than either of us knows.

I'm just saying that relying on the assertion that all our problems are due to overpopulation is false. While it's obviously a factor, it does lead to the assumption that there's nothing we can do because there's just too many people and that's that. At the very least we have to do the other stuff (energy, foodstuffs etc). We're smart enough, we just need the impetus to do something instead of beating our breasts and saying all is lost...

Can we agree we need both our visions. Fewer people and smarter use of the resources they consume.

Now that really might make the difference ?

No, I don’t have a solution and yes I think it would take one of the horsemen of the Apocalypse to bring it about. So I know I’m on a hiding for nothing.

And I agree with all you’ve said about getting smarter in the way we use the resources that are left. It’ll stave off the inevitable for a while.

It’s just that as you think my solution (fewer people) isn’t practical, I don’t think the solution you propose is practical either in the long term.

My vision a planet with a sustainable human population is just a vision. Know it can’t be done.

And sorry, but so is yours, of a planet that can survive an increasing human population if only we get smarter.

Lathyrus

I’m a bit puzzled over the comment about India.

Are you really saying that countries like India shouldn’t have the same standard of living that the West has enjoyed.? Should be kept in poverty?

I know we disagree on a number of things. Actually I agree with some of your posts more often than you know.
So I think I must be misreading that.

So I think I must be misreading that.

Yes, you are. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, sorry

What I was trying to say is that if every country had half the population is has at the moment (or even 1/3!) we still need the "kind" of life we have now, if nothing else changes. So we still need electricity, or beef, or lithium for mobile phones...

So just reducing the population doesn't hack it. We need to find new ways of meeting the needs of the population of the world that don't mean ravaging its resources unsustainably, whether there are 3 billion people or 9 billion people.

I know I keep banging on about it but there was a documentary called The Serengeti Rules which showed that everything depends on keystone creatures and if they go everything goes with them. And it isn’t usually an apex ( is that the right word?) predator ( which it is in the case of wolves) but quite lowly things further down the food chain eg sea urchins. And when such things go the effect can be far reaching eg killer whales then move into different territories. From memory sea otters were disappearing because they were being eaten by predators that would usually leave them alone. Going back to the OP though, what right have we got to destroy this planet and everything that lives on it, Why can’t we use our intelligence and power to just do good things? I despair.

It wouldn't though.

As a general observation...

We have a big problem in the world right now that people think the obvious solution is the one that will work. For example... Brexit will make this country great again because we don't have to bow to the French!.. Cut taxes, make the economy grow…... Reduce the population dramatically, save the rainforest!..

There are two options here, as far as I can see.

Cling to the unachievable goal that we reduce the population of the planet by 2/3. Or, work on achieving alternative ways of providing enough resources for the people we have. So...change the way we provide power for people, change the way we rely on certain foodstuffs, get clever about how we use the resources available to us.

That doesn't mean not trying to do something about overpopulation, it means being a bit realistic and not saying that we have to just give in because we have 3 times as many people as we can handle.

Unless you think we could do with another Black Death? Do you have a solution that would actually reduce the population by 2/3?? Note - it would have to happen in pretty short order if it's actually going to help.

I’m a bit puzzled over the comment about India.

Are you really saying that countries like India shouldn’t have the same standard of living that the West has enjoyed.? Should be kept in poverty?

I know we disagree on a number of things. Actually I agree with some of your posts more often than you know.
So I think I must be misreading that.

volver

Lathyrus

I think a lot of people understand it academically. It’s just that we’re not willing to apply it to our own personal circumstances.

If the world's population was halved, would that affect the devastation of the rainforest? Would it prevent the mining for lithium? Would it prevent the half-sized population of (e.g.) India wanting to equal the standard of living that we have enjoyed in the west for decades?

Blaming the size of the population is a convenient way of saying, "there's nothing we can do about it, it's someone else's fault".

Well of course it would ?

Half the population would mean half the demand for those resources and others beside. Half the population would take up much less space.

You wouldn’t solve all the problems with half the population but you won’t solve any of them with a growing human population demanding more and more space and resources.

Even half the human population isn’t enough of a reduction. The estimate for a human population that the planet can support is 3.5 billion.

Katie59

10,000 a year is a gross exaggeration there may be some which is bad but inflating figures convinces nobody

Actually, I chose the lower estimate. The higher estimate is 100,000.

Take it up with the WWF, who probably know more about it that a man who writes about money for a living.

wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/biodiversity/biodiversity/

It's driven by greed, as has been said it's the unrelenting destruction of the environment. You only have to look at the current intended grab for growth without a nod in the direction of sustainability or environmental protection. To a degree, I guess that you could excuse past generations for their ignorance but that doesn't wash today. Yet not enough people care or those in power are driven by a need for wealth and turn a blind eye. When we have destroyed the environment we can eat money.

Lathyrus

I think a lot of people understand it academically. It’s just that we’re not willing to apply it to our own personal circumstances.

If the world's population was halved, would that affect the devastation of the rainforest? Would it prevent the mining for lithium? Would it prevent the half-sized population of (e.g.) India wanting to equal the standard of living that we have enjoyed in the west for decades?

Blaming the size of the population is a convenient way of saying, "there's nothing we can do about it, it's someone else's fault".

10,000 a year is a gross exaggeration there may be some which is bad but inflating figures convinces nobody

The reason for the decline in the number of animals isn't that people are going out shooting them for sport, it's that we are systematically destroying their habitats and making it impossible for them to live.

The article quoted by Baggs at the start of this thread is very misleading; its written by someone whose expertise is in money. No, seriously, that's what he says in his byline. He quotes selective stats to make his spurious assertions seem more likely. For instance, he says there have only been 530 recorded extinctions across all species in the last five centuries. In fact there are at least 10,000 a year.

I don't disagree with you Katie59, but that doesn't mean the laws of nature don't apply any more. They still apply but in some cases we have found ways of staving off their worst effects.

We are the clever apes, so far homo sapiens has managed to dominate the whole planet despite our own attempts at self destruction with warfare.
It’s only our ability to exploit resources that has enabled us to do that, there has to be a limit, when that is reached the population will have to fall.

They always predicted a global pandemic and they were absolutely right. Who is to say there won’t be many more ?

The laws of nature are, by definition the laws of nature.

They still apply no matter how smart we are.

Well, it’s true to some extent, volver, at least as regards diseases. The Black Death wiped out a huge percentage of the population in many countries, including ours - we’ve moved on a bit since then.
Global warming is of course a different matter.

The laws of nature do not apply to humans we are too smart.

That's a joke, right?

The laws of nature do not apply to humans we are too smart, a pandemic frequently wipes out large numbers of wild animals, we are clever and find ways of overcoming the diseases. The big challenge now is climate change which is going to be much more difficult to control.

Population control is off the agenda in many countries, China is the notable exception, many developed countries are seeing lower birth rate with women choosing to have less children.

The culling often takes place where no one actually lives or is likely to. Vast tracts of desert etc here. They just like killing things, it is a sport to them.

I think a lot of people understand it academically. It’s just that we’re not willing to apply it to our own personal circumstances.

CatsCatsCats

I thought that human overpopulation being the cause of the destruction of biodiversity was a given.

I thought Covid was going to reduce the population a lot more than it actually did. Shame, really.

What? ?

I thought that human overpopulation being the cause of the destruction of biodiversity was a given.

I thought Covid was going to reduce the population a lot more than it actually did. Shame, really.