4 ms·

>The tree cover is almost back to pre-contact levels The number of trees is not the issue. The ecosystem is. Huge plantations of SPF in rows that are all the

>The tree cover is almost back to pre-contact levels The number of trees is not the issue. The ecosystem is. Huge plantations of SPF in rows that are all the same age and size does not make a natural ecosystem, and biodiversity is very low. >lakes & rivers are potable Public drinking water isn't even potable in many places, nevermind lakes and rivers. This is pure fantasy talk. >IOW, local environmental problems have been solved No, they have been relocated overseas so they are out of sight and out of mind. >The challenge is global problems; climate change is a fairly classic tragedy of the commons. Yes, I am sure the animals going extinct really just wish we could come together and tax people for breathing. Of course they don't care about their ecosystem being destroyed to grow corn for 5 years before exhausting the land and burning down another 1000 acres of forest for another 5 years of corn. >Our track record in culling is much worse. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot only managed to kill about 1% of the population None of them were trying to lower the population. Funny how you want to equate "lowering global population" with "mass murder" even though you clearly are aware that limiting births is the actual strategy, which actually works.

jlawson 8y ago
Well, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot were actually trying to lower their target populations pretty explicitly. But grandparent is way off about the numbers. The populations Hitler targeted lost about 50%; if he won the war they'd have done much worse. Pol Pot killed 25% of Cambodians, not 1%. Stalin also had a greater impact on his targets. When he created the Holodomor in Ukraine, he killed 10 million, which is much more than 1% of that population.
- deialtrous 8y ago
  He didn't say anything about targets though, he was talking about total population. Which is exactly the thing, none of them were trying to reduce the global population, so their lack of success in that endeavor is meaningless. The fact that the non-violent solution actually worked is very important, but is slipped in at the end after the red herrings about mass murder.
usaar333 8y ago
If you look at the report, generally things are getting better in developed counties. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/1409030-animals-wildlife-wwf-decline-science-world/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/1409030-ani... All the hit is coming in developing nations.
- deialtrous 8y ago
  Or more accurately, destruction is slower in developed countries, largely because there's so little left to destroy. It is pretty hard to deforest Scotland any more than it already is.
  - usaar333 8y ago
    What destruction? On most metrics, they are improving.

jlawson 8y ago

Well, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot were actually trying to lower their target populations pretty explicitly. But grandparent is way off about the numbers. The populations Hitler targeted lost about 50%; if he won the war they'd have done much worse. Pol Pot killed 25% of Cambodians, not 1%. Stalin also had a greater impact on his targets. When he created the Holodomor in Ukraine, he killed 10 million, which is much more than 1% of that population.

deialtrous 8y ago
He didn't say anything about targets though, he was talking about total population. Which is exactly the thing, none of them were trying to reduce the global population, so their lack of success in that endeavor is meaningless. The fact that the non-violent solution actually worked is very important, but is slipped in at the end after the red herrings about mass murder.

usaar333 8y ago

If you look at the report, generally things are getting better in developed counties. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/1409030-animals-wildlife-wwf-decline-science-world/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/1409030-ani... All the hit is coming in developing nations.

deialtrous 8y ago
Or more accurately, destruction is slower in developed countries, largely because there's so little left to destroy. It is pretty hard to deforest Scotland any more than it already is.
- usaar333 8y ago
  What destruction? On most metrics, they are improving.