5 ms·
>unfold and witness nearly four decades of planetary change. four decades of meaningless uncontrolled overpopulation, destruction of pristine nature and its ec
by nullifidian 5y ago
>unfold and witness nearly four decades of planetary change.
four decades of meaningless uncontrolled overpopulation, destruction of pristine nature and its ecosystems, a march of techno-globalism across the planet. Every time I see these timelapses it depresses me quite a bit.
- daemoens 5y agoOverpopulation isn't really a problem currently.
- Rompect 5y agoUnderpopulation is actually the problem in most Western countries.
- frosted-flakes 5y agoNot under-population, per se, but low rates of growth.
- cromwellian 5y agoLow rates of growth lead to a population collapse in 2 generations or so and an inverted demographic pyramid where mostly old people exist with few youngsters. Not a good recipe for the species or a civilization. Look at predicted population numbers in Japan for example.
- SamBam 5y agoI'm unsure how low rates of growth in Europe will lead to a collapse of the species.
- SamBam 5y agoNot really sure how you can call it underpopulation. Was underpopulation also a problem in the preceding 30,000 years or so of human civilization in Europe leading up to today, when the population has always been always smaller? The population in Europe is larger than it has ever been in any point in history.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoIf you assume total consumption is a problem, and you assume that total consumption will not go down because consumption per capita will not go down, then the conclusion you end up with is overpopulation.
- hycaria 5y agoWith our western ressource and energy consumption, and nuclear family lifestyle, it kinda is. I wish there were less people and that we could keep using cars and the internet, and eating meat. Instead we have more people, accelerating the rush for resources (water in third world, or for us developed countries, housing).
- Pfhreak 5y agoI agree that we're doing things that harm the planet, but I downvoted you because it's more complicated than just "there are too many people", and "We're cutting down forests". If you look at the advanced countries, they are often the ones who exploited their resources and grew in size early. Britain, for instance, slashed their forests generations ago to get ahead. The US used to shoot herds of bison from trains. Now Britain and the US wag a finger at less developed countries for consuming the forests and ecosystems in their countries. Similar with population growth and the concept of 'overpopulation'. If you assert we have overpopulation, you have to assert how you'll address it, and there's no way to do that without saying, "Some group of people doesn't get to have kids." That seems like a really bad thing to say. I'm incredibly lefty, a self described socialist and eco-socialist, but I believe that we need to think differently than just "those people over there are destroying their environments and having too many babies!" We could start at home, transforming our own economy and society to live less exploitatively. We could reduce our own use of meat and dairy, for instance. We could ensure we had adequate housing for everyone, and medical care for everyone, both of which would lead to less waste. We could strictly limit single use plastics, remove older dams to improve fish stocks, set aside more land for forests, etc.
- Spooky23 5y agoThe overpopulation crowd is like a meta-NIMBY. People with high income, “concern” for various problems, and who are amused by their toys and aren’t family oriented usually fall into that position. Of course, like all NIMBY types, their consumption of air and Brazilian hardwoods is just fine.
- dint 5y agoThis is a straw man. There are absolutely people who are concerned about both overpopulation, and individual overconsumption. I am one. I limit my personal carbon footprint. I do not own a car (and hopefully never will). I rarely eat meat. I live in a cheap, inefficient apartment because I'm living on a student income, but I keep the heat low to try to limit my energy consumption. I probably won't have kids, because it wouldn't be consistent with my concerns about climate change to bring another high-consuming American into the world.
- alex_anglin 5y agoHave a look at mortality and poverty rates globally. There is good news, as well as bad.
- lm28469 5y agoOne could argue a cancer spreading faster is bad news
- alex_anglin 5y agoI would respectfully suggest that referring to people as 'a cancer' says more about the person than whatever point they're trying to make.
- lm28469 5y agoHumanity as a whole, not individual beings. Our boundless quest for growth is clearly getting out of hand on many levels. What else exponentially grows until the death of its eco system ?
- burntoutfire 5y ago> What else exponentially grows until the death of its eco system ? Most life forms?
- indymike 5y agoSomething to get excited about: we now have a tool that will be used by the world to see the changes. Sometimes a picture can be a much more powerful argument than a billion data points. p.s. username checks out.
- system16 5y agoWhile I don't disagree, you're not exactly a spectator. If you're on a computer in a western country, you are in the top percentage of the world contributing not so insignificantly to this problem. People sitting in traffic complaining about traffic or cancer cells complaining about the devastation caused by cancer sounds a bit silly.
- OrbitRock 5y agoA problem like a traffic jam needs systemic coordinated action though to be able to solve. Complaining about the lack of perceived ability to get everyone acting is legitimate.