4 ms·

>>>Other comments have responded robustly to your depopulation comment. Were you refering to yourself when created this new account?

whateveriguess 5y ago
Nope, just a long-time listener, first-time caller kinda deal... was just surprised that everyone seemed to agree with your first comment, but took such issue on depopulation.
- Bobylonian 5y ago
  I think, that agreement here is about foreign aid, where op was offering it as a solution. Depopulation of overpopulated countries is the only viable solution if rich overpopulated countries are demanding to other countries to save their forests. That is also a chance to show solidarity in preservation of forests. Claims, that forests are long gone and nothing can be done are childish - they can be restored and regrown back to their natural original glory. One of the commenter here had a very "sensible" solution to cram population of those overpopulated countries into some small areas and free up rest of the land for forests... And by the way - did you read that article or are you here only because of comments, that you had to do something about them? Oh, those comentators - you can't let them roam free...
  - adventured 5y ago
    The affluent nations are beginning to depopulate. It's the developing nations that are seeing population explosions. The problem going forward is not primarily populations in affluent nations, it's the rapid population expansion in developing nations. The US for example is something like #135 in population growth as a percentage and its domestic population is between stagnant and contracting already. The next two billion people added to the present 7.9b tally is not coming from affluent nations. And those two billion people will be ravenous consumers. Those billions of added consumers in developing nations will want those trees cut down and they care a lot less about it than the rich world does. And then there's China. They're already the world's biggest consumer, and are very rapidly expanding their consumption. Given what we know about their economy, it's likely their consumption is even higher than we already believe it to be. 20-30 years from now their consumption - as with their emissions output already - will drastically tower over for example what the US or affluent Europe are guilty of by comparison. What's the plan for dealing with that? Well, there is no plan, nobody is going to do anything about it, nobody can do anything about it, nobody will dare to speak in China's direction out of dread - exactly as with their catastrophic emissions problem. There's no saving the forests in nations like Congo, that's the truth. Unless one plans to immediately put a total halt to all population expansion in developing nations (the only nations seeing significant population expansion). Otherwise the future outcome is very obvious: those billions of added people will all become intense consumers and their demand will place enormous pressure on ecosystems in places like Congo.

whateveriguess 5y ago

Nope, just a long-time listener, first-time caller kinda deal... was just surprised that everyone seemed to agree with your first comment, but took such issue on depopulation.

Bobylonian 5y ago
I think, that agreement here is about foreign aid, where op was offering it as a solution. Depopulation of overpopulated countries is the only viable solution if rich overpopulated countries are demanding to other countries to save their forests. That is also a chance to show solidarity in preservation of forests. Claims, that forests are long gone and nothing can be done are childish - they can be restored and regrown back to their natural original glory. One of the commenter here had a very "sensible" solution to cram population of those overpopulated countries into some small areas and free up rest of the land for forests... And by the way - did you read that article or are you here only because of comments, that you had to do something about them? Oh, those comentators - you can't let them roam free...
- adventured 5y ago
  The affluent nations are beginning to depopulate. It's the developing nations that are seeing population explosions. The problem going forward is not primarily populations in affluent nations, it's the rapid population expansion in developing nations. The US for example is something like #135 in population growth as a percentage and its domestic population is between stagnant and contracting already. The next two billion people added to the present 7.9b tally is not coming from affluent nations. And those two billion people will be ravenous consumers. Those billions of added consumers in developing nations will want those trees cut down and they care a lot less about it than the rich world does. And then there's China. They're already the world's biggest consumer, and are very rapidly expanding their consumption. Given what we know about their economy, it's likely their consumption is even higher than we already believe it to be. 20-30 years from now their consumption - as with their emissions output already - will drastically tower over for example what the US or affluent Europe are guilty of by comparison. What's the plan for dealing with that? Well, there is no plan, nobody is going to do anything about it, nobody can do anything about it, nobody will dare to speak in China's direction out of dread - exactly as with their catastrophic emissions problem. There's no saving the forests in nations like Congo, that's the truth. Unless one plans to immediately put a total halt to all population expansion in developing nations (the only nations seeing significant population expansion). Otherwise the future outcome is very obvious: those billions of added people will all become intense consumers and their demand will place enormous pressure on ecosystems in places like Congo.