5 ms·

I think this and many of the similar problems plaguing the earth will only be solved with a drastic reduction of people on the planet. Get the population down

I think this and many of the similar problems plaguing the earth will only be solved with a drastic reduction of people on the planet. Get the population down to 1 or 2 billion of us and a lot of these issues go away. Deforesting, not an issue if the demand for lumber is cut down by 80%. Same for coal, oil, paving, lithium... It all gets solved with just less people. 8 billion people is just too much, even if we all recycle and take the bus.

mFixman 5y ago
2 billion people consuming as much as the average American does right now gets you in a much worse situation than the current one. The only solution is strong government action to reduce emissions and environmental consequences of consumption. It's not completely un precedented: the hole in the ozone layer was the unavoidable apocalypse in the late 90s and is an almost solved problem right now.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  Sure, we did mount a concerted effort to solve the ozone problem. But that was a lot easier to do than what we need to do now. We needed to change the types of propellants used in aerosol spays and we needed to change the types of refrigerants we used - it was lucky that we had pretty equivalent and readily available replacements. But now to solve the myriad of challenges we face we need to reduce consumption of many different resources at once - sacrifices will need to be made. Big sacrifices in some cases. And given our current political climate, sacrifices aren't popular (not that they have ever been, but especially not now).
- titzer 5y ago
  > is an almost solved problem right now. I wish. We only halted its growth and it is only barely healed. From Wikipedia [1]: > A 2005 IPCC review of ozone observations and model calculations concluded that the global amount of ozone has now approximately stabilized. Although considerable variability is expected from year to year, including in polar regions where depletion is largest, the ozone layer is expected to begin to recover in coming decades due to declining ozone-depleting substance concentrations, assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol.[107] > The Antarctic ozone hole is expected to continue for decades. Ozone concentrations in the lower stratosphere over Antarctica will increase by 5–10 percent by 2020 and return to pre-1980 levels by about 2060–2075. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Prospects_of_ozone_depletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Prospects_of_o...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mmstgshj 5y ago
I don't think that eco-fascism is the answer. The cause of this problem isn't people, it is capitalism and imperialism. 1/3rd of all emissions are produced by 20 companies The US Military alone puts out more carbon than the top 60 carbon emitters. “The Earth is not dying-it is being killed. And the people who are killing it have names and addresses.” — Utah Phillips
- roca 5y ago
  > 1/3rd of all emissions are produced by 20 companies Sure, but mostly they're producing goods and services that millions/billions of people consume. Getting rid of those 20 companies won't change anything.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    It will get rid of 20 massive power centers that move politics for their own benefit. Turning those 20 companies into 500 companies would allow for political change that is impossible now.
    - nlittlepoole 5y ago
      No it wouldn't. You are understimating the number of westerners who quite prefer their standard of living and either don't care or have theological beliefs that allow them to not care about the consequences of their lifestyles. There is a cultural change that has to preceed the political one
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - roca 5y ago
      It would be great if you could fix politics by breaking up a few villainous corporations but it's much more difficult than that. In America, Michael Bloomberg and Donald Trump have (in different ways) shown us the limits of the power of money in politics. I'm pro-anti-trust and I believe that breaking up certain big corporations would a good thing. But that's a long way from "the problem is capitalism and imperialism" and the implication that eliminating those things is possible or would fix environmental problems. The Soviets were even worse for the environment.
happyopossum 5y ago
Soooo, lemme get this straight. Your solution to keeping the earth habitable for animals is genocide and forced sterilization?
- SkipperCat 5y ago
  Wow - you went to a dark place real fast... You ever hear about this thing called family planning?
rglover 5y ago
"To be fair, the others just aren't as important as me. Therefore, we should find a way to...shall we say, flush the excess." Read in this voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G19B7lTgwCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G19B7lTgwCE
- SkipperCat 5y ago
  I'd say we should educate people about the value of family planning to steer the world to a better place. Don't know why so many people here think getting the population down requires atrocities. I think if the world really got behind this, we could get the population down in 3 or 4 generations.
kcb 5y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg
dukeofdoom 5y ago
How many birds make it through the winter because humans help to feed them. Surely if humans are the cause, they can be the solution too. Planting more forests is possible. Breeding Elephants, Giraffes, Hippos, and other large mammals we displaced is possible and is bing done now. Making land more hospitable to wild animals is also possible. Perhaps we need more people to be born not less to fill these roles. Even large ultra modern cities like Dubai, are not all bad. They terraformed the desert. All kinds of plants, birds and animals live in Dubai that never could before. New York is home to billions of rats. I'm not even sure that human activity has in anyway reduced the biomass of the earth. Cities provide ideal habitat to all kinds of birds, plants and animals. And Carbon emissions are good for plants, CO2 is needed for photosynthesis. Forests have been converted to farms, and we grow way too much corn, that is used for fuel. A terribly inefficient and wasteful process. So I'm a big proponent of Nuclear Energy technology, which would greatly reduce our need for fossil fuels. I also think Farms should be surrounded by treed buffers, and we should build green forested corridors that span the continent. All of that might require more people not less to accomplish. That rare genius that will bring us break through energy technology might be someone in the next billion people not yet born.

mFixman 5y ago

2 billion people consuming as much as the average American does right now gets you in a much worse situation than the current one. The only solution is strong government action to reduce emissions and environmental consequences of consumption. It's not completely un precedented: the hole in the ozone layer was the unavoidable apocalypse in the late 90s and is an almost solved problem right now.

UncleOxidant 5y ago
Sure, we did mount a concerted effort to solve the ozone problem. But that was a lot easier to do than what we need to do now. We needed to change the types of propellants used in aerosol spays and we needed to change the types of refrigerants we used - it was lucky that we had pretty equivalent and readily available replacements. But now to solve the myriad of challenges we face we need to reduce consumption of many different resources at once - sacrifices will need to be made. Big sacrifices in some cases. And given our current political climate, sacrifices aren't popular (not that they have ever been, but especially not now).
titzer 5y ago
> is an almost solved problem right now. I wish. We only halted its growth and it is only barely healed. From Wikipedia [1]: > A 2005 IPCC review of ozone observations and model calculations concluded that the global amount of ozone has now approximately stabilized. Although considerable variability is expected from year to year, including in polar regions where depletion is largest, the ozone layer is expected to begin to recover in coming decades due to declining ozone-depleting substance concentrations, assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol.[107] > The Antarctic ozone hole is expected to continue for decades. Ozone concentrations in the lower stratosphere over Antarctica will increase by 5–10 percent by 2020 and return to pre-1980 levels by about 2060–2075. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Prospects_of_ozone_depletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Prospects_of_o...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mmstgshj 5y ago

I don't think that eco-fascism is the answer. The cause of this problem isn't people, it is capitalism and imperialism. 1/3rd of all emissions are produced by 20 companies The US Military alone puts out more carbon than the top 60 carbon emitters. “The Earth is not dying-it is being killed. And the people who are killing it have names and addresses.” — Utah Phillips

roca 5y ago
> 1/3rd of all emissions are produced by 20 companies Sure, but mostly they're producing goods and services that millions/billions of people consume. Getting rid of those 20 companies won't change anything.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  It will get rid of 20 massive power centers that move politics for their own benefit. Turning those 20 companies into 500 companies would allow for political change that is impossible now.
  - nlittlepoole 5y ago
    No it wouldn't. You are understimating the number of westerners who quite prefer their standard of living and either don't care or have theological beliefs that allow them to not care about the consequences of their lifestyles. There is a cultural change that has to preceed the political one
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - roca 5y ago
    It would be great if you could fix politics by breaking up a few villainous corporations but it's much more difficult than that. In America, Michael Bloomberg and Donald Trump have (in different ways) shown us the limits of the power of money in politics. I'm pro-anti-trust and I believe that breaking up certain big corporations would a good thing. But that's a long way from "the problem is capitalism and imperialism" and the implication that eliminating those things is possible or would fix environmental problems. The Soviets were even worse for the environment.

happyopossum 5y ago

Soooo, lemme get this straight. Your solution to keeping the earth habitable for animals is genocide and forced sterilization?

SkipperCat 5y ago
Wow - you went to a dark place real fast... You ever hear about this thing called family planning?

rglover 5y ago

"To be fair, the others just aren't as important as me. Therefore, we should find a way to...shall we say, flush the excess." Read in this voice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G19B7lTgwCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G19B7lTgwCE

SkipperCat 5y ago
I'd say we should educate people about the value of family planning to steer the world to a better place. Don't know why so many people here think getting the population down requires atrocities. I think if the world really got behind this, we could get the population down in 3 or 4 generations.

kcb 5y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg

dukeofdoom 5y ago

How many birds make it through the winter because humans help to feed them. Surely if humans are the cause, they can be the solution too. Planting more forests is possible. Breeding Elephants, Giraffes, Hippos, and other large mammals we displaced is possible and is bing done now. Making land more hospitable to wild animals is also possible. Perhaps we need more people to be born not less to fill these roles. Even large ultra modern cities like Dubai, are not all bad. They terraformed the desert. All kinds of plants, birds and animals live in Dubai that never could before. New York is home to billions of rats. I'm not even sure that human activity has in anyway reduced the biomass of the earth. Cities provide ideal habitat to all kinds of birds, plants and animals. And Carbon emissions are good for plants, CO2 is needed for photosynthesis. Forests have been converted to farms, and we grow way too much corn, that is used for fuel. A terribly inefficient and wasteful process. So I'm a big proponent of Nuclear Energy technology, which would greatly reduce our need for fossil fuels. I also think Farms should be surrounded by treed buffers, and we should build green forested corridors that span the continent. All of that might require more people not less to accomplish. That rare genius that will bring us break through energy technology might be someone in the next billion people not yet born.