Environmental collapse

nyarlothothep

I've been reading some Sunday Times articles over the past few weeks and although I get the impression that they are a bit doom and gloom I would hazard a guess that any economic depression we may be facing is going to pale in comparison to an ecological/environmental disaster on a global scale. It seems like we are simply facing a Malthusian disaster of biblical proportions, based on an unsustainable population growth and the attendant unfettered consumption of resources. For example if bees become extinct this would present a very serious problem to the food chain. Likewise there is the view that climate change in a runaway effect and that we are already in big trouble, it will simply be a bitter fight for survival.

r3nu4l

While the Times is very doom and gloom they do have a point. My own particular bugbear is that many of our so-called 'green' initiatives don't appear to work very well.

For example, here in the UK, I sort my rubbish well, I wash my recyclable items and put them into the recycle bin.

However, I can't help but feel that I'm wasting water by rinsing out these plastics before putting them into the bin. If I don't rinse them then my entire bin load of plastics and cardboard gets dumped in a landfill!!

Also, much of the waste that is to be recycled is then loaded onto container ships to be transported to other countries to be processed there. Is that really the best way to recycle? I know it may make economic sense but does it make environmental sense?

This is just one example. We then come to other problems.

For example, the bio-fuel debate still rages, some feel that bio-fuel crops are taking away from our food crops and that this will lead to starvation and famine, others say this is a load of old tosh.

However, the biggest worry for me is population. Populations are rising very slowly in the West but exploding in the East. This is unsustainable.
I think that there is a certain inevitability about huge environmental problems in the future but I'm not sure what can be done about those problems. There may not be an epic 'ice-age' or desertification of entire countries and we may learn to cope with those problems but slowly but surely we are heading inexorably towards a massive decline in environmental quality.

nyarlothothep

Sometimes I think humans are intelligent to the extent that they are disassociated from going with the flow, so to speak, with nature. In the sense that we are too big for this town, namely earth, to harmonize with natural pre conditions. In other words we would be better off implementing our own artificial control systems which suit our needs, like weather control, genetically engineered bees, establishing space colonies, things like that.

On the other hand I find it really stupid that people are try to put a price on the environment in terms of carbon tax and so on. It just reflects a failure to realize that some things (in fact a lot of things) reside outside the considerations of market economics.

Caint cóir

Count yourselves grateful that Politicians in the Dáil show some interest in actually climate change. Up in the cold north here our MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (Sammy Wilson, who else!) banned an advert on climate change stating that it was only New labour propaganda.

artieanna

r3nu4l wrote: »

While the Times is very doom and gloom they do have a point. My own particular bugbear is that many of our so-called 'green' initiatives don't appear to work very well.

For example, here in the UK, I sort my rubbish well, I wash my recyclable items and put them into the recycle bin.

However, I can't help but feel that I'm wasting water by rinsing out these plastics before putting them into the bin. If I don't rinse them then my entire bin load of plastics and cardboard gets dumped in a landfill!!

Also, much of the waste that is to be recycled is then loaded onto container ships to be transported to other countries to be processed there. Is that really the best way to recycle? I know it may make economic sense but does it make environmental sense?

This is just one example. QUOTE]

I agree with you...
I recycle at the local landfill but I have to drive about ten miles to get there with the load of stuff in the car. I feel I am defeating the purpose of recycling by the petrol I am burning to get there.

Any electrical gadget you buy (television, hi fi, computer, kettle etc) when it breaks down its cheaper to buy a new one that to have it repaired (in alot of cases) and nobody is willing to fix anything anymore. We dump everything whereas things were made to last and be repaired years ago. So our landfills keep filling up....

I think the way we use and dispose so much stuff has become a problem.

kevmy

tbh the quickest and most effective way of reducing our carbon output dramatically would be to switch to nuclear power. Approx 40% of carbon is produced by electricity generation. Transport is also pretty much 40% as well. So really the only 2 things that will make much a difference are seriously reducing our transport and electricity producing carbon emissions.

So basically clean electricity with a mix of nuclear, hydro, wind and wave along with stricter emission standards on old cars and huge tax breaks for companies producing hydrogen cars are the only way serious progress will be made

derry

I was lucky compared to a lot of the saddos out there brainwashed by the media that our goose is cooked.

In the 1970 era I read a book in Easons ( was too young to pay the fee as it was pricy book)

The book was divided into two parts
One part was written by experts or scientists in their field who took a optimistic view point

The other part was written by experts or scientists in their field who took a pessimistic view point

On the subjects of farming and food production the optimists said no problem new solutions and the fact the that we haven't scathed the surface of the issue food production could ramp up to support a doubling or tripling of the 1970 population without any strains .The extra inputs could support 10 times if necessary.Then they went further they figured not only was 100 fold population not a problem to feed but even a thousand fold wasn't straining the planet.They even predicted a 10,000 times population was supportable.
Remember the 1840 Ireland with primitive farming supported 10,000,000 Irish and probably with exports another 40 million British before the potato famine wiped us Irish out because the British were happy to cull us Irish in case we made a revolution.

The saddo pessimist experts had us all starving to death in world famines from 1990 through to 2000

The other optimistic experts for mining everything iron oil gold whatever stated that mining companies rarely find thirty years ore or oil gas whatever in advance as they only need thirty years to plan production
In fact even if they did find more than thirty years supply it might not be good to say that as that could push prices down if the stuff is abundant like coal is.with newer methods of mining there would not be issues for any stuff and we could expect all prices to drop including oil and gas on average when you take out price spikes .

The saddo pessimists had us with no oil gas gold iron before 2000 and wars were the result as we fought to get control of these scarce materials

Anyway from population to pollution the optimiststs so far 35 years later are 99.999999% correct and the saddos are still at it trying to prove the end is nigh


So recently when I checked out who are all these saddo types we find that often they are deeply embedded in the UN who write this crap the end is nigh

They come from groups that after WW2 who worked for eugenics organization in the USA and Nazi Germany that dont want the world population to increase

These sicko types embed themselves in universities and bend and distort data from CO2 through to suedo science population control methods like one child policy and work closely with big industrialists and rich ranging from Microsoft Bill gates who wants to make one child policy through his planned parenthood charity even if that includes murdering new born babes and sicko like the British royal family that sponsor the sicko like Porrit on the Sunday times over population tripe
Just google Bill Gates and eugenics and and the British royal family sponsors one child policy and you see the scum for what they are and they are only the tip of the UN eugenics machine that want to use suedo science to justify why they need to kill off 90% of the planets population to save the planet for the elite the eugenic type


A few good site that explains a 101 on eugenics population cull maybe 2012 or 2015 or 2020 but ramping up soon to place near to you with your number on the cull list and what it is all about is www.infowars.com and www.wiseupjournal.com

The difference is I think the hope for UN cull of 90% of the world population will be stopped when enough people wake up and see overpopulation is a complete suedo science lie


Derry

marco_polo

derry wrote: »

I was lucky compared to a lot of the saddos out there brainwashed by the media that our goose is cooked.

In the 1970 era I read a book in Easons ( was too young to pay the fee as it was pricy book)

The book was divided into two parts
One part was written by experts or scientists in their field who took a optimistic view point

The other part was written by experts or scientists in their field who took a pessimistic view point

On the subjects of farming and food production the optimists said no problem new solutions and the fact the that we haven't scathed the surface of the issue food production could ramp up to support a doubling or tripling of the 1970 population without any strains .The extra inputs could support 10 times if necessary.Then they went further they figured not only was 100 fold population not a problem to feed but even a thousand fold wasn't straining the planet.They even predicted a 10,000 times population was supportable.
Remember the 1840 Ireland with primitive farming supported 10,000,000 Irish and probably with exports another 40 million British before the potato famine wiped us Irish out because the British were happy to cull us Irish in case we made a revolution.

The saddo pessimist experts had us all starving to death in world famines from 1990 through to 2000

The other optimistic experts for mining everything iron oil gold whatever stated that mining companies rarely find thirty years ore or oil gas whatever in advance as they only need thirty years to plan production
In fact even if they did find more than thirty years supply it might not be good to say that as that could push prices down if the stuff is abundant like coal is.with newer methods of mining there would not be issues for any stuff and we could expect all prices to drop including oil and gas on average when you take out price spikes .

The saddo pessimists had us with no oil gas gold iron before 2000 and wars were the result as we fought to get control of these scarce materials

Anyway from population to pollution the optimiststs so far 35 years later are 99.999999% correct and the saddos are still at it trying to prove the end is nigh


So recently when I checked out who are all these saddo types we find that often they are deeply embedded in the UN who write this crap the end is nigh

They come from groups that after WW2 who worked for eugenics organization in the USA and Nazi Germany that dont want the world population to increase

These sicko types embed themselves in universities and bend and distort data from CO2 through to suedo science population control methods like one child policy and work closely with big industrialists and rich ranging from Microsoft Bill gates who wants to make one child policy through his planned parenthood charity even if that includes murdering new born babes and sicko like the British royal family that sponsor the sicko like Porrit on the Sunday times over population tripe
Just google Bill Gates and eugenics and and the British royal family sponsors one child policy and you see the scum for what they are and they are only the tip of the UN eugenics machine that want to use suedo science to justify why they need to kill off 90% of the planets population to save the planet for the elite the eugenic type


A few good site that explains a 101 on eugenics population cull maybe 2012 or 2015 or 2020 but ramping up soon to place near to you with your number on the cull list and what it is all about is www.infowars.com and www.wiseupjournal.com

The difference is I think the hope for UN cull of 90% of the world population will be stopped when enough people wake up and see overpopulation is a complete suedo science lie


Derry

*Cough* http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

nyarlothothep

derry wrote: »

I was lucky compared to a lot of the saddos out there brainwashed by the media that our goose is cooked.

In the 1970 era I read a book in Easons ( was too young to pay the fee as it was pricy book)

The book was divided into two parts
One part was written by experts or scientists in their field who took a optimistic view point

The other part was written by experts or scientists in their field who took a pessimistic view point

On the subjects of farming and food production the optimists said no problem new solutions and the fact the that we haven't scathed the surface of the issue food production could ramp up to support a doubling or tripling of the 1970 population without any strains .The extra inputs could support 10 times if necessary.Then they went further they figured not only was 100 fold population not a problem to feed but even a thousand fold wasn't straining the planet.They even predicted a 10,000 times population was supportable.
Remember the 1840 Ireland with primitive farming supported 10,000,000 Irish and probably with exports another 40 million British before the potato famine wiped us Irish out because the British were happy to cull us Irish in case we made a revolution.

The saddo pessimist experts had us all starving to death in world famines from 1990 through to 2000

The other optimistic experts for mining everything iron oil gold whatever stated that mining companies rarely find thirty years ore or oil gas whatever in advance as they only need thirty years to plan production
In fact even if they did find more than thirty years supply it might not be good to say that as that could push prices down if the stuff is abundant like coal is.with newer methods of mining there would not be issues for any stuff and we could expect all prices to drop including oil and gas on average when you take out price spikes .

The saddo pessimists had us with no oil gas gold iron before 2000 and wars were the result as we fought to get control of these scarce materials

Anyway from population to pollution the optimiststs so far 35 years later are 99.999999% correct and the saddos are still at it trying to prove the end is nigh


So recently when I checked out who are all these saddo types we find that often they are deeply embedded in the UN who write this crap the end is nigh

They come from groups that after WW2 who worked for eugenics organization in the USA and Nazi Germany that dont want the world population to increase

These sicko types embed themselves in universities and bend and distort data from CO2 through to suedo science population control methods like one child policy and work closely with big industrialists and rich ranging from Microsoft Bill gates who wants to make one child policy through his planned parenthood charity even if that includes murdering new born babes and sicko like the British royal family that sponsor the sicko like Porrit on the Sunday times over population tripe
Just google Bill Gates and eugenics and and the British royal family sponsors one child policy and you see the scum for what they are and they are only the tip of the UN eugenics machine that want to use suedo science to justify why they need to kill off 90% of the planets population to save the planet for the elite the eugenic type


A few good site that explains a 101 on eugenics population cull maybe 2012 or 2015 or 2020 but ramping up soon to place near to you with your number on the cull list and what it is all about is www.infowars.com and www.wiseupjournal.com

The difference is I think the hope for UN cull of 90% of the world population will be stopped when enough people wake up and see overpopulation is a complete suedo science lie


Derry

The principle is sound though. Colony collapse can result from overpopulation and insufficient resources. Ingenuity can only go so far, its best to play it safe rather than reckless. The idea of population reduction needn't entail killing off huge swathes of people. Populations in 1st world countries remain relatively stable. I think if you improve the economies/living standards of 3rd world nations and combine it with education you could see a sharp drop off in population growth.

Capt'n Midnight

our population growth rate is decreasinig and we will peak at 11Bn people if current trends continue.

we have enough twind / wave /sea power for a population that size

better recycling would mean we need less minerals


then again by then we will have wiped out half the species in the world


long term we need self substaining colonies in space

bonkey

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I think if you improve the economies/living standards of 3rd world nations and combine it with education you could see a sharp drop off in population growth.

The problem is that doing this would lead to a sharp increase in resource-usage or a massive redistribution of resource-usage. Both of these options have problems...

If resource-usage is utimately the problem behind popoulation growth, then increasing resource usage to stabilise population requires that we have that much spare capacity. Its far from certain that we do (as if we did, people wouldn't be so worried about current resource limits).

Conversely, we could have resource redistribution...which would primarily mean that the so-called first-world nations cut back massively on their consumption. I can't remember the figures exactly, but I think its something like the average American consumes 7x their "fair share" of resources, and the average European 5x. So while many are quick to look at the rich / super-rich and insist that they have to be stopped, they're less quick to agree that they need to but back by 80% as part of a fair solution.