The seven deadly things we’re doing to trash the planet (and human life with it)

gk5000

K-9 wrote: »

That's the only answer?

No of course not. It's the correct answer to a stupid question.

If someone complains that the world is overpopulated then the only possible answer is to remove them or somebody else - so I prefer to remove them. Let's face it they are not very happy to be here anyway.

gk5000

Peregrine wrote: »

When that utility is water or fresh air, it's time to look at the system.

Are either scarce in Ireland ? Water, rain or fresh air - get out of the city if you must - but again , stop with the bs.

Capt'n Midnight

gk5000 wrote: »

Do you want to go back to the stone-age?

The capitalist system is not all bad - in that if something is becoming over- utilised or scarce, then the price goes up "saving it" and encouraging people to look elsewhere.

LOL that's so naive.

The sharp edge of capitalism is where you asset strip and move on.

There's no point in pretending shareholders and executives care about whales or even sustainable whaling. It costs money to replace whaling ships and the best return on investment would be to kill as many whales as possible before the ships are completely clapped out and invest the proceeds in a completely different business venture.

Like our behaviour in the environment. We do so well because we can use resources in one ecosystem to harvest them in another. This makes us fairly immune from feedback, at least as long as there are remaining ecosystems to exploit.

SeanW

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Great article here on the current state of things

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/seven-deadly-things-trash-planet-human-life

Hyper consumption, corporations running the world, almost 2 billion vehicles on the roads, human population, monoculture and poor soil, inequality and poverty

...

Does anyone have any plans to try and change their lifestyles for the greater good?

There's consumption and there's consumption.

For example, if you spend all your money on locally grown organic food, that's "consumption" the same as if you spend all your money on cheaply made Chinese rubbish that you use for 6 months and then throw away. Likewise energy - consuming a moderate amount of energy from filthy coal fired power plants or lots of petroleum distillates in a large car, is a little more serious than consuming lots of electricity, e.g powering more devices from non-fossil sources and traveling more by train or by a more fuel efficient car.

The problem isn't "consumption" it's badly planned consumption. You can have an even better quality of life if the consumption required for that is planned properly.

What can I do to make this happen? Unfortunately, sod all. However, there are steps that I take and that we can all take. I can, and do, as we all should support an array of plans that would make more consumption, less destructive by far:

1. Public transport, especially electric trains. We can help by advocating for the expansion and electrification of our railway network.
2. Nuclear power. The facts on nuclear electricity are clear: nuclear energy provides vast quantities of clean, virtually CO2 free electricity regardless of the weather. It's one of the safest forms of electricity that there are (those figures include Chernobyl and Fukushima). It avoids vast quantities of CO2 emissions. It's very cost effective (as shown by electricity costs in France) especially vis-a-vis "renewables" which have to be subsidised out the wazoozoo as you see in Germany and Denmark where costs are higher CO2 output per kwh figures are dramatically worse. They avoid the need to sacrifice our bat populations at the alter of green energy (wind turbines are an even greater existential threat to bats than White Nose Syndrome, which itself is driving some species to near extinction). Oh and, they are now, due to advances in the recovery of uranium from seawater, totally renewable.

If you really want to save the planet, reject Greenpeace's absurd anti-nuclear horse manure. Advocate for non-destructive forms of CO2-limited power generation. Act to support any nuclear plant proposals that you can, to protect existing reactors from premature closure and to ensure that those too old to use are replaced like-for-like preferably bigger. Use this stance to justify absolute, implacable opposition to any unnecessary fossil fuel usage, in power plants or anywhere else. Make sure that people are properly informed about what is actually going on.

Peregrine wrote: »

When that utility is water or fresh air, it's time to look at the system.

Actually, water is a perfect example. Say that water is paid for according to market rules, i.e. all users must pay per gallon, based on supply and demand, regardless of usage type. Now, according to the paper above:

It takes an average of 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat in modern Western farming systems. It takes 5,214 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef.

Say that water becomes scarce in a given region. If you want to eat half a pound of beef every day in that place and time, you will have to pay indirectly through the beef price, for 2,607 gallons of water. Each day. But you require approximately a half a gallon to drink and remain hydrated ... which is a little more important, to say the least, and requires a lot less of the resource to fulfill the need.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what would likely happen to the consumption/production of beef in a water scarcity situation under a market economy.

It should also be apparent that a higher price not only limits frivolous use but also spurs more supply - if the price of water skyrockets, alternative supplies are found, desalination projects and so on, so the surge is halted.

K-9

gk5000 wrote: »

No of course not. It's the correct answer to a stupid question.

If someone complains that the world is overpopulated then the only possible answer is to remove them or somebody else - so I prefer to remove them. Let's face it they are not very happy to be here anyway.

You've just basically given the same answer as you did previously.

oneilla

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Easter Island failed because an isolated land was consumed until nothing was left.

That's the Jared Diamond hypothesis but there's still ongoing research to figure out what caused the population decline. The arrival of Europeans with diseases and slavery can't have helped.

sbsquarepants

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem is animals don't so much find a harmony as get forced into one. .

Exactly. Nature doesn't give a toss about anything. It's cold and uncaring, full to the brim with savages eating the babies of others. Humans can be cruel, but only really psychopaths are anything like as uncaring as nature itself!

ScumLord wrote: »

Humans are the only animal that actively tries to minimise its effect on the environment.

True, but also the only one really capable of global scale damage. At the moment I think it's fairly clear we're doing more harm than good.

dodderangler wrote: »

I'm not scientist or anything but I've a feeling that in next 40 years the planet is basically on its way out. Human population is growing way too fast and animal populations are dropping big time. I can't see any farm animals going extinct but if we keep growing the amount of farms will explode all over the place and with it the forestry and lands will be cut down and used. .

Whereas there could well be some catastrophic event that decimates the worlds population, it's fairly unlikely that we will actually go extinct. It's hard to imagine anything killing everyone and people are not dinosaurs - we aren't at the mercy of the elements like other animals are.
If it gets hot we can cool ourselves, if it gets cold we can heat ourselves, we can access food and resources that other animals just can't. We're extremely clever omnivores, we can and will survive where they would die. It may well be a very different world, but I find it really hard to imagine a world without people somewhere surviving.
We are not just a step above we are a league above. For all the talk about how stupid we are destroying the planet with our technology, people tend to forget that we have that technology in the first place - the next animal in line is a chimp who has figured out he can open a nut by banging it with a rock - the day bubbles rocks up with a chimp nespresso machine, or sends the first chimpsat into orbit then we have a bit of competition!

dodderangler wrote: »

There's about 15 animals alive now that I don't think will be around except for zoos in next 5 years.

There's probably 15 animals alive now that will be extinct by the end of the week. Nature doesn't care about us or about anything in fact - we care about nature (Well some of us do)
There's a strange double standard of people crying over the demise of polar bears, but not giving a toss when one bashes a poor seals head in for it's dinner! All animals view other animals as food.
That cuddly lion would eat you if it could. Peoples cats eat them sometimes ffs!

SeanW wrote: »

If you want to eat half a pound of beef every day in that place and time, you will have to pay indirectly through the beef price, for 2,607 gallons of water. Each day. But you require approximately a half a gallon to drink and remain hydrated ... which is a little more important, to say the least, and requires a lot less of the resource to fulfill the need.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what would likely happen to the consumption/production of beef in a water scarcity situation under a market economy.

It should also be apparent that a higher price not only limits frivolous use but also spurs more supply - if the price of water skyrockets, alternative supplies are found, desalination projects and so on, so the surge is halted.

I've heard this type of figure before - but I don't really understand where it comes from. How much of that water is actually wasted?
For example if you take water from a river and spray it on the land to water crops or grass for your cows, the water isn't gone - it's just at a different stage in the water cycle - eventually it should find it's way back into a river.
Now, i'll admit I have no idea how long this cycle takes, so I accept it is entirely conceivable that you could run out of useable water well before the system repeats itself. Is this what they mean?

archer22

There is not a hope in hell that the world will continue on as it is.
The process has already begun and there is nothing to stop it...even slowing down the process now would require every Human to make big changes to the way they live their lives...Fossil fuel consumption has to end, meat consumption has to be hugely reduced and there has to be strict population control with the aim of a greatly reduced population and all governments on the planet would have to cooperate on doing this.
None of that is ever going to happen...humans by their very nature are incapable of such a cooperative venture.
So the future is
Rising Sea levels with flooding of the world's largest population centres most of which are coastal, leading to displacement of billions of people and breakdown of law and order
Flooding and droughts affecting all of the planet, massive numbers of refugees
Nations fighting to survive try to grab any resources their neighbours have leading to war including nuclear for those powers that possess them.
The combination of rising seas a mixture of floods droughts and massive storms across the planet, nuclear war,vast human displacement leading to disease and starvation.
Of we might try to prevent all that ever happening by changing everything and all cooperating and making sacrifices now while there is still time to minimise the disaster...Some hope LOL.
Of course the last resort is to seek solace in delusion.Such as all ten billion of us getting into our space mobiles and flying off to some new home in the galaxy 3000 light years away.

Seth Brundle

archer22 wrote: »

There is not a hope in hell that the world will continue on as it is.
The process has already begun and there is nothing to stop it...even slowing down the process now would require every Human to make big changes to the way they live their lives...Fossil fuel consumption has to end, meat consumption has to be hugely reduced and there has to be strict population control with the aim of a greatly reduced population and all governments on the planet would have to cooperate on doing this.
None of that is ever going to happen...humans by their very nature are incapable of such a cooperative venture.
So the future is
Rising Sea levels with flooding of the world's largest population centres most of which are coastal, leading to displacement of billions of people and breakdown of law and order
Flooding and droughts affecting all of the planet, massive numbers of refugees
Nations fighting to survive try to grab any resources their neighbours have leading to war including nuclear for those powers that possess them.
The combination of rising seas a mixture of floods droughts and massive storms across the planet, nuclear war,vast human displacement leading to disease and starvation.
Of we might try to prevent all that ever happening by changing everything and all cooperating and making sacrifices now while there is still time to minimise the disaster...Some hope LOL.
Of course the last resort is to seek solace in delusion.Such as all ten billion of us getting into our space mobiles and flying off to some new home in the galaxy 3000 light years away.

...so nothing too serious then I see!

Widdershins

archer22 wrote: »

There is not a hope in hell that the world will continue on as it is.
The process has already begun and there is nothing to stop it...even slowing down the process now would require every Human to make big changes to the way they live their lives...Fossil fuel consumption has to end, meat consumption has to be hugely reduced and there has to be strict population control with the aim of a greatly reduced population and all governments on the planet would have to cooperate on doing this.
None of that is ever going to happen...humans by their very nature are incapable of such a cooperative venture.
So the future is
Rising Sea levels with flooding of the world's largest population centres most of which are coastal, leading to displacement of billions of people and breakdown of law and order
Flooding and droughts affecting all of the planet, massive numbers of refugees
Nations fighting to survive try to grab any resources their neighbours have leading to war including nuclear for those powers that possess them.
The combination of rising seas a mixture of floods droughts and massive storms across the planet, nuclear war,vast human displacement leading to disease and starvation.
Of we might try to prevent all that ever happening by changing everything and all cooperating and making sacrifices now while there is still time to minimise the disaster...Some hope LOL.
Of course the last resort is to seek solace in delusion.Such as all ten billion of us getting into our space mobiles and flying off to some new home in the galaxy 3000 light years away.

But on the bright side we have HIVE and Amazon Echo...yay... (Sarcasm!)

threeball

archer22 wrote: »

There is not a hope in hell that the world will continue on as it is.
The process has already begun and there is nothing to stop it...even slowing down the process now would require every Human to make big changes to the way they live their lives...Fossil fuel consumption has to end, meat consumption has to be hugely reduced and there has to be strict population control with the aim of a greatly reduced population and all governments on the planet would have to cooperate on doing this.
None of that is ever going to happen...humans by their very nature are incapable of such a cooperative venture.
So the future is
Rising Sea levels with flooding of the world's largest population centres most of which are coastal, leading to displacement of billions of people and breakdown of law and order
Flooding and droughts affecting all of the planet, massive numbers of refugees
Nations fighting to survive try to grab any resources their neighbours have leading to war including nuclear for those powers that possess them.
The combination of rising seas a mixture of floods droughts and massive storms across the planet, nuclear war,vast human displacement leading to disease and starvation.
Of we might try to prevent all that ever happening by changing everything and all cooperating and making sacrifices now while there is still time to minimise the disaster...Some hope LOL.
Of course the last resort is to seek solace in delusion.Such as all ten billion of us getting into our space mobiles and flying off to some new home in the galaxy 3000 light years away.

I would have to agree. I would imagine that there is less than 100yrs left for the world as we know it. Children alive today or your at least your childrens children will fighting wars over fresh water

Wanderer78

I would include 'financial terrorism' to the long list. We're goosed really, even Chomsky thinks we may not make it into the next century

Dr Crayfish

I find this article bloody terrifying. Why isn't it front page news?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/22/ice-melting-temperatures-forecast-for-arctic-midwinter

I don't eat that much meat anyway, but I'm going to try a few weeks without it in January, with the aim of giving it up altogether or cutting it down to a couple of times a week, which is realistically how often we all should be eating meat.
It won't make any difference I know but I'm feeling very guilty lately whenever I buy meat, especially red meat.

threeball

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I find this article bloody terrifying. Why isn't it front page news?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/22/ice-melting-temperatures-forecast-for-arctic-midwinter

I don't eat that much meat anyway, but I'm going to try a few weeks without it in January, with the aim of giving it up altogether or cutting it down to a couple of times a week, which is realistically how often we all should be eating meat.
It won't make any difference I know but I'm feeling very guilty lately whenever I buy meat, especially red meat.

Because people rather to spend their time worrying about Isis boogeymen rather than what's really going to affect them or more specifically their kids. Armageddon that's 100yrs away isn't sexy enough to get clicks

Widdershins

threeball wrote: »

Because people rather to spend their time worrying about Isis boogeymen rather than what's really going to affect them or more specifically their kids. Armageddon that's 100yrs away isn't sexy enough to get clicks

It should not need to be Armageddon to make people sit up and pay attention. I cannot believe how disconnected many people are.

About the natural world and animal kingdom sometimes being savage and cruel, yes, it can be, but that doesn't make it less precious.

Your Face

Someone should do something about this.

HigginsJ

Your Face wrote: »

Someone should do something about this.

Stop reading the Guardian maybe......

gk5000

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I find this article bloody terrifying. Why isn't it front page news?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/22/ice-melting-temperatures-forecast-for-arctic-midwinter

I don't eat that much meat anyway, but I'm going to try a few weeks without it in January, with the aim of giving it up altogether or cutting it down to a couple of times a week, which is realistically how often we all should be eating meat.
It won't make any difference I know but I'm feeling very guilty lately whenever I buy meat, especially red meat.

Why do some people decide they have a right to dictate what others "should do"?
Live you own life and leave the rest of us out it. We can all make up our own minds.

HigginsJ

gk5000 wrote: »

Why do some people decide they have a right to dictate what others "should do"?
Live you own life and leave the rest of us out it. We can all make up our own minds.

Free will, pssssshhhh!! You need to do as you are told by all of the various bleeding heart brigades :rolleyes:

Saipanne

Hande hoche! wrote: »

We need to colonise Mars. Admittedly we will probably end up destroying it too...

Destroying what? It's a desert.

Saipanne

gk5000 wrote: »

Why do some people decide they have a right to dictate what others "should do"?.

Because they know better.

That's the scary thing about the left. I mean, the right are cnuts and unashamed of it. I don't agree with them, but they are what they are, so I sort of respect that. But the left genuinely think they are "good". They don't seem to realise that they are cnuts too. They are terrifying.

Dr Crayfish

gk5000 wrote: »

Why do some people decide they have a right to dictate what others "should do"?
Live you own life and leave the rest of us out it. We can all make up our own minds.

People shouldn't steal. People shouldn't murder.
I believe people should eat less meat for the sake of the planet. Sorry if that offends you but the actions of others affect me too.

Dr Crayfish

Saipanne wrote: »

Because they know better.

That's the scary thing about the left. I mean, the right are cnuts and unashamed of it. I don't agree with them, but they are what they are, so I sort of respect that. But the left genuinely think they are "good". They don't seem to realise that they are cnuts too. They are terrifying.

I mentioned meat. Do you think meat consumption should be reduced, or should we allow it to increase, as it is doing so now, as the world population increases?

You'd swear I was some lefty loony. This is just common sense.

Saipanne

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

I mentioned meat. Do you think meat consumption should be reduced, or should we allow it to increase, as it is doing so now, as the world population increases?

You'd swear I was some lefty loony. This is just common sense.

I think the human race is doomed to extinction. Life will go on without us. The world will go on without us.

Until the Sun consumes the planet in a billion years.

Then the Sun will die.

The last star will die.

All life will die.

Then the universe will reach maximum entropy. Dead forever.


Merry Christmas.

topper75

Roger_007 wrote: »

The biggest threat to the survival of the human race is medical science.
Species of life only survive by evolution.....the survival of the fittest. Medical advances mean that almost everyone survives long enough to reproduce. Defective genes will become ever more prevalent in the population thereby throwing evolution into reverse.
As this process will take many generations, I'm not personally worried by it. In the meantime I will avail of any medical advances available to make my life as easy as possible.

And here in the West ... social welfare*. We not only allow the unfit to survive, we bloody farm them.

*And no I'm not talking about people between jobs, genuine illnesses, or elderly who have worked all their lives. I'm talking about those who turned an intended safety net into a sickbed for life and who breed like rabbits.

topper75

K-9 wrote: »

What if Capitalism is the problem?

The denial of supply and demand and other economic reality is not the answer we need.

A lot of talk in this thread about supply of resources. Demand is the real issue here. We are at 7.5b - but the current absolute measure isn't even it - it is the trend: exponential. Not sustainable.

In most ecosystems, equilibrium is restored through two methods and two methods only - restrained reproduction or a die-off.

Choose humans and choose wisely.

cerastes

eeguy wrote: »

Problem is to solve these issues you have to put millions out of work.
Want to stop consumerism? Millions of factory workers out on their ear.
Forestry, car manufacturer, oil production, intensive farming etc etc etc is all the same.
Great doc a while back about logging in the Amazon. Guy says "surely you know the environmental impact of what you're doing. "
Logger says "Yeah, but it's either this or starve."

Unless you can make it profitable to save the world, no one will do it.

So the answer is, less people. Horrific as it sounds, the current global ecosystems would be better off if we declined our populations via some pandemic potentially of our own doing, or maybe a meteor strike that hits one of the major powers in the world, that leads to a financial meltdown, although that might lead to a global war or large regional conflicts as other nations prey on any weaknesses or try to secure resources.In fact something like that might even advance the timeline of what is coming, which will be nations and alliances securing limiting resources via military and economic might.

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Right. But one European probably consumes 200 times as much as a poor African. I don't know the exact figures, but I remember reading somewhere that an American consumes about 350 times as much resources as a Bangladeshi.

So we can't really point the finger at uneducated Africans who have loads of babies.

I disagree, although I still think its wrong to pin down a specific grouping of people as the specific problem, its all people. I appreciate westerners impacts are large. A link at the end of the first page shows they consume more energy, that isnt necessarily about impact on the environment. There are large population centers in 3rd world countries having a disproportional effect on their environments, Id say with poor regulation regarding environmental concerns and modern technology they may be having a worse effect on their environment than many western nations.
Western nations wouldnt consume resources equally poorly nor would their constituent inhabitants, overall, I think poverty affects most if not all of the issues in most 3rd world countries which is impressed upon them by capitalism, corporations and mainly western nations (politics).

Overall, the problem is western politics, capitalism and outright just too many people

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Greenwashing hogwash

Do you know how much fuel a business jet uses ?
Each trip could use more fuel than the average motorist here uses in 10 years.
If you are a low mileage driver then a return trip, which they usually are, could use more fuel than you will ever because by then it'll all be self driving electric cars.

Most people dont fly by business jet, I dont know, but Id imagine the overall fuel consumption per person per distance is quite good on a standard 737, probably becomes excellent on something like the Airbus380, that said, thats fuel consumption, the effect on the environment is likely to be phenomenal as the whole industry required to support aviation adds up to more than even the effects that aircraft has in its environment (at altitude), all the concrete/tarmac laid all the energy expended there.

gk5000 wrote: »

No of course not. It's the correct answer to a stupid question.

If someone complains that the world is overpopulated then the only possible answer is to remove them or somebody else - so I prefer to remove them. Let's face it they are not very happy to be here anyway.

The world is overpopulated for the way it's managed, and that is non existant. There needs to be a significant reduction in consumption, and driving electric cars isnt going to cut it, we need serious reduction in population, less people living a better standard of life, and a lower impact on the planet, or we as a species wont be here, which unfortunately is the way I think we are heading.
I think the planet could even sustain the current population if there was some global plan for managing population/our use of resources and our impact on the environment.I just dont see what the need for us is to keep churning out babies. It would be better if there was population reduction over time. People need to be incentivised to just have 1 or 2 children maximum.
But I think at some point population control may come not of our own doing but imposed by nature due to how we affect the environment.

oneilla wrote: »

That's the Jared Diamond hypothesis but there's still ongoing research to figure out what caused the population decline. The arrival of Europeans with diseases and slavery can't have helped.

Easter island was in decline by the time the Europeans arrived. Its a great analogy for us as a people globaly. I believe they went to war over declining resources in the end.

MRnotlob606

The thing is all these things are happening. But nobody in the world really gives a f**ck if saving the world means cutting into their profits.

ScumLord

Saipanne wrote: »

I think the human race is doomed to extinction. Life will go on without us. The world will go on without us.

It would take something pretty serious to make humans go extinct. There's humans living in just about every environment on earth, if there's food on the face on the planet we'll find it.

But that means going back to tribal and nomadic lifestyles. What we can't support indefinitely is this modern lifestyle. People will survive, they'll just be surviving in a ****hole and there will be a lot less of us. Nature could potentially bounce back pretty quickly if the human population collapsed. We wouldn't even need a natural disaster for the human population to collapse, we're already living beyond our means and it's only possible through global trade. Anything that would interrupt that could cause a massive food shortage.

Saipanne

Fittingly, the wonderful In A Nutshell made a video on population growth.

https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348