Overpopulation

c.p.w.g.w

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404253#Comment_118404253

How does one fertilize the land without fossil fuels?

Also if your mono crop you will deplete the soil...also lots of current farm land is only useful to livestock and useless for crops...

Also meat is the most nutritional dense food on the planet...

Now I agree with buying locally produced food...

My food for the week

Liver, Beef Mince, Bacon & Steak all Irish

Eggs, Butter, Mushroom & Cream all Irish

Cheese, Tomatoes, olive's from France, Greece & Spain

It's as local as I could get this week...

But my environmentally conscious sister

Avocado from South American

Quinoa from Bolivia

Fish from South America(farmed)

Soya made meat substitute's from America, China & some other country I can't remember

Rice from India

Lentils from India & Canada

Oats from Eastern Europe

Fake Cheese from what seems like every corner of the world

Fake milk from America almonds along with some strange ingredients and sweeteners

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408472#Comment_118408472

A social insurance net for every country, nobody should fear starvation

And yet, people do continue to starve in first world nations who might have welfare systems or other support systems in place.

In any case though, it's simply impractical to believe that all nations can provide such a guarantee for support to everyone, everywhere.

Its a nice thought, but terribly unrealistic.

Women to have access to education

What about men? Lack of education is a problem for both genders throughout the world, and there is already a decidedly strong focus within NGOs and the UN sponsored initiatives towards women... and far less for men. Just as there are a wide variety of university level sponsorship programs for women, based entirely on their gender, and none for men. Because it is sexist to have such initiatives for men, based entirely on their gender.

Global health

Who will pay for it? Genuinely curious. Also how will you determine and establish standardisation of health services globally? There are huge differences in perceptions regarding what's health around the world.

Bear in mind that global health, means people living longer, and likely having more children too. In addition to the costs to nations to provide such services, which means a greater emphasis on economic development, and taxation to pay for it all... likely leading to further wealth inequalities., and corruption, which in turn, leads to the end of Global anything...

All nice ideas, but who pays for them, and ensures that they're implemented fairly?

igCorcaigh

The push on individuals to make lifestyle choices won't fix this. There needs to be a re-engineering of the whole system. But we don't have control over it. Big leadership is needed, but I have no faith in current world leaders. We're foocked.

igCorcaigh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408554#Comment_118408554

We will all pay for it (there is no lack of money in the world!). It can be achieved. How is it that we can go to the moon, but can't provide food for children?

It's a political choice. It can be done, I'm sure of it. These are really very basic goals.

igCorcaigh

An international agreement that provides each person on this planet a basic security net; a dole of sorts. And a guarantee of basic health care and education.

How much would it cost?

We bailed out the banks, can we bail out our children of the planet, no?

Thelonious Monk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408618#Comment_118408618

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to all your newsletters

mickuhaha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408618#Comment_118408618

Well it would cost somewhere in the region of 330billion dollars at estimates this year to end world hunger alone. That is 1.3 percent of the American GDP or 75percent of Irish GDP. To give everyone the standard you set it would be many times that. You would also need to invade all the war torn countries and set up a government and so on.

bb1234567

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118405122#Comment_118405122

The consumption needs to be sustainable, and not excessive. Some things simply need to change, yes ecnomic growth has been great but it can't go on forever , we simply need to accept that that has to be the case. Plenty of jobs are not dependent on consumption anyway, we need to add more of them to offset a more moderated lifestyle.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058225433/overpopulation

Cool. Lead by example. Don't reproduce.

c.p.w.g.w

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408914#Comment_118408914

Was out and about the other day, misses brings me into a home decor/furniture place... majority of the stuff cheaply made and from China, almost guaranteed to break or be out of style within 3 years... absolute waste of money...I have been trying to reduce the stuff I own over the past 24 months...I have been wearing items of clothing to death but I only realised how many t-shirts I actually had from qwertee actually embarrassing and OTT

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408618#Comment_118408618

how about other states agree to run themselves in a responsible manner so that other countries who have done so can invest their taxpayers money at home, improving their own healthcare, transport, education and social, as well as welfare support structures..

No point in an ‘international’ agreement to fix a problem that is facilitated by the very people making themselves ‘available’ for help.

A lot of 3rd world countries seem to be working towards a western consumerist lifestyle, wanting to emulate our wasteful way of life. Work, earn money and spend it on consumerist rubbish. The planet is in for a rough couple of hundred years imo. Striping the earth of its resources to make tat. Polluting the planet in the process. Destroying and encroaching on habitats as we go and killing off much of the beautiful wildlife. It feels pretty hopeless to me. I hope we can sort it out but I'm pessimistic.

joseywhales

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118406009#Comment_118406009

I guess what I am saying is that we will not have population growth in 100 years, we will be in population decline. For multiple reasons. Individual personal greed, education, access to contraception, climate change, new disease from environmental decline and intensive animal farming, pollution, geo political instability from all of the above. I don't think we have to worry about over population, nature will rebalance the scales.

whisky_galore

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408995#Comment_118408995

Nail on the head.

Given the choice an African would prefer our way of life than be given a Bóthar goat and a pat on head for being a great lad.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404735#Comment_118404735

Stuff and nonsense. Just look at the CO2 curve - once industrialization and technology pulled people from farms into cities, population exploded and we've surpassed carrying capacity for the ecosystem. Adding more people to the mix won't fix it. Reducing the number of people will reduce those that are impacted by the worsening weather and resource crises. Population density is always going to be an issue - you're not going to put surplus sub-Saharan population into the Sahara desert, nor are you going to make it bloom on a scale that it can support that much life.

And by the time we've done playing around with CO2 capture and electric airplanes, Toronto will be an oceanfront address.

Pawwed Rig

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408527#Comment_118408527

No idea mate. I know nothing about farming. But that wasn't my point. I was just responding to another poster who said Gretta has no solutions when she does.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408583#Comment_118408583

Going to the moon was a purely technical operation, involving science and innovation. It also helped considerably that there was competition between USSR Communism, and US Capitalism. A race between ideologies. It's also an interesting example to use, considering the funding used by nations, was taken away from social projects, such as providing for the poor.

Your goals are only realistic if we manage to remove everything that makes humans human. Our sense of self, self-interest, corruption, greed, jealousy, etc. So,.. not realistic at all.

And honestly, probably not a good idea anyway. We're already dealing with high population in most places, with the associated strain of providing for that population... and in most cases, those economies are struggling to do so. (besides all the waste from those economies)

Thelonious Monk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408936#Comment_118408936

Yes, Ireland is a huge customer for cheap Chinese tat yet deniers like to blame China for everything yet we and the other rich countries are the ones fuelling their factories.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408583#Comment_118408583

Jim Hacker: "Maths has become politicized: 'If it costs 5 billion pounds a year to maintain Britain's nuclear defences and 75 pounds a year to feed a starving African child, how many African children can be saved from starvation if the Ministry of Defence abandoned nuclear weapons?'"

Sir Humphrey: "That's easy: none. They'd spend it all on conventional weapons."

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408995#Comment_118408995

I'd say you were being realistic. The only people talking/caring about the environment are those who already have access to a high standard of living. Those underdeveloped nations will do anything they can to narrow the difference between their lifestyles and those of western societies.

We're nowhere near the tech level needed to elevate other countries without destroying the environment around them, nor are those countries that have achieved the higher standard, truly capable of maintaining that standard without damaging the environment. Every environment friendly action is incredibly expensive, and typically, isn't all that effective once the propaganda is dismissed. To establish effective environmental practices in first world nations would likely cripple those economies, economies that are already struggling to provide for the current status quo.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118409561#Comment_118409561

Modern appliances are designed to break down after a few years. It doesn't matter that they're produced in China. High quality fridges, and other appliances produced in Germany or other western nations, often break down within less than a decade. Just look at Apple products who tend to have an effective expiry of less than five years. Phones are a particularly good example of this, with people replacing phones after a few years, even though they're essentially still fit-for-purpose. (I have a gas cooker I got from my parents, and it's still working almost the same when they bought it 40 years ago.. whereas their own cooker has been replaced twice over the last two decades.. all of whom were designed and produced in the West)

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118409569#Comment_118409569

we need to radically change the way we re approaching running our economies, for example, most money thats created goes towards none productive means such as inflating asset prices, this is truly unsustainable, and financially only truly benefits minorities. we actually dont need to reduce our standard of living, in order to achieve our environmental changes and needs, we just need to make fundamental changes such as.....

Hamachi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404941#Comment_118404941

Thanks for this fascinating post. Really interesting to see the almost global plunge in fertility rates, with the notable exception of sub-Saharan Africa.

Couple of other data points I thought I might add to this. The fertility rate in Korea has dropped to an astonishingly low 0.72. This is just one third of the level required for population replacement. There really is no way back from this incredibly low rate and the country is irrevocably trapped into a pattern of terminal decline at this point.

Reading an article recently, it’s been suggested that India slipped below 2.0 in 2021. Indeed, the southern Indian states have been below this threshold for almost a decade. As you say, the Indian population will grow due to the tempo effect for several decades, but will begin to decline before 2050.

Germany is an interesting case. The country has been a laggard for many decades, with fertility rates of 1.3-1.4 since the late ‘70s / early ‘80s. However, in recent years the fertility rate has exceeded 1.6 and is now higher than the US, China, the UK and isn’t far behind Brazil. The gut reaction is to attribute this increase to the migrant influx in 2015. However, I’m not so sure. I used to live there and anecdotally, many of my German friends and acquaintances have had a couple of kids in their late 30s and early 40s. Also when I visit the country, the overwhelming majority of the women I see with babies and young children are native Germans.

I’m interested in how you see trends playing out in Ireland. We’re currently at 1.6-1.7. However, we were at near replacement fertility as recently as 2015/2016. In my view, I believe we are in a mid-pandemic slump and should see a recovery to 1.8/1.9 in the coming years. The ideal scenario for a small country like Ireland is to maintain near replacement fertility of 1.9/2.0 which keeps the population relatively youthful and supplement any skills gaps with small numbers of highly skilled migrants. In terms of demography, I feel like this is the path Ireland should pursue.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118410337#Comment_118410337

we ve all been conditioned to purchase cheap, not all have access to money to purchase more expensive products either....

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118409599#Comment_118409599

It's in the interests of governments that the overall cost that people are required to pay increases over time, because it limits the power of the people as a group. Its little surprise why politicians typically gain more income and benefits than the average person. Lower the cost of, well, everything and we'd establish a much healthier and better society.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118410337#Comment_118410337

I didn't say that the quality was less, rather that they're designed to expire or be of less use over time. Companies want people to buy new products.. which is why the repair or upgrading of products often is more expensive than the purchase of a new item.

As for computers, my own laptop is over a decade old, bought it in China, and still works reasonably well. So, I understand your reference, but the fact remains that there are heaps of products out there that have been designed to need replacing after a few years, rather than providing a product that will last 30-40 years.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118410502#Comment_118410502

many goods are now designed to fail quicker than before, its the dysfunctional outcome that has been created, largely due to the financialisation of our economies, wage inflation has slowed dramatically in this time, and is in fact stagnant for many, theres virtually nothing comparable towards the economy of the 80's to now

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118410504#Comment_118410504

state power has been significantly reduced also in this time, the true axis of power is now held within major institutions, corporations etc etc, hence why governments are now effectively unable to make any major changes in society, unless it suits these axis of power.

there are limitations to the reduction of costs, to the point, workers are simply unable to purchase the goods and services produced, there are also other limitations....

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058225433/overpopulation

Maybe, but it's not a sexy solution :)

Thelonious Monk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118410690#Comment_118410690

Because it isnt the the solution. If we halved world population we'd still destroy the earth in no time. We need to consume far less and live differently.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118411217#Comment_118411217

And for a debunking of political scientist Lomborg's bad mathematics, see https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/ . Summary: it's worse than Lomborg states by quite a bit.

Igotadose

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118411358#Comment_118411358

Meh. Lomborg's got expertise in cherry picking data, and breezing past data that refutes him. He's best ignored, just publishes things to get a rise out of people (and money in his pocket.) Another good review of his crap book: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/10/09/opinion/bjorn-lomborgs-false-comfort