nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The pope's encyclical, overpopulation and overconsumption

Jayzesake

The encyclical issued by the Pope yesterday gives great hope that as a species we may finally be starting to wake up to the severe harm we are doing to the planet's life support systems through habitat destruction, species extinction, pollution etc.

For example:

"33. It is not enough, however, to think of different species merely as potential “resources” to be exploited, while overlooking the fact that they have value in themselves. Each year sees the disappearance of thousands of plant and animal species which we will never know, which our children will never see, because they have been lost for ever. The great majority become extinct for reasons related to human activity. Because of us, thousands of species will no longer give glory to God by their very existence, nor convey their message to us. We have no such right."

WOW!!! is all I can say to this kind of stuff.

The importance of all of this cannot be overstated, in my opinion. Perhaps the only - small and to be expected - disappointment is that the impact of human overpopulation continues to be negated. Not surprising given the Church's position on contraception, the status of women, and so on.

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

But the Vatican statement is just that, a statement. No action planned or intended. Just rhetoric.

Woodville56

Malakai Aggressive Chess wrote: »

But the Vatican statement is just that, a statement. No action planned or intended. Just rhetoric.

I'm not sure how much influence the Catholic Church can wield in the climate change/environment issue or what actions it can initiate, but the Pope's letter surely must raise the debate a notch or two in public consciousness, and must be a positive development. Perhaps it could be seen as rhetoric but the very fact that he's bothered at all to address the issue (in the face of all the other church-religion issues requiring attention) says something about his environmental concerns for the world.

recedite

Jayzesake wrote: »

Perhaps the only - small and to be expected - disappointment is that the impact of human overpopulation continues to be negated. Not surprising given the Church's position on contraception, the status of women, and so on.

Its hardly a small thing, seeing as its the main reason for extinctions. Anyway, better that he says something, than nothing. Its another voice to add to all the others.
Perhaps he could start off things by introducing some energy saving/C02 reducing initiatives within the area of the Vatican.

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^^

or better still change the catholic church's ridiculous stance on birth control...seeing that the world's population is reaching crisis point

Jayzesake

Malakai Aggressive Chess wrote: »

But the Vatican statement is just that, a statement. No action planned or intended. Just rhetoric.

In fairness, no action ever takes place without being preceded by a change of thinking. On the first page of the bible it says that 'Man shall have dominion over all the birds, beasts, fishes, etc.', effectively saying all life on the planet is ours to dispose of as we see fit. Yesterday's encyclical completely and utterly breaks with that fundamental principal which has been followed for 2,000 years, and therefore should be seen as the ground-breaking statement (for them) that it is.

The timing is also obviously critical, with the make-or-break Paris conference on climate change in December. This development (the encyclical) has the potential to make a decisive difference there: with about 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide, this is far more difficult for big business to brush aside than, for e.g., the likes of Greenpeace and other environmental groups.

recedite wrote: »

Its hardly a small thing, seeing as its the main reason for extinctions.

(Somewhat) true, but again it has to be seen in the context of the history of the Catholic Church as an institution. For them to turn around and say 'overpopulation is a massive problem, and we have been wrong all along about birth control etc.' just isn't going to happen, being realistic about it. But what they have said is massive - that's why the right wing of the Republican Party is so hugely upset about it. Those of us who are concerned about issues like climate change, and our species' trashing of the natural world, need all the help we can get. (As long as it's genuine, and I think this is.)

Jayzesake

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^

or better still change the catholic church's ridiculous stance on birth control...seeing that the world's population is reaching crisis point

Any discussion of the question of overpopulation has been virtually taboo for decades now in wider society, and opposition to that very necessary discussion doesn't come only from the Catholic Church.

It's ground that very few environmentalists are now prepared to tread openly - contrary to the 60s and 70s when it was just another widely-discussed issue affecting the state of the planet - because the view that it's not PC (rich countries dictating to poor countries how many kids they can have, north-south imperialism, etc., etc.) has gained the upper hand and imposed a rigid censorship. It is a slightly tricky area, but an extremely important one; each and every one of us need to reject the taboo of talking about it.

But my first post above was more to talk about the enormous positives of yesterday's encyclical, rather than to point out the one omission that was inevitable anyway.

magicbastarder

anyone see chris packham's recent 'curating' (the word is horribly overused) of a night of programming on bbc4? he had two guests on, one being george monbiot; who took some exception at packham's lauding of attenborough's stance on overpopulation. to summarise his argument - people focus too much on overpopulation and not enough on consumption; the places where population is increasing most quickly are usually the places where the environmental footprint per person is the smallest.

Birdnuts

magicbastarder wrote: »

anyone see chris packham's recent 'curating' (the word is horribly overused) of a night of programming on bbc4? he had two guests on, one being george monbiot; who took some exception at packham's lauding of attenborough's stance on overpopulation. to summarise his argument - people focus too much on overpopulation and not enough on consumption; the places where population is increasing most quickly are usually the places where the environmental footprint per person is the smallest.

Maybe - but clearly there are many poorer countries like Egypt, Niger etc. that are clearly overpopulated given the availiable water,grazing etc. resources

Jayzesake

magicbastarder wrote: »

anyone see chris packham's recent 'curating' (the word is horribly overused) of a night of programming on bbc4? he had two guests on, one being george monbiot; who took some exception at packham's lauding of attenborough's stance on overpopulation. to summarise his argument - people focus too much on overpopulation and not enough on consumption; the places where population is increasing most quickly are usually the places where the environmental footprint per person is the smallest.

Monbiot is a very interesting thinker and speaker on many subjects, particularly those relating to how our relationship with the natural world could (or should) develop into the future. But when it comes to the question of human overpopulation, he is just plain wrong.

Paul Ehrlich, in 'The Population Bomb' (c. 1968), probably the most important book ever written on the subject, came up with a simple formula that explains it very well:

Impact on the environment (I) = Human Population (P) x Affluence (A) x Technology (T), or I = PAT

I.e., all of the factors in that equation (P, A, T,) are equally important in arriving at the sum of damage we cause to the planet (I).

I heard Ehrlich put it even more simply in a recently recorded interview, when he said that population and consumption are equally important in exactly the same way that both the length and height of a rectangle must be considered when calculating the area. Monbiot, perhaps for ideological reasons, choses to focus on one side of the rectangle and play down the other. I think at this point we need to go beyond ideologies in trying to understand the situation as it really is, and how best to deal with it.

Ehrlich also made the point that when he was born 70 years ago, the human population of the planet was about 2 billion. In those 70 years it has risen to 7 billion +, and counting, with projections for a peak at anywhere between 9 and 13 billion. Consider also that in relatively recent times (in evolutionary terms), 60,000 years ago, our numbers were very possibly no more that several thousand. It is simply nuts to say that this explosion in numbers is irrelevent to the damage we have caused (and are causing) as a species to the rest of life.

However, Monbiot is absolutely right in saying that in some parts of the world consumption is way too high (Ireland and the UK are perfect examples). One way of thinking about it is that in some parts of the world the height of the rectangle needs to come down, while in other parts it is the rapidly growing length that is the problem.

robp

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^

or better still change the catholic church's ridiculous stance on birth control...seeing that the world's population is reaching crisis point

There is no such thing as global overpopulation and there never has been. No serious social geographer believes in it any more. Overpopulation only exists only at a local level. The carrying capacity of the earth changes in every generation. For instance some of the most catastrophic anthropogenic extinctions occurred at the end of the last ice age when a tiny human population wiped vast numbers of megafauna. Poor expanding populations consume relatively little while wealthier Europeans vastly overconsume and waste resources. Overconsumption is the problem, not overpopulation.

robp

Birdnuts wrote: »

Maybe - but clearly there are many poorer countries like Egypt, Niger etc. that are clearly overpopulated given the availiable water,grazing etc. resources

But the average poor Nigerian and Egyptian is probably using relatively little water and agricultural land. Those countries are not the drivers of climate change. If every person on the planet was given a global resource allowance its not those guys who would have to change their behaviour, it is us. The over population argument is just a means to shift blame from the rich to the poor.

vistafinder

This was all the way back on page 11 of the Examiner yesterday needs to be on the front page in my opinion.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/scientists-man-has-triggered-earths-sixth-mass-extinction-338104.html

Our obsession with thinking getting rich is the way to happiness is what is doing the most damage.

Jayzesake

robp wrote: »

There is no such thing as global overpopulation and there never has been. Poor expanding populations consume relatively little while wealthier Europeans vastly overconsume and waste resources. Overconsumption is the problem, not overpopulation.

Poor expanding populations are forced to cut rainforest in order to try to feed their families, poor expanding populations are forced to hunt wildlife as bushmeat to feed their families leading to 'empty forest syndrome', poor expanding populations are forced to overgraze natural habitats with their livestock to try to feed their families etc., etc. It is not a question of overpopulation or overconsumption, both are responsible for the dramatic collapse in natural systems we are witnessing globally, as I said in my post above.

robp wrote: »

For instance some of the most catastrophic anthropogenic extinctions occurred at the end of the last ice age when a tiny human population wiped vast numbers of megafauna.

This is very true, and is a fact that has had huge repercussions on natural systems ever since, right up to the present day. Most natural habitats across the world are just like Africa would be (will soon be?) without its elephants, rhinos, hippos, lions, buffalo etc.: they don't function because essential keystone species are missing.

But the pleistocene extinctions should also be seen in terms of our tendency to pick the 'low hanging fruit' first, i.e. to begin by exploiting those resources (for e.g. megafauna) which give most return (food, prestige in the tribe etc.) for the least effort, before moving on to other resources once those are depleted (i.e. extinct) through overhunting. Those recources which we are continuing to deplete now are at the other end of the scale from the low hanging fruit. We are scraping the barrel, and overpopulation is definitely a major part of that.

recedite

Jayzesake wrote: »

Monbiot is a very interesting thinker and speaker on many subjects, particularly those relating to how our relationship with the natural world could (or should) develop into the future. But when it comes to the question of human overpopulation, he is just plain wrong.

Paul Ehrlich, in 'The Population Bomb' (c. 1968), probably the most important book ever written on the subject, came up with a simple formula that explains it very well:

Impact on the environment (I) = Human Population (P) x Affluence (A) x Technology (T), or I = PAT

This formula is outdated IMO, because it always treats technology and affluence as having a worsening effect. Maybe that was true in the times of the Industrial Revolution and the steam engine.
Monbiot was one of the earliest Greens to change stance on nuclear energy, suggesting that more nuclear was the only way to avoid climate change. And even now, a lot of people are sitting around waiting for some other unspecified technological solution. But the general feeling is that expensive technology will somehow save us by neutralising the harmful effects of consumption.
So the new equation would be; I=PC
Where C is consumption as opposed to affluence. It costs more to buy an electric car and eat organic food. You don't see poor people putting solar panels on their roof.

Monbiot would be well aware that both consumption and population come into it, so he was probably only having a go at Packham because Packham was concentrating on one while ignoring the other.

Jayzesake

recedite wrote: »

This formula is outdated IMO, because it always treats technology and affluence as having a worsening effect. Maybe that was true in the times of the Industrial Revolution and the steam engine.

...now, a lot of people are sitting around waiting for some other unspecified technological solution. But the general feeling is that expensive technology will somehow save us by neutralising the harmful effects of consumption.

Technology won't solve our problems; it just raises the carrying capacity of the environment, allowing people to have more and more kids, thereby placing an ever greater burden on the planet. That was true of the developent of language, the invention of the bow and arrow, agriculture, harnessing fossil fuels, the 'green' revolution, etc., etc. It is technology that gave rise to the most dramatic population explosion, i.e. that of the 20th century.

Affluence equals the ability to buy more stuff (consumption), which is exactly what people invariably do the more affluent they become, again placing an ever greater burden on the planet.

Sure, many people would like some easy techno solution to come along and wave away all the difficulties like a magic wand, because that would relieve them of the necessity of having to get up off their backsides and change things themselves. That's not going to happen.

Cork boy 55

You know the person who had the greatest positive impact on the environment of this planet? Genghis Khan, because he massacred 40 million people. There was no one to farm the land, forests grew back, carbon was dragged out of the atmosphere. And had this monster not existed, there'd be another billion of us today, jostling for space on this dying planet.

Birdnuts

robp wrote: »

But the average poor Nigerian and Egyptian is probably using relatively little water and agricultural land. Those countries are not the drivers of climate change. If every person on the planet was given a global resource allowance its not those guys who would have to change their behaviour, it is us. The over population argument is just a means to shift blame from the rich to the poor.

I'm not talking about climate change(whatever ones views on it are in terms of its actual significance). I'm taking about basic natural resources that are rapidly depleting in many of these countries, which in turn are driving the extinction/depletion crisis with regards to biodiversity. I've seen the problems with my own eyes in places like Kenya which has gone from just 6 million people in 1950 to a projected 50 million by 2020.

Illustrated by this recent report

http://iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/news/?21509/West-and-Central-Africas-wildlife-in-trouble-shows-new-IUCN-report

"However, the rapidly growing human population is projected to rise to over 600 million in little over a decade, placing tremendous pressure on the region’s natural heritage"

Jayzesake

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

You know the person who had the greatest positive impact on the environment of this planet? Genghis Khan, because he massacred 40 million people. There was no one to farm the land, forests grew back, carbon was dragged out of the atmosphere. And had this monster not existed, there'd be another billion of us today, jostling for space on this dying planet.

Warfare has played an important part in human evolution and development since before we diverged from our closest relatives, chimpanzees, approx. 6,000,000 years ago. (Chimps also still engage in warfare.) Our population has increased exponentially despite almost constant conflict, massacres, infanticide, epidemics, and all sorts of natural disasters. A characteristic of our species is for the survivors of a disaster to have a lot kids, quickly bringing the population back up to where it was, and then carrying on beyond. (Think, for e.g., of the baby boom in the aftermath of WW2.)

The only thing that has ever limited growth in human numbers in the past was carrying capacity, which has continually grown in line with advances in technology, as I mentioned above. More recently however, it has become clear that the only way to limit population growth is:

1. For women to have access to education

2. For women to have the power to make decisions about their own lives, including how many kids they want to have

3. For birth control to be freely available to everybody

Nothing else really works. And the 3 points above are obviously very good things in their own right too, aside from the effect on population. Everywhere where these 3 factors stand, births rates have fallen dramatically, even to below replacement level in many places. The places where populations continue to shoot up are those places where one or more of these things are lacking.

robp

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

You know the person who had the greatest positive impact on the environment of this planet? Genghis Khan, because he massacred 40 million people. There was no one to farm the land, forests grew back, carbon was dragged out of the atmosphere. And had this monster not existed, there'd be another billion of us today, jostling for space on this dying planet.

I agree that too much land is farmed today but massive land abandoned would reduce biodiversity that has emerged to utilise farmscapes. I guess it depends on what define as good for the environment.

robp

Birdnuts wrote: »

I'm not talking about climate change(whatever ones views on it are in terms of its actual significance). I'm taking about basic natural resources that are rapidly depleting in many of these countries, which in turn are driving the extinction/depletion crisis with regards to biodiversity. I've seen the problems with my own eyes in places like Kenya which has gone from just 6 million people in 1950 to a projected 50 million by 2020.

Illustrated by this recent report

http://iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/news/?21509/West-and-Central-Africas-wildlife-in-trouble-shows-new-IUCN-report

"However, the rapidly growing human population is projected to rise to over 600 million in little over a decade, placing tremendous pressure on the region’s natural heritage"

Yes it is an issue for biodiversity but it does not have to be. There is no reason why such population increases has to result in biodiversity losses. And it certainly is not a barrier for development. Africa's rapidly growing population is big part of the huge poverty reduction happening there right now and the environmental movement has to bear in mind this tricky human issue. In fact Africa's extremely low population density had its part to play in the continent's historic poverty. So thankfully there is plenty of population growth there.

Jayzesake wrote: »

Technology won't solve our problems; it just raises the carrying capacity of the environment, allowing people to have more and more kids, thereby placing an ever greater burden on the planet. That was true of the developent of language, the invention of the bow and arrow, agriculture, harnessing fossil fuels, the 'green' revolution, etc., etc. It is technology that gave rise to the most dramatic population explosion, i.e. that of the 20th century.

Affluence equals the ability to buy more stuff (consumption), which is exactly what people invariably do the more affluent they become, again placing an ever greater burden on the planet.

Sure, many people would like some easy techno solution to come along and wave away all the difficulties like a magic wand, because that would relieve them of the necessity of having to get up off their backsides and change things themselves. That's not going to happen.

Then what is the solution? If far smaller human populations can do such huge damage to biodiversity as they have then clearly a smaller population is no magic bullet. In addition shrinking the global population would cause a profound change in the global economy. It is very hard to emphasise how massive that change might be and how much of a negative impact it could have on reducing poverty.

recedite

robp wrote: »

In fact Africa's extremely low population density had its part to play in the continent's historic poverty. So thankfully there is plenty of population growth there.

There is no evidence for that. Most African countries are more densely populated than North America, and with plenty of natural resources, yet are poorer.
Eg from this table, Canada 4 people per square Km. Cameroons 47 people.
On the other hand, most Africans live lighter on the environment than North Americans, because they are poorer.

Europeans consume less resources per person than Americans, without being poorer.

So the two main factors affecting the global environment are population density and consumption of resources per person.

robp wrote: »

In addition shrinking the global population would cause a profound change in the global economy.

A stable population would be fine. Its called a "steady state economy". Economies can cope with shrinking populations, but in order to do that banks have to be reined in because their profits come not just from lending money as is commonly assumed, but from creating an ever expanding money supply. All the new money is created out of thin air and dilutes the existing money, causing inflation. The detrimental effects of inflation are not felt while an economy is growing because one cancels out the other. But like any Ponzi scheme, this economic model needs constant growth, otherwise it collapses.
Anyway, suffice it to say, a changed global economic system is not necessarily a bad thing.

Jayzesake

robp wrote: »

I agree that too much land is farmed today but massive land abandoned would reduce biodiversity that has emerged to utilise farmscapes. I guess it depends on what define as good for the environment.

On what grounds do you base the idea that biodiversity needs agriculture? The exact opposite is the case. The very purpose of agriculture is to make land useful to one single species only, as exclusively as possible: us. Everything which does not suit us is removed or driven out: that means the vast majority of species. Only a few which don't affect our interests negatively are allowed to remain, and even these are generally in decline due to collateral damage.

As I write, I'm looking out at a closely-cropped field, recently reseeded (i.e. even the grass isn't wild), with a few sheep and hooded crows. Once there would have been extremely rich, biodiverse, mixed old-growth forest there; how on earth can that represent a net gain for biodiversity?

robp wrote: »

Yes it is an issue for biodiversity but it does not have to be. There is no reason why such population increases has to result in biodiversity losses.

Population increase has always impacted negatively on wildlife because we remove all competition. The more of us there are, the greater an area is affected and the less there is for the rest of life. That has always been the case and will never change.

robp wrote: »

In addition shrinking the global population would cause a profound change in the global economy. It is very hard to emphasise how massive that change might be and how much of a negative impact it could have on reducing poverty.

Compare that to the shocks coming down the line - both for us and for the rest of life on the planet - if we don't make major changes, fast, and you will find that it compares very, very, favourably. See the link in Vistafinder's post #13 above, for example: it's already well under way.

robp

Jayzesake wrote: »

On what grounds do you base the idea that biodiversity needs agriculture? The exact opposite is the case. The very purpose of agriculture is to make land useful to one single species only, as exclusively as possible: us. Everything which does not suit us is removed or driven out: that means the vast majority of species. Only a few which don't affect our interests negatively are allowed to remain, and even these are generally in decline due to collateral damage.

Don't get me wrong, I'd hugely prefer old growth oak woodland over dry meadow any day but we can't deny the huge amount of biodiversity that has adapted to people and is now dependent on people. Few places is this more true then in Ireland. Remember Irish anthropogenic landscapes are actually older now then the old growth forests that preceded them in the Mesolithic. There is far more biodiversity in Ireland today then there was when the first people came. Some of this would have arrived anyway but much would not have.

Jayzesake wrote: »

Population increase has always impacted negatively on wildlife because we remove all competition. The more of us there are, the greater an area is affected and the less there is for the rest of life. That has always been the case and will never change.

We aren't directly competing. We actually depend on biodiversity. As I point out above this is not simple. There are numerous instances of human populations not impacting negatively on biodiversity. Anyway such an absolutist position will never convince most people or politicians.

robp

recedite wrote: »

There is no evidence for that. Most African countries are more densely populated than North America, and with plenty of natural resources, yet are poorer.
Eg from this table, Canada 4 people per square Km. Cameroons 47 people.
On the other hand, most Africans live lighter on the environment than North Americans, because they are poorer.

In my experience the least populated parts of Canada are the poorest. A lot of wealth in Canada is from oil, timber and other mining and they are the only industries in remote regions.

The parts of Africa that have highest population density are also the regions with highest food security and wealth. When is the last time a famine hit Southern Nigeria or Benin. These countries have the correct soils and climate to support a higher population then say Mauritania. But the sheer lack of people in Mauritania discourages interaction and specialisation. People in these regions have to be self sufficient so they can't afford to specialise but specialisation is key to economic growth as its more efficient. Today in Ireland most growth is happening in Dublin not rural areas and this is a trend global trend.

recedite wrote: »

Europeans consume less resources per person than Americans, without being poorer.

The US and Canada are far wealthier then Europe. Perhaps not Switzerland but on average they is a huge disparity. US=53,041 USD (2013), Canada =51,958.38 USD (2013), Eurozone= 32,000 USD (2013) and that exudes many of Europe's poorer countries like Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine. Of course this is always changing but Europe has been lagging for a very long time.

recedite wrote: »

A stable population would be fine. Its called a "steady state economy". Economies can cope with shrinking populations, but in order to do that banks have to be reined in because their profits come not just from lending money as is commonly assumed, but from creating an ever expanding money supply. All the new money is created out of thin air and dilutes the existing money, causing inflation. The detrimental effects of inflation are not felt while an economy is growing because one cancels out the other. But like any Ponzi scheme, this economic model needs constant growth, otherwise it collapses.
Anyway, suffice it to say, a changed global economic system is not necessarily a bad thing.

I am not arguing we need to consume more resource. We do need to consume less but finding an economic model for this will be huge challenge and very hard for the public to accept. There are very wealthy countries with shrinking populations and generally its problematic e.g. Russia in the 1990s. Or Japan.

Jayzesake

robp wrote: »

Then what is the solution? If far smaller human populations can do such huge damage to biodiversity as they have then clearly a smaller population is no magic bullet.

Yes, far smaller human populations caused massive damage by extincting megafauna the world over during the Pleistocene, and even more recently. But a small global human population in the present day, or future, would not be compelled to behave in the same manner, since improved technology would allow us to feed ourselves and to provide our other needs more efficiently, in a much less damaging way.

Just as importantly, our pleistocene ancestors were almost certainly totally unaware that they were driving species to extinction, because of shifting baseline syndrome. (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057410980) We now have sufficient knowledge of the past and present, of human behaviour, of how natural systems work, etc., to avoid their excesses. (Provided we don't continually keep expanding our numbers in line with increased carrying capacity, as we have always done. And provided we curtail, or get rid of, the present economic system which requires constant growth.)

robp wrote: »

...we can't deny the huge amount of biodiversity that has adapted to people and is now dependent on people. Few places is this more true then in Ireland.

The key point here is that those species which have adapted to the human presence make up far, far, poorer and more dysfunctional ecosystems in terms of the variety of natural connections and processes, as compared to a completely intact ecosytem, self-developed over aeons without people.

In addition, the problem in Ireland is that very little is being done to promote the return of habitat, or species assemblages, resembling those which would have been here had people never arrived (with very important exceptions, such as - no, especially - the raptor reintroductions). That is in stark contrast to what has been taking place in continental Europe, for example, partly because being an island hinders natural recolonisation by many species, but also because we have a much more blinkered attitude to extinct species, and to nature in general.

robp wrote: »

Remember Irish anthropogenic landscapes are actually older now then the old growth forests that preceded them in the Mesolithic. There is far more biodiversity in Ireland today then there was when the first people came. Some of this would have arrived anyway but much would not have.

Several thousand years, or tens of thousands of years, may seem a lot to us, but in evolutionary terms it's only a blip. Now, you say that anthropogenic landscapes have been around much longer in Ireland than the forests that were here before we arrived. But that is to consider natural history in Ireland as if it began only at the end of the last Ice Age. If we look at it from a longer perspective, that whole picture changes. The last Ice Age, and the present interglacial, are part of an ebb and flow that has lasted millions of years; seen in those, more meaningful (from a non-human point of view), terms, a human dominated landscape in Ireland is only a recent thing.

robp wrote: »

We aren't directly competing. We actually depend on biodiversity. As I point out above this is not simple. There are numerous instances of human populations not impacting negatively on biodiversity.

We are directly competing. Regardless of whether we ultimately depend on biodiversity (which is, of course, true), we behave, and have always behaved, as if the opposite were the case. We treat the natural world as something to be exploited, subdued, and destroyed for our immediate benefit. When we cut down a forest and drive out all of the biodiversity it contains (as we have done, and continue to do, everywhere we can), in order to raise sheep or cattle, or plant crops, we are appropriating the soil, air, rainwater, sunlight, etc., entirely for ourselves. The same goes when we drain bogs or destroy a multitude of other habitats to create farmland, or later on, suburbs, industrial estates, roads, and so on. Or when our factory fishing boats hoover up everything for miles around. That list could go on and on, ad infinitum.

Which human populations have not impacted negatively on biodiversity? I can't think of a single one, either in the past or present.

robp wrote: »

Anyway such an absolutist position will never convince most people or politicians.

To effect change you don't have to convince most people or politicians. What you do have to do is, by appealing to reason, convince enough intelligent and passionate people that what you're saying is true and right, until you get critical mass. You won't do that by humbly pleading for small ineffectual concessions in the face of a total onslaught on the natural world. You will at least have a chance of doing it by stating your case in an informed, upfront, and unapologetic way - i.e. without mentally surrendering before you even enter into dialogue with those who think the natural world is valueless, or is no more than a set of resources to be exploited.

To go back to the Pope's Encyclical, it is an extremely important development in that it shows that very large sections of global society (rather than just us few weirdos) are actually beginning to fundamentally change their perspective on these very questions.

Birdnuts

robp wrote: »

In my experience the least populated parts of Canada are the poorest. A lot of wealth in Canada is from oil, timber and other mining and they are the only industries in remote regions.

The parts of Africa that have highest population density are also the regions with highest food security and wealth. When is the last time a famine hit Southern Nigeria or Benin. These countries have the correct soils and climate to support a higher population then say Mauritania. But the sheer lack of people in Mauritania discourages interaction and specialisation. People in these regions have to be self sufficient so they can't afford to specialise but specialisation is key to economic growth as its more efficient. Today in Ireland most growth is happening in Dublin not rural areas and this is a trend global trend.

.

I'm not so sure - the standard of living, crime, corruption levels etc. are far more favourable in low density African countries like Botswana, Namibia and Gabon compared to the likes of Nigeria, Egypt etc.

Desmo

Saying that agriculture introduces biodiversity is like saying criminal gangs introduce economic activity. Both are technically true but misleading.

In Ireland, the biodiversity associated with agriculture was reasonably high in historical times but was very low compared to what was there before. In recent times, this biodiversity has plummeted disastrously. We have been losing agriculture associated birds (Corn Bunting gone; corncrake and grey partridge almost gone; twite hanging on by a thread etc.) fast and the future is not looking great. This is through changes in management or (well a century ago more so) through direct persecution in the case of some raptors. Farmers have to farm and have to live and agriculture is crucial for feeding ourselves and for management of the countryside but, in Ireland, particularly, biodiversity is the last thing I think of when considering farming. Green Ireland me arse.

Desmo

Saying that growth is the most important factor for wealth and economic activity is the equivalent of saying we live in a global pyramid scheme.

vistafinder

Desmo wrote: »

Green Ireland me arse.

Yes that is false advertising most of the time and another thing thats creeping in with a couple of years is the word sustainable.

More false advertising.

Capercaillie

Desmo wrote: »

Saying that agriculture introduces biodiversity is like saying criminal gangs introduce economic activity. Both are technically true but misleading.

In Ireland, the biodiversity associated with agriculture was reasonably high in historical times but was very low compared to what was there before. In recent times, this biodiversity has plummeted disastrously. We have been losing agriculture associated birds (Corn Bunting gone; corncrake and grey partridge almost gone; twite hanging on by a thread etc.) fast and the future is not looking great. This is through changes in management or (well a century ago more so) through direct persecution in the case of some raptors. Farmers have to farm and have to live and agriculture is crucial for feeding ourselves and for management of the countryside but, in Ireland, particularly, biodiversity is the last thing I think of when considering farming. Green Ireland me arse.

Future is bad for Twite. The much vaunted GLAS scheme is a joke. I know no farmers in my area joining the Twite GLAS scheme. It doesn't pay. BWI have a reserve in Mayo and are supposed to plant a crop of linseed for wintering twite in area, they haven't bothered for years though. Going to go the way of Corn Bunting, extinct without anybody even noticing.

Green Ireland me arse

Green Ireland is the biggest lie. The reality being pushed by IFA/Government is production at all costs. Most farmers do not care about biodiversity.