Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

More Signs Ecological Endgame Is Coming?

124»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭LirW


    From what I understand the vast majority of the increase in population is taking place in the less developed areas of the World. The majority of the west have the typical 2.4 children. In some areas it is less than this, Germany I read somewhere had a decreasing population as regards to the number of children being born.
    The idea of these 3rd world countries introducing a 1 or 2 child policy is a fantasy. In our efforts to help these people with vaccines and technology we may have inadvertently damaged the world as a whole. Now don't get me wrong, I'm by no means suggesting we should let them all die. It just goes to show how difficult it is going to be to solve the population problem. The natural world has always controlled populations with disease and predator to prey ratios etc, with technology we have overcome these controls and will continue to do so. Ibola would have wiped out millions if not for our intervention. We can either save ourselves or save the world it seems.
    I have faith in us humans though, we will find a way.

    A thousand times this. Less developed countries follow strict guidelines that are often either religious or political, close to dictatorship. These countries aren't interested in creating a better environment in the world, they are focusing on introducing their policies in every aspect of their citizen's life. This often involves family planning and the lack of sexual education.
    In many parts of the world women started having kids from their teenage years on and would have a huge number of them - because no contraception and most of them would die off anyway. Now we eradicated most of the factors of this selection and suddenly all of the 8 kids survive instead of 2. And these countries realize that they're not able to support this number of people. There aren't jobs, there isn't the infrastructure, no education and no way that their policies would change, instead of that the kids get indoctrinated too and the circle starts again.
    Plenty of third world countries have a population where 50% is under 18 years old. And nobody makes these people aware of education and environmental protection.

    Countries like China that did introduce some kind of procreation policy might have done something good in that regard for the environment but they created a ton of other problems like a male/female imbalance which enables a large scale of human trafficking or the over-aging of the society. While the policies are good for the planet, it's bad for the society and the other way around.
    We're deep in that and to resolve this in the most humane way you'd need the introduction of radical policies for procreation, environmental protection and beliefs, otherwise that's going to get nasty and you'll find yourself in wars and localized holocausts.
    I'm a believer we can still turn it around but it needs VERY radical ways. But with the moronic selfishness of most societies that won't work out.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,613 ✭✭✭server down


    Drumpot wrote: »
    Its like you are a teacher reading from a textbook saying what should happen, with little insight or understanding of human behaviour. There is a reason that Public relations is a profession and its not because "giving the plain facts" is the best way to communicate with your audience.

    If you cant get your message to people (which is clear by the resources and responses of humanity), then accuracy is not important. Ask Hilary Clinton if having a more accurate, specific message is more important then a simple basic slogan that people remember.

    The simple sloganeering of "we are all doomed anyway" incites people to do nothing. In fact it doesnt even stop people having kids in my experience, just adds to the ( at least proclaimed) guilt about having kids.

    The solution to most of our problems are scientifically solvable, and will require some sacrifices in terms of taxation and maybe food prices. Some problems are more intractable than others, I personally think climate change/warming can be reversed, but anti-biotic resistance may not be possible to reverse. Why? Because the first is an engineering problem, and we know what to do and the second is a medical/biological problem and we arent advancing very fast at medicine. When I was a teenager 20 years ago I assumed that the disease of old age ( and maybe even old age itself) , and cancer, may be thwarted by now, now I think I am certain for dementia or cancer or both.

    Here is how I would rate from solvable to difficult to solve

    solvable

    Peak Oil
    Climate change
    over fishing
    over population ( the rate of increase in fact falling)
    Drop in insects ( we would in fact have to sacrifice food production, not the opposite).
    Beel colony collapse.

    hard to solve
    Anti-Biotic resistance, most medical problems.

    dunno much about

    Soil erosion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Grayson wrote: »
    It's not just over population. I read an article last week which mentioned in passing that the UK could support a population of 150 million though efficient farming. That's if they cultivated soy and stuff like that rather than livestock.

    So it's over population with our current lifestyle.

    I guarantee that article you are referring above to was a pro vegan radical type agenda thingy

    First of all the UK already has a very high density of population. Doubling that would mean getting rid of all remaining natural spaces and wildlife imo

    Apart from the notion of living on top of one another in some Solent Green type Dystopia - the problem with the whole radical vegan ideology of ' lets only eat soya and get rid of animals / meat' is that essentially it is biblox.

    In the UK and Ireland our climate and large areas of land are mainly suited to grassland. Growing vast quantities of high protein crops and especially the temperate soya bean is simply not an option.

    So let's grow it elsewhere I hear them say. Well guess what they are already cutting down huge swathes of the South American Rainforest simply to grow large volumes of soya bean for human consumption

    Global production figures show that about 85% of the world’s soya beans are processed, or "crushed," to produce soya bean oil.  The soya meal left over is actually a waste product of the process of extracting soya oil from the soya beans.

    This oil component of crushed soya beans is primarily used for human consumption, although the proportion used for biodiesel production is growing rapidly, especially in the U.S.

    That waste product of the oil extraction process ie 'the meal' is used to make animal feed. It would appear that most but not all of the waste 'meal' is indeed being diverted into animal and pet foods.

    Soya bean meal is also used to produce “soya protein" for human consumption. The meal is incredibly cheap (and imo nasty) to make and it can be made into flours, stabilize ingredients in processed foods, and absorb water and fat 

    All the soya foods including soya milk, textured vegetable protein, soya burgers etc are all made from soya meal from the waste process of the soya oil industry and are inclusive of the 85% figure quoted.  

    Of the 15% not used to make soya oil - approximately 6% is used directly as human food, mostly in Asia. Other uses such as additives and derivatives for various industries account the remaining 9%. 

    It is important to note that the soya meal used to feed animals is in fact a waste product of human based food production. So all those acres in the Brazilian rain forest are not been cut down to fuel animal feed rather to produce soya oil for human consumption.

    http://www.soyatech.com/soy_facts.htm
    http://blog.paleohacks.com/is-soy-bad-for-you/#

    So in effect vegans advocating soya bean use are in effect helping destroy some of the last great ecosystems while at the same time trying to destroy traditional low impact methods of traditional animal husbandry here

    Oh and one last little point. Soya in its raw form is toxic to humans- it requires processing to make it suitable.
    I for one wont be eating something which requires extraction by means of a chemical solvent to make it edible for human consumption. Thanks all the same.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    gozunda wrote: »
    I guarantee that article you are referring above to was a pro vegan radical type agenda thingy

    Apart from the notion of living on top of one another in some Solent Green type Dystopia - the problem with the whole radical vegan ideology of ' lets only eat soya and get rid of animals / meat' is that essentially it is biblox.

    In the UK and Ireland our climate and large areas of land are mainly suited to grassland. Growing high protein crops and especially the temperate soya bean is simply not an option.

    So let's grow it elsewhere I hear them say. Well guess what they are already cutting down huge swathes of the South American Rainforest simply to grow large volumes of soya bean for human consumption

    Global production figures show that about 85% of the world’s soya beans are processed, or "crushed," to produce soya bean oil for human consumption.  The soya meal left over is actually a waste product of the process of extracting soya oil from the soya beans.

    This oil component of crushed soya beans is primarily used for human consumption, although the proportion used for biodiesel production is growing rapidly, especially in the U.S.

    That waste product of the oil extraction process ie 'the meal' is used to make animal feed. It would appear that most but not all of the waste 'meal' is indeed being diverted into animal and pet foods.

    Soya bean meal is also used to produce “soya protein" for human consumption. The meal is incredibly cheap (and imo nasty) to make and it can be made into flours, stabilize ingredients in processed foods, and absorb water and fat 

    All the soya foods including soya milk, textured vegetable protein, soya burgers etc are all made from soya meal from the waste process of the soya oil industry and are inclusive of the 85% figure quoted.  

    Of the 15% not used to make soya oil - approximately 6% is used directly as human food, mostly in Asia. Other uses such as additives and derivatives for various industries account the remaining 9%. 

    It is important to note that the soya meal is being used to feed animals is in fact a waste product of human based food production. So all those acres in the Brazilian rain forest are not been cut down to fuel animal feed rather to produce soya oil for human consumption.

    http://www.soyatech.com/soy_facts.htm
    http://blog.paleohacks.com/is-soy-bad-for-you/#

    So in effect vegans advocating soya bean use are in effect helping destroy done of the last great ecosystems while at the same time trying to destroy traditional low impact methods of traditional animal

    Oh and one last little point. Soya in its raw firm is toxic to humans- it requires processing to make it suitable.
    I for one wont be eating something which requires extraction by means of a chemical solvent to make it edible for human consumption. Thanks all the same
    .

    But you have vegans say stuff like “If you have to cook it to make it edible then it’s not for your consumption”
    Like they’re munching on spuds straight out of the ground or something.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Pero_Bueno wrote: »
    People will bury their heads in the sand and continue having 4+ kids.

    These morons don't even realise it's their own kids that will suffer this world.

    I wonder how many people lamenting the world's over population would agree to the following:

    1. Let all the migrants on boats in the Med drown and not into Europe where they most surely will have large families and increase drain on planet.
    2. Refuse to send money to charities the next time a famine flares up in the likes of Ethiopia.
    Ethiopia had an issue feeding it's population in the 1980s due to drought and yes war.
    Today it's population is almost doubled and yes they are almost at war.

    A huge issue is that some countries and regions are breeding at a huge pace.
    And they are regions that often never had the capability to feed the numbers.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 727 ✭✭✭murphthesmurf


    gozunda wrote: »
    I guarantee that article you are referring above to was a pro vegan radical type agenda thingy

    First of all the UK already has a very high density of population. Doubling that would mean getting rid of all remaining natural spaces and wildlife imo

    Apart from the notion of living on top of one another in some Solent Green type Dystopia - the problem with the whole radical vegan ideology of ' lets only eat soya and get rid of animals / meat' is that essentially it is biblox.

    In the UK and Ireland our climate and large areas of land are mainly suited to grassland. Growing vast quantities of high protein crops and especially the temperate soya bean is simply not an option.

    So let's grow it elsewhere I hear them say. Well guess what they are already cutting down huge swathes of the South American Rainforest simply to grow large volumes of soya bean for human consumption

    Global production figures show that about 85% of the world’s soya beans are processed, or "crushed," to produce soya bean oil for human consumption.  The soya meal left over is actually a waste product of the process of extracting soya oil from the soya beans.

    This oil component of crushed soya beans is primarily used for human consumption, although the proportion used for biodiesel production is growing rapidly, especially in the U.S.

    That waste product of the oil extraction process ie 'the meal' is used to make animal feed. It would appear that most but not all of the waste 'meal' is indeed being diverted into animal and pet foods.

    Soya bean meal is also used to produce “soya protein" for human consumption. The meal is incredibly cheap (and imo nasty) to make and it can be made into flours, stabilize ingredients in processed foods, and absorb water and fat 

    All the soya foods including soya milk, textured vegetable protein, soya burgers etc are all made from soya meal from the waste process of the soya oil industry and are inclusive of the 85% figure quoted.  

    Of the 15% not used to make soya oil - approximately 6% is used directly as human food, mostly in Asia. Other uses such as additives and derivatives for various industries account the remaining 9%. 

    It is important to note that the soya meal is being used to feed animals is in fact a waste product of human based food production. So all those acres in the Brazilian rain forest are not been cut down to fuel animal feed rather to produce soya oil for human consumption.

    http://www.soyatech.com/soy_facts.htm
    http://blog.paleohacks.com/is-soy-bad-for-you/#

    So in effect vegans advocating soya bean use are in effect helping destroy some of the last great ecosystems while at the same time trying to destroy traditional low impact methods of traditional animal husbandry here

    Oh and one last little point. Soya in its raw form is toxic to humans- it requires processing to make it suitable.
    I for one wont be eating something which requires extraction by means of a chemical solvent to make it edible for human consumption. Thanks all the same.

    A lot of vegans have to take vitamin supplements to avoid dietary deficiencys. Some vitamins/minerals are only found in meat/animal products (I heard this from a guest on a Newstalk show being interviewed on the subject of veganism).
    Vegan was what our ancestors used to call the village idiot who couldn't hunt.
    We do in general eat too much meat, as much as I love a good shteak I know I eat too much.
    As gross as it sounds to us now, I can see insects becoming a much bigger source of protien for us in the future. I can't see us ever being like the Chinese and munching on a fried locust with a bit of rice, but something like minced insect so visually it wont be off putting. It's a way off yet as we're too squeamish toward the idea for now and the near future. But I can see there being a big push for it as it makes a lot of sence ecologically. It costs little to grow insects as you can feed them any old **** (literally), any waste produce from other foods. We wont need big fields, they can be grown in greenhouse type buildings, and no need to chop down rainforests. They'll probably taste better than that vegan slop too. Ummmmm insect kebab.


  • Registered Users Posts: 847 ✭✭✭gk5000


    So you think everything is alright?
    MY questions - which you did not answer were - even though you started with the endgame/disaster theme:
    What plants or animals has Ireland lost in the last 50 years?

    Why does all gloomster/doomster forecasts want "other people" to do something?

    Why don't all those who want a reduced population to "save the planet" volunteer and reduce themselves?

    My answers are:
    - I am not aware of ANY extinctions in Ireland during the period you mentioned.
    - We cannot control foreign regimes especially corrupt/inept ones
    - We can always improve but things are not so bad and man/earth have survived thus far and there is no reason to think we shall not continue

    - Knee Jerk reactions/actions are seldom useful - especially things like subsidised biofuels

    The best systems should be as voluntary as possible with the least amount of (Government) coercion - so please specify your intended actions for this perceived problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,363 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    I read an article which supports other facts mounting over the last few decades about the negative influence of mankind on the environment, be that ecosystems, flora and fauna or climate. I'm sharing it expressing my concern over this and ask what others think of it.

    You come in here relating to my OP only in a wider sense, not stating your opinion - only through some counter questions that are aimed to discredit these reports and studies and my OP - and demand from me that I answer your questions. Why should I indulge that and have a 'discussion' with you?

    You clearly think this is all overreaction and there is not much to see and people who say otherwise including all those scientists should just bow to those awesome three questions of yours and admit they're having a hissy fit. You could have just said that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 981 ✭✭✭Bishopsback


    I read an article which supports other facts mounting over the last few decades about the negative influence of mankind on the environment, be that ecosystems, flora and fauna or climate. I'm sharing it expressing my concern over this and ask what others think of it.

    You come in here relating to my OP only in a wider sense, not stating your opinion - only through some counter questions that are aimed to discredit these reports and studies and my OP - and demand from me that I answer your questions. Why should I indulge that and have a 'discussion' with you?

    You clearly think this is all overreaction and there is not much to see and people who say otherwise including all those scientists should just bow to those awesome three questions of yours and admit they're having a hissy fit. You could have just said that.

    There have been many changes in our planets ecological system since the dawn of it.
    Man didn't get rid of the dinosaurs or cause the ice age or split the continents or cause a lot of our natural disasters.
    If there is change in our system it can sometimes be natural.
    I'm not saying we aren't contributing to our own downfall, but in ecological terms perhaps that is just what is happening as a natural progression of the planet?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,363 ✭✭✭CalamariFritti


    That is very possible. We are part of nature too after all and nothing is unnatural in that way. But currently we're operating on the assumption 'it'll be grand' and we'll deal with problems when they become serious. But I believe we don't have a clear understanding of the changes we set in motion and there is a good chance it won't be grand and can't be dealt with.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/mother_gaia_by_humon-mother-nature-human-comic-hugging.jpg
    8 billion on Earth by 2024, 9 billion by 2040

    The planet simply does not have the resources for that many human beings

    It will lead to our extinction event.
    IDK... When you look at the massive, massive food surplus in the West and how much of that is wasted, it may be possible that if resources were better managed on behalf of humanity as a whole then we would be able to feed the planet, but the main issue would be in getting people to accept that.


    Personally, I think a vegan diet is not the answer. The amount of food that needs to be processed (such as soy), or shipped halfway around the planet (quinoa) is too high. My OH is non-dairy vegetarian and I've started to move more that way just through the logistics of cooking. IMO vegetarian with occasional meat is probably the best way to go, with an emphasis on buying locally. As I said to a vegan of my acquaintance: she's getting food shipped in from all over the world, I could, if I were so inclined, buy 10 acres of land, a goat, and a pile of chickens and never be troubled by going to a shop again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,239 ✭✭✭Jimbob1977


    I think we need to colonise Mars

    And then trash it

    Then move on to Alpha Centauri


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,068 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    gk5000 wrote: »
    MY questions - which you did not answer were - even though you started with the endgame/disaster theme:
    What plants or animals has Ireland lost in the last 50 years?

    I know that we have had effects such as less corncrakes, if any, appearing on our shores because meadows are not cut early due to advent of silage rather than hay.

    A lot of the damage done in Ireland were things like the English (yes those feckers) chopping down our forests and we lost things like bears, wolves, eagles, etc.

    Man has had huge influences around the planet and it isn't often like the dodo which was hunted into extinction.

    A lot of the time it is like Australia where the introduction of cats, rabbits, dogs has had a drastic effect on the indigenous animals who have never evolved to face these new threats.
    One of their crowning fookups was the introduction of the cane toad. :rolleyes:
    Likewise with New Zealand and the introduction of deer and possums which have huge influence on their natural habits.

    In the states they eventually copped on that the good old buffalo (yes we know they are really bison) had a much less destabilising effect on the prairie grasslands than all those cattle.

    The affects of huge growing populations in Africa has meant one of the last great sources of wild animals is no longer what was even a century ago.
    Then add in all the poaching, the incestant wars, the desertification of half the continent and the wild life are being forced in smaller and smaller pockets.
    gk5000 wrote: »
    Why does all gloomster/doomster forecasts want "other people" to do something?

    Why don't all those who want a reduced population to "save the planet" volunteer and reduce themselves?

    My answers are:
    - I am not aware of ANY extinctions in Ireland during the period you mentioned.
    - We cannot control foreign regimes especially corrupt/inept ones
    - We can always improve but things are not so bad and man/earth have survived thus far and there is no reason to think we shall not continue

    - Knee Jerk reactions/actions are seldom useful - especially things like subsidised biofuels

    The best systems should be as voluntary as possible with the least amount of (Government) coercion - so please specify your intended actions for this perceived problem.

    The issue isn't Ireland no matter how many people claim we have too many cows.
    What we do will have fook all bearing on the planet when Brazil are decimating the Amazonian rain forests, Russia is harvesting forests in Siberia the size of Wales every other year, China, India and the US are belching out fossil fuel gases at a rate of knots, and half of Africa and Asia is breeding like rabbits.

    One thing ordinary people can do is refuse to buy produce from certain countries.
    Very simple.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    jmayo wrote: »
    I know that we have had effects such as less corncrakes, if any, appearing on our shores because meadows are not cut early due to advent of silage rather than hay.

    A lot of the damage done in Ireland were things like the English (yes those feckers) chopping down our forests and we lost things like bears, wolves, eagles, etc.

    Man has had huge influences around the planet and it isn't often like the dodo which was hunted into extinction.

    A lot of the time it is like Australia where the introduction of cats, rabbits, dogs has had a drastic effect on the indigenous animals who have never evolved to face these new threats.
    One of their crowning fookups was the introduction of the cane toad. :rolleyes:
    Likewise with New Zealand and the introduction of deer and possums which have huge influence on their natural habits.

    In the states they eventually copped on that the good old buffalo (yes we know they are really bison) had a much less destabilising effect on the prairie grasslands than all those cattle.

    The affects of huge growing populations in Africa has meant one of the last great sources of wild animals is no longer what was even a century ago.
    Then add in all the poaching, the incestant wars, the desertification of half the continent and the wild life are being forced in smaller and smaller pockets.


    The issue isn't Ireland no matter how many people claim we have too many cows.
    What we do will have fook all bearing on the planet when Brazil are decimating the Amazonian rain forests, Russia is harvesting forests in Siberia the size of Wales every other year, China, India and the US are belching out fossil fuel gases at a rate of knots, and half of Africa and Asia is breeding like rabbits.

    One thing ordinary people can do is refuse to buy produce from certain countries.
    Very simple.

    The single biggest introduction event that has had the most dramatic impact on the planet ecosystems was the spread of mankind itself millennia ago. You have touched on these impacts in the last paragraph above - ironically in Africa where human species allegedly first evolved.

    Every continent and island where humans subsequently spread suffered massive and quite often a catastrophic decline of native flora and fauna

    The island of Ireland before humans spread from europe had forests which stretched from coast to coast. Forget about the English the work of deforestation was started by our own forebearers. In the Americas there is evidence that the first humans drove the last mega fauna such as giant sloths into terminal decline

    Humans are the single biggest destructive force on the planet. As we have terraformed the planet to suit ourselves we have removed the habitats and resources on which other species depend.

    I noticed someone else got rilled with the expression that 'the earth will have the last laugh' on the basis that it encompasses a belief that the earth is sentient. A reading of Lovelocks book - Ghia certainly looks at this idea but places the idea of feedback mechanisms of biological processes at the front of much of the earths ability to maintain and repair its own biozone . The extinction of the dinasours wasn't an end of the planet - it simply provided opportunities for other species (inc. humans) to become the new dominant species. When humans wipe themselves of the planet or something does it for us - then the earths biozone will most likley merrily go on its way without even a look back - just as it has done succesfully in the past. What is certain above all is that the future can never be ours.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Everett Breezy Grits


    This story has been in the inside pages of the news all week: pneumonic plague.
    1,300 infected in Madagascar, usually rural but this time has affected it's two largest cities.

    Let's hope they have IR temp detection kits at their Duty Free section!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭ Everett Breezy Grits


    This deadly airborne plague in Madagascar is now at 'crisis' point and the 'worst outbreak in 50 years'. The WHO now states there are 1,801 suspected cases - significantly higher than the 1,309 it reported last Thursday. 2/3 of cases have been caused by 'airbone'.

    +37% every 5days could equate to 23,128 by 10th December (But dependent on pattern continuation and the amount of aid intervention).


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Odd report that. From the graph you’d think this should have been noticed years ago.
    Unless it generates money, some things won't get reported much. That, and risk being put into the "mad scientist" category!
    It will lead to our extinction event.
    The war for resources may be the cause of our extinction, or but the threat to our extinction will cause wars.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,855 ✭✭✭Nabber


    I love how people talk about humans during out to save the planet and the plants & creatures on the planet.

    Life it’s self is freakish with no scientific explanation of how it began, not only that but it’s a planet that now has beings that are self aware.

    The reason why the public turn a blind eye is because for the past 50 years we have been gojng through these sensationalist head lines and scare mongering.

    Hole in the OZone layer will burn everyone.
    Not enough food to feed the population
    No oil left
    No gas left

    All the deadlines have passed.


    The issue we as humans have money. Crash crops destroy our land. Coffee is aggressively grown along with coca and sugar cane. They are luxury crops but account for 90% of some countries plant exports.

    They people who are saving the planet by it having kids or by buy sustainable coffee beans. In my opinion you are deluded.

    Humans are the most precious thing on this planet.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    Very few people in the west having that number kids.

    But it's westwards that the vast majority of the new billions will go.
    It's inevitable ........ maybe we should start planning for it.


Advertisement