• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Human population growing beyond planet's capacities, says new report

jay gw

Unregistered
J
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
1,821
Rising consumption of natural resources means that humans began "eating the planet" on 9 October, a study suggests.

 The date symbolised the day of the year when people's demands exceeded the Earth's ability to supply resources and absorb the demands placed upon it. The figures' authors said the world first "ecological debt day" fell on 19 December 1987, but economic growth had seen it fall earlier each year.

The data was produced by a US-based think-tank, Global Footprint Network.

The findings are based on the concept of "ecological footprints", a system of measuring how much land and water a human population needs to produce the resources it consumes and absorb the resulting waste. Global Footprint Network's executive director, Mathis Wackernagel, said humanity was living off its "ecological credit card" and was "liquidating the planet's natural resources".


_41558812_world_consumpt_203.gif



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6033407.stm
 
It's sort of obscene the degree to which Americans waste global resources on capricious luxury. I'm thinking of the millions of people that solo-drive SUVs when they don't need to, for example.
 
I wonder how they measure the footprint in light of technological advances. I don't think we were very far into GM food, for example, in 1987. Now, GM food helps us feed 50% more people than we would be able to without. In other words, we can produce more without as much of an ecological footprint. I don't doubt that humanity is destroying the environment faster than it can regenerate, but it all just seems a little bit Malthusian to me.
 
HappyCat said:
I wonder how they measure the footprint in light of technological advances. I don't think we were very far into GM food, for example, in 1987. Now, GM food helps us feed 50% more people than we would be able to without. In other words, we can produce more without as much of an ecological footprint. I don't doubt that humanity is destroying the environment faster than it can regenerate, but it all just seems a little bit Malthusian to me.
Click to expand...

It is Malthusian, substituting growing individual consumption for growing population. It may be a technologically solvable problem. Things like solo suburban suv driving just weird things up, though, because the need fulfillment with stuff like that is so irrational.
 
Dave1001 said:
It's sort of obscene the degree to which Americans waste global resources on capricious luxury. I'm thinking of the millions of people that solo-drive SUVs when they don't need to, for example.
Click to expand...

I love the arrogance of these statements. Skipping the cliché America bashing (because everyone knows that not a single SUV is sold outside of America to solo drivers) we get guilted on "waste" and "capricious luxury". How can you possibly make a grand unifying theory on the proper amount of goods consumed for all human beings on the planet? Capricious luxury goods have a habit of becoming a necessity (DVD players and cell phones anyone?).
 
DVD players & cell phones? What about computers to post pointless follow-ups to forum threads?

*Oh, right. I'll shut up again. Well, in a second...*

Alright, so I'm an American pig-dog or something. What I think would be a really interesting statistic is consumption vs production per country. Sure, I consume 5x more stuff than X, but how much does the USA produce per person? If production & consumption are in equal measure in a country is there a problem with said governmental unit?
 
Moliere said:
I love the arrogance of these statements. Skipping the cliché America bashing (because everyone knows that not a single SUV is sold outside of America to solo drivers) we get guilted on "waste" and "capricious luxury". How can you possibly make a grand unifying theory on the proper amount of goods consumed for all human beings on the planet? Capricious luxury goods have a habit of becoming a necessity (DVD players and cell phones anyone?).
Click to expand...

You've shot down your own argument here.... DVD players and cell phones are NOT necessity. Nor are SUVs. I grew up without any of them, as did most baby boomers - rotary dial phones, no microwaves, no cable, etc. You CAN live without this stuff. Should we? NO. We worked hard to get it. But we are supplied by people working for 10 cents an hour in third-world contries. It is no fault of the individuals in those countries that they had less opportunity than we, on an individual basis. I can confidently say that 7 of 10 Americans cannot tell you how a toaster works. How do you justify YOUR lifestyle? How much better are you?
 
Topspy said:
.... I can confidently say that 7 of 10 Americans cannot tell you how a toaster works. How do you justify YOUR lifestyle? How much better are you?
Click to expand...
\
Wait a second, . Most people know that a toaster works by electrical heating elements.The electricity comes from a power plant fueled by coal, gas, hydropower or nukes.
So we should toast our bread over a couple of burning sticks of wood from our back yard??
What a concept.
 
But we are supplied by people working for 10 cents an hour in third-world contries. It is no fault of the individuals in those countries that they had less opportunity than we, on an individual basis. I can confidently say that 7 of 10 Americans cannot tell you how a toaster works. How do you justify YOUR lifestyle? How much better are you?
Click to expand...

Urr... how much better am I than what? The 3rd world factory workers or...? What are we comparing here?
 
Jeff Corey said:
\
Wait a second, . Most people know that a toaster works by electrical heating elements.The electricity comes from a power plant fueled by coal, gas, hydropower or nukes.
So we should toast our bread over a couple of burning sticks of wood from our back yard??
What a concept.
Click to expand...


Most people? Really. Please explain, in detail, how a toaster works. Then ask your Mom, your Dad, and your cousins. If they can even give you ohm's law you are lucky......
 
As one human to another. Do you fear dying less than they? If I club you upside the head do you hurt less, or more? Tell me why you are special......
Click to expand...

You lost me. What are we talking about here? What does this have to do with anything else in this thread? Who claimed to be "special"? What's going on? Where am I?
 
Diogenes said:
I hate to break the news, but when people's demands exceed the Earth's ability to supply resources , then some people are gonna' die...
Click to expand...

A process which takes time. And in the meantime the amazon is disappearing, coral reefs are dying, arable land is turning to desert, and non-renewable resources are being used up.

Things will come back to an equilibrium eventually - but there are two questions up for grabs - how impoverished will that new equilibrium be, and how many people will have to die to bring us there.
 
Moliere seems to think he is better. HIS standard of living is a given, a right. What HIS contribution to this new age is is uncertain, but he claims rights to it nontheless. If HE made no contribution, and a homeless maid in Congo made no contribution, what is his claim (other than hers) other than luck of birth in a lucky circumstance?
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
A process which takes time. And in the meantime the amazon is disappearing, coral reefs are dying, arable land is turning to desert, and non-renewable resources are being used up.

Things will come back to an equilibrium eventually - but there are two questions up for grabs - how impoverished will that new equilibrium be, and how many people will have to die to bring us there.
Click to expand...

You missed one question.

"In a million years, how much will it matter?"

I don't mean to be flip. I do my part to reduce my consumption. Things WILL reach equilibrium either with or without us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom