But there were no animals on the planet resembling humans at the time. I don't think humans can survive in an environment like that.
But there were no animals on the planet resembling humans at the time. I don't think humans can survive in an environment like that.I learned that millions of years ago. There was a period where life was so rich all over the planet that the methane over those millions of years caused the earth to heat up called the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred about 56 million years ago. . The ocean temperature was much warmer than it is today.
That said, by comparison we are fine.
corn that is completely inedible for humans,
Ok, so one way to look at population growth is to compare it to the seasons. It's early August right now, generally the hottest time of the year in the Northern Hemisphere, but the summer solstice was 6 weeks ago. Why is now the hottest time of the year, and not 6 weeks ago at the summer solstice? Because residual heat takes time to dissipate, and the sun is still relatively high in the northern sky in early August.
Similarly, even if the birth rate were to be reduced to the population growth-neutral number of 2 children per woman, the global population would continue to increase for at least 2 generations, because there are twice as many women of childbearing age today as there were 2 generations ago. And even if the birth rate were reduced to just 1 child per woman (incredibly unlikely), the population would take 2 generations before it even started to decline.
On the flip side, mortality increases the birth rate. Countries with the highest mortality rates, and shortest life expectancies, have the highest birth rates, and fastest rates of population growth. Counterintuitive, I know, but scientifically proven. A high mortality event, like disease or war, is always followed by a spike in birth rates, and rapid population growth.
So if you want to control population growth, we need to reduce mortality, increase life expectancy, reduce poverty, and increase education and employment opportunities for women. All of these are proven to reduce the birth rate. But we need to be realistic. Because even after all that, the population will continue to grow for at least 2 generations, until it reaches at least 10 billion. We cannot expect the population to abruptly stop growing or even decline, because that simply won't happen.
Cut our food emissions in half, or cut our population in half.
You know which one I would choose, starting by ending our population increase.
Absolutely. The inconvenient truth is that world population needs to shrink drastically. No one wants to talk about that though.
Ok, so one way to look at population growth is to compare it to the seasons. It's early August right now, generally the hottest time of the year in the Northern Hemisphere, but the summer solstice was 6 weeks ago. Why is now the hottest time of the year, and not 6 weeks ago at the summer solstice? Because residual heat takes time to dissipate, and the sun is still relatively high in the northern sky in early August.
Similarly, even if the birth rate were to be reduced to the population growth-neutral number of 2 children per woman, the global population would continue to increase for at least 2 generations, because there are twice as many women of childbearing age today as there were 2 generations ago. And even if the birth rate were reduced to just 1 child per woman (incredibly unlikely), the population would take 2 generations before it even started to decline.
On the flip side, mortality increases the birth rate. Countries with the highest mortality rates, and shortest life expectancies, have the highest birth rates, and fastest rates of population growth. Counterintuitive, I know, but scientifically proven. A high mortality event, like disease or war, is always followed by a spike in birth rates, and rapid population growth.
So if you want to control population growth, we need to reduce mortality, increase life expectancy, reduce poverty, and increase education and employment opportunities for women. All of these are proven to reduce the birth rate. But we need to be realistic. Because even after all that, the population will continue to grow for at least 2 generations, until it reaches at least 10 billion. We cannot expect the population to abruptly stop growing or even decline, because that simply won't happen.
10B is preferable to 12B and slowing the rate of increase helps.
Poverty reduction and population reduction are just a few levers to pull. Increasing efficiency and increasing renewables is another.
Prioritizing rainforest reforestation through regulation and subsidies is another.
Lowering the carbon impact of food production yet another. It’s likely going to take a bit everything to mitigate the worst of the damage while maintaining a comfortable lifestyle.
Who the !@#$ said kill people?
America's birth rate is BELOW REPLACEMENT RATE. Our population would not increase at all. Except we import over a million people every year. Currently to the tune of 100+ million within our lifetimes. Our population increase is the primary stress factor in our environmental crisis. Our mitigation efforts are thwarted by it. Yes, we need sustainability, but that cannot be achieved without a stable population.
And a lower standard of living is already occurring. We make less money than our parents and grandparents. Our costs are increased compared to theirs. We work harder and get less for the return. As time passes and we have more people and fewer natural resources, our quality of life / standard of living IS going to drop and there is nothing you can do to change that. Anyone championing our population increase and says our lives are not negatively impacted is living in denial.
We need to STOP our population increase, which necessarily means that (at some point in the future) our population will be "cut in half" compared to what it will be if we do nothing. That is how we save the future of our country, and eventually learn how to cope with sustainability and then show other nations how to follow in our footsteps. It's a step by step movement and it starts here at home.
Efficiency will only get us so far if we top 400, and 500 million people in this country.
US fertility rate is below level needed to replace population
Additionally, provisional data on births that the CDC published in May noted that the nationwide total fertility rate "has generally been below replacement since 1971."
United States Census, 1970: 203 million.
Wouldn't that be nice?
By prioritizing growth, we've been failing to secure our future. We need to do better. Growth must be stopped.
UC - no one talks about reducing population
Right below. Vic and I talking reduced population
Wait till people become 'woke' about continental drift!
You made me spit my polenta...when the hell did this happen?
Cool. Show me where anybody of consequence is pushing for population control. A politician, anywhere, globally. They’re not. The economies of countries depend on growth, it’s a cancer. When growth slows because the affluent don’t have as many kids they counter it with increased immigration, but the end result is always growth. We can build windmills and curtail eating beef and all of that which is necessary and good, but it simply puts a bandaid on the bigger issue that there are far too many humans on this planet and we're killing it. If you want to save the environment cut the human population in half. Like I said, no one is pushing for that though.
The idiotic thing is, cows are quite comfortable just eating roughage in their natural environments. Just grasses in places where grasses grow naturally. Then they shit, which reintroduces nutrients in the soil. Instead we tear down forests to grow shitty corn to feed them to get them fatter faster, then create entire industries around recycling their shit to turn into fertilizer to be shipped somewhere else. For some reason we've gotten this infatuation with wrecking several ecosystems at once just to bring the cost of beef down.It's not just the methane that cows produce, it's the staggering fuckton of rainforest and other forest that is cleared in order to house them, vast useless field to grow corn that is completely inedible for humans, just to feed (and poison) cows for meat production. It's a double-whammy of creating atmospheric poisons and removing our best natural defense against CO2.
and yes, this is of course all under the umbrella of humans causing climate change. It's all part of it, just as it always has been. If a moron says no, ask them if cows would be clear-cutting rainforests and happily eating corn mash on their own at mass industrial scales.
One side of the mouth talks about how great and adaptable we are at controlling our world: the animals, the land, the waters and mineral resources, all for our benefit! ....the other side denies any possible human influence on the planet that provides all of those things. It's amazing how easy it is to fuck with the conservative brain.
Good luck getting the majority of Americans even cutting back on meat. much less giving it up.
Isn't this why companies like Beyond Meat (lab made meat) seems like an overall good step in the right direction?
Do you eat Lab made Bread, Cheese, BBQ Sauce, etc?
Do you eat Lab made Bread, Cheese, BBQ Sauce, etc?
Do you white bread or bread made from whole white wheat?Well two years ago my elementary school age daughter did a science experiment where we touched slices of Natures Own White Wheat bread with dirty hands, clean hands, or neither to see which molded first.
After three weeks none of them did. So I’m going with yes we eat lab made bread.
You made me spit my polenta...when the hell did this happen?
Do you white bread or bread made from whole white wheat?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole-wheat_flour