A very convenient Truth ?

quote:

Originally posted by BigH47:
So the RS is to believed without question then?

No, but they're a relatively safe bet - not known for uniform agreement on issues (apart from the world being round, evolution, Scots being mean etc).

I know a few nice Scots....

What's with that?

No idea what causes it Tonepub. My wife is a Scot, and we've discussed the possible causes for it many times...still a mystery I'm afraid.

Is that all the "juice" anyone has on this topic?

Pathetic.

Dear Mike,

Population control - for that is what it amounts to - is not a very convenient subject for a public forum where one does not know the other participants also taking part.

One could easily be taken as having a Fascistic view-point on the subject even if this were not the case, quite simply because the subject comes so close to the old ideas about eugenics and so on.

Therefore I have kept out of it in spite having such a strong view on the subject that not only would I never consider the idea of presenting the world with my offspring, nor indeed would I present my [never now to be] offspring with the world as our generations leave it now.

The situation is a mess, and with luck I shall die before there is mass starvation because of the over-pupulation, and a lack of oil to generate the nitrogen fertilisers [unsourceable from anything other than oil resources]necassary for the crop yields necessary for today'spopulation let alone a growing one. The human poulation has grown to an unsustainable level - already unsustainable in the absense of oil that is.

But the situation is so serious that no one in authority seems even to counternance the question let alone attempt to find an answer.

I fear that Dawinism is going to have a huge impact on mankind within the next 25 to 50 years.

Mankind may well survive in numbers as low as the tens or even perhaps hundreds of thousands. This may be the break our poor, but beautiful Earth needs - a break from one dominant species unsustainably growing in population till every remaining finite rescource is exhausted and made unavailable to a long line of future generations.

Oil to nitrogen fertilisers, and that is the crux of it. Without cheap oil food will become gradually prohibitively expensive, and as it progresses eventually unavailable as the oil eventually is used up to a point where there is not enough at an y price ...

Mass starvation is simply inevitable without an ever lasting supply of oil, unless we can get a human population to a level where purely sustainable organic based agriculture can feed the population. I think we have long since passed the point where the population could have been keep at a sustainable [post oil] level without the need to cut back, and even if the human population stopped growing today, this does not come close the imminent need for a massive perhaps eighty per cent cut in the population over the next fifty to one hundred years. How can this be achieved? I believe it will not be, and the problem is so far out of hand that the political leaders of the world dare not propose solutions. I have no idea what the solution might be, and some soluitions would certainly be as bad as mass starvation ihn any case.

Arguably the last time that was the case for the current population of the earth being at a post oil sustainable level was at the mid twentieth century.

The subject is so terrifyingly bleak that it is no wonder none of the democratic style politicians want to address it ...

Controlling the alleged right to bread is no vote winner is it? It is also fundamentally anti-capitalist ...

ATB from George

I am somewhat more hopeful.

I still believe children come out of a sense of hopefulness, and dreams for a future. That's how you make a future, with children.

Things can change.

Children have their own minds.

It's what's gotten us by so far.

Have a little faith :-)

It is the oil and the fertiliser Mike.

Nothing else, because the population has been unsustainable for over fifty years without oil, and within decades we shall be without oil, and back to farming as practiced in essense till the nineteenth century.

The reduction in the population this will bring is simply not going to be anything shy of catastrophe, and I want nothing to do with causing any offspring to see it.

If you can tell me where the Nitrogen based fertiliser is going to come from once the oil resource is effectively exhausted, then I will bring children into the world as soon as I find a woman who wants to join in the opperation.

Without an answer to that very question there is absolutely no reason to have any optimism at all.

Food crops, grown in our modern industrial way require huge quantities of artificial plant nutrients, and foremost of these is the nitrogen based nutrients.

In sustainable farming [not using oil] it is possible to grow lower yields that allow for nitrogen to fixed to the soil by natural processes such as the legume crops and clovers manage, as well as what is called fallow, where nothing is grown for a year ...

Naturally good food is produced thus, but in significantly less intensive ways with significantly lower yields.

Unless plant nutrients are adequately balanced with what crops remove in being grown and then removed from the land for human consumption, then you get desertification, and one example was the US dust bowl where the soils became so thin and grown out that the wind just blew them away ...

It has happened before, but the scale of it in the future is literally going to awesome. Awe as in terror I mean ...

ATB from George

Life without hope is not life.

It matters what each of us does.

But it's parents that are showing the way to a future.

Dear Mike,

I have huge optimism that the human race will survive.

I do not believe the catastrophe will be such that all humans are extinguished.

Perhaps that is over optimistic, but I have a hope that some will survive and manage to retain the best elements of our civilisations and cultures.

For a start I want the genius of Newton and Bach to still have appreciators!

And my optimism extends to the hope that the human race will be much improved in its inevitable massive reduction - something along the lines of quality over quantity. It seems to me that this might be the best of all possible outcomes, when the oil is finished.

ATB from George

Ease up George. It's not as bad as all that yet. It may never be. If it is so one day, grant us the grace to still appreciate life.

Dear Mike

If you think i do not appreciate life then you have taken my meaning wrong.

For very many today the world has never been a better place to live.

In a way this is the paradox, for in having such a splendid life we are consumimng the world's finite resources so fast that vital ones will be exhauste

Dear Mike

If you think I do not appreciate life then you have taken my meaning wrong.

For very many today the world has never been a better place to live.

In a way this is the paradox, for in having such a splendid life we are consumimng the world's finite resources so fast that vital ones will be exhausted all too soon.

It is like some wild party which no one wants to leave and return the quiet sanity of their own home.

I have always been a born worrier, and truth to tell when ever I had a bad feeling about something it turned out worse than feared.

I have to say that I have a very bad feeling about what those twenty and younger will see when food gets scarce in a few years time, but for you and me and other oldies, then indeed we muct revel in the benison that life has thrown at us. Though the revelry should not be thoughtless of the future or careless of what we bequeath the future generations of mankind.

I am not say that you are thoughtless or careless, but I have had cause to doubt the wisdom of my parents bringing my brother and myself into the world, and it shook my confidence in just what can be thrown at a person by life.

My feeling is that it is a huge responsibility to procreate. A huge responsibility to the offspring.

It is no good saying these things should not be thought about and a plan hatched.

Yes, clearly far more people than me think the party will go one getting faster and bigger for ever. Perhaps they are right and I am wrong?

ATB from George

It is a sin against nature to be anything but grateful for your life.

George, right now I want nothing more than to have drinks and dinner with you :-)

quote:

Let me look in my crystal ball.....wait, it's becoming clear....unsustainable world population levels.....

The problem - too many people
The cause - mankinds natural genetic programming to breed
The aim - reduce global warming to save the planet by reducing the population
The solution - remove the reproductive apparatus of 75% of the male population at birth based on lottery system....

Sorry Don, but I think I know where this is heading.....apologies in advance if I'm wrong.

Mike, the above was posted by Exhighlander about four posts into this thread.

We've been here before. Both George and myself have been aware for a long, long time that there are too many people for the the earth to be able to sustain them in our existing fashion.

i believe that sooner or later (probably later) we will invent something new to solve our oil-based dependency. George is just a little bit less optomistic.

This doesn't prevent either of us enjoying life, each in our own way.

Is global warming happening. Can we do anything (meaningful) about it. Should we do anything about it?

Ditto oil resources, food and water

Cheers

Don

"real civilised" scociety is about identifying problems, agreeing a solution for the common good, then implementing that solution.

"civilised" society is about identifying problems, then (without physical fighting) manipulating anything and everything to ensure you get whatever is needed to survive.

"uncivilised" society is about identifying problems, then simply manipulating and fighting to get whatever you need to survive.

Some individuals could rightfully claim their place in a real civilised scociety but most of us would only be fit for "civilised" or "uncivilised".

Most nations on earth hover between uncivilised and civilised. I can't quite identify any real civilised counties off hand.

How should the UK set about ensuring it gets enough food and water to support its population over the next 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000 years?

Will global warming help, or hinder such an aspiration?

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
1)I can't quite identify any real civilised counties off hand.


2) Will global warming help, or hinder such an aspiration?

1 - What about Rutland or Herefordshire?

2 - I'm not sure that's the way to look at it Don. Global warming is a symptom of human action, whilst it may be possible that opportunities arise out of it's consequences, the responsible thing to do, is prevent further damage to a system we don't fully understand.

quote:

i believe that sooner or later (probably later) we will invent something new to solve our oil-based dependency. George is just a little bit less optomistic.

I think you will find all the possible inventions and solutions to dependency on oil have already been made and swallowed up by the greedy petroleum companys, Because if they got out and were sucessfull a lot of money would be lost and various governments would fall ????

quote:

the responsible thing to do, is prevent further damage to a system we don't fully understand.

I nearly said "England" rather than "UK" but the point I was making is, that to do something effective we need a concerted effort by "everybody".

I can't see this happening, even if we were ALL convinced that mankind was the cause of global warming, that the consequence will be disasterous and that we could actually do something effective about it.

Why not? - politics and Dawkins' "selfish gene"

We need a solution that is effective even if implemented only by a small fraction of the global population (and I am not hinting at genocide or anything like that)

Any ideas?

Cheers

Don

quote:

I think you will find all the possible inventions and solutions to dependency on oil have already been made...........

somewhat cynical, but with a ring of truth perhaps?

Cheers

Don

I think we're moving past taking action to prevent CC, and onto adaptation based approaches. The former was an option, the later a necessity.

Don

You keep posing questions but seem to avoid putting forward possible solutions. If "you" were to be the one in control (whatever definition you want to put on that...entirely your choice)...what would you do to address this catastrophic situation?

Regards

Jim

quote:

what would you do to address this catastrophic situation?

dunno! not that clever. Thought I might get a few bright ideas from experts on this forum then pass them on to my MP.

Looks like I might have to give some real thought after all, as to what the problems might be and what sort of solutions might be effective and cabable of implementation. Bloody nuisance really!

Cheers

Don

Introduction

The subject of global warming and resource-sustainability could keep the world’s top scientists in PhD research for decades, and then some! The following few paragraphs from me therefore, are going to gloss over a few details and consequently might attract some mild criticism. So be it!

A brief history of man

Man evolved from apes about 5 million years ago in east Africa, shortly after, and as a consequence of, the formation of the Rift Valley. Glaciation of the northern hemisphere started occurring for the first time 2.6 million years ago. (The southern hemisphere had frequently seen glaciation well before then). For the past 2.6 million years the earth has experienced glacial cycles as described by Milankovitch. Modern man evolved about 200,000 years ago, again in east Africa and over the past 75,000 years has moved out of Africa and populated the entire planet with c7bn people. Modern man (ie us!!) is the only form of man left in existence, our close cousins, the Neanderthals having become extinct 30,000 years ago. Man, including Neanderthals and modern man, has evolved, developed, experienced and survived during this fragile environment, during the course of many glacial/inter-glacial cycles (ie global warming/cooling)

The last glacial maximum was about 20,000 years ago and as we emerged 10,000 years ago, modern man in the middle east and elsewhere, developed farming, as opposed to hunter-gathering. This farming has spread globally and resulted in a significant rise in greenhouse gasses, due mainly to deforestation and animal biology. Industrialisation over the past 200 years has further increased the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere, particularly CO2. Some scientists believe that as a consequence, we have produced a “forcing” effect whereby the global atmosphere, landmass and sea is continuing to heat up (and the carbon content increase) thereby extending the current inter-glacial period (we should be re-entering the next glacial maximum – brrrr!) and possibly leading to a “tipping” point at which our glacial cycles of the past 2.6 million years will be irretrievably broken with catastrophic effect.

Whether these two developments of farming and industrialisation were essential to modern man’s survival or simply for his convenience, is debatable. Either way, we now depend for our survival in terms of food supply, on massive amounts of both water and oil. Our supply of water is largely dependant on the environment and our oil supply is finite at (say) 100 years.

Within this fragile environment, man has evolved and survived by ingenuity and I consider this ingenuity will see us through the next phase ie hunter/gatherer > farmer > industrialist > ??????? But how do we set about giving ourselves the best chance of survival?

Plan A Do nothing.

This is the current plan! Just let things evolve. Strife, famine, pestilence, survival-of-the-fittest, law-of-the-jungle etc etc. man will survive, and might eventually evolve into (several) different species of future mankind.

Plan B The Dream.

This is the difficult plan! It requires conviction and co-operation!
It assumes a few people can convince 85% of the global population of the need for change and of the actual change/action required. Implementation would be based on incentivisation with minimal legal compulsion.

1. Scientists produce the evidence that global warming is real, and that oil and water supplies are limited. If no evidence, revert to Plan A
2. Scientists produce evidence that man has a good probability of avoiding predicted consequences of global warming or has a good probability of inventing new processes to overcome global warming and its consequences, including water shortage and that he can also find alternatives to oil.
3. Politicians introduce a global economy and currency, with world-wide parity of value.
4. Politicians introduce incentives for opposite-sex couples to form stable, life-long relationships in small communities and to limit off-spring to one per couple, until numbers balance available resources (I put this in specifically for Ex-Highlander)
5. Entrepreneurs invest in nuclear power (and nuclear-waste storage), carbon-capture-coal-fired-power and research into long-term sustainable energy supplies
6. Entrepreneurs invest in local food production and consumption.
7. Entrepreneurs invest in agricultural research into sustainable (organic) farming and alternatives to oil-based artificial nutrients and oil-fired farm tools
8. Somebody shoots the buggers who don’t agree with Plan B.

Conclusion

As I said at the start, PhDs galore! My bet is we go with Plan A. I would prefer Plan B without element 8 – which in case you didn’t guess, was only put in to lighten things up a bit!!!

Cheers

Don

Don

quote:

4. Politicians introduce incentives for opposite-sex couples to form stable, life-long relationships in small communities and to limit off-spring to one per couple, until numbers balance available resources (I put this in specifically for Ex-Highlander)

Thanks for the "shout out" (God I hate that phrase!) My suggestion was a bit more radical I seem to recall and would work without cooperation!

Thanks for rising to my challenge of making some suggestions.

Plan A it is then!

Cheers

Jim

OK, a few of the environmentalists that I know, seem to think we can go back to some utopian point in time, if only we can get the carbon and CO2 balance right.

Personally, I think this is wishful thinking.

But which point in time? how do we get there? once there, how do we maintain that point? Will this be enough to ensure the survival of mankind?

I appreciate this subject is less important on this forum than Concsiousmess' dilema about his speakers, and I apologise accordingly

Cheers

Don