I do find it mysterious that this problem is never directly addressed. It's as if they prefer to dance around the issue, probably because everybody is afraid of being labelled 'Adolf Hitler 2.0' - or something like that.
Exactly.
Well maybe... if and it’s a big if - we have a major change in Human attitudes- that is away from the Hunter gatherer approach , where we could generally hit a resource hard, trash a place , then move off and come back later when it was replenished/ rejuvenated and if we move away to a good degree from the militaristic tribalism...eg for example we could have been gathering solar energy from mirrors in orbit years ago - but the idea of putting a Countries energy eggs into one basket was soon scuppered as militarily vulnerable...But:
We can grow enough food for the projected maximum population, especially with advances in GM and plant cultivation - and terraforming the planet is not going to be required to do this.
We can generate ample non-fossil, nuclear, power to keep the whole planet going for centuries.
Why not focus on that? You know, the solutions? The upside? The gradually reducing poverty and increasing education standards? The declining death toll to disease, hunger and 'climate' disasters?
I don't doubt that some part of the environment will be given over to keep the human race alive. I'll prioritise people, if that's OK with you.
Lastly, I read your post as "something something wah wah wah".
But here's the problem - we cannot drive to the next block without hitting traffic, those going through 'stop' signs, others backing out of their driveways, cars double parked in the middle of the road, trucks parked in the middle of the road, and then the traffic jams where you sit through the traffic light changing ten times or more before you can move.
As Max said, good to have you back Ronnie.
I'm not sure who you are referring to. There are several people's views mentioned in the article. And I posted because it has relevance to the thread's topic.
Well it certainly cannot keep going, mother nature takes care of things in its own way.
Yes, very true. We see that taking place in nature - too many of this or that and it usually ends up in some sort of collapse of the specie. We're all so good at sorting out the animals and insects when they start overpopulating themselves, or underpopulations that we then start turning our attention to increasing them!
People still want to have sex, they just don't want to be trapped for at least 18 years.
Agreed, have learnt from experience that the Guardian doesn't like any comments about overpopulation. The result is that you have George Monbiot publishing articles condemning the impact of livestock grazing out in the fields (i.e. grass fed beef and lamb). He goes into great detail about the detrimental impact the animals have on the ecosystem from their urine and manure etc. Yes, George, I'm sure they do have some adverse impact (although not if you are a dung beetle) but nothing like the impact of yet another new housing estate, industrial estate or bypass being built across the fields to cope with our ever increasing population...
And why is there livestock grazing? Oh, right, to feed humans!
I wonder why they think it will level off at around 10 billion?
It's a nicely round number.
Because 'they' have a plan....
That may be the point where the food supply becomes scarce and other resources start to run out.
Sounds like a grim scenario unless something is done about the population sooner.
Well, the pandemic may have been an early sign of such activity.
Well, it did happen in Russia.
But as people become wealthier - and China has moved from a feudal, peasant society to a semi-capitalist one in just a couple of generations, the people don't want to continue living a low-carbon sustainable lifestyle. They want huge-screen TVs, high-status SUVs and to go flying around the world on holiday.
I looked up 'Welwyn Garden City' here, in 360 degree display:
