socialist guinea pigs
Politics, animals, humour, and also politics.
-
Photo reblogged from Illusions of Grandeur
Overpopulation has a definite effect on economy, standard of living and the environment. When countries are overpopulated, the hardly have enough food to support themselves, never mind the hope of having a surplus to sell. Every person on the planet takes up space, but space is needed for farmland, and forests. People excrete wastes and pollution that flow into water systems, and animal habitats, polluting water, and killing wildlife. Many people cannot bathe or brush their teeth because of the status of the water in their land.
Forests are being torn down as more wood and land is needed to support our ever-growing population. The loss of these forests leads to extinction of plants and animals. These plants could contain cures for diseases that will never be found. Urban areas are expanding, polluting the air and water systems. These areas deplete the Earth’s resources, and over 2 billion hectares of arable land have already been lost, with 16 million more hectares being removed each year.
51% of the fossil fuels on Earth are being used by USA and China alone, leaving less than half for the remaining countries. The list of negative impact due to overpopulation goes on and on and on…..
I’m starting to get exhausted from arguing this point. The planet is not overpopulated. The US uses 25% of the world’s resources and has 5% of the world’s population. The most populated countries use far fewer resources per capita. The wealthy countries are leaving little for everybody else because of lifestyle, not population.
As for food - anybody who still is using the food scarcity argument in this day and age is either deluded or lying. We have more than enough food to feed everybody on the planet! This is common knowledge!
Birth control is necessary for the empowerment of women. We do not need to tell women in the poor countries to have fewer babies, when their children have little impact on the planet. It’s OUR children who are doing the damage, and we aren’t having very many.
If you want to really explore the causes of low standards of living in poor countries, I suggest you learn a little about imperialism and globalization. Blaming population for this is laughable.
The Catholic Church is evil because it lies to people about birth control, takes power away from women, encourages the spread of HIV, and takes no responsibility for the pedophilia epidemic in the Church. This has little to do with population.
-
Photo reblogged from listen to the rain
No. There is no overpopulation problem. There’s an over-consumption problem, a racism problem, a blaming-the-poor problem.
What countries are responsible for the most environmental damage? The wealthy countries, with low population growth rates.
What countries are responsible for exponential resource depletion? The wealthy countries. The US, for example, has 5% of the world’s population and consumes 25-30% of the world’s resources, and contributes 30% of the world’s greenhouse gases.
The population growth rate is slowing down, and we will reach our peak in approximately 2050, at 9 billion. There is enough food produced right now to feed that many people.
People aren’t starving because of our population. The environment isn’t being destroyed because of population. So why are we blaming our problems on population? The only reason I can think of is to lift the blame from the wealthy nations, from ourselves. Treat people in the Third World like over-breeding cattle who can’t think for themselves. Force sterilisation on unwilling women. Breathe a sigh of guilty relief when a few of those cattle die from a natural disaster (that was most likely caused by global warming, a problem created by industrialised nations).
Stop playing the anti-PC game: You know, the one where you claim that anybody who suggests being humane and looking at facts is just being “politically correct.”
I’m glad some of you found solace in the fact that the OP feels the same way you do. Just know that that doesn’t make you any more of a moral person.
I just think that the number of people on the planet is too much, especially with the growth rate.
Population growth rate has been decreasing for a while now.
We don’t kill people off. We just have to be careful. You cannot ignore that we have a population that is threatening to tip us over the edge because we take and take and take. It doesn’t matter who takes.
Of course it matters. When one group steals from another, do you say, “It doesn’t matter who has stolen”?
Take less, share what we have. If we reach our peak population, even if we have the ability to provide for that many people, what happens when we surpass that, even if we have come to a place where we can provide?
Peak population: When the population peaks. By definition, it won’t be surpassed.
I just don’t want to see this planet lost - regardless of the place we are at. Even in an ideal situation - where our resources are evenly distributed - we can surpass the amount of people our planet can handle. What happens then?
There is no fixed carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is based on resource consumption. And as I said, we will likely not surpass 9 billion.
We need to fix our population problem, and be more responsible about reproducing. (The crazy tv families with 20 kids? Yeah. None of those.)
Most large families are poor, which means that they consume up to 70 times fewer resources per capita. That means that a family in some countries would need 70 children in order to equal your or my resource consumption. So unless you’re planning on condemning reproduction in Developed nations completely, we may just have to abandon the whole “population control as a solution to resource depletion” thing altogether.
This is just as important, though, as fixing our over-consumption problem (which is part of why the over-population problem is so bad - because the minority takes more than the majority.)
As I already explained, no it’s not. If we all consumed the amount of resources that some people in this world do, then our peak population could live happily on this planet. So how is this still a population issue?
It is also just as important as fixing our racism problem. Nothing will ever come of our progress until all people are treated equally, and with equal respect towards their human lives.
Population control is not as important is stopping racism. I agree with the rest of that paragraph.
It is also just as important as fixing our blaming-the-poor problem. Nothing will ever come of blaming the poor, and the rich will only reap the rewards that should be equally dispersed.
ALL FOUR OF THESE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT PROBLEMS THAT NEED TO BE SOLVED, but without first fixing our tendency to blame the poor, fixing our racism, and fixing our over-consumption, we will never be able to solve our population problem and get the human race under control, preventing us from using all our resources and fucking ourselves over beyond repair.
If we control population only, we will still destroy this planet, guaranteed. If we work on all those other things you mentioned, without focusing on population at all, we will solve the world’s problems, since 9 billion will be easily sustained. That is why population is not a concern.
(Also, the OP’s pic. What the fuck is wrong with you? No one deserves to die, even if it would help solve a problem.)
-
Link reblogged from Oppress-Crackatron3000
Can’t figure out how to reblog the whole thing, which is really starting to irritate me.
The reason that we have artificially introduced nitrogen into the soil is directly due to unsustainable agricultural practices. Once the green revolution started, we began massive monoculture plots, which require artificially introduced nitrogen. This is because monoculture takes away systems that naturally introduce nitrogen into the soil, by planting identical crops as far as the eye can see, as opposed to planting nitrogen fixing crops such as legumes. This problem can easily be solved through intercropping and cover-cropping, as is used in traditional and sustainable agriculture. You can find plenty of nitrogen in the soil in sustainable agricultural systems. Population did not cause our dependence on artificial nitrogen. People who once were fully capable of feeding themselves were stripped of their self-sufficiency and forced to produce crops for others, via industrial ag. The soil was decimated and frequently rendered infertile because of unsustainable agricultural systems, not because of how many people are on the planet.I’m not talking about food production and starving, I’m talking about artificially increasing the amount of nitrogen in which can be used biologically.
Nitrogen in the atmospheric form of N2 cannot be used in a biological system, yet most biological systems in which we know of, including humans, need fixed nitrogen to exist. The amount of fixed nitrogen which naturally occurs is pretty much a stable factor with slight variation due to the nitrogen cycle.
However, human population at current levels have already exceeded such levels because we’ve been able to artificially create more fixed nitrogen out of atmospheric nitrogen via the Haber-Bosch process.
It is related to food production, but that’s not it. It’s about the fact that we are only able to reach current population levels and grow from here by artificially altering the nitrogen cycle, and that that process is dependent on non-renewable resources in which forms the basis of my argument.
(Source: kandacelee)
-
Link reblogged from Oppress-Crackatron3000
Oh really? Is that why the world’s resources, such as fish, are being depleted?
No, population has nothing to do with resource depletion. Overconsumption and an unsustainable lifestyle, as practiced by the smallest and decreasing populations (i.g. industrialised nations), are the reasons for resource depletion.
Not to mention, we’ve already surpassed the natural limits on human population a long time ago. Do you happen to know how important fixed nitrogen is in growing any organism? Well there’s a limited amount to usable fixed nitrogen.
Michael Pollen has proven time and again that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. There is no known, specific “carrying capacity” of the earth. It depends on our lifestyle. Yes, industrialised agriculture has severely fucked up the balance of ecosystems. That is not because of our population.
We surpassed that limit by fixing nitrogen, or creating fixed nitrogen from atmospheric nitrogen via the use of fossil fuels by use of a technique called the Haber-Bosch process.
It’s estimated that 2 out of every 5 people are alive only due to the ability we have to fix nitrogen.
But what happens when we run our of fossil fuels to keep fixing nitrogen? Oh, nothing but widespread famine which will cause the population to drop about..3 billion people give or take 0.5 billion by rough estimates (if population is maintained at current levels).
Really, I don’t know where you’re getting this shit from. Sustainable agriculture that does not use synthetic chemicals has a higher yield than industrialised agriculture. The fact that yield increases when synthetic chemicals aren’t used kinda debunks that whole argument. Nobody would starve if everybody produced their own food.
This isn’t even mentioning the various negative effects on the environment the process has, but besides from that, we can only maintain and grow from the current human population by a process dependent on a non-renewable resource. What were you saying that overpopulation is a myth?
That is absolutely untrue. Our population is DECREASING because of our dependence on industrialised agriculture and export agriculture. Millions of people are starving because they depend on income from crops instead of living subsistence lifestyles and being self-sufficient. Industrial ag is decreasing soil fertility and driving up food prices.
Yep. I’m saying that overpopulation is a myth. And it’s a myth that was started in hopes of controlling populations of “savages,” people of colour, and other threatening populations.
(Source: kandacelee)
-
Link reblogged from Oppress-Crackatron3000
Oh really? Is that why the world’s resources, such as fish, are being depleted?
Not to mention, we’ve already surpassed the natural limits on human population a long time ago. Do you happen to know how important fixed nitrogen is in growing any organism? Well there’s a limited amount to usable fixed nitrogen.
We surpassed that limit by fixing nitrogen, or creating fixed nitrogen from atmospheric nitrogen via the use of fossil fuels by use of a technique called the Haber-Bosch process.
It’s estimated that 2 out of every 5 people are alive only due to the ability we have to fix nitrogen.
But what happens when we run our of fossil fuels to keep fixing nitrogen? Oh, nothing but widespread famine which will cause the population to drop about..3 billion people give or take 0.5 billion by rough estimates (if population is maintained at current levels).
This isn’t even mentioning the various negative effects on the environment the process has, but besides from that, we can only maintain and grow from the current human population by a process dependent on a non-renewable resource. What were you saying that overpopulation is a myth?
This website is a load of bunk. Their claims about human prehistory and the origins of poverty are not based in reality in any way. They support population increase because they buy into the neo-classical economic model: Consumption is good! Consume, consume, consume!
There should be a website called “The REAL overpopulation myth.”
(Source: kandacelee)
-
Photo reblogged from How Am I Not Myself
[Image: A ‘post secret’ style graphic with words taken from magazines and other clippings, pasted together on a background of scenes of crowds that reads: “I am so worried about over population that when I hear of a disaster that has killed thousands of people I breathe a sigh of relief.”]
No. There is no overpopulation problem. There’s an over-consumption problem, a racism problem, a blaming-the-poor problem.
What countries are responsible for the most environmental damage? The wealthy countries, with low population growth rates.
What countries are responsible for exponential resource depletion? The wealthy countries. The US, for example, has 5% of the world’s population and consumes 25-30% of the world’s resources, and contributes 30% of the world’s greenhouse gases.
The population growth rate is slowing down, and we will reach our peak in approximately 2050, at 9 billion. There is enough food produced right now to feed that many people.
People aren’t starving because of our population. The environment isn’t being destroyed because of population. So why are we blaming our problems on population? The only reason I can think of is to lift the blame from the wealthy nations, from ourselves. Treat people in the Third World like over-breeding cattle who can’t think for themselves. Force sterilisation on unwilling women. Breathe a sigh of guilty relief when a few of those cattle die from a natural disaster (that was most likely caused by global warming, a problem created by industrialised nations).
Stop playing the anti-PC game: You know, the one where you claim that anybody who suggests being humane and looking at facts is just being “politically correct.”
I’m glad some of you found solace in the fact that the OP feels the same way you do. Just know that that doesn’t make you any more of a moral person.
commentary
While I agree that over consumption is our primary problem, that doesn’t mean overpopulation isn’t a real thing. In 2050, 9 billion won’t be our peak it’s going to be where the ever-growing human race will reach unsustainable limits.
Huh? The UN estimated that population will PEAK at 9 billion. That means that it won’t increase past that point. We have gone past our sustainable limits already, and it has little to do with population. Take a look at the world, climate change, pollution, and environmental decimation. The first world has raped this planet dry.
I’m not saying that people in 3rd world countries need to stop making babies, I’m saying, we as a whole need to figure this shit out. Just like with all plants and animals, there needs to be something that controls our population. We have no natural predators left and our medicine is growing more and more advanced, so really there’s nothing killing us off quite like war and natural disasters.
Human beings are the only species capable of consciously controlling their own population. To suggest that early death and suffering are the only things that keep our population from growing is truly ignorant. Population is already DECREASING in the wealthier countries. You know, the ones where starvation, famine, and disease are LEAST common.
If our population isn’t checked, it won’t matter what kind of groovy sustainable eco growing system you come up with, man. There won’t be any room to plant because we’re all going to be living literally on top of one and other.
Absolute, utter bullshit. We can fit our entire current population into the state of Texas. Humans need little land per person for subsistence agriculture. Since we will peak at 9 billion, there will be plenty of room on the planet, just as there is now.
this shit bugs me out so much, shouldn’t we be living in space by 2050 or something? ….oh, wait. they cancelled the NASA space exploration program. guess we’re all fucked.
Yes, that’s the solution. Fuck up one planet through completely unsustainable behaviour and then move it to another. Or to outer space. Good thinking.
-
Quote reblogged from Illusions of Grandeur
Two words: 7 billion. That’s the number of humans our little world supports as of about 10:48 a.m. Pacific Standard Time today. You may remember 6 billion. We hit that in 1999. You may feel like you’re special, like your children are special, but we are each just one of billions of human animals on planet Earth. For example, when I was born in 1971, I became person number 3,793,257,443, according to the BBC’s package on this milestone. That right: in my 40 years on this planet, the world’s population has nearly doubled.
There are simply too many of us. Quality of life is suffering. Quality of life for other life forms and the natural resources upon which we depend for healthy life are suffering.
Why I’m Not Having Kids — And You Shouldn’t Either - Forbes (via jiffysquid)
There will be a population crash. (Catton, 1980)
The sooner it comes, the better our prospects in the future.
(via cuntymint)
Either mass war or zombie apocalypse, that all I see for humanities future, I know which one I want (via societycreatedme)
Oh for god’s sake, read this. Anybody who prides themselves in being a radical/anarchist/communist should treat populationism with the same skepticism that they treat capitalism.
It’s funny how half the time the populationist argument is made, they don’t even bother explaining what’s wrong with having so many people. It’s just assumed that a high population is bad. Just some vague reference to natural resources.
-
No. There is no overpopulation problem. There’s an over-consumption problem, a racism problem, a blaming-the-poor problem.
What countries are responsible for the most environmental damage? The wealthy countries, with low population growth rates.
What countries are responsible for exponential resource depletion? The wealthy countries. The US, for example, has 5% of the world’s population and consumes 25-30% of the world’s resources, and contributes 30% of the world’s greenhouse gases.
The population growth rate is slowing down, and we will reach our peak in approximately 2050, at 9 billion. There is enough food produced right now to feed that many people.
People aren’t starving because of our population. The environment isn’t being destroyed because of population. So why are we blaming our problems on population? The only reason I can think of is to lift the blame from the wealthy nations, from ourselves. Treat people in the Third World like over-breeding cattle who can’t think for themselves. Force sterilisation on unwilling women. Breathe a sigh of guilty relief when a few of those cattle die from a natural disaster (that was most likely caused by global warming, a problem created by industrialised nations).
Stop playing the anti-PC game: You know, the one where you claim that anybody who suggests being humane and looking at facts is just being “politically correct.”
I’m glad some of you found solace in the fact that the OP feels the same way you do. Just know that that doesn’t make you any more of a moral person.
