I remember studying this chart in biology classes in secondary school, how bacteria in a nutrient rich test tube will explode in population but the growth phase will taper off and eventually a mass die off will ensue because all the nutrients would have been used up and toxic waste would have built up to a lethal level in a limited environment.


Aren't we humans in the same situation? Only on a grander scale? Our earth resources are limited, and our population is growing like crazy.
Right now, we are all in the growth phase, being happy and feeling rich with all the seemingly unlimited products and services we are able to buy.
It may or may not be in our lifetime that a catastrophic mass die off of humans will happen but the signs are all there to show us we are trashing our environment like there is no tomorow. We are definately trading our species future for the economic success we are having now.

Today's star
Fouling our world
http://thestar.com.my/lifestyle/story.asp?...6&sec=lifefocus

Where your plastic waste are ending up...
Digging into the Great Pacific Garbage Patch
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/digging...-143049093.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch


It's a dilemma for all of us. We all want to be successful. We(or at least, a lot of us) want to have children to have a happy family. Governments want to have economic growth. We all want better products and better services. We build and build, make and make.
In the end, the more consumption we have, the more guilty we are, actually, at destroying our natural world.
We, as consumers of products and services, are actually the pay masters of all the forest clearing, logging and digging to build more and more roads, houses, malls, factories, airports, sports arenas etc etc to satisfy our unending desires.

At the most fundamental level, it seems the best way to prevent future destruction to our environment is to stop breeding like mad. And to reduce consumption. Yet, governments, as well as practically everybody, will not want that to happen because that would mean a recession because growth itself supports tons of industries.

It seems we, as humans, have no choice but to drive ourselves eventually to an inevitable end.

Discuss.

This post has been edited by diversenature: Jun 12 2012, 12:12 PM

But what you are comparing is humans to a simple microorganism. The one thing that makes us humans successful in the evolutionary chain is that we can adept in any kind of environmental change and we have the ability to think; abilities animals do not have. Over population can be a problem in any society but do not forget mother nature has a way to over come it; AIDS, SARS; H1N1 and of course an earth quake here and there.

We are not a dying species. I can see with technological advancements we will expand to other planets in many eons to come

Bluefin tuna in danger of extinction - 5 Sep 09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3PxxWc8zHA

Log-jammed river disaster unfolding in Sarawak -- Now in Sibu !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zi8eDj2Sxk

Humans will be the cause of the sixth mass extinction.....
http://www.livescience.com/13038-humans-ca...extinction.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/art...te-75-life.html

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/expedi...time-traveller/
"In 500 years we will wish we had time machines to come back to 2012. We will look at the early third millennium as the last days of the Garden of Eden, the last days when biodiversity was largely intact. In 500 years, we may very well find ourselves in a post-biodiversity world. Intense rainforests, vibrant deserts, and bustling coral reefs will probably seem as distant to us as big dinosaurs are today."
Wayne Maddison - biologist who studies the diversity and evolution of jumping spiders.

---

Added on June 12, 2012, 11:22 amNot at this point in time.

Yes, with technology we are able to harvest resources from places far away... that's why while we are having more products at our disposal, another part of a forest which is out of our sight is being cleared to the groud, killing all plants and animals.

We are killing our environment which we are dependent on.

Wheather we are able to expand to other planets is just a guess... we may or may not. To me, it seems more plausible that we start living on floating cities on the sea before trying to live in another planet.

This post has been edited by diversenature: Jun 12 2012, 11:45 AM

its all about the money.
without money, nothing can move... and trust me, don't bring any gods into the picture. the gods can't save you from this because they know nothing about waste, transportation and rocket science.

to keep it sweet and simple, as a citizen who is keen to keep the environment clean, request to pay or just willingly deposit a higher assessment fee to the local councils. next thing, make sure you wastes are separated accordingly to the new policy. thirdly, make sure your waste is suppose to be in the right place and i literally mean the place it should end, not only the bin outside your house.

your money, accountability and responsibility will ensure the country runs a long way to protect the environment

Sad to say this but, humans are like parasites and we are killing the host (Earth) slowly and surely. Whether or not we would start colonizing other planets, that seems to be the only way for the human race to survive.

I am here to declares, first we got population. The world today has 7.019 billion people. That's headed up to about 11 billion. We should reduce the world population for reduce all the problems of mankind and nothing was done against over population till today.

Noah was advised to 'replenish' the earth - not fill it!

earth is not a petri dish.
earth is a open system.

resources should be used efficiently though.

Yes, it is precisely our ability to MOVE material, humans, money, information etc etc in great quantities due to our technological advances that is rapidly causing the destruction of our natural environment.

Whatever we individually do to maintain our environment, the core problem still lies in our growing population.
Shouldn't everybody in this world be discourage from having too many children?
Why do we have to keep increasing our population? Isn't 7 billion of humans on this earth enough to ensure the survival of the humans species and genetic diversity? Afterall the purpose of a species having lots of offspring is to ensure that the species doesn't die out and propagate. Isn't 7 billion humans enough?

---

Added on June 13, 2012, 2:49 amYeah, this is the core of the problem.
Every government in the world wants growth, growth, growth.
I think it is time that all humans should frown upon couples who have more than 3 children because they are the ones most guilty of causing overpopulation.

---

Added on June 13, 2012, 3:01 amThere is a limit to earth resources. That's why now Singapore have to import sand and water whereas in 100 years ago they didn't need too. That's why we have to go further and further in remote places to harvest resources and dig deeper and deeper for oil. What if these far away places eventually run out too?

As I mentioned, we don't really feel the effects now because technically we still have a lot of places on earth we have yet to exploit but all humans should have the wisdom to see where we are going.

The problem basically lies in our selfish selves.
In everyone's mind, we think, "Ah...I'll most probably be dead(maybe many times over) before we run out of resources, so who cares? Let the future generations deal with that. In the meantime, we indulge in our seemingly unlimited wealth."

Remember Micheal Jackson's Earth song?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAi3VTSdTxU

This post has been edited by diversenature: Jun 13 2012, 03:13 AM

If got time and if you like to understand deeper into things, can watch this video... talks about how our population growth will affect our consumption of resources.

The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

The graph is not extended far enough to the right. It looks like the mass death does not result in the line dropping to zero on the y-axis. Not all the bacteria died.

---

Added on June 13, 2012, 8:40 amI cannot see a situation where the earth would be unable to support a pre-industrial population. "human race" will survive, just at a lower population level.

We are not killing the earth. We are just changing it.

This post has been edited by dkk: Jun 13 2012, 08:40 AM

The solution to this problem is vaccines to reduce to overpopulation. True aim of the vaccinations is to make people sicker and even more susceptible to disease and premature death. Birth control, vaccinations, GMO food, etc

Therefore, using historical statistics from around the world, you can do the simple math and come to the conclusion:
-Healthier population with a better standard of living = less children/no growth.
-Unhealthy population with poor standard of living = many children/high growth.

Can this planet provide the resources for 1 trillion people?

---

Added on June 13, 2012, 9:31 amfixed.

---

Added on June 13, 2012, 9:38 amThe poplualtion needs to be dropped to 12% of what it is now down from 7,000,000,000 to 840,000,000 . These are the figures the Elite would like to see enacted to make the earths resources sustainable.

This post has been edited by norther: Jun 13 2012, 09:38 AM

Don't need to be that extreme gua...

Governments should have policies to discourage large families.

Elite? Who are they?

While we as individuals can't do much to stop or even slow down the decay of our planet, but we must do something nevertheless. What we can do, I guess, is contribute toward slowing down the consumption of resources. We can certainly do away with some of the things that we think we need, not out of necessity but out of luxury.

For example, when you go out to buy that new ipad or smartphone, you need to think about whether you need it or not, or whether your older devices can still soldier on.

If each of us just make one change to our daily routine for the sake of the planet, the nett effect could have some significance.

This is interesting topic,i still remember doing some reports on my global issue classes on how and why population boom and reduced, Let me summarize from population graph and demography

1.Population is increasing,up to 2100 and will decrease ..? (refer my graph below)
2.The annual population growth also decreasing (but not minus)
3.Fertility rate is decreasing(why?technology?no need too many child,marriage, bla bla bla)
4.Impact to Environment,Resources and Food Crisis = YES (search paul ehlrich journal)

anyway some interesting journal you can read on human(not bacteria) population

[1] David Sadava (1999) . Human Population Growth : Lesson from Demography
[4] Human Population Dynamics. The Habitable Planet www.learner.org.

[6] Cohen, J. E. (2009). Population Growth and Earth's Human Carrying Capacity.

Someone super rich or works for the drug companies or others call them other things. GMO foods and vaccines. I forgets to mention that vaccines have enough cancer causing chemicals. I believe the best MORAL thing we can do is make people aware of overpopulation and make them aware of how they can prevent it.

No, you are simplifying overpopulation into a number's game. Almost everyone else here too.

Who uses more resources? A starving kid in an impoverished country or a prosperous kid from a developed country? Even if you make your 'vaccination' equal for everyone(f***, its starting to sound like that batshit insane guy from the mission impossible movie), you are only prolonging the damage. Still not sustainable. The only way to be sustainable while still continuing to progress is to make things efficient.

But fine, since you want to reduce this to numbers. The easiest way is to educate women, which will later reduce overall fertility. And hey, you might even get a few more scientists, scholars and geniuses from that other half of the population everyone has ignored thus far. Efficient, no?

Then again, I heard some saying empowering women through education threatens religious/cultural values and men's rights. /sarcasm

If everyone is thrifty, certainly the net effect will be significant in terms of resource comsumption and also waste production... but it will also mean economic depression or recession.
i don't buy your stuff and u don't buy my stuff... no point in making more stuff...

It is strange... on a personal side, last time i favour progress because out comes all the wonderful things man can make and build, and frown upon those who do not work hard and too laid back... but as i open my mind to more views and what is happening around us... the phrase "progress is a double edge sword" becomes very real to me.
The laid back simple people/communities, the sleepy small towns, the "non-progressive" indigenious people who still lives in the jungles somehow now gain a new kind of respect from me... their lifestyles are actually the sustainable ways that will not eventually trash up the rest of nature.

---

Added on June 16, 2012, 2:22 amWow, thanks sidi_san for the links and graphs. Very insightful. The reasons behind overall population growth and reduction is very true. Religions are partly to be blamed for big families.

This post has been edited by diversenature: Jun 16 2012, 02:22 AM

It somehow irks me to read articles in newspaper about going green, saving the environment, recycling, doing this doing that etc etc but doesn't talk about the growing world population.... WHY?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...90418075752.htm
Worst Environmental Problem?.....
“Overpopulation is the ONLY problem,” said Dr. Charles A. Hall, a systems ecologist.

This post has been edited by diversenature: Jun 16 2012, 02:33 AM

dont worry, TS. for now, we'll survive. the incoming destruction thing will probably happen in the next 100000 years or so. your offsprings will probably consist of a country by then

Human being is cancer to the environment, how do we cure cancer without killing a bit of ourselves? Amputation isn't an easy decision.

China has been practising population control, they over spilled all over the world but it didn't work, only slowing it down.
The so called ELITE are the wise group who happen to worry about this issue long ago and they formed alliance that can influence with financial & military power, better known as the new world order conspiracy.

Such awareness campaign is counter productive to improvement, quality of life is about different kinds of luxury, not necessity, we are not zoo animal.

The Newspaper can only promote what thought to be good not scared people with survival of the species, the least they want is controversy. The majority who over populate has to be contained by the minority who develop solution and technologies but deliver systematically, notice educated couples or wealthy parents have less children?

I believe people who have the resources prepared for the worst humanity crisis, its a time bomb and when it go off, many will die, only then the new world order can begin.

does the environment even matter to us all? humans are growing in numbers every year and more of the environment will be destroyed anyway, so should we really care about it?

At this point, not many people care as much as they realized because financial and other issues overwhelm the environment, until such time when air and water are heavily polluted then people will start panic and practice conservation, the number of smoker have not decreased even though it has no benefit but harm.

The real action will come from product with green concept and generally cost more, until such time when only green concept merchandise become a standard harmful material will cease to exist.

Actually I am not worrying. As I mentioned I myself do think that any incoming destruction won't be in my lifetime or even in many of my downline generations...
but this discussion is just for awareness so that humans now can have the foresight and wisdom to realize how our current actions can affect our future generations.
But I know.... selfishness almost always will rule in the end....until an inevitable blowback occurs.
The sins of the father......

---

Added on October 1, 2012, 4:40 amthe reason the need for governments are precisely because of the "don't care attitude" of individuals. Individuals mostly only see within their confines of their views and do not take into consideration that impact of their individual actions on the group/population as a whole or their environment.

But yes the environment does matter to us.

That is why if more humans understand the population problem, hopefully that will impact their decision on the number of children to have.

This post has been edited by diversenature: Oct 1 2012, 04:40 AM