58 replies to this topic

[Indy]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ure/4585920.stm

Population size 'green priority'
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website

Solving the Earth's environmental problems means addressing the size of its human population, says the head of the UK's Antarctic research agency.

Professor Chris Rapley argues that the current global population of six billion is unsustainably high.

Writing for the BBC News website, he says population is the "Cinderella" issue of the environmental movement.

But unless it is addressed, the welfare and quality of life of future generations will suffer, he adds.

Professor Rapley's comments come in the first of a new series of environmental opinion pieces on the BBC News website entitled The Green Room.

"If we believe that the size of the human [ecological] 'footprint' is a serious problem, and there is much evidence for this," he writes, "then a rational view would be that along with a raft of measures to reduce the footprint per person, the issue of population management must be addressed."

A number of studies suggest that humankind is consuming the Earth's resources at an unsustainably fast rate.

Even so, the issue of population is hardly ever discussed at environmental summits or raised by green lobby groups.

Professor Rapley, Director of the British Antarctic Survey, acknowledges it is a thorny question, invoking the spectre of forced population control and even eugenics.

He does not make suggestions about how the current upward trend, from the current six billion towards eight or nine billion by 2050, can be reversed.

But, he says population is one of a number of issues leading to environmental degradation of various forms, and needs a higher priority than it currently receives.

"Unless and until this changes," he writes, "summits such as [the recent climate change meeting] in Montreal which address only part of the problem will be limited to at best very modest success, with the welfare and quality of life of future generations the ineluctable casualty."

[Sleepers]

Nisam pretjerano optimisticna kad je buducnost u pitanju. Ukoliko se odmah ne pocnu poduzimati efektivne mjere u smislu racionalizacije prirodnih resursa u sto bi neminovno morala biti ukljucena i mnogo veca briga o zastiti okolisa kao i uvodjenje kontrole radjanja, tj. planiranje i ogranicavanje potomstva poput Kine, mislim da nas nista (tj. buduce narastaje) suvise dobro ne ocekuje.
Istina, u Europi vec duze vrijeme ne dolazi do rasta nataliteta, sto s obzirom na prilike, uopce nije losa vijest. Ali npr. u Hrvatskoj su mnogi izrazito zabrinuti zbog demografske slike; silno se boje da ce Hrvati "nestati"; natalitet pada, starih ljudi je vise od mladjih i tu je najglasnija Crkva sa svojim "mnozite se", iako ni sveukupna politika kad je o tom pitanju rijec nije mnogo bolja.
Dakle, cak i kad se dogadja trend eventualne stagnacije ili pada broja stanovnistva, nikome od onih koji bi trebali o tome razmisljati ne pada na pamet da je dobro sto je tako.
Mislim da ljude u principu bas i ne zanima previse sto ce biti sutra, i zato me ne bi cudilo da kraj bude:

So long and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this
We tried to warn you all but oh dear

You may not share our intellect
Which might explain your disrespect
For all the natural wonders that grow (around you)
So long so long and thanks for all the fish

The world’s about to be destroyed
There’s no point getting all annoyed
Lie back and let the world dissolve (around you)

Despite those nets of tuna fleetes
We thought most of you were sweet
Especially tiny tots and your pregnant women

So long so long, so long so long, so long so long, so long so long
So long so long, so long so long, so long so long, so long so long
So long so long and thanks for all the fish

If I had just one last wish
I would like a tasy fish
If we could just change one thing
We would all have learnt to sing

Come one and all
Man and mammal
Side by side in life's great gene pool

So long so long, so long so long, so long so long, so long so long
So long so long, so long so long, so long so long, so long so long
So long so long and thanks for all the fish

[Posmatrac]

ovakve prognoze smatram blago-telecim lupetanjima...


slicno i sa naftom i energentima koji bas nestaju ovih dana i godina, ali za jedno sto godina...


pa, prognoze o 7.3 milijardi 2015. godine


mislim da nas je do pocetka ovog veka vec trebalo biti par desetina milijardi i vise, zar ne?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pre bi se reklo da ti lupas. Proizvodnja nafte je blizu svog vrhunca i gotovo svi se slazu da u bliskoj buducnosti (nekoliko godina) sledi tzv "oil pick", dakle maksimalna proizvodnja, posle toga bice nafte, ali polako sve manje i manje.
Prognoze o 7,3 milijarde ljudi 2015 godine su realne.
Sto se tice promena klime usled fenomena "staklene baste" to je prakticno vec vidljivo, u svakom slucaju fenomen "staklene baste" realno postoji. Energetski problem takodje.
Indukcije tipa, dosad je islo kako je islo, uprkos predvidjanjima, pa ce tako i nadalje biti su GLUPOST.

[Indy]

Ne radi se nužno o gluposti. Ima tu i puno desničarske propagande. (Ja sam negde u centru, btw). Činjenica da je današnja populacije nešto ispod onoga što se ranije planiralo. To je svakako dobro, ali i ovo je previše, kako svedoči tekst koji sam preneo iznad. Sem toga, to što je porast malo opao ne znači da populacija planete i dalje nije u porastu. Procene za 2050. su negde od 9 mlrd do 12 mlrd, pa nek' omanu drastično, i 8 mlrd će nam svima izaći na nos. Naravno, to će ići po siszemu piramide, prvo će trpeti oni dole (siromašni, izolovani, žene, tamnoputi, druge biološke vrste, itd), pa tek kasnije oni u sredini. Do onih gore stvarnost možda nikad ni ne stigne, možda se oni spakuju u raketLu i odjezde u kosmos. Ili će jednostavno da jedu nas bUraniju i pretvaraju nas u gorivo, što je i sad na neki način slučaj. Jel' tko gledao Soylent Green? E, to. Čudi me da se ovi što se toliko hvale da imaju decu ne brinu mnogo više, a spremni su izgleda da se potuku zarad enormno velike i načisto "iracionalne" ljubavi prema svojem offspringu. E, al' da stvarno urade nešto za njih, to je malo teže. Recimo, da ih imaju manje. Neee, to je tabu. Koja je to sve laž i samoobmana. Nije to nikakva "iracionalna i obavezno neobjašnjiva ljubav" nego vitlanje "sebičnog gena", kako mu se ćefne.

More... Nek' propadne, nije šteta...

[TBoneSteak]

sledi tzv "oil pick",

prijatelju, 'oil pick' se pise - oil peak, poznatije kao peak oil

[TBoneSteak]

Naravno, to će ići po siszemu piramide, prvo će trpeti oni dole (siromašni, izolovani, žene, tamnoputi, druge biološke vrste, itd), pa tek kasnije oni u sredini. Do onih gore stvarnost možda nikad ni ne stigne, možda se oni spakuju u raketLu i odjezde u kosmos.

ovo je u direktnoj suprotnosti sa teorijom pishanja na dole, po kojoj oni dole (po kojima se pisha), pishanje dozivljavaju kao i suva zemlja dugo zeljene pljuskove. vazilo je do sada, ne vidim zasto ne bi vazilo i u buducnosti. kisha nam je svima potrebna.

[Posmatrac]

prijatelju, 'oil pick' se pise - oil peak, poznatije kao peak oil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

U pravu si, u pitanju je peak, ali sad me bas interesuje kad vec znas to, zasto mislis da ce sve biti isto kao nekad?
Ili sam ja pogresno shvatio tvoj post? Ili se samo zezas...

[Indy]

ovo je u direktnoj suprotnosti sa teorijom pishanja na dole, po kojoj oni dole (po kojima se pisha), pishanje dozivljavaju kao i suva zemlja dugo zeljene pljuskove. vazilo je do sada, ne vidim zasto ne bi vazilo i u buducnosti. kisha nam je svima potrebna.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pa ja vidim da ti ne vidiš zašto to neće važiti i u budućnosti, i nimalo nisam iznenađen.

Edited by Indy, 08 January 2006 - 22:28.

[TBoneSteak]

U pravu si, u pitanju je peak, ali sad me bas interesuje kad vec znas to, zasto mislis da ce sve biti isto kao nekad?
Ili sam ja pogresno shvatio tvoj post? Ili se samo zezas...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nece sve biti kao nekad. evo, npr. Hubbert je eksplicitno naveo 'kad dodje do mog peak-a, opasce broj stanovnika Evrope, Rusije i Japana' i to se upravo i desava...

[Indy]

Pseca hrana za gladne afrikance:

UVREDA ili NE, sta mislite?
------------------------------



Starving Kenyans back NZ dog food plan
Thursday Feb 2 08:47 AEDT

Kenyans reacting to an offer from New Zealand of dog food to save hungry children have said that they would rather eat that than starve to death.

"It is better to eat dog's meat than succumb to death," said Thomas Oddo, who recently lost a child due to starvation.

His comment followed an offer from New Zealand dog food manufacturer Christine Drummond who wants to send food to hungry children on Rusinga Island in Lake Victoria.

Parents of some of the children said leaders opposed to the offer were only after satisfying their personal egos at the expense of starving millions in the country.

"That dogs' food would save the lives of the malnourished children," said James Ochieng, speaking on behalf of the parents on Rusinga Island.

The parents claimed that some senior officials in the Kenya government had siphoned relief food meant for a hungry population and sold it instead.

Drummond, founder of the New Zealand Mighty Dog food company, heard the children were starving after the daughter of her friend, Mrs Lois McGirr of North Canterbury, New Zealand, returned from a recent visit to Kenya.

Drummond now wants to play Good Samaritan by sending starving children in Kenya 42 tons of dog food in a powder to be mixed with water, which she says could feed 160 orphans for two months.

When contacted for comment, Kenya Government spokesman Alfred Mutua refuted allegations that some senior government officials had siphoned relief food meant for starving children and sold it off.

He insisted that Kenyan children were not suffering such a shortage of food that they need resort to eating dog food.

He said the Government was ready to accept food donations but not dogs' food.

The minister in charge of special programs, John Munyes said it was an insult for somebody to think Kenyan can accept food meant for animals.

He said such people should desist because "we will be very careful in vetting the donations."

Many parts of Kenya have been hit by drought, crop failures and massive food shortages which has left millions of people without access to adequate food.

It is estimated that between 2.5 million and 3.5 million people are at risk of dying from the famine.


©AAP 2006

[iorel]

Korejanci se ne bi uvredili.

[Sleepers]

Za nekoga tko umire od gladi nista nije uvredljivo, medjutim uvredljivo je sto do tih ljudi nikako da stigne - ljudska hrana . A ima je i u prahu i u konzervi.

Edit: i ne vjerujem da je to neizvedivo.

Edited by Ziza, 02 February 2006 - 09:24.

[iDemo]

Ovo je klasicna starina:

Malthus: An Essay on the Principle of Population -- by T. R. Malthus

[Indy]

Headlong to growth overload
February 8, 2006 (The Age)

Crop land in China and India is becoming less productive because of erosion, waterlogging, desertification and other forms of degradation.

The rapid growth in the global economy is outstripping the ability of the planet's natural resources to sustain it, writes Ross Gittins.

The greatest economic, geopolitical and environmental event of our times is the rapid economic development of China, closely followed by India's. Its full ramifications are yet to dawn on us.

The bit we haven't twigged to is what it might do to the environment. Two hundred years ago, the countries of the West experienced an industrial revolution that eventually made them far, far richer than all the other countries of the world.

What's happening now is that China and India are going through their own industrial revolutions. But it's taking decades rather than centuries because they're able to pick up off the shelf the latest Western technology, as well as Western capital to finance massive investment in factories and infrastructure.

Since 1980, China's economy has been growing at a rate averaging about 9.5 per cent a year. That means it doubles in size every eight years. India's economy has been growing by only about 5.5 per cent a year, meaning that it doubles only every 13 years.

What makes this spectacular growth far more significant, however, is that China and India are the two most populous countries in the world, each with populations exceeding a billion. Between them, they account for almost 40 per cent of the world's population. By contrast, the rich countries of North America, Europe, Japan and Australasia account for less that 15 per cent.

What happens when two such huge countries sustain such rapid rates of economic growth? Well, for a start, you get a lot of growth in international trade, since both countries are pursuing export-oriented growth strategies. The Chinese are rapidly turning themselves into the globe's chief source of manufactured goods, while the Indians have already captured about half the global offshore outsourcing business.

This is the bit that's frightening people in America and Europe. All they see is low-skilled jobs migrating to Asia. But the next effect is the two countries' rapidly growing appetite for energy, food and raw materials, which perpetually threatens to outstrip supply and keeps upward pressure on prices.

According to a briefing paper on energy insecurity from the Lowy Institute, China is already the second largest consumer of energy in the world (after the United States), while India has moved into sixth place. Their joint share of world primary energy consumption has roughly doubled over the past two decades. Energy demand in both countries is also being boosted by rising incomes and growing urbanisation.

We're most conscious of the effect of demand on oil prices. By 2030, China is expected to be importing three-quarters of the oil it needs, while India imports more than 90 per cent. But oil accounts for only between a quarter and a third of the two countries' total energy consumption. Most of the rest comes from ... coal. (Sounds of Aussie cash registers chinking.)

By contrast, both countries are largely self-sufficient in their consumption of food, even though the average Chinese consumes today twice as much grain - wheat, rice and corn - as in 1980, directly or in the form of livestock products. But it's hard to see how this self-sufficiency can last. If extended prosperity were again to double Chinese grain consumption per person - to roughly the European level - the equivalent of nearly 40 per cent of today's global grain harvest would be needed in China.

Then there's water. According to a special article in this year's State of the World report by the Worldwatch Institute in New York, China has just 8 per cent of the world's fresh water to meet the needs of 22 per cent of the world's population, while the World Bank has described India's water situation as "extremely grave".

Crop land in China and India is becoming less productive because of erosion, waterlogging, desertification and other forms of degradation. Beyond worries about what may happen to the scarcity and prices of energy and food, the world will need to grapple with a more fundamental constraint: the ability of Earth's ecological systems to support a continually growing global economy while absorbing vast quantities of pollution.

The institute asks: "As China and India add their surging consumption to that of the United States, Europe and Japan, the most important question is this: can the world's ecosystems withstand the damage - the increase in carbon emissions, the loss of forests, the extinction of species - that are now in prospect?"

I doubt it. The concept of a country's "global footprint" shows what its economy needs from nature, measured as the number of global hectares of land and water, to provide its material inputs and accommodate its wastes. The US, with less than 5 per cent of the world's population, requires a remarkable quarter of global biocapacity to support itself. Europe and Japan, with 10 per cent of the world's population, require another quarter. At present, China and India, with almost 40 per cent, require another quarter.

What happens if the Chinese and Indian economies double in the next decade? Remember that China already uses 26 per cent of the world's crude steel, 32 per cent of the rice, 37 per cent of the cotton and 47 per cent of the cement.

The institute concludes: "Global ecosystems and resources are simply not sufficient to sustain the current economies of the industrial West and at the same time bring more than 2 billion people into the global middle class through the same resource-intensive development model pioneered by North America and Europe.

"Limits on the ability to increase oil production, shortages of fresh water, and the economic impacts of damaged ecosystems and rapid climate change are among the factors that make it impossible to continue current patterns on such a vastly larger scale. Humanity is now on a collision course with the world's ecosystems and resources. In the coming decades, we will either find ways of meeting human needs based on new technologies, policies and cultural values, or the global economy will begin to collapse."

Ross Gittins is a staff columnist.