Are we as a society on a path towards environmental self-destruction?

You look at the growing physical problems with our environment, at it seems that not enough people care to change the conditions. It looks as if things will have to get real worse, if not to the point of no return, before we realize the damage we've caused.

Yes we are at a head long break neck speed toward the finish line.

TuT

I agree...and it is being accelerated by OVERPOPULATION! NOBODY ever talks about the "teeming masses" that are the root-cause of this planetary crisis....and until it's addressed honestly by all the world, very little of the other aspects of the environmental concerns that are at the forefront won't or can't be corrected.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

And America is working for more and more people in the world. What in the world are they doing???

I disagree. Its not the number of people, but how the people live. The earth can support over 10 billion people as long as they are not all americans.

Have to disagree on this one. I do agree that overconsumption is not good, and America is known for overconsumption. But even if all those 10 billion people were farmers, working their own piece of land, it would still crowd out too many natural things.

We cannot fool with nature by overpopulating it with humans. Humans are by nature destructive, and will be until everything is lost.

Life needs biodiversity, not blanket overpopulation.

Your logic comes into a wall here because it begs the question "how many is too many people"?

Destruction is not a part of our nature. Survival is. Sometimes destruction is a by product.

Horrible byproduct. 10 billion practices of it is a whole lot of destruction!

And no, it doesn't "come into a wall". We already have 'too many people' due to the forced ignorance propagated by both governments and especially religion.

Do you get your science from George W?

True, but most dont. Even many of the poor are not farmers. 10 billion people could easily be sustained and w/o ill effects on biodiversity.

You also mentioned farming like its somehow better than other areas. Actually farming is one of the, if not the biggest threat to diversity. Land use is the biggest killer of biodiversity on our planet.

True, but recent trends do show that the acceleration of population growth is slowing. although it is expected to reach 10 billion by the end of the century.
We are not yet at the point where the cause of biodiversity loss is due to the number of people, but how the people we currently have deal with the land.


quote]Do you get your science from George W?[/quote] Actually no. I hold a degree in ecology and Im in a school whose focus is ecology. Im quite sure I know what Im talking about.

Oh, I remember you green guy. We have met before.

At this point, I am not so sure you know what you are talking about. It might look good in a classroom, but the ability of life to exist is declining and it doesn't appear that will change.

Your credentials are not quite up to those of the world.

Yep, but I havent had the pleasure in person.

The ability of SOME life to exist is declining. We are doing GREAT things for weedy species, invasive species and bacteria will find a way to live and prosper ANYWHERE. But alas, were talking about biodiversity.

Now, our loss of biodiversity is not because of population growth, but the way we manage land (with climate change bringing up a distant second). This is a post hoc ergo proctor hoc logical fallacy. The population grows, biodiversity declines. Therefore because of population growth, biodiversity declines. This is an incorrect line of reasoning.

Biodiversity is declining because of the waste we have here in America and because of the rampant over consumption of resources in our disposable society. We have yet to reach the point to where the problem IS so many people. Right now we are at the point of where a FEW people are screwing it all for everyone.

With simple better irrigation, better land use policies, a switch to a reduce, reuse, recycle society 10 billion would easily be able to exist w/o harming the biodiversity of the planet.

We can agree on this. But...



I have a problem with this.

Climate change is due to our irresponsible ways. Population growth is going to bring us even more people who are irresponsible.

Come on--blowing the tops off mountains and filling the valleys with them, polluting the waters for miles? Cutting down old growth forests which supply oxygen and replacing them with farming, which pollutes in it's modern form? You know the list is endless, and it isn't only people in the United States doing these things. We are bad, but we are not the only bad people on earth.

The world can't afford more people--we are just too darn destructive!

I think what NYGG is trying to say is 300 million consuming 25% of the worlds resources- let's extrapolate that outwards- 6 billion people, give or take a few hundred million, have 75% of the worlds resources to live on. Hmmm, so they ALL want to live like us- pampered, lazy and over consumptive- in pursuit of our happiness- and have all the toys, like fridges and air conditioners, and maybe even electricity. Farming since it's inception has led to the destruction of land from the golden crescent outwards from its origins and is well on the way to finishing off the new world, unless we come up with a better more natural way of doing it. It's our job to continue to plant, grow and consume.

So at the rate of overconsumption and destruction from farming we could probably support about 1 billion people at the consumption rate we are at now- if they all lived like fat lazy Americans do. But fortunately, the rest of the world hasn't reached that level of indolence that we have, so there is still time for us to increase our population to 1 billion and squeeze the rest of them all off the planet.

Better count on science and technology as the god that will lead us through this disaster scenario, because there doesn't seem to be an end to what is coming- the stone age with nothing left to eat or drink. Try surviving on that.

We could start by not giving the keys of life to industries...

Im assuming you mean the copyrighting of gmo's?

If so, i would agree.