90% of all big fish have been taken from the oceans

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Does this make you feel it is unfair as you will loose more than others with lifestyle cutbacks and try to shoehorn Editors modest contribution in some sort of false equivalence. Im not having a go this is a rational human response. Worth breaking through as this is the crux of the issue for it will be you facing more limits so you need to be engaged in the change.

Not at all. If I stopped flying it would make no discernible difference to anything, neither would it if editor did too, nor if every single human in the United Kingdom vanished in a puff of smoke in the next half an hour. Global society has to change at its very core, it wont so we're fucked. That's all there is to it.

 

[IC3D]

Not at all. If I stopped flying it would make no discernible difference to anything, neither would it if editor did too, nor if every single human in the United Kingdom vanished in a puff of smoke in the next half an hour. Global society has to change at its very core, it wont so we're fucked. That's all there is to it.

You don't seem very invested in societal change

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

You don't seem very invested in societal change

I put a score in an XR collection box just two summers ago, so done my bit

 

[T & P]

I think I've found the root of the problem...

 

[Yossarian]

I think I've found the root of the problem...

The countries producing most of the emissions - and eating most the tuna etc. - aren't the ones where the population is growing quickly. World map adjusted for emissions per person:

 

[Artaxerxes]

The countries producing most of the emissions - and eating most the tuna etc. - aren't the ones where the population is growing quickly. World map adjusted for emissions per person:

View attachment 257384

Aye, we need degrowth to work with what we have. We are capable but not if we all live an "aspirational" Western lifestyle with the waste and clutter and crap we produce that goes with that.

Advocating population controls opens a tin of worms that leads to genocide and shitting on the poor and poor countries as usual. Even St Attenborough has blown a few racist dog whistles along those lines.

Those big red countries however are quite fond of complaining if child birth rates go down in them, which tbf I'm ok with those rates decreasing, there's enough us that a few countries not having enough kids isn't going to wipe us out.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

The countries producing most of the emissions - and eating most the tuna etc. - aren't the ones where the population is growing quickly. World map adjusted for emissions per person:

View attachment 257384

Nonetheless, when or if they catch up with the more developed world we are well and truly fucked, unless we impliment truly low carbon systems everywhere, power, transport, agriculture, heating etc.

 

[NoXion]

I think I've found the root of the problem...

Are you volunteering to become part of the final solution to the "human question"? No? I thought not. I guess it's easier to say shit like that when it's not your own neck on the chopping block of so-called "excess population".

Also, out of three scenarios for future population projected by the UN, only one includes further growth:

Image source from here.

Of particular interest is that apparently even less well-off countries are starting to experience declines in fertility, so it looks like the future scenarios of growth levelling off or even reversing are looking more and more likely.

All of this should make the Malthusian red herring of "overpopulation" even more stinky than it already is.

 

[Yossarian]

Nonetheless, when or if they catch up with the more developed world we are well and truly fucked, unless we impliment truly low carbon systems everywhere, power, transport, agriculture, heating etc.

Yep, but the problem is what the UK and US are doing right now and have been doing for decades, not what people in countries with less than 1% of the emissions per person might be doing 50 years from now.

People can use China, America, or the fact that we're all doomed with varying degrees of plausibility as excuses for not changing their behaviour, but blaming population growth is just shifting blame from the richest people in the world to the poorest.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Advocating population controls opens a tin of worms that leads to genocide and shitting on the poor and poor countries as usual. Even St Attenborough has blown a few racist dog whistles along those lines.

It annoys me when population concern is tagged as racist. Trying to persuade people not to breed as much anywhere on the globe is fine by me, as well as consume less (in the parts where people are relatively greedy). I know a few people with large families (I come from a fairly large family myself) and the impact of having even a reasonable sized family, with all those kids having the current western lifestyle expectations and aspirations, is huge. I wouldn't legislate against it, but it's a lifestyle choice people really need to think about.

 

[Yossarian]

It annoys me when population concern is tagged as racist. Trying to persuade people not to breed as much anywhere on the globe is fine by me, as well as consume less (in the parts where people are relatively greedy). I know a few people with large families (I come from a fairly large family myself) and the impact of having even a reasonable sized family, with all those kids having the current western lifestyle expectations and aspirations, is huge. I wouldn't legislate against it, but it's a lifestyle choice people really need to think about.

The birthrate in the UK has been below the population replacement level for almost 50 years and is now at an all-time low, so persuading people to have smaller families doesn't seem like a battle that still needs to be fought.

 

[T & P]

Are you volunteering to become part of the final solution to the "human question"? No? I thought not. I guess it's easier to say shit like that when it's not your own neck on the chopping block of so-called "excess population".

Also, out of three scenarios for future population projected by the UN, only one includes further growth:

Image source from here.

Of particular interest is that apparently even less well-off countries are starting to experience declines in fertility, so it looks like the future scenarios of growth levelling off or even reversing are looking more and more likely.

All of this should make the Malthusian red herring of "overpopulation" even more stinky than it already is.

At no point I have advocated anything- less so anything to do with population control. I was simply stating the obvious core issue of all such environmental problems.

My point was not directed at suggestions of population control, but at the blame game that often goes on in here about individuals' lifestyle choices. Whereas I don't eat a lot of it or as regularly compared with many other omnivores, I do like fish. And beef. And flying overseas a couple of times a year. And I drive an internal combustion engine vehicle.

But on the other hand my partner and I have chosen never to have any children, much of it to do with the fact that overpopulation is the biggest problem and the driving force of all these issues for the planet. And at the end of our lives, our environmental footprint on the planet will literally be hundreds of times smaller than a frugal-living couple who chose to have two kids instead of one. Not to mention three instead of two.

Bottom line: avoiding meat, fish or diary are not the best ways of protecting the planet. Having fewer children is. Nobody needs to stop doing anything, just do less of it.

ETA: the above graphic is obviously not even remotely up to scale. If it were, the top bar would stretch to the end of the room, if you happen to be indoors.

 

[bellaozzydog]

Not at all. If I stopped flying it would make no discernible difference to anything, neither would it if editor did too, nor if every single human in the United Kingdom vanished in a puff of smoke in the next half an hour. Global society has to change at its very core, it wont so we're fucked. That's all there is to it.

we just massively reduced international travel for a year and I believe the result are in and it was a small but measurable win against global warming

 

[bellaozzydog]

Have I not read enough into neo-Malthusian theory?

what’s the beef with it? Am I missing some mad eugenics shit or something

 

[Johnny Vodka]

we just massively reduced international travel for a year and I believe the result are in and it was a small but measurable win against global warming

Needs to be behavioural change on a huge number of fronts to make an impact. That's why the 'don't bother with my industry' because it's only 2% excuse is a crap excuse. Need to consider breeding habits, work habits, eating habits, travel habits, general purchasing habits..
It's about enough people considering as many of those habits as they can, as well as pressure at the supply end obviously too.

 

[NoXion]

Have I not read enough into neo-Malthusian theory?

what’s the beef with it? Am I missing some mad eugenics shit or something

The problem with blaming "overpopulation" for environmental ills is that it identifies people specifically as the fundamental problem. And if people are fundamentally problematic, then that can lead to all sorts of nasty shit even when it's not just a cover for "non-white/poor people are reproducing too fast".

 

[Yossarian]

Not having children isn't some kind of get-out clause for doing whatever you want and claiming you're actually doing more to help the environment - the time when emissions need to be reduced is now, not decades in the future when hypothetical children might be producing hypothetical emissions, if you assume fossil fuels will still be used at the same rates.

In rich countries where the population is shrinking, immigration is going to go up to compensate, keeping the number of consumers steady, so the net effect of having fewer children is probably close to zero.

 

[IC3D]

Artaxerxes Advocating population controls opens a tin of worms that leads to genocide and shitting on the poor and poor countries as usual. Even St Attenborough has blown a few racist dog whistles along those lines.
[/QUOTE]
I found it surprising given his illustrious career as environmental journalist just how late to the party he was on climate change. Probably took the BBC that time to make him give up eugenics

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

..

Not having children isn't some kind of get-out clause for doing whatever you want and claiming you're actually doing more to help the environment - the time when emissions need to be reduced is now, not decades in the future when hypothetical children might be producing hypothetical emissions, if you assume fossil fuels will still be used at the same rates.

In rich countries where the population is shrinking, immigration is going to go up to compensate, keeping the number of consumers steady, so the net effect of having fewer children is probably close to zero.

Whereas if you have more children the net effect is probably greater than zero.

 

[Pickman's model]

The problem with blaming "overpopulation" for environmental ills is that it identifies people specifically as the fundamental problem. And if people are fundamentally problematic, then that can lead to all sorts of nasty shit even when it's not just a cover for "non-white/poor people are reproducing too fast".

People are problematic. And specifically the people in government and industry at the top who could do a lot to minimise the impact of climate change and try to keep us within touching distance of the Paris targets but prefer to kick the can down the road while continuing to extract oil, coal and gas like there's no tomorrow.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Overpopulation is a problem regardless of whether racists get all eugenecist(?) about it. Every human organism displaces other non-human organisms. We all need homes, food, drink, transport, entertainment, occupations etc etc. If we were any other species we would say that we need to be culled, because of the problems we cause for every other species. But seeing as how I don't believe in culling human populations I would simply propose free universal sex education, free universal availability of contraception, free abortion on demand, control of their own fertility by women themselves, getting rid of patriarchal, misogynistic, religious power structures. Well, that'll do for starters.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

we just massively reduced international travel for a year and I believe the result are in and it was a small but measurable win against global warming

And as soon as restrictions are lifted that good work will be undone. As I keep saying, society needs to change at a core level, but it won’t.

 

[Crispy]

we just massively reduced international travel for a year and I believe the result are in and it was a small but measurable win against global warming

Yep. All we need to do now is repeat that year on year for a decade or two.

 

[editor]

Not having children isn't some kind of get-out clause for doing whatever you want and claiming you're actually doing more to help the environment - the time when emissions need to be reduced is now, not decades in the future when hypothetical children might be producing hypothetical emissions, if you assume fossil fuels will still be used at the same rates.

In rich countries where the population is shrinking, immigration is going to go up to compensate, keeping the number of consumers steady, so the net effect of having fewer children is probably close to zero.

Besides that kid you have may be the person who comes up with the genius equation that SAVES THE WORLD!

 

[T & P]

Besides that kid you have may be the person who comes up with the genius equation that SAVES THE WORLD!

Far, far more likely the person who eats the last mackerel.

 

[editor]

Far, far more likely the person who eats the last mackarel.

Well, there's always that possibility, unless they've been brought to realise that eating endangered fish isn't the greatest idea.

 

[Artaxerxes]

It annoys me when population concern is tagged as racist. Trying to persuade people not to breed as much anywhere on the globe is fine by me, as well as consume less (in the parts where people are relatively greedy). I know a few people with large families (I come from a fairly large family myself) and the impact of having even a reasonable sized family, with all those kids having the current western lifestyle expectations and aspirations, is huge. I wouldn't legislate against it, but it's a lifestyle choice people really need to think about.

I understand completely. It's just all to frequently those who say we must control population are saying it while pointing at Africa or Latin America.

 

[T & P]

Well, there's always that possibility, unless they've been brought to realise that eating endangered fish isn't the greatest idea.

They would still contribute to plenty of other environmental problems not related to fish stocks though.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

One solution:

Greenpeace blocks destructive fishing with 'boulder barrier' off the coast of Brighton

Industrial fishing ships are destroying this special habitat. Greenpeace is protecting it.

www.greenpeace.org.uk

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I understand completely. It's just all to frequently those who say we must control population are saying it while pointing at Africa or Latin America.

I doubt if you'd find many saying that on urban.