Living in the Bubble
Options
Comments
-
PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »
That's great Brian but
can you please state what you in your own opinion you mean about limiting human population.
He agrees with me, of course.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »
That's great Brian but
can you please state what you in your own opinion you mean about limiting human population.
By "limiting human population" I mean voluntarily reducing our numbers to a sustainable level.
That, of course, begs the question, "What is a sustainable level?" The answer to that depends pretty much completely on how we live. If the average person lived at the level of consumption of the average American that number would be significantly lower than if the average person lived at the level of consumption of the average Burundian.
I'm pretty sure that is what oftenreading would say as well. ;-)
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
By "limiting human population" I mean voluntarily reducing our numbers to a sustainable level.
That, of course, begs the question, "What is a sustainable level?" The answer to that depends pretty much completely on how we live. If the average person lived at the level of consumption of the average American that number would be significantly lower than if the average person lived at the level of consumption of the average Burundian.
I'm pretty sure that is what oftenreading would say as well. ;-)
That's great Brian. So is the sustainable level based upon the average American or Burundian? I'm confused, we are all people.0 -
PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »
That's great Brian. So is the sustainable level based upon the average American or Burundian? I'm confused, we are all people.
I would definitely hope for something in between but either one is sustainable depending on the number of people. In other words, the earth could probably sustain a couple thousand people who live at the level of a multi-millionaire and maybe a 5 or 6 billion living at the level of a poor Burundian. Just guessing at the numbers but I'm sure you get my point, eh?
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
I would definitely hope for something in between but either one is sustainable depending on the number of people. In other words, the earth could probably sustain a couple thousand people who live at the level of a multi-millionaire and maybe a 5 or 6 billion living at the level of a poor Burundian. Just guessing at the numbers but I'm sure you get my point, eh?
That's great Brian but
can you please state what you in your own opinion you mean about limiting human population and provide an exact number that the earth can sustain so we can let everyone know before they want to start families.Post edited by PJfanwillneverleave1 on0 -
Oh jeepers, PJfan do you ever contribute anything more than sarcastic questions and one liners to these boards?
I can't tell if you are being an ass because you think you are funny or if you are being an ass just because you can.Post edited by rgambs onMonkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
I could be wrong...... but I doubt brian means this literally.
I know he didn't. I guess I'm not as funny as I thought.0 -
Oh jeepers, PJfan do you ever contribute anything more than sarcastic questions and one liners to these boards?
I can't tell if you are being an ass because you think you are funny or if you are being an ass just because you can.
If direct questions and one liners ruffle your feathers so be it.
When someone posts very vague statements and answers with very ambiguous statements each and every time it solves nothing and makes the other person feel their time is being wasted.
You just made two very short one liners and I got the point.
I now will not have to ask you what you think of me.
As for my question to both you (which I asked earlier that you have not answered )and lux - What is the number earth is able to sustain so we can let others know before they want to start a family?0 -
As Brian stated very clearly and without ambiguity, the number is variable depending on the cumulative impact of the lifestyle people lead. The Earth can't sustain infinite population growth. Brian isn't claiming to be an Earth dictator who decides the exact lifestyle and number of children to be born to each individual. He is advocating education and birth control availability, coupled with lifestyle changes geared toward peace, health, and sustainability. He answered your vague questions, I don't know why I am bothering to repeat his answers. You aren't asking specific questions in a search for edification, you are trying to make an asinine declaration in the form of a question. If you want to say "it isn't up to you to decide family sizes and there is no consensus" then just say it. You are the one wasting time here, not Brian. Say what you want to say already, the sarcastic question method can be effective, but at some point you are just repeating yourself ad nauseam.Post edited by rgambs onMonkey Driven, Call this Living?0
-
I don't know why I am bothering to repeat his answers.
I don't know either. They don't really answer anything. If someone is going to put out a global idea it should be supported by firm ideas how to do it.
Limiting human population - What does that mean?
Please give your answer not what you think brian meant to say.0 -
My opinion is nearly the same as Brian's so it is somewhat of a waste of time. I will answer your question, but after that , if you don't actually engage the topic and the points made you are a simply being a troll and I will discontinue feeding you.
Limiting human population means not allowing human population to grow until it is no longer sustainable. Duh. The barest knowledge of basic ecology shows that when a species' population and resultant consumption exceeds the ability of an ecosystem to provide consumables, that species will enter a period of rapid decline which may be irreversible. You keep asking for a specific number, even though you know, and it's been stated, that there is none. The average American generates 4.3 lbs of garbage per day. There are aprox 7 billion people on the planet. If everyone consumed as much as Americans do, we would probably already be fucked. If we produce much less impact on our planetary ecosystem, maybe Earth can support 15 or 20 billion, I don't know and nobody does. What we do know for sure is that people are having children for reasons that they shouldn't. Not having access to, or not bothering to use birth control results in untold numbers of children that were never wished for and therefore shouldn't have been born. Zany religious beliefs that require unrestricted reproduction need to go. Is 3 children too many? I don't know, but more than 10 is FOR DAMN SURE!
We don't have all the answers and numbers to give you the exact answer you are seeking, but you are being foolish in requiring one.
We don't know EXACTLY how to end terrorism, fix broken economies, or reverse anthropogenic warming, but we don't give up trying, or just sit and ask an endless procession of questions because we do have simple solutions for working toward these goals and they are the same as what Brian and I are suggesting. Education and accountability in the awareness of the impact each person has on the world at large.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
OK PJFan here's the deal: I'm no trying to be Earth Dictator (good one rg!) nor suggesting we place strict controls on anyone and what they do. What I'm saying is very simple actually and does not require any specific answers or the precise number you so urgently and desperately require (sorry, weak attempt at sarcasm but I'm trying to communicate in the manner to which you are accustomed).
What I'm simply saying is that if humans were decently educated about things like the basic concepts of ecology, ecological succession, population biology, and sustainability (thanks, modern media for ruining that good word), they would get the rationale for keeping our numbers in check and increase our chances of survival as a species.
As for starting a family, my suggestion would be for couple to have one "scratch baby" (you know, made from scratch) and if they want more, adopt. But I definitely am not in favor of having something like that mandated. Like I've repeatedly said, I'm not in favor of strict controls. I'm into having better opportunities for people to be educated. Educated people make intelligent choices.
This is all so grossly oversimplified of course. There are a lot of other factors that complicate the matter: religion, politics, etc. But its a start.
I began to think about this in response to some of us having mentioned how we in first world countries live in a "bubble" and in my typically idealistic way way thinking, my brain went to working on ideas for how most everyone could live in a "bubble". You may say I'm a dreamer... but what the fuck. I dream. Dream with me.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
great response, rgambs, thanks!
"The average American generates 4.3 lbs of garbage per day. "
Statistics like that absolutely blow my mind. Talk about bubble bursting! That's insane. Not to toot my own horn but after recycling and composting, what is left in my wife's and my weekly trash weighs on the average maybe a pound. The two of us, plus the two people who live in the apartment above the bookstore plus my wife's large bookstore business (about 350,000 titles- it's a big place) including the trash from the store's bathroom that gets a lot of use from customers plus trash generated by my book business- the trash from all of those combined loosely fill one standard trash container usually about 2/3 to (occasionally) full each week.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
"Scratch Baby" I freakin love that lol! That is the plan my wife and I have, as much because of the health detriments of pregnancy and birth as the impact it would have.
Serious kudos on your trash limiting! My recycling here sucks (no pickup, you have to sort and transport yourself) so I have a barn full of recyclables waiting for me to load the truck up right now lol
We take out about 1 full bag of trash every two weeks, and I can't get the trashman to discontinue stopping every week lolMonkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
OK PJFan here's the deal: I'm no trying to be Earth Dictator (good one rg!) nor suggesting we place strict controls on anyone and what they do. What I'm saying is very simple actually and does not require any specific answers or the precise number you so urgently and desperately require (sorry, weak attempt at sarcasm but I'm trying to communicate in the manner to which you are accustomed).
It's ok, sarcasm is language we call all speak at least.
A precise number I seek perhaps is a stretch but a picture in my head of some politician getting on stage who is in the running and part of the campaign speech says "we must limit human population" and outside I see a bunch of supporters echoing that statement but really have no idea what that means other than it sounds good from a dreamy politician.
What I'm simply saying is that if humans were decently educated about things like the basic concepts of ecology, ecological succession, population biology, and sustainability (thanks, modern media for ruining that good word), they would get the rationale for keeping our numbers in check and increase our chances of survival as a species.
I just agree limiting human population would be a sustainable way to further ourselves and this planet. What I disagree with is that it will not happen as that change must be enforced by others because humans will always, Always have the inclination to procreate. (most) Whether they do or not is up to them.
As for starting a family, my suggestion would be for couple to have one "scratch baby" (you know, made from scratch) and if they want more, adopt. But I definitely am not in favor of having something like that mandated. Like I've repeatedly said, I'm not in favor of strict controls. I'm into having better opportunities for people to be educated. Educated people make intelligent choices.
Scratch baby is an ideal solution and would fulfill a relationship but it is not always possible so other ways are sought to obtain a procreation. There is nothing wrong with that.
Adoption is always an option yes (goes back to that inclination that will always be in the mind) but will not always work as an option for some.
This is all so grossly oversimplified of course. There are a lot of other factors that complicate the matter: religion, politics, etc. But its a start.
Honestly I believe religion is the cause of the "Human limit" if you will. See recent pope speech.
That is for another debate but I just am adding that opinion to help you see where my thoughts come from.
I began to think about this in response to some of us having mentioned how we in first world countries live in a "bubble" and in my typically idealistic way way thinking, my brain went to working on ideas for how most everyone could live in a "bubble". You may say I'm a dreamer... but what the fuck. I dream. Dream with me.
I dream of a perfect world for sure. But when someone questions why my dream is so perfect I like to think that I have at least one solid point that everyone agrees when I answer.
Post edited by PJfanwillneverleave1 on0 -
Trash from food is probably the greatest contributor to that number. It would be great if people cooked more from scratch. Have you ever really looked at how much trash we generate based on food packaging? It's insane. Check out the photo essay Hungry Planet and compare the average amount of food eaten by families across the globe.
We are actually very capable, at this moment in time, of feeding the entire world and thus supporting the population at its current numbers. However, there is an uneven distribution of wealth, food, and resources in general which has created inequities in all these categories. If we don't attempt to sustain ourselves, at lower population numbers, we may find that it will be forced on us, ala Malthusian checks. If the west doesn't start making changes and creating more sustainable lifestyles we may find ourselves on the other side of that inequity. Just a short example, would be our continued reliance on coal and oil which will eventually run out or destroy much of our earth while many areas in the developing world utilize solar and wind power. If a Malthusian check did occur and we could no longer access our energy sources those 3rd world countries may become the economic giants.Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE0 -
PJfanwillneverleave1 wrote: »
Maybe it's time we learn to tell the politicians what we want instead of the other way around- you know, the way it's supposed to work.
I never suggested we stop the urge to procreate, but rather learn to limit ourselves through common sense. I'm suggesting education leading to wise choices, not any kind of enforcement.
I'm sorry you see me as believing my dream is so perfect. I did say it is "oversimplified" and just "a start".
" I like to think that I have at least one solid point that everyone agrees when I answer."
I'm not sure I follow that. Can you rephrase it please?"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Trash from food is probably the greatest contributor to that number. It would be great if people cooked more from scratch. Have you ever really looked at how much trash we generate based on food packaging? It's insane. Check out the photo essay Hungry Planet and compare the average amount of food eaten by families across the globe.
So true, riotgrl! I wish I could find it now, but in one of his books, Wendell Berry spelled out some very common sense ideas for humans to live sustainably (before that work got bastardized and watered down by current media). In that essay he emphasizes things like making more of our own food from scratch, using durable tools and products, and so forth. And, of course, said it far more eloquently than I can. :-)We are actually very capable, at this moment in time, of feeding the entire world and thus supporting the population at its current numbers. However, there is an uneven distribution of wealth, food, and resources in general which has created inequities in all these categories. If we don't attempt to sustain ourselves, at lower population numbers, we may find that it will be forced on us, ala Malthusian checks. If the west doesn't start making changes and creating more sustainable lifestyles we may find ourselves on the other side of that inequity. Just a short example, would be our continued reliance on coal and oil which will eventually run out or destroy much of our earth while many areas in the developing world utilize solar and wind power. If a Malthusian check did occur and we could no longer access our energy sources those 3rd world countries may become the economic giants.
I've read statistic that both support and deny the idea that the earth could sustain the current world population. I'm not convinced that's the case but if it is, we in first world nations would certainly all need to live much more simply. I don't see any way 7.29 billion people could all drive cars, have TV's and computers, etc. etc. (Yes, I live in that world too.)
Meanwhile, the world population keeps escalating. Every once in a long while I stare at this and scratch my head:
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Not just trash from food, but trash AS food as well. On the large scale, I look at buffets at restaurants and on cruise ships, the spreads on the sets of films and TV, the food lost/thrown out on cooking shows...it's ridiculous. And that's just off the top of my head.Trash from food is probably the greatest contributor to that number. It would be great if people cooked more from scratch. Have you ever really looked at how much trash we generate based on food packaging? It's insane. Check out the photo essay Hungry Planet and compare the average amount of food eaten by families across the globe.
We are actually very capable, at this moment in time, of feeding the entire world and thus supporting the population at its current numbers. However, there is an uneven distribution of wealth, food, and resources in general which has created inequities in all these categories. If we don't attempt to sustain ourselves, at lower population numbers, we may find that it will be forced on us, ala Malthusian checks. If the west doesn't start making changes and creating more sustainable lifestyles we may find ourselves on the other side of that inequity. Just a short example, would be our continued reliance on coal and oil which will eventually run out or destroy much of our earth while many areas in the developing world utilize solar and wind power. If a Malthusian check did occur and we could no longer access our energy sources those 3rd world countries may become the economic giants.
And then on the small scale - hell, I have to look at myself first, where I'll buy some food or produce and don't eat it all in time before it spoils. Or the company I work for, they order in a nice lunch for the office each month. There are always leftovers, and while those are descended upon by our employees (I've never been quick enough to get some, and actually would feel uncomfortable doing so), I've fantasized about fixing up a huge plate and giving it to one of the several hungry homeless folks who hang out near our business.
0 -
Not just trash from food, but trash AS food as well. On the large scale, I look at buffets at restaurants and on cruise ships, the spreads on the sets of films and TV, the food lost/thrown out on cooking shows...it's ridiculous. And that's just off the top of my head.
And then on the small scale - hell, I have to look at myself first, where I'll buy some food or produce and don't eat it all in time before it spoils. Or the company I work for, they order in a nice lunch for the office each month. There are always leftovers, and while those are descended upon by our employees (I've never been quick enough to get some, and actually would feel uncomfortable doing so), I've fantasized about fixing up a huge plate and giving it to one of the several hungry homeless folks who hang out near our business.
Oh, for sure, Hedo. What amazes me is seeing people order a meal in a restaurant and walk away with half of it left on the plate. (Of course I'm just as surprised if someone can actually finishing eating an entire portion served in most restaurants.) The two of us always spit an order and ask for a second plate. Used to be, some restaurants would charge for a second plate on one order but most places seem cool with doing that now.
What a great idea to fix a meal for a homeless person. It really bugs me that restaurants are no longer allowed to give food out the back door to the homeless. Some places even lock their trash to prohibit dumpster diving. Of course it's even more disturbing that there are homeless people and the need to dumpster dive in a country as wealthy as ours. We had a city authorized homeless camp and food provisions here in Placerville for a while but it got shut down. I don't know the homeless get by today. Really sad.
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 273 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.6K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help