The demise of The Great Salt Lake...

static111 said:

show previous quotes

brianlux said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

For sure! I'm going to just toot my own horn and say I do a lot, as I have had no children (which is in fact the #1 most damaging thing a person can do to the environment), and I have lived my entire life car-free. I also fortunately love being cold, and have my heat turned completely off about 345 days a year, and on for only a few hours for the other 20. So I have no personal guilt, aside from being a parasite as a human being, lol. I can't help that.... Actually, correction. I do totally suck in one big way. I'm a total meat eater and I have no plans to stop. So that's my big hypocritical thing.

I do strongly believe that people have to stop having children. I know how controversial that is, and that most parents will just call me ridiculous for saying, but I also know that that would solve a whole lot of problems.

Stop having kids completely? Or just stop having large families?

I mean, I know it won't happen, but in the first world, completely. There were 100 million refugees resulting from climate change migration in 2022 alone. There are more than enough people to fill the job vacancies without us having kids, and the problem of climate migration is only going to get worse. Technically we should not be filling our populations (and jobs and schools) by procreating ourselves and growing new polluters and resource gobblers. We should be doing it with the climate refugees, as more and more places will become uninhabitable. The world's population HAS to shrink and be redistributed if we are to have any hope at all, and we are going to have to deal with the consequences of a shrinking population. Otherwise we are done for. Again, I realize people are unfortunately going to keep feeling like they need to have kids so they kind of feel like they can live forever through them... but having kids seriously is the most harmful thing any of us can do to the environment right now.

And since I know this is never going to happen, I already think we ARE done for, which is why I started off in this thread saying it's too late!

Regarding your words in bold above, there is so much irony in that.  People want to have kids so as to carry on their lineage, yet in doings so we overpopulate our species and threaten our very existence.  There's no lineage in an extinct species.

static111 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mace1229 said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry I can't be more positive but... it's too late IMO.

It does not look good, that's for sure.  I do find some hope in the fact that researchers like Bonnie Baxter and Ben Abbott, brave and stalwart souls they be, are working hard to raise awareness and seek solution. 
Sadly, the conservative government of Utah seems unwilling to face realities, even at their own peril.  It is a peculiar characteristics of many people to stand by their entrenched beliefs rather than save their own behinds.

Yes, and ultimately it's just people. The regular masses who just can't imagine terrible things happening to them. If the masses cared, then the government would act, or lose power. And I don't think Democrats are doing all that much better in this regard TBH. They talk some talk, but still don't do nearly enough, and Dem voters like convenience just as much as any GOPer out there.

Yeah, I totally agree on all counts.  Democrats in general are more supportive of environmental protection but as you say, a lot of talk, not nearly enough action far too many compromises. Politicians in general are doing doing enough.

We can do more as well.  Everybody needs to step up and make some adjustments to how we live.  More sweaters, less energy for heating.  Reuse and recycle and buy durable instead of disposable. Maintain things so they last longer. Drive less (much less!).  We can all make a difference and still be relatively comfortable and happy. 

For sure! I'm going to just toot my own horn and say I do a lot, as I have had no children (which is in fact the #1 most damaging thing a person can do to the environment), and I have lived my entire life car-free. I also fortunately love being cold, and have my heat turned completely off about 345 days a year, and on for only a few hours for the other 20. So I have no personal guilt, aside from being a parasite as a human being, lol. I can't help that.... Actually, correction. I do totally suck in one big way. I'm a total meat eater and I have no plans to stop. So that's my big hypocritical thing.

I do strongly believe that people have to stop having children. I know how controversial that is, and that most parents will just call me ridiculous for saying, but I also know that that would solve a whole lot of problems.

Stop having kids completely? Or just stop having large families?

I mean, I know it won't happen, but in the first world, completely. There were 100 million refugees resulting from climate change migration in 2022 alone. There are more than enough people to fill the job vacancies without us having kids, and the problem of climate migration is only going to get worse. Technically we should not be filling our populations (and jobs and schools) by procreating ourselves and growing new polluters and resource gobblers. We should be doing it with the climate refugees, as more and more places will become uninhabitable. The world's population HAS to shrink and be redistributed if we are to have any hope at all, and we are going to have to deal with the consequences of a shrinking population. Otherwise we are done for. Again, I realize people are unfortunately going to keep feeling like they need to have kids so they kind of feel like they can live forever through them... but having kids seriously is the most harmful thing any of us can do to the environment right now.

And since I know this is never going to happen, I already think we ARE done for, which is why I started off in this thread saying it's too late!

Why not put the onus on the areas where people are over populating to not have kids rather than where there is stable or negative population growth?

That is also a good point but a very difficult thing to accomplish.  My understanding is that better education is the answer.  Well educated people generally tend to pro-create at a much lower rate.  I will be so bold as to also say I believe that is why our overall level of intelligence is decreasing. 

I just want to make clear that I am not for the point that my question implies.  I think it is as ridiculous as expecting western people to not procreate.  It is IMO ridiculous and untenable and not for selfish reasons.  When you even open that door it leads into all sorts of murky waters as to who deserves to live, have kids, etc.   Keep in mind that the US is the 186th most densely populated country which doesn't exactly raise an alarm as the worst offender for global overpopulation.  So what constitutes over population?  We would have to define that.  Is it the inability for a culture to provide for all of it's citizens, is it over taxing the land and natural resources, is it people having more kids than they can afford per capita?  Then of course who decides?  Dangerous waters in my opinion.  

I totally agree that enforced birth control is not the way to go.  I think education is the key.

As for what constitutes overpopulation- that is a difficult question.  It makes sense to me to leave that to people well versed in biological and ecological (especially population ecology) to determine.  It makes sense to me to look at it from a regional perspective.  In an idea world. every region would limit its population to what is sustainable within that region- that's how it works in the natural world with other species.  But, unfortunately, we seem to think we are above nature's parameters.  Thinking that way is a big mistake!

I think over consumption and a society built on constantly needing more is of far greater concern than population.  If the societies with the most power were not consuming beyond the means of the earth to provide and actually practicing regenerative farming, living a more community based system etc, I would venture that no one would be talking about overpopulation.  But they would be screaming about the economy.  At that point we would be eating our own local produce and laughing.   It's worth dreaming about at least.

Zod said:

I think consumption is definitely a problem.  If all the poorer countries on the planet have the same standard as living as the richer ones, this planet would be even more right f'd.   That being said I think overpopulation is a big issue.   Even if you take out consumerism. we've depleted natural resources for food, and now global warming is causing weather events that impact our ability to farm large quantities of food.  California/Arizona are 1 more drought year away from having massive issues which would drastically have an impact on north american food supply.

I guess the other way to look at it, is that world has finite resources.  The more people that live on it, the less there is for everyone, the less people that live on it, the more there is for everyone.

static111 said:

Many of the problems with agriculture are due to using chemical based methods rather than regenerative practices which in essence is basically turning farmland into salt flats little by little.  If we worked with the earth instead of against it the earth could sustain easily as many people as we have.  There would of course have to be less driving, less consumption of fossil fuels, less consumerism, much less out of season and non local produce, but it could be done.  If you are living in a half a million dollar home surrounded by all the creature comforts of consumerism, it may be easier to day dream about limiting other people's ability to procreate rather than looking at what you could do and push the problem on to others, but hey that's the American way.

static111 said:

show previous quotes

brianlux said:

static111 said:

Many of the problems with agriculture are due to using chemical based methods rather than regenerative practices which in essence is basically turning farmland into salt flats little by little.  If we worked with the earth instead of against it the earth could sustain easily as many people as we have.  There would of course have to be less driving, less consumption of fossil fuels, less consumerism, much less out of season and non local produce, but it could be done.  If you are living in a half a million dollar home surrounded by all the creature comforts of consumerism, it may be easier to day dream about limiting other people's ability to procreate rather than looking at what you could do and push the problem on to others, but hey that's the American way.

Yeah, agriculture in America is an unfolding disaster.  All those toxic chemicals in the soil and most aquifers being drained.  Good point, sad situation.

I agree that population is an accelerant, but I don't see it as the root cause.  As long as we have to grow our economy like a cancer we will see the same results.  Halve the population but expect a constantly growing consumer economy and you will get to the same place eventually.  

static111 said:

show previous quotes

brianlux said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

static111 said:

Many of the problems with agriculture are due to using chemical based methods rather than regenerative practices which in essence is basically turning farmland into salt flats little by little.  If we worked with the earth instead of against it the earth could sustain easily as many people as we have.  There would of course have to be less driving, less consumption of fossil fuels, less consumerism, much less out of season and non local produce, but it could be done.  If you are living in a half a million dollar home surrounded by all the creature comforts of consumerism, it may be easier to day dream about limiting other people's ability to procreate rather than looking at what you could do and push the problem on to others, but hey that's the American way.

Yeah, agriculture in America is an unfolding disaster.  All those toxic chemicals in the soil and most aquifers being drained.  Good point, sad situation.

I agree that population is an accelerant, but I don't see it as the root cause.  As long as we have to grow our economy like a cancer we will see the same results.  Halve the population but expect a constantly growing consumer economy and you will get to the same place eventually.  

I think we need to do both- slow population growth and (in the first world) learn to live more simply.  And not just consume less but make what we consume more durable.  First world economies rely on people buying not just an excess of merchandise, but also merchandise that is built specifically to fail.  Electronics are a prime example and lead to things like this:

A boy pushing a shopping cart load of wires going for burning in the Agbogbloshie ghetto in Accra, Ghana. Photo by: Kwei Quartey.

The sheer volume and density of trash is staggering. Photo by: Kwei Quartey.

https://news.mongabay.com/2011/09/children-on-the-frontlines-the-e-waste-epidemic-in-africa/

and that was 2010!