Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
28. I'm not trying to present this as some kind of "population target".
Fri Mar 22, 2013, 04:54 PM
Mar 2013

It's just part the pedagogical attempt to frame what we're doing in terms of the ecosphere's tolerance.

What do we do?

I've been saying for a couple of years now that we will each do whatever we think is appropriate to the circumstances, in whatever part of "the world" we can reach. The outcome is utterly unforeseeable, because it depends on how the efforts of all 7 billion of us converge, co-operate and compete. and it will be different from place to place - climate change impacts will vary, resources vary, social structures vary, values and belief systems are different all over the world.

The best we can do is to do our best:

Stay awake to what's happening around us.
Don't get hung up by other peoples' shoulds and shouldn'ts.
Examine our values, and if they aren't in alignment with we think the world needs, change them.
Stop blaming people. They are as much victims of the times as we are - even the CEOs and politicians.
Blame, anger and outrage wastes precious energy that we are going to need for more useful work.
Laugh a lot, at everything - including ourselves.
Hold all the world's various beliefs and "isms" lightly, including our own.
Forgive others. Forgive ourselves. For everything.

That's what I think we could do that would be helpful. If we get all that personal stuff right, then doing the physical stuff about food housing, transportation, energy, politics etc. will come easy. Or at least easier. And we will have a lot more fun doing it.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I thought our population was 6,000 times too big. wtmusic Mar 2013 #1
G'day, mate! I wonder how many ways there are to say, GliderGuider Mar 2013 #2
What is the percentage of people across the globe LWolf Mar 2013 #3
Pretty much. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #4
To summarize: LWolf Mar 2013 #11
Pithy and succinct. I like it. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #13
No it isn't. AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #36
Well, now... chervilant Mar 2013 #21
Yes. LWolf Mar 2013 #25
Need to start eating bugs. Neoma Mar 2013 #5
That's why they're called meal-worms, isn't it? GliderGuider Mar 2013 #6
I was being serious. Neoma Mar 2013 #9
I know, just trying to lighten up an other wise deadly-serious topic. nt GliderGuider Mar 2013 #10
Best I can do is recycle and be vegetarian. Neoma Mar 2013 #15
Recycle, Freecycle, and chervilant Mar 2013 #22
I live in a condo, no room for that stuff. Neoma Mar 2013 #23
Have you finalized which 50 million get to continue breathing? FBaggins Mar 2013 #7
Nope. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #12
I've been saying this for decades BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #8
Could I advise you to save your breath, energy and friendships? GliderGuider Mar 2013 #14
I know too. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #16
Hey!!! chervilant Mar 2013 #24
"can't hear you. They will resent you for saying it. " stuntcat Mar 2013 #17
This morning I did a little thought experiment on involuntary population decline GliderGuider Mar 2013 #20
hmm... chervilant Mar 2013 #26
I wonder if your students.. stuntcat Mar 2013 #29
Can I just point out there's no 'data' in the OP at all muriel_volestrangler Mar 2013 #33
I think that if you're right, you should take it up with the OP poster. BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2013 #34
Why is your upper limit "a non-energy-assisted society of hunter-forager-gardeners"? Jim Lane Mar 2013 #18
Because my definition of "sustainability" is too strict to allow for technological renewables GliderGuider Mar 2013 #19
Thanks for the clarification, but I disagree -- there should be some room for technology. Jim Lane Mar 2013 #31
If that turns you on, by all means go for it. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #32
I think your numbers are low, but the gist is right. napoleon_in_rags Mar 2013 #27
I'm not trying to present this as some kind of "population target". GliderGuider Mar 2013 #28
So, even the Georgia Guidestones figure of "500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature", is high. NYC_SKP Mar 2013 #30
My assumption about the number that represents sustainability is just that - an assumption GliderGuider Mar 2013 #35
"1500% into overshoot" ... should be 14900%. nt eppur_se_muova Mar 2013 #37
Yeah, I realized that later. My web article has it corrected. GliderGuider Mar 2013 #38
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»How overpopulated is the ...»Reply #28