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

Environment & Energy

NickB79

(20,332 posts)

28. Yes, they do decline, just not enough to save our skins

Reply to CreekDog (Reply #25)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 04:48 PM

Jun 2013

I'm of the opinion that we're probably about 2-3 billion people over carrying capacity on this planet, and that the only way to ensure the long-term survival of our civilization depends on getting our population down to around 4-5 billion.

Cutting your birth rate from 5.0 to 3.0 in a non-Westernized nation is a great achievement; it just isn't enough of one.

When we can get the global average birthrate down BELOW replacement level, then we're getting somewhere. As it stands, we're not expected to reach this point until around 2050 or so, at which point we'll have pretty much already pushed this planet beyond the breaking point WRT it's ability to sustain a global human civilization like we have today.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

32 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

May 2013 Atmospheric CO2 Concentration 399.89 ppm; May 2012 396.87; May 2011 394.29 [View all] hatrack Jun 2013 OP

The concept western civilization needs to start thinking about is "not doing". Gregorian Jun 2013 #1

Shorter version: "Don't just DO something - stand there!!" hatrack Jun 2013 #2

My best friend back in 1972 had that very bumper sticker. Gregorian Jun 2013 #5

Can we put "reproducing" at the top of the "not doing" list? nt wtmusic Jun 2013 #3

You must be a mind reader. Gregorian Jun 2013 #4

how do you reduce population growth? CreekDog Jun 2013 #12

"You" don't, of course. GliderGuider Jun 2013 #21

I think that answer is too long --you/I/we reduce population growth by increasing standard of living CreekDog Jun 2013 #23

The problem lies in our definition of "standard of living" NickB79 Jun 2013 #24

that's not true --birth rates decline in societies with out western style consumption CreekDog Jun 2013 #25

Yes, they do decline, just not enough to save our skins NickB79 Jun 2013 #28

No, you're not alone. GliderGuider Jun 2013 #26

let me ask, would you want economic collapse such as happened in the Eastern Block? CreekDog Jun 2013 #27

Remember: "Morals" are subjective. Nihil Jun 2013 #29

No, I don't "want" it, but I don't think it can be avoided. GliderGuider Jun 2013 #32

The concentration. Of CO2 in the air is 400 ppm Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #6

However, since there IS a greenhouse effect, and CO2 only helps plants up to a point . . . hatrack Jun 2013 #7

I like to be soothing Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #8

Your signature line says more than you know - goodbye. hatrack Jun 2013 #9

Remember a couple of years ago, when the Arctic melt really accelerated? NickB79 Jun 2013 #15

The world's most abundant renewable resource GliderGuider Jun 2013 #10

I agree Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #13

"the world stopped warming about 14 years ago" NickB79 Jun 2013 #14

Actually those statements may be wrong. Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #17

No, you are going to stop wasting OUR time - your denier troll bullshit is no longer needed here hatrack Jun 2013 #19

Thank you. Nihil Jun 2013 #20

Thank you!!!!! sikofit3 Jun 2013 #22

+1000 Thank You hatrack. n/t CRH Jun 2013 #30

Thanks for your support, y'all . . . hatrack Jun 2013 #31

"The world" did not actually stop warming 14 years ago. GliderGuider Jun 2013 #16

Indeed the ocean absorbs heat Socialistlemur Jun 2013 #18

environment tardybar Jun 2013 #11