Environment & Energy

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)

35. The population reduction requirement is based on two factors

Tue Dec 13, 2011, 12:18 PM

Dec 2011

The first factor is the number. As far as I can tell, the long-term sustainable human population is around 1 billion people. Achieving and staying at or below that number would take enough pressure off natural habitats to leave other species with some opportunity for survival. It would also permit the recovery of some of the air, water and soil degradation our overgrowth has caused.

The second factor is the timeline. The longer we remain on our current trajectory of increasing overshoot the more damage we do to the planetary ecosystems that all life (including humans) require for survival. If we stay our present course for another 50 years the situation will probably be unrecoverable, and massive perturbations in the course of life on the planet will be well under way.

So given those assumptions, I think we would need to be on course for our new lower numbers within the next two decades, while reducing consumption and activity levels commensurately at the same time.

That's what it would take.

Could we do it? 50/50. Maybe less.
Will we do it? Hell, no.

What will the consequences be? Utterly unpredictable and probably unimaginable.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

90 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"The battle of the energy titans comes down to one great contest: nuclear vs. coal." [View all] wtmusic Dec 2011 OP

Mastodons and Saber-tooth Tigers Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #1

The EIA sees up to 29GW of new nuclear in 25 years wtmusic Dec 2011 #2

The EIA... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #3

Based on? wtmusic Dec 2011 #29

Where is the scientific analysis that concludes "renewables are...not enough on their own"? kristopher Dec 2011 #4

I didn't provide a scientific analysis of the deficiencies inherent in billions of hamster wheels wtmusic Dec 2011 #19

Sadly, �common sense� does not always match up with truth OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #34

18 billion tons of CO2 saved with 150 extra nuclear plants over 20 years NickB79 Dec 2011 #5

Only shills for the nuclear industry say that energy choice is limited to either coal or nukes. diane in sf Dec 2011 #6

Or shills for the coal industry, yes? GliderGuider Dec 2011 #7

No, shills for the coal industry don�t allow for the nuclear option OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #8

The OP presented it as a contest between the two. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #9

It presents the false dichotomy, �if not nuclear then coal� OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #10

98.7% of the energy now used by is destroying the future of 100% of life on this planet. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #11

You've been on both sides of the nuclear fence XemaSab Dec 2011 #12

It's not nuclear power on its own that threatens all life. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #13

It would certainly mean a redefinition of "civilization" XemaSab Dec 2011 #14

Yes, it would. On the other hand GliderGuider Dec 2011 #22

In the US... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #16

How? wtmusic Dec 2011 #18

Here... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #21

You're confused. wtmusic Dec 2011 #24

Yes, we could be producing 100% of what we now produce with renewables OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #32

Oh please. wtmusic Dec 2011 #38

Or, so you say OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #55

Study: Solar power is cheaper than nuclear OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #59

Will this do? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #39

Wow, those green squares are tiny! wtmusic Dec 2011 #42

I'm discounting this figure XemaSab Dec 2011 #62

DoE figures from 2003 OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #63

I'm not saying that solar can't provide a lot of our energy XemaSab Dec 2011 #66

I believe the map with the boxes reflects the DoE figures OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #67

It's a very important chart to understand. txlibdem Dec 2011 #70

I believe the DoE figure (100 miles � 100 miles) relates to electical needs only OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #78

It's not just electricity, it's all energy including fuels. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #20

Why? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #23

Here are articles with a non-mainstream view of various aspects of the global eco-clusterfuck. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #26

There's possible and then there's probable XemaSab Dec 2011 #27

..reduce energy consumption, material consumption, our numbers and overall activity levels by 85%.. Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #33

The population reduction requirement is based on two factors GliderGuider Dec 2011 #35

How is that 1 billion number calculated? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #41

As I said, GliderGuider Dec 2011 #44

In other words... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #48

That's a pretty strong accusation for a noob, Bob. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #51

Jam your "noob" Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #64

The reason I commented like that GliderGuider Dec 2011 #69

Point by point... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #71

Well, there we are. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #72

This message was self-deleted by its author joshcryer Dec 2011 #73

Barely a point... joshcryer Dec 2011 #74

And to follow up on what Josh is saying XemaSab Dec 2011 #75

Josh, my opinion on Peak Food is probably the most controversial. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #76

We're already seeing an increase in food prices XemaSab Dec 2011 #82

The thing is, oil will become unaffordable a decade or two before the aquifers are depleted. joshcryer Dec 2011 #84

I'm more concerned about rainfed agriculture. GliderGuider Dec 2011 #85

Well, yeah, I should say my whole POV is America-centric. joshcryer Dec 2011 #86

I'm on the opposite side of the fence XemaSab Dec 2011 #87

I'm on the opposite side of the planet. Dead_Parrot Dec 2011 #88

The ones who don't know how to use a gun? joshcryer Dec 2011 #89

'Cause that went so well in Vietnam? XemaSab Dec 2011 #90

"Will we do it? Hell, no." Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #52

That's pretty much the situation as I see it too. n/t GliderGuider Dec 2011 #56

That's why I've been focusing at least as much on economics Ghost Dog Dec 2011 #57

Going 100% Green: Pie in the Sky or Down to Earth? OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #58

Going 100% Green: Pie in the Sky or Down to Earth? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #65

Speaking strictly of TVs, your choice of tv can mean up to 70% energy savings (Chart) txlibdem Dec 2011 #28

Efficiency is the low-hanging fruit... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #68

Efficiency the low hanging fruit txlibdem Dec 2011 #83

Not false at all. wtmusic Dec 2011 #17

How about we don't make up facts? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #25

Yes, let's not. wtmusic Dec 2011 #30

Are you intentionally misleading? Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #60

Of course it�s a false dichotomy OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #31

No, they couldn't. wtmusic Dec 2011 #36

Uh� take it up with the people who were there OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #37

I was there. wtmusic Dec 2011 #40

Jimmy had an excellent heart and was � not an engineer. OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #43

Qualified engineers are everywhere wtmusic Dec 2011 #45

Admit it, you�re wrong OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #46

Pathetic. wtmusic Dec 2011 #49

Those are Seaborg�s words OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #50

Biography of Jimmy Carter OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #54

Actually, Carter has a pretty solid engineering background... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #47

Germany... Bob Wallace Dec 2011 #61

National Geographic shills for nuclear now? wtmusic Dec 2011 #15

Don�t pretend that an excerpt from a book is the entire book OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #53

And don't pretend that a review about a book is the book, either wtmusic Dec 2011 #79

Unwavering, in that he�s held this view for a few years OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #81

Like those are the ONLY options on the table? Dover Dec 2011 #77

Which is why I call it a false dichotomy OKIsItJustMe Dec 2011 #80