Being "green" is not the best way forward.

[Tiberius]

Hi Musicbooks,

I haven't seen that report yet - I'll look for it. I would subscribe to the Richard Dawkins view of the universe that has us as electrochemicals clinging to a ball of rock. Of course, that doesn't mean that esoteric concepts such as whether the electrochemicals are "happy" should be ignored.

So there are no other balls of rock with electrochemicals clinging to them? I find that hard to believe, while at the same time having to admit that "belief" is a particularly strange and possibly irrelevant factor.

Nick

 

[HarryB]

Flecc,

I was avoiding trying to answer your original question as it is so complex, but I could have a stab.

I don't know what the optimum population for the world should be. I know when I was on holiday with somebody in the food industry he was very adamant that there was enough food in the world for the growing population. Obviously the population cannot carry on growing but even the dire warnings of overpopulation from the 60's have proved wrong, the forecasts are now less than they were. One way of stabilizing it would be to make the poorer countries richer. The developed worlds have stable/falling populations. I also understand, for wealth generation there has to be a certain population. So your idea of a stable population of 1 billion may not be sustainable (if you consider the wealth that needs to be generated for you to have the jet setting lifestyle you desire).

When you suggest that a population of 1 billion and this would allow us to do all the things you want, you are for me, asking for a definition of what happiness is. We can have a large population but we cannot all have the latest ipod, drive the latest 4X4 or treat meat as anything other than a rare treat. Do these things make you happy and could we be happy living a simple life? Probably. But when if comes to the damage caused to the planet I agree with you that we are like a parasite but once we have gone the planet will recover. Our take-over is completely natural and any species would do the same if they could. We happen to be quite good at it. In terms of time scales we will be here for a staggering short time so maybe we should get over some of the guilt.

A few thoughts about the food crisis and its cause. Seems like a storm of:

High oil prices
Developing countries wanting to eat more meat and less grain
Biofuels removing food like maize from the marketplace.

We could cope with one or two but not all three at the same time. Well we could get rid of biofuels right now and if there was any leadership in this world then we would. The only 'world' leadership that we have is against the wrong target - climate change (as my previous post suggests).

There are several scenarios that could play out here. The most likely for me is that we will invest in technology, be it GM, nuclear fission or fusion, sunshine to petrol to feed the world. There is also no doubt that we can clean up and care for the environment when we put our mind to. There are plenty of examples of us doing this but the smog of the 19/20th Century spring to mind.

But do we really think another world war is likely? I don't. There will always be small local wars until countries civilise (and I include the USA/ UK in this!). The one war that sticks out of course is the Iraq war and that was such a disaster it seems unlikely that the electorate will stand for that again. However in the end, if the greens have their way and we don't invest in technology maybe a world war is inevitable.

 

[sabretache]

Harry

Your faith in the power of 'the electorate' is touching but I fear seriously misplaced.

If there is one thing I have learned over a lifetime of varying degrees of involvement with both local and national politics it is that, so far as the epoch-defining issues of the day are concerned, the electorate are close to irrelevant. The power elites of this world are (and always have been) adept at ensuring they have both presence and major/dominant influence on any party with the remotest chance of taking the levers of nominal governmental power in the Western so-called Democracies. The only way to achieve Privy Council status in the UK (and its equivalents elsewhere) is to understand where the real power lies and to scrupulously avoid damaging its interests. That means becoming a very accomplished and convincing liar so far as communicating with 'the electorate is concerned' - Tony Bliar being the UK's modern archetype. For the remainder of our politicians, well they are little more than the PR face of policies over which they have little to no influence either. The exceptions of course are all those petty little internal national issues like twiddling with tax thresholds, the balances of public expenditure projects and petty but partisan class-war galvanising legislation like The Hunting Act for example.

But the European project, The Washington Consensus, Globalized 'Free' trade (aka trade on terms advantageous to the existing power elites), economic growth. Forget them. If you have a seriously dissenting opinion you will be marginalised at best; if you become a real and credible threat, you may be otherwise dealt with. If treaty votes do not produce the right outcome, why then, we'll just have to change the title of the treaty and have another vote (or not as the case may be) until we DO get the right result.

I could go on but I think my position is fairy clear. Suffice to say that I personally see escalating global conflict as the result of the three converging issues mentioned in my previous post. That together with escalating domestic surveillance and suppression of dissent as a prelude to having to deal with civil unrest on a scale we have yet to see in this country.

I would love to be an optimist on these issues, but then I'm also a sucker for pleasant surprises and you just can't have it all eh?

 

[flecc]

My position isn't just about food Hal, but everything necessary for all the world's population to enjoy an equally good life, regardless of what form their choice of a good life takes, whilst allowing for the continued natural existence of all the other life forms on our planet.

That isn't possible with a population of 6.5 billions, inexorably growing to 9 or even 12 billions. The fundamental resources necessary for such populations are not going to be available on a planet which isn't growing but depleting it's resources.

I agree my proposal has an all embracing sweep which if fully expressed in print would rival the bible. That was the whole point, to illustrate that impossibly complex answers aren't necessary when one single easy to understand answer deals with all of the major problems so effectively.

I absolutely refute that one billion population cannot provide everything we have today, as that's historical thinking last relevant in the early 1950s and before. Then and before governments needed to expand populations to take part in the modern productive world and small countries didn't have a chance.

Now the position is radically different and even a country like Sweden with a population only the size of London's is an internationally recognised industrial giant. Even tiny Finland created and owns global brands like Nokia. Modern science and production has greatly reduced the human involvement necessary in everything from food to electro-mechanical products. Reductions in human involvement of between 40 to 1 and hundreds to one have been achieved in most productive areas, so 1 billion people now are like very many billions in 1930.

What our science cannot do is produce from nowhere the resources to create that food or the manufactured items, but with population reduction, the resources become sufficient for all.
.

 

[cliff]

Soylent Green anyone? (Which, incidentally, I almost got introduced to my employer's canteen menu when designing a template for pre-ordering meals. I’d assumed someone would spot the reference before it was distributed throughout the organisation. I was wrong). Sorry for the note of levity in a very welcome serious discussion.

 

[sabretache]

.... Sorry for the note of levity in a very welcome serious discussion.

No apology need Cliff. A bit of levity is always a good antidote to taking ourselves a little too seriously IMO - even if the subject matter is off the scale of almost any list of pressing global political issues.

As for 'Soylent Green'; one of the better of it's genre - again IMO; I just love little japes like that though - they're part of what makes life worth living when you have a world view that envisages a similar (ish) dystopian future near dead-ahead.

 

[HarryB]

We're all doomed. I am not sure why anybody gets out of bed in the morning. I wonder how many generations have thought the same throughout time. I suppose it is natural to worry about the future and I have been a lot worse since having children.

There is plenty to agree with in everybody's posts. I certainly worry that we are sleep walking into a surveillance society and so few people seems to be worried about it. We get the usual 'if you haven't done anything wrong then it won't harm you'. Well the next step will be computer analysing of faces and movements before certain arrest. It is in its infancy but if your face fits then life will be fairly miserable...ok it will be for the greater good. How much longer will it be before those with responsibilities (eg for children) will have cctv installed in their home - 'don't forget if you haven't done anything wrong then it won't harm you'. British emigration is at a record high, I wonder why.

I am off to fix a puncture before I go on any more...anybody optimistic want to join this forum?

 

[Tiberius]

'if you haven't done anything wrong then it won't harm you'

This is the commonly used argument about ID cards, etc. But it was strangely not forthcoming in the row about releasing details of MPs' expenses.

For some reason that was when we heard all sorts of stuff about privacy, trust and the burden of compliance.

Nick

 

[Footie]

So flecc thinks we should reduce the world population to say around one billion - nature has tried several times to rid the world of Homo sapiens but the trouble is we are so resilient we keep coming back - I blame 85 million years of evolution

Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to recent theory the last attempt was around 70,000 to 75,000, which reduced the world's human population to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs. But you can’t keep a good Homo sapien down

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It only took us 75,000 years to screw everything up. So if we reduce the numbers again we will be back to the same point in another 75,000 years.

How's that for a bit of optimism
.

 

[sabretache]

We're all doomed. I am not sure why anybody gets out of bed in the morning.

I can understand and sympathise with the sentiment but fact is that, regardless of an optimistic or pessimistic outlook on the world, we ARE all doomed anyway . A high proportion exceed the biblically allocated three score and ten years these days but the Grim Reaper gets every one of us in the end. There is just no way around that little conundrum. Though as an ardent student of Ernest Becker, it seems to me that that doesn't prevent the vast majority of us making the pursuit of immortality in one form or another, our life's obsession. As dear old Bob Dylan would have it 'He not busy being born is busy dying'.

On the Surveillance State issue - and just to freak out everyone a bit more - consider this (among a host of other equally chilling scenarios): If the proposed Nation ID scheme does come to fruition, each card will contain one of those ubiquitous RFID chips. Not to broadcast the personal info embedded the card but just sufficient to identify it to central database-linked receivers. That means that, not only will every 'legitimate' use of the card be logged in perpetuity, but every time you come within range of a database linked RFID receiver will be logged too. Just give your imagination a little leeway here - a receiver in every CCT and speed camera will be just the start. It won't be long before your entire life's movements will be logged in much the same way as plotting your cycle trips on an OS map with that clever GPS thingy, but with dates and times included and all at the service of Big Brother who, naturally only has your best interests at heart.

Me? I too am pretty well past it these days, so what the hell; but I have children and lots of tiny grandchildren who are not. I really do have grave concerns about what the future holds for them.

 

[sabretache]

Further to that last doom-and-gloom post of mine - I meant to include these links for your edification. A bit of video humour on the suveillance state thing - though gallows humour is probably a more apt description

Eye on you

and

Pizza surveillance

 

[JohnInStockie]

Hi everyone, glad everyone is doin so well.

Interesting topic Flecc

Had to say this though, I personally am not bothered a jot about the big brother state. I am worried if my 18 and 16 year old daughters are safe when they go out of an evening though.

On the Surveillance State issue - and just to freak out everyone a bit more - consider this (among a host of other equally chilling scenarios): If the proposed Nation ID scheme does come to fruition, each card will contain one of those ubiquitous RFID chips. Not to broadcast the personal info embedded the card but just sufficient to identify it to central database-linked receivers. That means that, not only will every 'legitimate' use of the card be logged in perpetuity, but every time you come within range of a database linked RFID receiver will be logged too. Just give your imagination a little leeway here - a receiver in every CCT and speed camera will be just the start. It won't be long before your entire life's movements will be logged in much the same way as plotting your cycle trips on an OS map with that clever GPS thingy, but with dates and times included and all at the service of Big Brother who, naturally only has your best interests at heart.

Security . . ..

I think you're giving the bureaucrats far too much credit there. From what I have seen of big government and private sector computer systems is that most of them are a joke, firstly they cant build a system to do it, and where they try, the system changes every 10 years anyway (so they would have to rebuild it), and if they did, it would end up being used for something else, like monitoring milkmen or something else completely alien to its original purpose and therefore fail miserably (as the vast majority of computer system usually do).

If it does come to be, fine. If it doesn't, fine. The important thing to me is that rapists and murderers are caught, and if that means I cant speed occasionally, (or other things) Fine!!


The future...

As regards the future of the planet - does it have one? All I can see is more and more resource wars on the horizon to maintain a society built on economics that cannot survive in a 'waste not want not' world. Capitalism flourishes in a communist dictatorship where morality doesn't seem to be a concept, never mind environmental concern.

If we got to 1 billion on the planet, maybe we could make it, but it is not going to happen without war unfortunately.

IMHO


John

 

[Mandy]

Hi
I have read most of this thread with much interest and I see where people are coming from. However I maybe a little contaversial in my views that directly affect the UK and may go a little off topic at times, sorry

I have lived in my little end of terrace 3 bed house since 1980 which was once a lovely community and have since over the years watched lovely fields of pasture land turned into housing estates.

With regards to the over population? I think nowadays it is all too easy to be a single parent in the Uk and claim benefits. Nowadays it is impossible for a single parent to get a job due to the benefits on offer. Rent, which is often an extortunate private rented price due to lack of council housing and over population. Council tax also gets paid etc. All it does is restrict people from working and this may not be their choice but just an impossibility as they cannot possibly cover the costs to get out of a rut and I feel this for the genuine people out there who have been forced into these circumstances and in this rut and is most often not their fault.

However there are far too many single parent teenagers in this country getting a free ride and I do feel somewhat aggrieved about that This then results in overpopulation of the UK

I too was a single parent after my divorce back in 1981 and the social security benefits were very little then and I did various pin money jobs to keep our heads above water. However, I resumed full time work when my youngest started school as I wanted a better standard of living and since then I have done just fine.

The UK are also opening the doors to people from all over Europe in order that they may work and keep the Uk going with regards to jobs but I feel there are far too many brits not bothering to work at all, okay, I am passionate about that, . I just feel people are flocking to the UK but people from the UK are not flocking to other parts of the EU, although I wouldn't mind Spain myself?

I think we should also look after the almost extinct animals on our planet and not just in the Uk. However, I did watch a very interesting programme on the Red Squirrel recently which is I feel close to the heart of the UK and they are protected by individuals supporting them and offering a sanctuary.

I am simply passionate about the Uk and the way it has changed over the years and kind of wished that we had stood alone. Okay that may not have been great for the economy.

I guess I think when the world does come to an end then all of us guys won't be around to see it but does not stop us feeling passionate about how things could be done better but we are not going to make much difference unfortunately, just wish we could?

 

[essexman]

So life would be better with 1 billion people on the planet. Well maybe, but how does one achieve that? Population control? Chinas single child policy? You want to avoid talk of war, but any attempt by the state to dictate how many children you can have would result in civil unrest, violence etc

 

[HarryB]

For those who want to read around this topic. A couple of years ago I read Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress & a Civilization in Trouble (Contents of Plan B) available online. I don't agree with all of the Anthropogenic Global Warming stuff but it is an interesting read nevertheless. Might be a bit optimistic (or naive?) for you lot though.

 

[halfmedley]

The proposition and the subsequent discussion, as I understand it, revolves around the question of sustainability, and whether it is possible.

The factors and their relationship and how they affect sustainability have been succinctly expressed as P x C x T. Where P=population, C=Consumption and T=Technology.

The Kyoto Protocol used figures from 1990 as the baseline and gave each of the factors at that time a nominal value of 1, so:

P x C x T = 1 (ie 1 x 1 x 1 = 1)

This is where it gets interesting. If the Population were to double, Consumption will also double, so:

P x C x T = 4 (ie 2 x 2 x 1 = 4)

In other words our impact on the planet will be four times 1990 levels.

Therefore, merely to maintain our current base level of impact (which itself is arguably unsustainable) then technological advancements have to cut our effects by three quarters, to one quarter of current levels.

So for double population P x C x T = 1 (then 2 x 2 x 0.25 = 1)

The above equation is quite a simplification! but an instructive one nonetheless. Clearly there is scope for technological advances to achieve sustainability, and indeed perhaps improvements in consumption patterns too, but whether they will come quick enough (in terms of say, climate change) is debatable.

The problem is one of complexity. Ever more complex systems require more and more resources to manage but ultimately become unwieldy and collapse.
From the Roman Empire through to the present day Credit Crunch we see many examples of this. The agency of collapse (the when and the how) is, however, unpredictable. One thing seems to be certain though, our increasing population is putting severe pressure on resource availability, currently there are world food shortages for example (not helped with food crop acreage being turned over to growing bio-fuels!).

'Collapse' in scientific circles is not necessarily regarded as a bad thing, representing as it does an opportunity to begin again with simpler and more manageable position. 'Collapse' on a personal level however can be disastrous, whether that ranges from losing ones house, to confronting starvation as crops fail.

Goverment agencies tasked with disaster management suggest we are only ever three meals away from anarchy. Should the worst happen, and our gloriously complex global economic interdependence fail, I fear that the population will indeed be reduced to a more sustainable level, but the survivors will be the ones with the guns.

 

[john]

The proposition and the subsequent discussion, as I understand it, revolves around the question of sustainability, and whether it is possible.

The factors and their relationship and how they affect sustainability have been succinctly expressed as P x C x T. Where P=population, C=Consumption and T=Technology.

The Kyoto Protocol used figures from 1990 as the baseline and gave each of the factors at that time a nominal value of 1, so:

P x C x T = 1 (ie 1 x 1 x 1 = 1)

This is where it gets interesting. If the Population were to double, Consumption will also double, so:

Actually, C=per capita consumption so it is not quite that bad.

But the formula is very useful as it shows that reducing P (if that were possible) would not be sufficient if C continues to rise as it has done.

It seems to me that humans have been quite good at keeping PxCxT in check at the small community level but not much headway has been made at the world level. I wouldn't want to discourage individuals from 'being green' for ethical reasons, but I think that if we don't want the PxCxT limit to be out of our control then we need strong world leadership, whatever form that takes, something we don't currently have.

 

[jontee]

So life would be better with 1 billion people on the planet. Well maybe, but how does one achieve that? Population control? Chinas single child policy? You want to avoid talk of war, but any attempt by the state to dictate how many children you can have would result in civil unrest, violence etc

I dont feel that life would necesarily be better with a drastic population reduction - particularly if it was a sudden population reduction - the survivors would have a lot to compete for and all the consequences of whatever event occured.

Also some of the previous posts do show a change in attitudes (economic,resources etc) and not for the better either.
With so much waste and people all over the world being encouraged to spend money they have'nt got.

One thought seems to have been missed - In our present times we really have not had things so good - ever - in any aspect of life. Problem is - its a very tenuous thread and could break any time.

And as for the present credit crunch - goverments are starting to bale out the banks - how long can that last? It was a (nearly global) financial crash that came before the last global conflict - when resources were not under such stress.

It might be time that third world debt and the stealing of agricultural land for fuels etc be stopped.

Lets hope that the world stays sensible.

 

[jontee]

If this thread carries on the way its going it'll be hard to sleep at night.

 

[flecc]

The problem is one of complexity. Ever more complex systems require more and more resources to manage but ultimately become unwieldy and collapse.

Hence my proposition of the very simple solution of managed population reduction, answering all the problems with a tool that anyone can understand.
.