All those wetlands are filled with water, which we are polluting. Trump removing the Clean Water Act last week also doesn't help the situation. Eventually this water will get contaminated, insects and species will die. There's no doubt in my mind of that if we keep putting money first.
The Trump administration's reinterpretation of the Migratory Bird Treat Act of 1918, which protects migratory birds, also doesn't help.
They interpret it to only prohibit intentionally killing protected birds. So, if you wanted to, say, drain a wetland that migratory birds depended on to build a parking lot, which would wipe out nesting grounds and lead to a lot of bird deaths--that would be fine under the Trump interpretation as long as you aren't building the parking lot to intentionally kill the birds.
This has already started having an effect. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, for instance, no longer stops loggers from cutting down trees with nests of protected birds in them, killing eggs or chicks.
I've been working in environmental advocacy for about 8 years. I'm pretty sure we won't go extinct. I am also pretty sure this era of peace and prosperity is coming to a close. I think new technical solutions are coming, but I don't think they're getting here fast enough to guarantee that every country will get enough food. I recommend your children move to higher latitudes and altitudes.
Already ahead of you. Moved my children (all under 10) from Austin, TX to Ithaca, NY (above 42 latitude) based on long-term climate change forecast models and detailed regional models that I ran based on what data I could gather, as well as taking feedback loops into account.
I took regional agricultural production and soil quality, active regional environmentalism, presence of higher education (Cornell), water sources, historical wildfires, and more into account. I'm hopeful that I picked a place that will give my children a less frightening future than the rest of the country, at least for a while longer.
I'm working on buying some land now to start working on some basic agricultural production and building a home designed around "edge case" risks being less edge than normal such as extreme weather, temperature, vermin, and unreliable utilities.
Don't wait on a consensus solution because it's difficult and slow to establish consensus and it's easy for malicious actors to frustrate. Get together with like-minded friends and engage in direct action against environmental criminals that will draw public attention to their malfeasance.
No. John Forbs Nash did the math 40 years ago. Nothing changes until its profitable to change and it will only be profitable to change when its already to late.
What? R+D investment is still a real thing, even if investors have shorter time horizons than they used to. There are still firms sacrificing short term gains for long term ones.
I have a suggestion for obtaining perspective. If we could find the right kind of biologist, we might ask them to estimate how many other species went extinct by destroying their environment. How common is that? I know it happens with deer and rabbits on islands but what about more generally. I know our situation is different, but I'd still like to know and factor it in to a larger answer.
Well, the further you go, the less likely is it that you can row it back... What is the exact opposite of engineering.
What means that you made a clear point, that I don't think anybody misunderstood, with a clear optimistic message. Still I think it's more pessimist than the reality.
Sadly, our system of infrastructure funding is predicated on increasing populations and growing tax bases. A population decline would result in bankrupt cities and even worse infrastructure problems.
With a future of climate-induced migrations, we will likely face these problems anyway as people leave areas and never come back (or simply die) after "edge case" disasters strike.
There are better solutions to climate change. But access to solid sex education, free birth control, and legal and safe abortions would go far to aid in a lot of issues, over population included. It wouldn’t even require any draconian measures, just give people the tools for proper family planning.
You realize that the latest global 2050 population estimates while being more or less unchanged in total (11B+), had an upward prediction for Africa as a direct consequence of the Trump administration's changes in support for birth control programs in the region?
Sorry for the missed date. Obviously this was the 2100 projection, not the 2050 one.
reference: JPFP The Japan Parliamentarians Federation for Population NEWS LETTERNo.60 August 2017 “World Population Prospects: Have their continuous upward revisions ended?"
"Furthermore although Africa’s total fertility rate (TFR) is falling if only moderately, it is still high, at around 5.0. This means that alongside promoting economic development in Africa, it will be prudent to strengthen support for expanding RH services there, including family planning. A source of concern for Africa’s fertility rates from now on, however, is that the reactivation by the Trump Administration ofthe Mexico City Policyis an obstacle to any such strengthening. This decision taken by the U.S. will have a major impact on Africa’s population issues, and policies will be needed to counter that."
I don't get this argument. How are we going to decide who is trimmed? Who does the trimming? How will they be trimmed? It's a non-starter. Sure we may have too many people but who would actively support killing people? especially when the people causing the most damage are the wealthiest that read sites like this
Eugenics implies reducing the gene frequency of genes bad for society either through sterilization or mass killings. Reducing the population proportionately through evenly reduced fertility rates like the one child policy wouldn't change gene frequency.
"Reducing" (by means unspecified) sounds uncomfortably close to mass killing.
Worse, the logic of the "climate action now" position is that we can't wait for 2050. That will be too late. Well, if you want to reduce the population by 2050, what concrete steps do you propose? (I know, you didn't say 2050. I think "action now" is inherent in the logic of your position, though.)
Sure, not adding will work... by 2200, maybe 2100. But, if you believe the current panic about the climate, that's far too late. So if you think that the population has to be reduced, and you think that we need action by 2050 at the latest, what is your proposal?
Obviously, "not adding" is good but not sufficient. We need to decrease the population. There are multiple ways to do that (all unpopular): 1) (the obvious) actively kill some people. That would work but most people don't like that option. 2) inactively kill some people - by not trying to feed everyone, not trying to prolong the life of sick people etc. That's also not popular (but would help). 3) forcefully reduce increase by placing limits on numbers of children per person, forced sterilisation etc (also not popular). 4) Just wait; the climate change we've started + the rapid decrease in resources available will at some point force a massive die-off. That seems to be what everyone is going for..
You cannot fix overpopulation while still keeping your empathy and "everyone has a right to life" hats on. There needs to be a decrease and it will have to be ugly and unpleasant. No way around that. It's either survival of the species or the death of humanity. You have to take off the civilized glasses if you actually want to fix the global problem (which is the number of humans inhabiting the planet beyond its sustainable limits).
If we're willing to abandon empathy and kill massive numbers of people, one wonders what the point of us surviving as a species is. Isn't it better to die with our humanity intact, rather than to live on as monsters?
Just so you know, there isn't too many people for the planet. The planet can handle a lot more. What it can't handle is this many people at the US's level of consumption. But not consumption of food of medicine, but of banal shit like driving huge trucks with 10 MPG everywhere instead of using public transport, or overnight shipping for new iphone every year.
The simple solution is to stop consuming like crazy, which can be easily achieved by adding the planet-destroying externalities to price of everything.
If there is no engineering solution coming soon, that is the only peaceful one. Either that or our hand will be forced by mother nature like whole countries start to get wiped off the face of the earth. I assume we will adapt if the change is not fast enough though.
So no proposal, just a dim view of our possible outcome if the overpopulation is not solved. The problem lies in how we view the earth as a personal resource instead of a shared habitat.
Given that our current education system seems to result in a sharp rise of the flat-earthers and the anti-vaxers, spreading it might just do the trick /s
Reducing can mean helping developing countries advance to a point where they have a social safety net, less children per family by having better sex education, more opportunities for women, access to contraceptives.
You cannot deny that it would work. If we are seriously researching (global, species wide) solutions, it has to be part of the possible solution set.
If your focus is "survival of a given individual", then I agree it's probably not a solution.
But if your focus is "survival of the human species in the long term", then it very much is a part of the solution space.
No it won't, because most of the world-destroying is done by the West (especially the US) because of high-tech high-consumption with no regards to environmental externalities.
Even if you march everyone in Africa and India do death camp (and it's always Africa and India with people like this), the US is more than capable of destroying the people by itself.
What are the chances that we will get our act together or be able to engineer ourselves out of all of these problems?