The Environment Thread :-)
58 watchers
28 Aug
7:26pm, 28 Aug 2024
24,653 posts
|
3M
This is interesting.... theconversation.com Maybe Malthusian ideals don't help on their own. |
28 Aug
7:38pm, 28 Aug 2024
50,797 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Yes (to the question will reducing population help the planet?)  G
|
|
28 Aug
11:39pm, 28 Aug 2024
24,660 posts
|
3M
Not qu!ite so clear cut @HappyG(rrr)! At least, not on its own without changes in human behaviour.
|
|
29 Aug
9:10am, 29 Aug 2024
50,800 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
You've lost me there 3M. With no changes to behaviour, just fewer humans, the planet would benefit. We are the main cause of planetary damage? Change in behaviour is ALSO required, totally agree. G
|
29 Aug
10:25pm, 29 Aug 2024
5,356 posts
|
run free
I see where 3M is coming from. Here is a consideration 1. My little community fridge in a small town collects the food that would be wasted by supermarkets twice a week. We have already prevented 15 tonnes of food from being wasted this year. 2. Whilst on a wee cycle ride around Germany, we saw an estimated of 10s of thousands of courgettes destined to be wasted as they were old and broken. I can’t even estimate the field size 3. When I was campaigning for less waste at marathon events, an import company asked me to help them as they have tonnes of food waste a day 4. There are tonnes being wasted each day by companies doing promotions and then destroying the surplus 5. And there Is apparently 9 millions tonnes of good food tossed out of households every year according to WRAP That is just the food waste at every stage. Now look at the clothing waste etc, the litter, the destruction of a large Green belt area to build a 5-star hotel (in my area); the number of skips with good stuff being tossed out cos it is out dated. Cigarette butts are hugely toxic to the ground, water and air yet are happily accepted as normal for someone to toss it on the ground. So will reducing our population reduce the harm they do. I don’t think so... just more resources to screw as we become more separate from our natural world |
|
29 Aug
10:47pm, 29 Aug 2024
5,357 posts
|
run free
Also there are lots of people in the world who are like Trump.
|
|
29 Aug
10:56pm, 29 Aug 2024
24,661 posts
|
3M
And there's a thing that as individuals and populations age, they tend to use more energy... So fewer younger people in the population as a whole doesn't necessarily equate to a significant drop in energy consumption, and may actually result in a greater consumption because all those old folk are using their "civilised" tools to get by. |
30 Aug
5:57am, 30 Aug 2024
21,725 posts
|
Dave W
Less people equals less waste (less litter, less wasted food, less cigarette butts etc). Got to be better for the living planet. The planet is going to survive whatever we do to it. It's just a huge lump of rock and metal circling the sun. We're too puny to really damage that. The living things on the planet, however. Quite a different matter. The only thing that can save the living planet is some sort of apocalypse that destroys mankind, at least to levels where it gives the rest of the living world a fighting chance. Otherwise, over time, every other living thing on the planet will be subsumed to mans greed. There will always be bastards like Trump, who just think that everything else is for their amusement/convenience and don't give a flying shit about anything or anyone else. Me, me, me, all the way. Cheery, eh? Fortunately, I won't be here to see it. |
|
30 Aug
8:04am, 30 Aug 2024
50,806 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
I think most of the climate debate is about how we can help over say the next 1,000 years humans not to make the world uninhabitable, mostly for humans! (And other mammals and creatures that require similar conditions). Of course, the actual ball called The Earth will survive. Yes, reducing population will increase proportion of old people, who are worse polluters than young people 3M. But that will balance out in 1-2 generations (so 50 years). Fewer people consumption. To run free's point, we need to also not waste stuff, but generally, fewer people, less production too, even without changing the *proportion* of waste. But yes, totally agree with run free and yourself, also need to change all behaviours - reduce waste, increase reuse, reduce production and consumption by all means possible etc. G
|
|
30 Aug
9:43am, 30 Aug 2024
24,665 posts
|
3M
Earth Abides...
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.- why Kodak completely missed the boat when it came to digital cameras
- rf_fozzy: This is quite a good article about how disruptive technology work
- run free's Grand Designs example Ben Laws is a man who built his dream
- Carbon Commentary carboncommentary.com
- UK ombudsman for problems with electricity or gas
Related Threads
-
Ethical choices
Apr 2021
-
Electric car anyone?
Nov 2024
-
Solar pv and other domestic micro-generation technologies
Oct 2024
-
Reusable/collapsible water cups
Oct 2024
-
Reducing single-use/disposable plastic
Sep 2024
-
The Green Runners
Apr 2024
-
Today I will consume mindfully...
Apr 2024
-
Journey to Zero Waste
Jan 2024
-
Greta Thunberg - JFK for the Climate Generation?
Oct 2022
-
Preventing Food Waste Ideas
Dec 2021