Double overpopulation

Deepeco

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
10
Let's look at the Ehrlich IPAT formula:
I = P x A x T,
or the ecological Impact equals human Population times Affluence times the environmental pressure of Technology.
The ecological impact is too high, as can be seen with the following indicators
-the ecological footprint (which is higher than the biocapacity of the Earth)
-the water footprint (which is higher than the regewable fresh water supply for human consumption)
-the carbon footprint (which is too high and will increase the climate temperature above 2 degrees)
-the biodiversity loss (we are creating the 6th mass-extinction event in the history of the Earth)

The classical idea is to improve technology to decrease our environmental impact. However, this is not enough, as we will not be able to quickly find clean technologies that are biologically/physically realisable, economically/financially possible, ecologically sustainable and ethically responsible. So we also have to focus on the factors Population and Affluence.

Now, if we look at the affluence (or consumption), the consumption of livestock products has the biggest impact. The ecological, water and carbon footprints of American meat and dairy consumption are larger than other consumption categories. Actually, we have an overpopulation in livestock: the cattle, pigs and chickens have high footprints.

So, looking beyond the Technology factor, we have to do two things:
1) The affluence has to decrease, which means voluntary simplicity and veganism because veganism prevents the breeding of livestock animals).
2) The human population has to decrease, and the way to do this is by creating just conditions for a voluntary pregnancy limitation (considering having none or one child).

In summary: there is not only a human overpopulation (related to the P in the IPAT formula), but also a livestock overpopulation (which is related to the A in the IPAT equation).
 
Werbung:
In summary: there is not only a human overpopulation (related to the P in the IPAT formula), but also a livestock overpopulation (which is related to the A in the IPAT equation).

Are you saying that there are more bovines now than before the demise of the Buffalo (American Bison)and European Wisent (Bison bonasus) herds, and therefore more negitive enviornmental effect than before the current livestock population?
 
Are you saying that there are more bovines now than before the demise of the Buffalo (American Bison)and European Wisent (Bison bonasus) herds, and therefore more negitive enviornmental effect than before the current livestock population?

I don't know how many buffalo there were, but I don't think it can match the 1,4 billion bovine, 1,8 billion sheep and goats, 1 billion pigs and 17 billion chickens. The reason why I bthink this? Because rainforest is destroyed for livestock, and the buffaloes didn't do that.
And above all, according to the FAO, livestock-sector is most likely the most important contributor to biodiversity loss (more so than other sectors). And with biodiversity loss we mean mass-extinction. The buffaloes didn't do that.
 
Let's look at the Ehrlich IPAT formula:
I = P x A x T,
or the ecological Impact equals human Population times Affluence times the environmental pressure of Technology.
The ecological impact is too high, as can be seen with the following indicators
-the ecological footprint (which is higher than the biocapacity of the Earth)
-the water footprint (which is higher than the regewable fresh water supply for human consumption)
-the carbon footprint (which is too high and will increase the climate temperature above 2 degrees)
-the biodiversity loss (we are creating the 6th mass-extinction event in the history of the Earth)

The classical idea is to improve technology to decrease our environmental impact. However, this is not enough, as we will not be able to quickly find clean technologies that are biologically/physically realisable, economically/financially possible, ecologically sustainable and ethically responsible. So we also have to focus on the factors Population and Affluence.

Now, if we look at the affluence (or consumption), the consumption of livestock products has the biggest impact. The ecological, water and carbon footprints of American meat and dairy consumption are larger than other consumption categories. Actually, we have an overpopulation in livestock: the cattle, pigs and chickens have high footprints.

So, looking beyond the Technology factor, we have to do two things:
1) The affluence has to decrease, which means voluntary simplicity and veganism because veganism prevents the breeding of livestock animals).
2) The human population has to decrease, and the way to do this is by creating just conditions for a voluntary pregnancy limitation (considering having none or one child).

In summary: there is not only a human overpopulation (related to the P in the IPAT formula), but also a livestock overpopulation (which is related to the A in the IPAT equation).

Do all libs/progressives really believe this BS?
 
Werbung:
Let's look at the Ehrlich IPAT formula:
I = P x A x T,
or the ecological Impact equals human Population times Affluence times the environmental pressure of Technology.
The ecological impact is too high, as can be seen with the following indicators
-the ecological footprint (which is higher than the biocapacity of the Earth)
-the water footprint (which is higher than the regewable fresh water supply for human consumption)
-the carbon footprint (which is too high and will increase the climate temperature above 2 degrees)
-the biodiversity loss (we are creating the 6th mass-extinction event in the history of the Earth)

The classical idea is to improve technology to decrease our environmental impact. However, this is not enough, as we will not be able to quickly find clean technologies that are biologically/physically realisable, economically/financially possible, ecologically sustainable and ethically responsible. So we also have to focus on the factors Population and Affluence.

Now, if we look at the affluence (or consumption), the consumption of livestock products has the biggest impact. The ecological, water and carbon footprints of American meat and dairy consumption are larger than other consumption categories. Actually, we have an overpopulation in livestock: the cattle, pigs and chickens have high footprints.

So, looking beyond the Technology factor, we have to do two things:
1) The affluence has to decrease, which means voluntary simplicity and veganism because veganism prevents the breeding of livestock animals).
2) The human population has to decrease, and the way to do this is by creating just conditions for a voluntary pregnancy limitation (considering having none or one child).

In summary: there is not only a human overpopulation (related to the P in the IPAT formula), but also a livestock overpopulation (which is related to the A in the IPAT equation).


Good post to consider.

I think what you saying is that left completely unchecked at current growth rates of the various things you mentioned (plus others) that the planet is in for severe environmental trouble.

That appears to be a sound observation. Now exactly how we manage the problem is the all important balancing act.

Heck if Conservatives had stayed in power we probably would have just nuked half the world so that whole pesky over population thing would have been addressed in that way. I can see their spin now... It's not killing with nuclear weapons it's just our new "Enhanced Morbidity" strategy.:rolleyes:

It all really boils down to this. Right this second we're getting by doing what we are doing, but the problem is without any doubt whatsoever growing.

Now do we treat the entire planet like we did gas prices, not start earlier building modern extremely fuel efficient vehicles and just idly wait for the price spikes through the roof? Or are we proactive and head off the worst of the problems before they reach critical mass?



 
Back
Top