State of the Planet

srw

It's a bit more complicated than that...
somewhere between 9-11 billion by 2100.
Those projections are so dependent on assumptions about fertility in specific countries that a range of only 2 billion is massively understating the uncertainty, and your worldometer is frankly just a scare tool - it's certainly not a credible way of representing a complex picture.

There's a wealth of information at the UN site: https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/. Just to take one example of a country often portrayed as "a massive problem", here's the projections for the Chinese population:

upload_2019-4-27_19-13-22.png


It's striking, incidentally, that the People's Bank of China (the Chinese equivalent of the Bank of England) was one of the first signatories of the Network for the Greening of the Financial System. (https://www.banque-france.fr/sites/default/files/media/2019/04/17/synthese_ngfs-2019_-_17042019_0.pdf)

Simply by increasing the rate of development of a few large African countries, which all the evidence ever collected shows results in smaller families, we can reduce the earth's population quite quickly.

And I wouldn't worry about the influence of the Pope. There's no evidence at all that enough people listen to the official Catholic teaching on birth control to make a difference to population.
 
Last edited:

mudsticks

Veteran
It's not taboo, it's just seen as a rather simplistic view these days, and unfortunately - and I am not sugggesting this is your view at all - is also often a cover for racism.
Access to reproductive health facilities, is so often used as a political weapon too.

There's some pretty retrograde steps being taken in The States right now even.

Women's rights to self determination, has been shown over and over to limit the birth rate.

These rights should be upheld of course, in all parts of the world anyway

But the fact that they help limit population growth, has to be a welcome side benefit
 

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
Simply by increasing the rate of development of a few large African countries, which all the evidence ever collected shows results in smaller families, we can reduce the earth's population quite quickly.

And I wouldn't worry about the influence of the Pope. There's no evidence at all that enough people listen to the official Catholic teaching on birth control to make a difference to population.
Africa has been in receipt of both government as numerous support from different kind of charities. Still after years of aid zero to nothing has really changed. Assuming you are correct and it is a question of simply increasing the rate of development, how do you want to achieve that?
 

mudsticks

Veteran
Africa has been in receipt of both government as numerous support from different kind of charities. Still after years of a.
Aid zero to nothing has really changed. Assuming you are correct and it is a question of simply increasing the rate of development, how do you want to achieve that?
'Africa' is not one homogenous country.

Different countries in Africa are developing at different rates. Some countries are far more prosperous than others.

Aid such as it is, is often very much tied to trade, so it will be dependant on the recipient subjecting themselves to the will of the donor, usually very much to the donors advantage.

The Western world continues extractive practices, and big corps continue to exploit.

And dump their toxic waste there.

Water systems in Ghana are being contaminated by electronic waste.

Look at the despicable way Shell has behaved in the Niger Delta,

Exploitative corps routinely take advantage of corrupt and weakened governments, for massive profit.

And good governance, land rights, democratic progress are swept aside.

Land grabbing, is still going on

Add on top of that the drought and flooding caused by climate change, often leading to more conflict and suffering, its no wonder that many places are still struggling.

'Charity' and aid are tiny, and rather insulting sticking plasters applied, when compared with the external damage that's been done.
 
Last edited:

dutchguylivingintheuk

Well-Known Member
'Africa' is not one homogenous country.

Different countries in Africa are developing at different rates. Some countries are far more prosperous than others.
Sure, but still as a whole a don't see that undermining my point. But you're right to point that out
'
Aid such as it is, is often very much tied to trade, so it will be dependant on the recipient subjecting themselves to the will of the donor, usually very much to the donors advantage.
Don't agree on that one as on the different countries in Africa lots of different aid has been offered surely there will be in fact ''bad deals'' in between because they are tied to the donor but you can't play it all down to that
'
The Western world continues extractive practices, and big corps continue to exploit.

And dump their toxic waste there.

Water systems in Ghana are being contaminated by electronic waste.

Look at the despicable way Shell has behaved in the Niger Delta,
That's where the world fails to police itself, even Greenpeace's old boat has been dismantled in a very bad way for both humans and the environment. However if you want to stop this you have to be at the source(so the companies doing this crimes) as the local goverment surely is'nt able too. It also perfectly possible as Dutch ''Bussinesman'' ''Van Anraath'' is convicted to jail sentence(years ago) on the same basis for delivering chemical's to Saddam's Iraq back in the ''90.
Exploitative corps routinely take advantage of corrupt and weakened governments, for massive profit.

And good governance, land rights, democratic progress are swept aside.

Land grabbing, is still going on
Agree with you on this one, however coming back to the first question, if the goverment is the problem, how are we going to increase their rate of development? I guess we won't because if we tried that corrupt goverments would hamper all our efforts, keeping development low keeps their power high.

'
Add on top of that the drought and flooding caused by climate change, often leading to more conflict and suffering, its no wonder that many places are still struggling.

'Charity' and aid are tiny, and rather insulting sticking plasters applied, when compared with the external damage that's been done.
Is it dought, flooding caused by climate change or lack of knowledge because they where to busy killing their own people /white people /buying tanks to show off etc. ? Surely climate change is partly a cause but as with most things it much more than the climate alone.
 

mudsticks

Veteran
Sure, but still as a whole a don't see that undermining my point. But you're right to point that out

Don't agree on that one as on the different countries in Africa lots of different aid has been offered surely there will be in fact ''bad deals'' in between because they are tied to the donor but you can't play it all down to that

That's where the world fails to police itself, even Greenpeace's old boat has been dismantled in a very bad way for both humans and the environment. However if you want to stop this you have to be at the source(so the companies doing this crimes) as the local goverment surely is'nt able too. It also perfectly possible as Dutch ''Bussinesman'' ''Van Anraath'' is convicted to jail sentence(years ago) on the same basis for delivering chemical's to Saddam's Iraq back in the ''90.

Agree with you on this one, however coming back to the first question, if the goverment is the problem, how are we going to increase their rate of development? I guess we won't because if we tried that corrupt goverments would hamper all our efforts, keeping development low keeps their power high.


Is it dought, flooding caused by climate change or lack of knowledge because they where to busy killing their own people /white people /buying tanks to show off etc. ? Surely climate change is partly a cause but as with most things it much more than the climate alone.
Well its generally agreed amongst the scientific community, that climate disruption is leading to the higher rate of extreme weather events such as floods and droughts in SubSaharan Africa.

These will have knock on effects, in political and social terms.
I was chatting with a Ghanaian farmer the other day.
He says that the last five years have been particularly difficult for cropping, for his community of producers.

I know the politics is fiendishly complicated, but given our (and your home) countries long history of colonialism, and extractive practices around the globe, which has diminished these countries resources, and their ability to cope, I think its incumbent on us to take some respondibilty, and act to help where appropriate.

How that help is best manifested is, in itself, another tricky issue.

But pressing for corporate responsibility, and accountability, instead of looking the other way, must help somewhat??
 

stowie

Guru
And I wouldn't worry about the influence of the Pope. There's no evidence at all that enough people listen to the official Catholic teaching on birth control to make a difference to population.
Brazil is hugely religious and Catholicism still dominates (albeit now vying with Pentecostal and others) . In 1960 Brazil's birthrate was over 6 per 1000. In 2016 it was 1.74.

I doubt that this massive drop was due to a sudden national abstinence.....
 

mudsticks

Veteran
Humphrey’s on the Today show on BBC Radio 4 is a great example of why we are going to hell in a handcart now.

His whole message this morning, “what’s the point and we’ll need to scrap our holidays to the Costa Brava”

Oh lordie me!
One of my pet peeves
(and i have many)

With the environmental concern refuseniks.

Is that for years they were telling us :-

"Oh there's nothing to worry about, you tree hugging eco freaks, are all just making a big ol fuss about nothing"

And now the very same people are saying

"Oh well it's all too late now, the damage is done, why bother even trying??"

Was I asleep during that five minutes interface between the two positions???
 
Have to say that the recent coverage of plastics in the environment and needless pollution has done more to make me consider my own actions than any amount of graphs, data and scientific papers. Watching a turtle strangle itself on a plastic beer can holder makes me sick.

More coverage like this please, less of the "Carbon particulates up 3 ppm in industrialised areas on days of the month with a W in them"
 

Flying_Monkey

Toll Collector on the Road to Nowhere
Have to say that the recent coverage of plastics in the environment and needless pollution has done more to make me consider my own actions than any amount of graphs, data and scientific papers. Watching a turtle strangle itself on a plastic beer can holder makes me sick.

More coverage like this please, less of the "Carbon particulates up 3 ppm in industrialised areas on days of the month with a W in them"
See the post above yours.

People have been trying to tell and show everyone this for years. This is what's going to happen. We've got to stop. We've got to do things differently.

The response: 'Everything looks fine. Where's the evidence?'

We provide the evidence. Lots of it. Undeniable evidence. For years.

The response: 'Evidence is boring.'

We continue campaigning. Things are so much worse now, we've got all kinds of horrible things you can see.

The response is: 'Wow, now I can see why this is so bad, why didn't you show me this before?'

We try not to bang our heads against the nearest solid object...
 
I don't recognise that narrative personally. I've never been a climate change sceptic, it's just been difficult to link graphs and studies on large scale effects to my daily existence. Seeing data satisfies the intellectual responses but not the emotional ones. Seeing a turtle strangling on what could be my plastic beer can holder hits home far better.

But that's just a personal thing, what works for me. If on a larger scale the dry data approach is more effective at changing individual's behaviour then go for it.
 

mudsticks

Veteran
I don't recognise that narrative personally. I've never been a climate change sceptic, it's just been difficult to link graphs and studies on large scale effects to my daily existence. Seeing data satisfies the intellectual responses but not the emotional ones. Seeing a turtle strangling on what could be my plastic beer can holder hits home far better.

But that's just a personal thing, what works for me. If on a larger scale the dry data approach is more effective at changing individual's behaviour then go for it.
Fair enough.. Not having a go at you personally, but people have been trying to illustrate these problems with relatable 'stories' for years.

(Remember Jacques Cousteau?)

Via all kinds of media channels, on all sorts of platforms, to a very temporary response, then next day..

Let's move on, cos some 'celebrity' has had a sprog, or whatever..

The BBC has defended its watered down, fluffy, 'everything is fine' business as usual approach over the years, cos it didn't want to be accused of doom mongering.
Or risked 'turning people off'

Hah!

If conservationists engage in activism, and blockades, shout about these issues, and show images, of and tell stories of dying eco systems, then they are accused of being 'over dramatic'

If people like me, actively go and protest in the streets, or in the trees, we are a nuisance, an unwashed know-nothing rent-a-rabble' who need putting in our place...

If we present hard scientific data, and peer reviewed evidence??

"Oh were tired of experts, no one understands all these dry old figures.."

I'm really struggling to see what other avenues we could have persued...
 

Rusty Nails

We remember
Location
Here and there
See the post above yours.

People have been trying to tell and show everyone this for years. This is what's going to happen. We've got to stop. We've got to do things differently.

The response: 'Everything looks fine. Where's the evidence?'

We provide the evidence. Lots of it. Undeniable evidence. For years.

The response: 'Evidence is boring.'

We continue campaigning. Things are so much worse now, we've got all kinds of horrible things you can see.

The response is: 'Wow, now I can see why this is so bad, why didn't you show me this before?'

We try not to bang our heads against the nearest solid object...
maxresdefault.jpg
 

Yellow Fang

Legendary Member
Location
Reading
One of my pet peeves
(and i have many)

With the environmental concern refuseniks.

Is that for years they were telling us :-

"Oh there's nothing to worry about, you tree hugging eco freaks, are all just making a big ol fuss about nothing"

And now the very same people are saying

"Oh well it's all too late now, the damage is done, why bother even trying??"

Was I asleep during that five minutes interface between the two positions???
In 2007 I was told the end date to avoid climate change was 2015. I just can't see it stopped without resorting to geoengineering. The economic and political resistance is too strong. The only other way if some new, clean, abundant and cheap method of electricity generation is perfected, that would make fossil fuel uneconomic. Maybe they will get nuclear fusion working, but even if they do, it might not be cheap.
 
Top Bottom