God, if only. If only the USA were so altruistic.
It might be that the government in power - even a moderate or progressive one - wouldn’t be in a position to be altruistic. The reason I’m bearish on the future isn’t because we can’t innovate – we quite clearly can. The problem I see is that the human brain doesn’t sense danger until it is past the point of being able to correct it. There are some situations in which we can ‘play catch up’ and innovate quickly enough to compensate for our delayed reaction. But global climate change - emphasis on global - is a crisis such that it requires a high degree of cooperation and coordination among nations. Sadly, the reality is that scarcity will drive nations not to cooperate but to compete in brutal fashion.
I am in my late 40s and I’ll be blunt: I don’t see myself living past 70 and the last 10 years are probably going to be a struggle. I won’t be alone in my misery. I’m grateful that I got to enjoy civilization’s zenith. I feel sorry for the generations that came after me. They’re left holding a bag of scorpions.
Actually, it’s a combination of overpopulation caused by technological advances, overconsumption and overproduction which take places as those advances are exploited in competitive capitalism, more overconsumption as more people want more than just basic needs, pollution as a result of increased economic activity, population aging as a result of increased prosperity, and more.
Add to that overconsumption in Europe and industrialized countries in general, as seen in ecological footprint per capita, and one realizes that it’s not just “sucky governments” across the board that are involved (in short, not just China but China’s critics) but even “sucky” populations.
And if one has to really look at what “suckiness” means, then one should consider levels of such. Take the U.S., for example: 5 pct of the world’s population consuming up to 20 pct of world oil production and generally a large portion of many other resources, not to mention around a quarter of the world’s passenger vehicles (roughly one vehicle for every adult?), and propped up by what? The most expensive military in the world, with over 800 military bases and installations in 70 countries? And where do those cheap products come from? Countries like China, right?
In the end, it’s nice to imagine that everything will be swell in the long run, but don’t count on it. Look at what happened the last hundred years or so, with two world wars, a Cold War, and more that led to–what–almost 190 million dead, with many unarmed civilians, and probably a sizable portion children and the elderly? Add to that the devastating effects of climate change, pollution due to increased economic activity, a threefold increase in arms production and deployment worldwide, and a much large proportion of a much larger population now wanting middle class conveniences, and that’s what the future will likely look like.
There’s a good chance that some of these future wars will be civil wars, as well as nation-state clashes. I think liberal democracy will collapse (not just in the US either) before we see full-on catabolic collapse of civilization. The former will probably have a lot to do with ensuring the latter becomes a reality.
We also produce about 20% of the overall world economy.
True, but that doesn’t negate the environmental damage in doing so. Weird position to be in as an American consumer. You want THINGS but they come from somewhere. There’s an environmental impact for just about every THING we want/use/need. It isn’t often thought about. Which is why I started this thread to begin with. Water is a very basic need like clean air to breathe that so many in the USA could agree that we need, yet cannot agree on how to get there.
The crows have come home to roost. The eggheads we all should have been listening to that the neocons made fun of in the 1990’s reporting this massive impending climate change were at best ignored and at worst ridiculed in the face of the same strategy that got corporate America into this mess to begin with: unregulated offshoring of labor starting en masse under Reagan and continuing until this day. To me, that was the earmark for the Watergate moment when giant corporations REALLY favored profit over employee well-being. The profits were rolling in, why stop the gravy train?
But much of that economy involves credit. What we lack are material resources, which is why in order for the world to industrialize, we will need around four more earths.
Indeed. Here’s a list of countries by ecological footprint plus global ave. footprint per capita vs. biocapacity:
Thus, as of 2016 we were consuming on a level that would require on ave. 2.75 global hectares per person, but biocapacity is only 1.61 global hectares per capita. That’s why ecosystems are falling apart across the board, and worsened by predicaments like climate change.
On top of that, our consumption rate has to keep going up because our global economy is capitalist and competitive, which means it needs continuous economic growth. Meanwhile, world population continues to rise due to momentum (lower birth rates but lots of young people in many parts of the world), which with pollution decreases biocapacity per person.
I would be careful about assuming that this is necessarily a good thing or something that reflects well on the United States. Stated another way, the US is responsible for a minimum of 20% of the world’s economic inequality, and probably more than that. Furthermore, the resources that we’ve stripped in order to generate that growth means that while we may have economic growth now, we’re racing toward ecological collapse unless an entirely new system can be devised. We’re using a centuries old economic model, which is increasingly incompatible with the present situation.
And a lot of words to not reply to the cites I posted.
As I said, an underwhelming reply.
You mean sites, and I replied to your points: you’re talking about the U.S. and other countries. The thread refers to the world, where 70 pct of people live on less than $10 daily.
Next, to repeat what I stated earlier, it’s not only an issue of overpopulation but more. Read my previous post to find out what they are and how they counter your argument.
And… that shows to all that you missed that Hans Rosling talked about the whole world.
So no, you have not countered why is it that with a population increase the environment got better, or ways to counter degradation and dealing with population increase at the same time. Of course it can get worse, but that also depends if people does vote for parties that continue to deny that there is a problem or that does not pressure bad governments to do the right thing.
In addition to those flashpoints, Iran has long been locked in a water war with Afghan authorities to secure water flow to eastern Iran.
Iran is one of the region’s most water-deficient nations. From 1998 to 2001, the previous Taliban regime closed the sluices at Kajaki dam in Helmand, cutting off the flow of the Helmand River to Iran.
More recently, Iranian-backed fighters have attacked another dam project in Nimruz province, on the Helmand River that would divert water for irrigation and to power a hydroelectric plant, according to Afghan security officials in the province. The Kamal Khan dam was inaugurated earlier this year.
Most nations in the Middle/Near East are water-stressed, and the fall of regimes over a lack of water is almost certain. Iran could be one of those regimes that falls, not necessarily because of US pressure (although it’s absolutely a factor), but because it lacks enough water to keep the people in check. People will tolerate a lot of oppression but not when you take away the water that gives them life. Iran’s population is also young: the history of the region suggests that young, unemployed, under-sexed, malnourished, and dehydrated men…is a timebomb.
Nothing a few arms deals and well plotted attacks against Israel won’t cure, I’m sure. At least, for now of course. Because there is no tomorrow.
It feels like the desalination route is de riguer but is so costly to the environment that I fear it becomes the self-perpetuating cycle we have with heat, dry and evaporation happening at historic levels in the American SW right now already. It will ultimately just force it’s use as the rain becomes so dirty we can’t even drink that anymore.
True, but given the choice between pollution or dying from thirst, I’ll choose the former.
You did not understand what Rosling and I said, and Rosling did not give you the full picture!
He argued that population will rise to 9 billion (actually, it’s between 9 and 11 billion) by 2050, and it won’t go higher because the developing world is joining the Western world, leading to smaller family sizes, and thus a peak in population.
I made the SAME assertion. The problem is that even with the world population as of 2016 our biocapacity is down to 1.64 global hectares per person. By 2050, with world population at 9 to 11 billion, that biocapacity will be even LOWER.
To make matters worse, ecological footprint as of 2016 is at 2.75 global hectares, which is HIGHER than biocapacity. In short, we are using resources in an unsustainable way even with the CURRENT population.
And because we are doing that in a global capitalist economy involving competition, then that footprint has to keep going UP. And Rosling did not even realize that! The irony is that in order for most of the world to join industrialized nations and have fewer children, then they will need need to use more resources (e.g., from slippers to bicycles to cars to airplanes), which is what takes place in capitalism anyway, which means the ecological footprint per capita worldwide will continue to go UP.
In short, Rosling doesn’t contradict my argument but SUPPORTS it. The problem is that he did not mention the implications of continuous growth to you, and I did. To recap,
The current biocapacity per capita is already small for the current population, and the ave. ecological footprint per capita is already in excess of that. Rosling doesn’t mention that.
The main driver of that footprint is a global economy, and it has to keep growing in order to decrease poverty, but that also means increasing the per capita footprint. Rosling thinks that “green” tech, etc., should lead to lower resource consumption, but that’s questionable given the fact it’s already high right now, and any transition will require a buffer. On top of that, deploying better tech will take place in a global capitalist economy that requires maximization of profits!
Meanwhile, as Rosling admitted and as I explained, the population will continue to rise even as more people become prosperous because of momentum (because of large numbers of people even as birth rates go down). That means the biocapacity will drop. And because of that prosperity, the ecological footprint will also have to keep going up.
Finally, here’s what makes matters even worse: following the point of this discussion thread, both climate change and ecological damage (i.e., the world on fire and drought, among others), then more resources will be damaged, which means biocapacity will drop even more besides a drop caused by increasing population.
And to add to that, the same global economy is backed by incessant financial speculation which means increasing levels of credit (now with a notional value of over a quadrillion dollars thanks to unregulated derivatives), and with that, more resources that need to be extracted to produce more goods to back up that credit.
And all of that is expected to take place while the world population is expected to peak!
Do you now understand my point? We already need an additional earth in a current population where 70 pct live on less than $10 daily and the other 30 pct are counting on them to earn and spend more. For that 70 pct to live on more, then we will need more resources. In order for most to have middle class conveniences as promoted by Rosling, we will need an ave. ecological footprint similar to that of industrialized nations (as Rosling keeps pointing out), which is around 5 to 10 global hectares per capita, or with an expected population of around 9 billion, around four or more earths!
Well this sucks.
Toilet-to-tap mate, usually an overall better solution than desalination. Generally cheaper and less polluting to produce.