Population and the Planet

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But even if you accepted the purely arbitrary figure of 30 million, what do you do about the other 34 million? And if you admit the declining birth rate then without immigration you are faced with a steadily aging population (as is the case in Japan, where there are full controls on immigration).

Yes. This is a consequence of trying to reverse the pyramid selling policy on population. But the UK and Japan rely heavily on imported food, as their populations exceed their capacity to grow sufficient food to feed themselves, even with today's intensive farming methods.
But to continue to leave the population problem for future generations to sort out is simply irresponsible.

[Richard Tarleton]

Apart from the fact that the population is 64 million, and the country was not designed at all (unless the speaker was a believer in intelligent design), it's not far off

But even if you accepted the purely arbitrary figure of 30 million, what do you do about the other 34 million? And if you admit the declining birth rate then without immigration you are faced with a steadily aging population (as is the case in Japan, where there are full controls on immigration). Perhaps Japan's situation bodes well for wildlife there in the future, but possibly not for its human population.

(The 70/30 bit was I think intended as a figure of speech to suggest that about 30m was the optimum density for our land mass - France similar-ish population on twice the land mass? A lot more room - and importantly connectivity, a key ecological concept - for wildlife)

For the rest, yes, agreed. I think there are two irreconcilable sets of arguments here -demographic ones, and environmental ones. Whatever the age profile of the population, they still have to live in houses, use power, water, get around etc. The country is full, whether or not with a population of the the right age profile. Me, I'm a cranky misanthropic environmentalist

[ahinton]

Feeding livestock ten times as much protein as they yield makes no sense at all.

Sure, but then one could submit similar arguments against the alternatives, especially given that a substantial proportion of the present world population is gravely underfed, to say nothing of the 10bn to which it is expected to rise during the lifetimes of quite a few of us.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Sure, but then one could submit similar arguments against the alternatives, especially given that a substantial proportion of the present world population is gravely underfed, to say nothing of the 10bn to which it is expected to rise during the lifetimes of quite a few of us.

What arguments did you have in mind?

[aeolium]

I couldn't easily find a thread in which to put this link but it is somewhat related to the pressure placed by our own economic activity on the planet, so here is as good as anywhere. I did like this piece by Stewart Lee on the proposed third runway at Heathrow:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/05/too-late-to-save-world-heathrow-runway-stewart-lee

(Where is calum, by the way? I miss his always thought-provoking contributions)

[teamsaint]

I couldn't easily find a thread in which to put this link but it is somewhat related to the pressure placed by our own economic activity on the planet, so here is as good as anywhere. I did like this piece by Stewart Lee on the proposed third runway at Heathrow:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/05/too-late-to-save-world-heathrow-runway-stewart-lee

(Where is calum, by the way? I miss his always thought-provoking contributions)

Fantastic stuff , Aeolium, thanks for the link.

Stewart Lee should be in charge of something important.

[Richard Tarleton]

Just in case anyone scanning this thread from the start is mystified by the OP, it started life on the Gavin Maxwell centenary thread

[Anastasius]

Fantastic stuff , Aeolium, thanks for the link.

Stewart Lee should be in charge of something important.

Lee's article reminds me of just exactly WHY I avoid reading that rag. Pompous prat. All puff and wind, moans galore and nothing of substance to suggest an alternative.

[Pabmusic]

"...The destruction of all life on Earth is inevitable if fossil fuel use continues unabated..."

Hyperbole from someone who does not understand evolution, I suspect.

Yes - it's probably true that the human race "as we know it" is doomed. But it is in the nature of 99.99% of all species that they go extinct. When the great extinction of 65 million years ago occurred, it was very bad for the dinosaurs (except for the ancestors of birds - which few accepted as dinosaurs before the 1990s) but not for the mammals. And that was at least the third great extinction.

All life on Earth will of course become extinct eventually - and with it all art (I guess this forum will have to shut down) when our sun grows to engulf the Earth. But I'll not be around then. In the meantime, humans will be replaced by organisms that can live and prosper within the new conditions. If those are descendants of cockroaches, natural selection will cause them to diversify until they occupy all the niches ('trades') mammals do - herbivores, carnivores, burrowing creatures, etc.

Simples.

[aeolium]

I think you may have noticed that this was not an article written by a scientist, Pabmusic, but by a satirical comedian who uses exaggeration for effect. At any rate I support his points that building an extra runway with more flights increasing the amount of carbon dioxide emissions doesn't improve the prospects for humanity or biodiversity on this planet, and the already appalling air quality in and around major cities is even now a serious issue.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Until politicians throughout the world realise there are just too many people on the planet, no solution is likely to be found.

[MrGongGong]

Until politicians throughout the world realise there are just too many people on the planet, no solution is likely to be found.

Not everyone believes in this analysis

https://overpopulationisamyth.com

(referring to something doesn't constitute an endorsement)

[Sir Velo]

Not everyone believes in this analysis

https://overpopulationisamyth.com

(referring to something doesn't constitute an endorsement)

They obviously don't live in the southeast.

[MrGongGong]

They obviously don't live in the southeast.

If you go to Google earth and compare SE England with Tokyo

One is grey and one is mostly green

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

If you go to Google earth and compare SE England with Tokyo

One is grey and one is mostly green

Can either location support itself, or does one or other depend on importing food, fuel and goods from elsewhere? As long as it's possible to rely on other areas being less populated, there'll be no squealing. But later, I should say it's inevitable.