World overpopulation

If we lived a simpler life, without so many cars and planes, using local food, especially vegetarian/cereal and little meat- without so many mod cons with use so much energy- etc... China for instance went from a mainly rural country to a huge industrial power very quickly. Many countries that had a simple life of eating locally caught fish and locally grown or found fruit and veg- have turned in one generation to one consuming fast food, lots of sugar and red meat too.

There are lots and lots of articles you can Google that will explain this- for instance the link between fossil fuel, deforestation, pollution and climate change/methane production and red meat. But here is a short copy and paste:

a significant amount of fossil fuels are used to produce each and every burger and animal product humans consume.

In fact, one calorie of animal protein requires about 10 times the input of fossil fuel energy than one calorie of plant protein. This input can be higher depending on the type of meat produced. For example, it is estimated that grain-fed beef requires 35 fossil fuel calories for every one calorie produced. That’s some heavy stuff.

There is research going on at an Australian university which aims to show that older should eat more red than the rest of the population.

So watch it gj.

people

meat

I have not yet listened to crun's link.
I noticed that it takes an hour, and my time tends to operate in pieces so to speak, but hopefully I will get to it soon.

Sorry granjura, I still don't see why an increasing desire for cars, planes and luxury foods have caused the world to become over populated.

has

Well I am not surprised you find this puzzling- I do too. Must re-read what I wrote, but I don't think this is what I said at all. What I am saying is that the world can/could sustain a much larger number of people if we had a more vegetarian diet (I am not a vegetarian btw- but we do try to eat much less meat of better quality and local)- and have a less fossil fuel guzzling life-style. Does that make more sense?

You said:

The world is over populated particularl because of the increasing desire for energy guzzling and polluting cars, planes and luxury foods worst being red meat- especially as most of the animal, the offal and lower cuts, are wasted.

From your last post I now understand what you meant to say, although I'm not sure I agree with you. Even if it were true in theory, it's not going to happen.

Just a few ideas:
1) One of the reasons the world seems to be overpopulated is the tendency of people to crowd together in a small area of land, when millions of hectares are bare of humans. Why?
2) There are several parts of the world where these crowds of folk live which have very limited potential for food production, plus water shortage, yet they still settle there. Why?
3) Yet other places have a surplus of food much of which is wasted.
Is anything being done about the unfair distribution of food, and if so what?

Thanks, glad you understand what I meant to say. And of course, you are totally free to disagree. An interesting concept anyhow, and food for thought. If you look at the chart about the amount of fossil fuel used to raise red meat, + water and grain, etc- I think, personally, that it does make sense.

But I am truly interested- why do you think it is 'not going to happen?' many people are understanding the need for change in 1000s of ways, and move from fossil fuel to renewable energy- and also the need to educate yourself and our children (personally and as a society too, via education) about how to achieve this, by making personal changes but mainly by supporting research and new ways of organising infrastructure, etc. Here where I live, but continued State support for great and integrated public transport (which was lost a long time ago during the Thatcher area and Beeching before that- as a small example. We also have a new heating system in the village for public amenities (school, sports hall, village hall and town hall- using locally grown wood from sustainable forests instead of oil... again, just a small example.

The recycling/composting station heats a whole section of a village down the road with the gas produced by decomposition, etc, etc.) Many people now choose to eat more local, be it veg, fruit or meat- pay a bit more, eat less, and respect the animals and excellent husbandry + local slaughter. It's a choice- personal and even more important, societal. It can happen- if it doesn't we are 'stuffed' - and that really grieves me for my grand-children and all the children of the world.

My degree was 76-80, granjura, so we were probably studying the same sources.
That's when we became vegetarian, when we realised it wasn't necessary to eat meat.
Too many people say it isn't going to happen. The Chinese are building too many coal fired power stations, so what's the point of us trying to conserve energy.
However, the Chinese are now building lots of wind turbines and are fast catching up in their use of renewable energy.

Never thought that I wouldn't do something just because others do not. I usually think they will follow in time, granjura. You are right about teaching the following generations. Best by example, I always think.

I've just got round to re-watching my own link, I remembered it changing my view, but couldn't recall the detail.

The point is that we already have 2bn children, and that is not set to increase. The population explosion occurred because mortality dropped first, and then the birth rate fell afterwards as a consequence.

The other point is that the poor consume so little that their impact on the environment is negligible, so they could enjoy a huge increase in living standards and still be making a negligible contribution to climate change. Solving the problem is wholly down to the rich consuming less, and yet every first world country still runs society founded on a policy of even more economic growth.

Health as well, crun. Rich countries tell poor countries that they ought to eat the way we do. Then they get all the illnesses that are rife in the west.

TriciaF
1. Cant make a decent living in the other parts I think.
2. They are born in that country and dont want to move or cant move[more of a guess with this answer]
3. Not much being done I dont think.

crun - watched 10 minutes worth so far. Finding it all a bit slow for my taste.
Is his point that some countries are becoming westernised so reduce how many children they have?
Or is there a bigger point at some point in the programme?

www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/15/nearly-9500-people-die-each-year-in-london-because-of-air-pollution-study

This is a problem of too many people in one place, overpopulation of London.

Soon: No, the point is that the birth rate already has dropped to a sustainable 2.2 children per woman across almost the whole world. The rampant population explosion is a temporary effect that occurs during the period between the reduction in mortality that triggered the growth, and people recognising the lower mortality then reacting to it by having fewer children. The population will stabilise, but it will take a few generations for the effect to finish working its way through the system.

So the population will even out at 7 billion or so?
I am going to have to watch the rest of the link when I can.

It will rise to 11 billion as the 2 billion children reach adulthood and have their own children but then it will level out as the 2 billion children simply replace the 2 billion who die of old age.

11 billion is a sustainable population.

Another variable:
"Obesity threatens to cut US life expectancy." And that of other developed nations.
Effect on fertility too?
So another factor affecting size of world population, though govts are trying to combat this.

I have just watched DIY SOS.
There was a family with three daughters, none of whom would have been born a generation ago. I sat and watched it with a grin on my face all the way through at the way people will help others.
Twin daughters were born early with a form of Dysplasia.
The parents had fertility problems.
It made me wonder about whether we mess around with nature to our detriment. Nature usually wins.

theconversation.com/welcome-to-the-uk-land-of-the-two-child-policy-44756

The government is controlling the population of the UK.
As nobody knows if they will end up on benefits in future, nobody should have more than two children.
Perhaps it's a good idea, but not for the reasons Osborne thinks.

A very very interesting link from crun. Thanks.

However.
If I understand the documentary correctly, and as vampirequeen says, there will be 11 billion [not sure exactly from when to when] on this planet at some point. In 40 years time and ongoing?

I really really cant see how the earth is going to manage comfortably with that number.
I think he said 1 billion more in Asia, and 2 billion more in Africa. [And I know that much of Asia has been coming out of extreme poverty over the last 50 years]. I mean manage as regards food, water, jobs and sheer room.

As the world in general becomes better educated and developing countries reorganise their argriculture so that it's more than subsistence farming there will be more food available. Water may be more problematic but surely we can use desalination plants or other technology. Jobs....I guess a lot of people will still work the land. Room...the world is a big place and can deal with 11 billion.