Time is running out

sabbath9

Banned
I think we may live to see the end of the human race's time on this planet.

Published on The Smirking Chimp (The Smirking Chimp | News And Commentary from the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy)
Burning Questions: What Does Economic "Recovery" Mean on an Extreme Weather Planet?
By Tom Engelhardt
Created Feb 18 2009 - 9:43am

— from TomDispatch [1]

It turns out that you don't want to be a former city dweller [2] in rural parts of southernmost Australia, a stalk of wheat in China or Iraq, a soybean in Argentina, an almond or grape in northern California, a cow in Texas, or almost anything in parts of east Africa right now. Let me explain.

As anyone who has turned on the prime-time TV news these last weeks knows, southeastern Australia has been burning up. It's already dry climate has been growing ever hotter. "The great drying," Australian environmental scientist Tim Flannery calls it. At its epicenter, Melbourne recorded its hottest day ever [3] this month at a sweltering 115.5 degrees, while temperatures soared even higher in the surrounding countryside. After more than a decade of drought, followed by the lowest rainfall on record, the eucalyptus forests are now burning. To be exact, they are now pouring vast quantities [4] of stored carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas considered largely responsible for global warming, into the atmosphere.

In fact, everything's been burning there. Huge sheets of flame, possibly aided and abetted by arsonists, tore through whole towns. More than 180 people are dead and thousands homeless. Flannery, who has written eloquently [5] about global warming, drove through the fire belt, and reported [6]:

"It was as if a great cremation had taken place… I was born in Victoria, and over five decades I've watched as the state has changed. The long, wet and cold winters that seemed insufferable to me as a boy vanished decades ago, and for the past 12 years a new, drier climate has established itself… I had not appreciated the difference a degree or two of extra heat and a dry soil can make to the ferocity of a fire. This fire was different from anything seen before."

Australia, by the way, is a wheat-growing breadbasket for the world and its wheat crops have been hurt [7] in recent years by continued drought.

Meanwhile, central China is experiencing the worst drought in half a century [8]. Temperatures have been unseasonably high and rainfall, in some areas, 80% below normal; more than half [9] the country's provinces have been affected by drought, leaving millions of Chinese and their livestock without adequate access to water. In the region which raises 95% [10] of the country's winter wheat, crop production has already been impaired and is in further danger without imminent rain. All of this represents a potential financial catastrophe for Chinese farmers at a moment when about 20 million migrant workers [11] are estimated to have lost their jobs in the global economic meltdown. Many of those workers, who left the countryside for China's booming cities (and remitted parts of their paychecks to rural areas), may now be headed home jobless to potential disaster. A Wall Street Journal report concludes, "Some scientists warn China could face more frequent droughts as a result of global warming and changes in farming patterns."

Globe-jumping to the Middle East, Iraq, which makes the news these days mainly for spectacular suicide bombings [12] or the politics of American withdrawal, turns out to be another country in severe drought. Americans may think of Iraq as largely desert, but (as we were all taught in high school) the lands between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, the "fertile crescent," are considered the homeland of agriculture, not to speak of human civilization.

Well, not so fertile [13] these days, it seems. The worst drought in at least a decade and possibly a farming lifetime [14] is expected to reduce wheat production by at least half; while the country's vast marshlands, once believed to be the location of the Garden of Eden, have been turned into endless expanses [15] of baked mud. That region, purposely drained by dictator Saddam Hussein to tame rebellious "Marsh Arabs," is now experiencing the draining power of nature.

Nor is Iraq's drought a localized event. Serious drought conditions extend across the Middle East [16], threatening to exacerbate local conflicts from Cyprus and Lebanon to Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel where this January was reported to have been the hottest and driest in 60 years. "With less than 2 months of winter left," Daniel Pedersen has written at the environmental website Green Prophet, "the region has received only 6%-50% of the annual average rainfall, with the desert areas getting 30% or less."

Leaping continents, in Latin America, Argentina is experiencing "the most intense, prolonged and expensive drought in the past 50 years," according to Hugo Luis Biolcati [17], the president of the Argentine Rural Society. One of the world's largest grain exporters, it has already lost five billion dollars to the drought. Its soybeans -- the country is the third largest producer [18] of them -- are wilting in the fields; its corn -- Argentina is the world's second largest producer -- and wheat crops are in trouble; and its famed grass-fed herds of cattle are dying -- 1.5 million head of them since October with no end in sight.

Dust Bowl Economics

In our own backyard, much of the state [19] of Texas -- 97.4% [20] to be exact -- is now gripped [21] by drought, and parts of it by the worst drought in almost a century. According to the New York Times, "Winter wheat crops have failed. Ponds have dried up. Ranchers are spending heavily on hay and feed pellets to get their cattle through the winter. Some wonder if they will have to slaughter their herds come summer. Farmers say the soil is too dry for seeds to germinate and are considering not planting." Since 2004 [22], in fact, the state has yoyo-ed between the extremities of flood and drought.

Meanwhile, scientists predict [23] that, as global warming strengthens, the American southwest, parts of which have struggled with varying levels of drought conditions for years, could fall into [24] "a possibly permanent state of drought." We're talking potential future "dust bowl" here. A December 2008 U.S. Geological Survey report warns [25]: "In the Southwest, for example, the models project a permanent drying by the mid-21st century that reaches the level of aridity seen in historical droughts, and a quarter of the projections may reach this level of aridity much earlier."

[26]And talking about drought gripping breadbasket regions, don't forget northern California [27] which "produces 50 percent [28] of the nation's fruits, nuts and vegetables, and a majority of [U.S.] salad, strawberries and premium wine grapes." Its agriculturally vital Central Valley, in particular, is in the third year of an already monumental drought in which the state has been forced to cut water deliveries to farms by up to 85%.

Observers are predicting that it may prove to be the worst drought [29] in the history of a region "already reeling [30] from housing foreclosures, the credit crisis, and a plunge in construction and manufacturing jobs." January, normally California's wettest month, has been wretchedly dry and the snowpack in the northern Sierra Mountains, crucial to the state's water supplies and its agricultural health, is at less than half normal levels.

Northern California, in fact, offers a glimpse of the havoc that the extreme weather conditions scientists associate with climate change could cause, especially when combined with other crises. In a Los Angeles Times interview [31], new Secretary of Energy Steven Chu offered an eye-popping warning (of a sort top government officials simply don't give) about what a global-warming future might hold in store for California, his home state. Interviewer Jim Tankersley summed up Chu's thoughts this way:

"California's farms and vineyards could vanish by the end of the century, and its major cities could be in jeopardy, if Americans do not act to slow the advance of global warming... In a worst case... up to 90% of the Sierra snowpack could disappear, all but eliminating a natural storage system for water vital to agriculture. 'I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,' [Chu] said. 'We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California.' And, he added, 'I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going' either."

As for East Africa and the Horn of Africa, under the pressure of rising temperatures, drought has become a tenacious long-term visitor. For East Africa, the drought years of 2005-2006 [32] were particularly horrific and now Kenya, with the region's biggest economy, a country recently wracked by political disorder and ethnic violence, is experiencing crop failures [33]. An estimated 10 million Kenyans [34] may face hunger, even starvation, this year in the wake of a poor harvest, lack of rainfall, and rising food prices; if you include the drought-plagued Horn of Africa, 20 million people may be endangered, according to [35] the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

Recently, climatologist David Battisti and Rosamond Naylor, director of Stanford University's Program on Food Security and the Environment, published [36] a study in Science magazine on the effect of extreme heat on crops. They concluded, based on recent climate models and a study of past extreme heat waves, that there was "a 90% chance that, by the end of the century, the coolest temperatures in the tropics during the crop growing season would exceed the hottest temperatures recorded between 1900 and 2006." According to [37] the British Guardian, under such circumstances Battisti and Naylor believe "[h]alf of the world's population could face severe food shortages by the end of the century as rising temperatures take their toll on farmers' crops... Harvests of staple food crops such as rice and maize could fall by between 20% and 40% as a result of higher temperatures during the growing season in the tropics and subtropics."

Not surprisingly, it's hard to imagine -- perhaps I mean swallow -- such an extreme world, and so most of us, the mainstream media included, don't bother to. That means certain potentially burning questions go not just unanswered but unasked.

The Grapes of Wrath (Updated)

Mind you, what you've read thus far represents an amateur's eye view of drought on our planet at this moment. It's hardly comprehensive. To give but one example, Afghanistan has only recently begun to emerge from an eight-year drought involving severe food shortages [38] -- and, as journalist Christian Parenti [39] writes, it would need another "five years worth of regular snowfall just to replenish its aquifers." Parenti adds: "As snow packs in the Himalayan and Hindu Kush ranges continue to recede, the rivers flowing from them will diminish and the economic situation in all of Central Asia will deteriorate badly."

Nor is this piece meant to be authoritative, exactly because I know so relatively little. Think of it as a reflection of my own frustration with work not done elsewhere -- and, by the way, thank heavens for Google University. Yes, Googling leaves you on your own, can be time-consuming, and tends to lead to cul-de-sacs ("Nuggets end [40] 17-year drought in Orlando"), but what would we do without it? Thanks to good ol' G.U., anyone can, for instance, check out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Drought Information Center [41] or its U.S. Drought Monitor [42], or the National Weather Service's Climate Prediction Center [43] and begin a self-education.

Now let me explain why I even bothered to write this piece. It's true that, if you're reading the mainstream press, each of the droughts mentioned above has gotten at least some attention, several of them a fair amount of attention (as well as some fine reporting), and the Australian firestorms have been headlines globally for weeks. The problem is that (the professional literature, the science magazines, and a few environmental websites [44] and blogs aside) no one in the mainstream media seems to have thought to connect these dots or blots of aridity in any way. And yet it seems a no-brainer that mainstream reporters should be doing just that.

After all, cumulatively these drought hotspots, places now experiencing record or near-record aridity, could be thought of as representing so many burning questions for our planet. And yet you can search far and wide without stumbling across a mainstream American overview of drought in our world at this moment. This seems, politely put, puzzling, especially at a time when University College London's Global Drought Monitor [45] claims that 104 million people are now living under "exceptional drought conditions."

Scientists generally agree that, as climate change accelerates throughout this century (and no matter what happens from here on in, nothing will evidently stop [46] some form of acceleration), extreme weather of every sort, including drought, will become ever more the planetary norm. In fact, experts [47] are suggesting that, as the Washington Post reported [48] recently, "The pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems."

Now, no one can claim beyond all doubt that global warming is the cause of any specific drought, or certainly the only cause anyway. As with the Texas drought, a La Niña weather pattern [49] in the Pacific is often mentioned as a key causal factor right now. But the crucial point is what the present can tell us about the impact of a global pattern of extreme weather, especially extreme drought, on what will surely be a more extreme planet in the relatively near future.

If global temperatures are on the rise and more heat means lower crop yields, then you're talking about more Kenyas, and not just in Africa either. You're probably also talking about desperation, upheaval, resource conflicts, and mass out-migrations of populations, even -- if scientists are right -- from the American Southwest. (And in case you don't think such a thing can happen here, remember Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath or think of any of Dorothea Lange's iconic photos [50] of the "Okies" fleeing [51] the American dustbowl [52] of the 1930s.)

Burning Questions

Right now, the global economic meltdown has massively depressed fuel prices (key to farming, processing, and transporting most crops to market) and commodity prices [53] have generally fallen as well, including food prices. Whatever the future economic weather, however, that is not likely to last.

So here's a burning question on my mind:

We're now experiencing the extreme effects of economic bad "weather" in the wake of the near collapse of the global financial system. Nonetheless, from the White House to the media [54], speculation about "the road to recovery" [55] is already underway. The stimulus package, for instance, had been dubbed the "recovery bill," [56] aka the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the question of when we'll hit bottom and when -- 2010, 2011, 2012 -- a real recovery will begin is certainly in the air.

Recently, in a speech in Singapore [57], Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, suggested that the "world's advanced economies" -- the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan -- were "already in depression," and the "worst cannot be ruled out." This got little attention here, but President Obama's comment at his first press conference [58] that delay on his stimulus package could lead to a "lost decade," as in Japan in the 1990s (or, though it went unmentioned, the U.S. in the 1930s), made the headlines [59].

If, indeed, this is "the big one," and does result in a "lost decade" or more, here's what I wonder: Could the sort of "recovery" that everyone assumes lies just over a recessive or depressive horizon not be there? What if our lost decade lasts long enough to meet an environmental crisis involving extreme weather -- drought and flood, hurricanes, typhoons, and firestorms of unprecedented magnitude -- possibly in some of the breadbasket regions of the planet? What will happen if the rising fuel prices likely to come with the beginning of any economic "recovery" were to meet the soaring food prices of environmental disaster? What kind of human tsunami might that result in?

Once we start connecting some of today's drought dots, wouldn't it make sense to try to connect a few of the prospective dots as well? After all, if you begin to imagine what the worst might look like, you can also begin to think about what might be done to mitigate it. Isn't that more sensible than looking the other way?

If the kinds of hits regional agriculture is now taking from record-setting drought became the future norm, wouldn't we then be bereft of our most reassuring formulations in bad times? For example, the president spoke at that press conference of our present moment as "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression." On an extreme planet, no such comforting "since the..." would be available, nor would there be any historical road map for what was coming at us, not if we had already run out of history [60].

Maybe the world we knew but scarce months ago is already, in some sense, long gone. What if, after a lost decade, we were to find ourselves living on another planet?

Feel free, of course, to ignore my burning questions. After all, I'm only an amateur with the flimsiest of credentials from Google U. Still, I do keep wondering when the media pros will finally pitch in, and what they'll tell us is on that distant horizon, the one with the red glow.

Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project [61], runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture [62], a history of the American Age of Denial. He also edited The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire [63] (Verso, 2008), a collection of some of the best pieces from his site and an alternative history of the mad Bush years.

Copyright 2009 Tom Engelhardt
 

Havocan

Well-known member
I think whoever wrote this is utterly brainwashed by his own beliefs and doesn't count in all other factors. Of course we'll continue to procreate long after both you and me are lying in our burial mounds^^.
 

gale

Active member
Wow what a topic to post eh!I just finished watching KNOWING staring Nicolas Cage and it got a really hot ending, real hot ,in fact it burns.Its burning the whole planet,literally.And that i call not just a global warming,Its Global Burning.I dont mind if the world will end and all of us will die,as long as we are all in this together.hehe.Kidding aside I think we can never stop that from happening so just let it happen.Everything happens for a reason.
 

sabbath9

Banned
from Study: Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Expected | CommonDreams.org

Published on Friday, April 3, 2009 by the Associated Press
Study: Arctic Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Expected

by Randolph E. Schmid

WASHINGTON - Arctic sea ice is melting so fast most of it could be gone in 30 years. A new analysis of changing conditions in the region, using complex computer models of weather and climate, says conditions that had been forecast by the end of the century could occur much sooner.

[In this July 19, 2007 file photo, an iceberg melts off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. (John McConnico / AP) ]In this July 19, 2007 file photo, an iceberg melts off Ammassalik Island in Eastern Greenland. (John McConnico / AP)
A change in the amount of ice is important because the white surface reflects sunlight back into space. When ice is replaced by dark ocean water that sunlight can be absorbed, warming the water and increasing the warming of the planet.

The finding adds to concern about climate change caused by human activities such as burning fossil fuels, a problem that has begun receiving more attention in the Obama administration and is part of the G20 discussions under way in London.

"Due to the recent loss of sea ice, the 2005-2008 autumn central Arctic surface air temperatures were greater than 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above" what would be expected, the new study reports.

That amount of temperature increase had been expected by the year 2070.

The new report by Muyin Wang of the Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Ocean and James E. Overland of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, appears in Friday's edition of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

They expect the area covered by summer sea ice to decline from about 2.8 million square miles normally to 620,000 square miles within 30 years.

Last year's summer minimum was 1.8 million square miles in September, second lowest only to 2007 which had a minimum of 1.65 million square miles, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The Center said Arctic sea ice reached its winter maximum for this year at 5.8 million square miles on Feb. 28. That was 278,000 square miles below the 1979-2000 average making it the fifth lowest on record. The six lowest maximums since 1979 have all occurred in the last six years.

Overland and Wang combined sea-ice observations with six complex computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reach their conclusions. Combining several computer models helps avoid uncertainties caused by natural variability.

Much of the remaining ice would be north of Canada and Greenland, with much less between Alaska and Russia in the Pacific Arctic.

"The Arctic is often called the Earth's refrigerator because the sea ice helps cool the planet by reflecting the sun's radiation back into space," Wang said in a statement. "With less ice, the sun's warmth is instead absorbed by the open water, contributing to warmer temperatures in the water and the air."

The study was supported by the NOAA Climate Change Program Office, the Institute for the Study of the Ocean and Atmosphere and the U.S. Department of Energy.
 

sabbath9

Banned
from Why We Should Listen to the Protesters | CommonDreams.org

Published on Friday, April 3, 2009 by The Independent/UK

Why We Should Listen to the Protesters

The way out of the credit and the climate crunch is the same - a Green New Deal

by Johann Hari

When this hinge-point in human history is remembered, there will be far more sympathy for the people who took to the streets and rioted than for the people who stayed silently in their homes. Two global crises have collided, and we have a chance here, now, to solve them both with one mighty heave - but our leaders are letting this opportunity for greatness leach away. The protesters here in London were trying to sound an alarm now, at five minutes to ecological midnight.

Many commentators seemed bemused that the protesters focused on the climate crunch as much as the credit crunch. What's it got to do with a G20 meeting on reviving the global economy? Why wave banners saying 'Nature Doesn't Do Bail-Outs' today? Because both crises have their roots in the same ideology - and both have the same solution.

We are facing a collapsed economy and a rapidly warming world because an extreme ideology has dominated world affairs for decades. It is the belief that markets aren't just a useful tool in certain circumstances; they are an infallible mechanism for running human affairs. If the economy ebbs, the market will put itself right by punishing wrong-doers. If the climate begins to unravel, business will rectify its own behaviour voluntarily. Now we know how well this market fundamentalism works.

The climate is currently going the same way as the banks. Last month, the world's climate scientists gathered in Copenhagen to explain we are facing "devastating consequences" - not in some distant future, but in my lifetime and yours. Unless we swerve fast, we are soon going to hit global temperatures that no human being has ever lived through. We don't have much time. By 2015, we will have belched so much carbon into the atmosphere that we will cross the Point of No Return: the climate will start to unravel as all its natural cooling processes break down one by one, guaranteeing we become hotter and hotter. Once we hit an increase of 4 degrees, much of the world will become uninhabitable, and there will be vast wars for what remains.

This isn't the warning of apocalyptic wackos: it's the judgement of the climate scientists who have consistently been proven right up to now. Steven Chu, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who has been appointed Energy Secretary by Barack Obama, says: "I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what will happen. We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California. I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going either." Goodbye Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego. And that, he stresses, is only the start.

The distinguished environmental scientist James Lovelock warns that climate changes tend not to happen gradually, inch-by-inch. They suddenly flip - in our case from a cool world to a very hot one. He believes the hotter new world we are bringing into being could support, at best, a billion people. That would require 84 per cent of the world's population to die off.

That's why the protesters were talking about the climate. It should be the number one issue at every global meeting. And the way out of the climate crunch and credit crunch is the same - a Green New Deal. Our leaders are divided about whether we need a fiscal stimulus at all. Obama, Gordon Brown, and the Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso are leading the charge for a burst of big government spending to jump-start the global economy, while Angela Merkel, Nicholas Sarkozy, David Cameron and the US Republicans are arguing this will simply be a debt-funded splurge to nothing.

It's a strange debate to have now, because the opponents of any stimulus seem to be mired in a row that was resolved back in the 1930s. John Maynard Keynes transformed the way that we think about recessions. Before him, everybody believed the Merkel-Cameron-McCain line that recessions are like bad weather: you just need to wrap up and sit it out, even though it hurts. But Keynes transformed all that.

He showed that recessions are actually caused by a failure of consumer demand. When people sense that they might lose their job, they - perfectly sensibly - cut back on their spending. They buy fewer DVDs or restaurant meals or holidays. But this causes a fall in demand for services - and more people lose their jobs, causing demand to fall further in turn, and on and on, in a spiral. He called it "the paradox of thrift": what is rational for an individual consumer is irrational for the society as a whole.

But he also showed that there is a way out: the government needs to spend large sums of money, financed by borrowing, to get all the workers waiting idle back into action. This form of government spending brings consumer demand back - and reverses the downward trend. Then, once you've recovered, you pay off the debt. Keynes stressed you can spend this money on anything: at one point he proposed burying wads of cash and paying people to dig them up. But today, we face an incredible coincidence. At the same moment, we need to spend lots of money on something, anything - and we need an immediate transition to a low-carbon economy. And it gets better: it turns out a green stimulus is best for the economy. A major study by the University of Massachusetts compared the effects of an old-style stimulus that simply gives people more cash to a green stimulus.

They found that a green stimulus creates four times more jobs, and three times more "good jobs", defined as those that pay more than $16 per hour. Why? Because a green stimulus is labour-intensive: you spend more money on people and less on machines. And the money you spend stays at home, making it easier to sell: you can only insulate a loft in Hull in Hull; you can only build a wind farm in the Mid-West in the Mid-West.

But it's not happening. A study by HSBC has found that only 6 per cent of Britain's stimulus so far has gone to green projects. In the US, it is just 16 per cent. It is nonsense to claim there aren't enough green projects "shovel-ready": during World War Two, the industrial capacities of our countries was transformed from making consumer goods to making tanks and weaponry in less than sixty days. We could do the same.

But this alacrity shouldn't surprise us. The weight of conventional wisdoms and the sway of powerful corporations with vested interests in the old sickening world holds back even the better leaders.

The first New Deal wasn't handed down by Franklin Roosevelt as a benevolent gesture. On the contrary: he came to power as a budget-balancing centrist, and only became a great President because he was confronted by massive riots and civil disobedience across the United States. The American people pushed him in a more radical direction, often with behaviour that made this week's riot in London look like a Buckingham Palace reception.

On Wednesday, one of the young protesters sat in a tent at the edge of the City of London, looked out towards the glistening towers of the financial district, and said to me: "The dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid. Suddenly, we are realising that we are our own asteroid." She shook her head. "How can so many people just sit at home and watch it happen?"


© 2009 The Independent

Johann Hari is a columnist for the London Independent. He has reported from Iraq, Israel/Palestine, the Congo, the Central African Republic, Venezuela, Peru and the US, and his journalism has appeared in publications all over the world.
 

Lea

Banned
One thing also is, the world is extremely overpopulated and of course the more people, the faster growth. It is about 7 milliard by now and it possibly cannot go on like this. What will the people eat, where will they live? They will need more and more space for their cities and factories, and will destroy more nature. The more ground on the earth is concrete, the more floods because the water has nowhere to soak in. They soon destroy all rainforests and there will be no oxygen. Etc. etc. I can´t imagine any normal future. Either the people will have to stop having children (which is of course not going to happen), or the population will have to be diminished by wars and disasters, or many will die out because there will not be enough means for everybody.
Unless the world ends in 2012 :).
 

bleach

Banned
a 'small' correction here. most of the oxygen is made by oceans (plankton).

... Which is an even MORE unstable ecosystem than rain forests and also endangered...
Anyway, she's right. The human pop. is unsustainable--we may not be overpopulated just yet but we will be there at our current growth rate shortly. I certainly don't think that human race will go extinct but there will be a lot of suffering in the years to come. We have sworn ourselves to this golden calf of capitalism which does not even understand the concepts of consumer restraint and growth limitations, much less have the capability to enact them, and our societies will be in a very dark place by the end of this century.
 

sabbath9

Banned
from The Five Year Ban: Because A Billion Less People Is A Great Place To Start | Psychology Today

Published on Psychology Today (Psychology Today)

The Five Year Ban: Because A Billion Less People Is A Great Place To Start
By Steven Kotler
Created Feb 8 2009 - 6:15am


Want to hear an unpopular opinion: I think we should put Nadya Suleman in jail. Perhaps you don’t recall the name. Perhaps you don’t even believe a crime has been committed. Perhaps you think I should be locked up along the way. Fine. But someone has to start saying things aloud, so here goes:

STOP HAVING CHILDREN.

Nadya Suleman had 14. And they should all be taken from her and raised by fit parents. Seriously, I could care less about the fact that she’s unmarried, unemployed, unable to convince herself that she’s not Angelina Jolie.

Here’s the truth: we are running out of resources and we are running out of time. The International Committee on Climate Change has said we have thee to five years to curb our ways or the current environmental disaster is irreversible. Irreversible means that the little economic hiccup we’re feeling today isn’t even the warn up round. It’s T-ball compared to the major leagues.

You think the economy is bad now—wait a few years. Wait until we’re almost completely out of oil and food and water and available land and really I could go on for two more pages listing everything we’re running out of. Why? Because we are quite literally running out of everything.

So how long do you have to wait to be starving, thirsty, and all the rest?

Truthfully, it shouldn’t be long now.

And the main reason it shouldn’t be long now is because there are already way too many of us. By now, everyone knows the current population stats. The earth is close to holding 7 billion people. If things don’t stop soon, by 2050, conservative estimates put the number at 9.2 billion.

I’ve written it before and I’ll write it again. Scientists studying the carrying capacity of the earth—that is how many of us can live here sustainably—have fluctuated massively. Wild-eyed optimists believe it’s close to 2 billion. Dour pessimists say 300 million. The point is that—and I’m going by the best of those figures—we need to lose 4.4 billion people and we need to lose them fast.

I'm not advocating murder or euthanasia or anything along those lines, but something needs to be done. Not too long ago, one of my readers pointed out that I’m pretty good at pointing out what’s wrong in the world and lousy about pointing out solutions. So here’s my simple solution: Stop Having Children.

I call it the 5 Year Ban. For the next five years let’s not have any kids. All of us. The whole freaking planet.

I don’t think this should be a top down approach. I don’t mean a literal government ban. I mean a grassroots movement of responsible adults behaving like responsible adults. I mean a populist moratorium on childbirth.

Why 5 years? Because it’s a manageable number. Because it would mean a billion less people. Because a billion less people is a good place to start.

If everyone living on the planet today were really serious about, well, there being a planet left to live on, a planet left for our children to actually occupy, a planet that can actually sustain life. If we were serious then we would all be using birth control.

All the time. And we would never stop using it.

Don’t give me this nonsense about replacement children. About declining populations in Europe. What about Africa or Asia?

The downstream corollary to Thomas Freidman’s Flat Earth idea is, well, the world is flat. It’s small, it’s hot, and it’s crowded. What I do at my home in New Mexico effects not just my neighbors or my countrymen. It effects the whole world. Why? Because resources—the things we’re running out of—don’t give a damn for geography.

The water coming out of the tap doesn’t care if it’s a Persian or a Nigerian who’s drinking it. There’s only so much to go around.

We have spent the past 4000 years trying to shrug off the nightmare that is Biblical advice. We no longer sanction slavery or believe it okay to stone a woman to death for wearing sexy clothing or any of that other nonsense—but go forth and multiply?

Got to be the worst advice in the history of the world.

And sure, a five year ban won’t fix all of this and it raises some questions as well—like how do we insure that year six won’t produce an influx of offspring?

So here’s my answer: Personal responsibility. A grassroots movement means we mean it. It means people having children in year six would feel shame and embarrassment at their unbelievable selfishness.

And yeah, if you are having children right now you are being selfish. You’re stealing. Stealing from the future. Stealing from the rest of humanity. Stealing from every living thing on the earth right now.

The current planetary die off rate—meaning the rate at which species are going extinct—is a 1000 times greater than ever before in history. Why? Because humans—one species among millions—have stolen the food, the water, the space.

And every time we bring more life into this world we’re increasing that theft exponentially.

How do we stop a massive influx of kids in year six? Well, let’s not only stop having kids, let’s create adoption incentives.

There are tons of kids who need parents right now. A lot of them come from parts of the world where the main employment opportunities they’ll be offered in the future are criminal, soldier or terrorist, or some combination of the three.

So we can adopt these kids now or fight them later—that’s the only choice here. Because that’s the other thing resource scarcity guarantees: war.

We are soon going to be killing each other over resources, just like we’ve always killed each other over resources—only this next time it won’t be over something to put in our gas tanks. It’ll be over something to put in our belly.

And it won't be an isolated incident, it'll be a global catastrophe.

That’s our future. That’s what happens if we don’t stop having children. In fact, if we don’t stop having children then we’re going to get to meet another bad Biblical idea head on: the four horseman of the apocalypse.

Pestilence, War, Famine, Death.

When John Kennedy said: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,” he was trying to usher in an era of duty and sacrifice and real responsibility. We need another era like that, only we need this next one to be global.

And this time, it’s a little easier. You don’t need to ask what you need to do for the world. You already know.

Stop having children. It’s that easy.



Source URL: The Five Year Ban: Because A Billion Less People Is A Great Place To Start | Psychology Today

Links:
[1] The Playing Field | Psychology Today
 

Thelema

Well-known member
One thing also is, the world is extremely overpopulated and of course the more people, the faster growth. It is about 7 milliard by now and it possibly cannot go on like this. What will the people eat, where will they live? They will need more and more space for their cities and factories, and will destroy more nature. The more ground on the earth is concrete, the more floods because the water has nowhere to soak in. They soon destroy all rainforests and there will be no oxygen. Etc. etc. I can´t imagine any normal future. Either the people will have to stop having children (which is of course not going to happen), or the population will have to be diminished by wars and disasters, or many will die out because there will not be enough means for everybody.
Unless the world ends in 2012 :).

The sky isn't falling. The Earth can support billions of more people. The whole Earth can't live in the American suburbs, but we have plenty of space for us and the rain forests and all the plants and animals. Breathe::eek::
 

bagota50

Member
If we keep propagating ourselves at the prodigious rate we currently are, there will be no space for other creatures and the rain forests will be kaput.
I hold out hope for giant skyscrapers and capsule hotels like they have in japan before we get to that point though.
 
If we keep propagating ourselves at the prodigious rate we currently are, there will be no space for other creatures and the rain forests will be kaput.
I hold out hope for giant skyscrapers and capsule hotels like they have in japan before we get to that point though.

Actually in North America and Europe the population is going down because most people are only having one or two kids. So we're fine :)

As for this stuff about the global temperature going way up in the next 100 years, I don't think I believe it...The global temperature has gone up like 1 degree in the last 100 years it's not THAT bad and probably natural....I mean we have had ice ages and times when most of the world was hot in the past so we have nothing to worry about it's probably not our fault..
 

Thelema

Well-known member
If we keep propagating ourselves at the prodigious rate we currently are, there will be no space for other creatures and the rain forests will be kaput.
I hold out hope for giant skyscrapers and capsule hotels like they have in japan before we get to that point though.

I want to see giant ships that people live in and cruise around in. Imagine having an apartment that traveled the World.
 

Thelema

Well-known member
Actually in North America and Europe the population is going down because most people are only having one or two kids. So we're fine :)

As for this stuff about the global temperature going way up in the next 100 years, I don't think I believe it...The global temperature has gone up like 1 degree in the last 100 years it's not THAT bad and probably natural....I mean we have had ice ages and times when most of the world was hot in the past so we have nothing to worry about it's probably not our fault..

Brilliant! You just ignored the rest of the World and included an irrelevant fact! Now tell me that your backyard is empty of people, so China can't be crowded.

1 degree is a big deal.

I guess that the almost universal scientific consensus that spans countries, continents and includes thousands of leading climatologists is just wrong. The greatest scientific minds can't be trusted because the World was just so darned warm in the past. Your logic is genius
 

Quiet Angel

Well-known member
The only thing we can do is to spread the message, help others gain awareness, strongly encourage renewable energy, and hope. Perhaps even pray. Even in the darkest of times, there must be a source of light somewhere.
 

Thelema

Well-known member
If we believe in miracles, they can happen.

Unless Noah comes back, population will continue to grow. We will continue to find better ways to save lives and cultivate food. We will live longer and longer.

Besides Freestylemonster, we're also getting more environmentally aware. Our conservatory technology will also increase. We'll see electricity being generated completely without emissions in the not too distant future. Once we have totally free and clear electricity, the sky is the limit. The problem may not ultimately be post industrial societies, but places Freestylemonster isn't aware of. Those places want what we have and they aren't willing to invest the time and energy to care about the flowers.

It's hard to convince an Indian that he needs to care about saving the environment, alongside trying to feed his family. People just don't cut down the rain forests for fun, they want to grow and prosper too. Look at what America did when it wanted to prosper, but we turn around now and declare that other places can't do the same.
 
Top