Instead, read the links in this diary.
Go to this link,
and read the links at that site.
Such as
this link,
which, after you click on the world footprint topic on the left margin, tells us
Today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.4 planets to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. This means it now takes the Earth one year and five months to regenerate what we use in a year.
....by the middle of the next decade we will need the equivalent of two Earths to support us. And of course, we only have one.
Read this link,
and you will think we are not on the brink of disaster.
But read carefully, and please explain how the solutions suggested by the folks at Food First will ever be implemented.
Especially, explain how we will do as suggested under Myth #3. How will we improve the lives of poor women, all poor women, before it is too late. Because over and over, so many folks tell me we must improve the lives of poor women first, then the birth rate goes down.
We will never improve the lives of poor women or men, until after the birth rate goes down first. We cannot wait until everyone is prosperous, then reduce the birth rate. Putting the tasks in that order is certain to fail.
And, that link states we have nearly a pound of meat and eggs for each of us.
I eat over two pounds of meat and eggs per day, and I am losing weight, not gaining. High protein, low carb, that is the ideal human diet. We are not providing enough protein rich foods for everyone, as it stands right now. This site admits it, but makes you think there is no problem because we produce a lot of grain.
And the 12 Myths article is dated 1998.
This article,
dated 2001, tells us when the world's population will peak, at nine billion.
But remember, the Earth cannot renew itself fast enough now, according to the article about our footprint. How will our Earth renew itself and provide us with what we need in the year 2070, with nine billion?
Please read this link.
This article nails it down. It is so obvious that overpopulation and overshoot is creating a collapse, and we will see billions die rather suddenly.
If you do not agree, go back and read that link again.
Then, if you are not certain, go back and read it again.
In the comment thread, I will gently suggest to all who disagree, go back and read the link again.
This is the home site for the author of that article. If you doubt that overpopulation is the root of our problems, read more of his articles. Then read some more.
Take a gander at this blast from the past. 1972. Read it carefully. This was and is a set of serious policy ideas. They were presented in 1972. We could dust them off and present them, with greater urgency now, to our current President Obama and the Congress, and the state governments.
Read it.
This one I wrote.
An earlier, one year younger version of me, wrote it.
Read it carefully. I do not propose forcing a pregnant woman to do anything she does not want. I do propose putting great pressure on everyone to stop making babies: stop making others pregnant, and stop getting pregnant, until you have a very carefully crafted plan. A plan that will give a net loss of humans overall, reducing the population of humans on this Earth.
Please look at this graph.
Please study it carefully.
I like that graph so much better than the one that starts at year zero, and forms a hockey stick. It may be correct, but please look at the one in the link. It starts in 1950, and the slope is not so alarming, but remember: We already have passed the point of overshoot, using more than one planet Earth's goods per year. Remember, it takes the Earth more than a year to replenish what we use in a year, according to the second link above.
Please look at the population clocks for the USA and the world.
Look at the numbers for just a few seconds.
Then, hit your refresh button.
See how much the numbers have gone up?
Keep hitting your refresh button every five or ten seconds.
It always goes up.
This link
shows you where they get the numbers to move the population clock.
A net gain of 2.4 humans per second.
Getting back to nuts and bolts, specific action to reduce the birth rate, the fertility rate, to reduce the population of humans on Earth, please read carefully this link.
Yes, the one child per family policy in China has certain features we do not, I do not like. The biggest feature I do not like is the practice of law enforcement officials coercing, pressuring pregnant women into abortions. I insist that once a woman is pregnant, we must keep government out of the business of putting pressure on that woman one way or the other about her decision to carry to term, or terminate.
The other practice I do not like is induced by Chinese culture, and that is aborting fetuses that are female.
But this cultural desire that each couple has for at least one boy, has had an effect that makes an often quoted number probably not correct.
I keep hearing that China has way too many boys and men, and not nearly enough girls and women.
But read on down, scroll on down at that last link, and you will find:
Unrecorded daughters may be left with relatives, adopted out, or abandoned to orphanages,....
Unrecorded daughters.
So the usual ratio of male to female, which, by the way, is normally 105 males to 100 females, may not be the 114 males to 100 females you have read about China. It may be closer to 109 or 108 males to 100 females.
And if we men have no serious trouble finding mates the way it is, at 105 to 100, I cannot see such a big problem with the ratio in China.
Besides, I am not proposing that in this country, or in any country, including China, I am not proposing that anyone should do anything to change the male to female ration. That is a Chinese cultural thing. I cannot worry about that in the face of impending disaster, the likely death of billions from disease, fighting, and famine.
Please go to this link.
This is a diary by fellow Kog cskendrick. You may not respect my diaries, but maybe you will respect his/hers.
In this diary, cskendrick has many links, such as this one,
to bolster his premise that water scarcity leads to folks killing each other. The folks who are fighting and killing may say other issues are the bigger reasons for fighting, but at gut level, limited water supplies make us feel that we want that water for our children and grandchildren, not the children or grandchildren of those people, whoever they may be.
If the total population, of both groups, of all groups of humans in the area, if the total human population is so low that they cannot possibly deplete the water supply, there will be no fighting, or at least much less fighting.
Think about it.
I like this link because of the word, optimium, which makes me think of the word, optimal, or the synonym of that, ideal, or the word, sustainable.
What is the number, what is the number, the sustainable number, what is the optimal, or ideal number of humans that should be, should be, living on this planet Earth?
What is the number?
I vote for one billion, just because it is a round number, and seems low enough to be truly sustainable
Try to imagine our planet with mostly wilderness again, with less than ten thousand per city, and less cities. So many ghost towns.
Try to imagine it.
I like one side topic, a link on the right side of that last link.
CONTRACEPTION IS "GREENEST" TECHNOLOGY
Contraception is almost five times cheaper than conventional green technologies as a means of combating climate change,....
Besides being the only way to fix things long term, it is cheapest in the short term.
Back to water scarcity with another Daily Kos diary
This diary shows us that the wealthy business owners and their managers, from whatever country, may control your water supply, even here in the supposedly prosperous and plentiful USA.
Are you ready to fight over water? Here?
I leave you with a song by Ozzy.
The song is Dreamer, based loosely on Imagine, by John Lennon.
I like that song so much, I wrote a diary on it.
Peace.
Yay!
The rec list!
Yay!
Thank you all!