We're eating up the earth!

myjaja

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2005
3,357
0
0
BEIJING (Reuters) - Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.

Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.

"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.

"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.

People in the United Arab Emirates were placing most stress per capita on the planet ahead of those in the United States, Finland and Canada, the report said.

Australia was also living well beyond its means.

The average Australian used 6.6 "global" hectares to support their developed lifestyle, ranking behind the United States and Canada, but ahead of the United Kingdom, Russia, China and Japan.

"If the rest of the world led the kind of lifestyles we do here in Australia, we would require three-and-a-half planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb the waste," said Greg Bourne, WWF-Australia chief executive officer.

Everyone would have to change lifestyles -- cutting use of fossil fuels and improving management of everything from farming to fisheries.

"As countries work to improve the well-being of their people, they risk bypassing the goal of sustainability," said Leape, speaking in an energy-efficient building at Beijing's prestigous Tsinghua University.

"It is inevitable that this disconnect will eventually limit the abilities of poor countries to develop and rich countries to maintain their prosperity," he added.

The report said humans' "ecological footprint" -- the demand people place on the natural world -- was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste in 2003.

In the previous report, the 2001 overshoot was 21 percent.

"On current projections humanity, will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 -- if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said.

"People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."

RISING POPULATION

"Humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003," it said. Consumption has outpaced a surge in the world's population, to 6.5 billion from 3 billion in 1960. U.N. projections show a surge to 9 billion people around 2050.

It said that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain.

Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.

"Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added.

The WWF report also said that an index tracking 1,300 vetebrate species -- birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals -- showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms.

Among species most under pressure included the swordfish and the South African Cape vulture. Those bucking the trend included rising populations of the Javan rhinoceros and the northern hairy-nosed wombat in Australia.

link
 

SmoochyTX

Lifer
Apr 19, 2003
13,618
0
0
Originally posted by: Pioneer Premier
BEIJING (Reuters) - Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.

Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.

"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.

"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.

People in the United Arab Emirates were placing most stress per capita on the planet ahead of those in the United States, Finland and Canada, the report said.

Australia was also living well beyond its means.

The average Australian used 6.6 "global" hectares to support their developed lifestyle, ranking behind the United States and Canada, but ahead of the United Kingdom, Russia, China and Japan.

"If the rest of the world led the kind of lifestyles we do here in Australia, we would require three-and-a-half planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb the waste," said Greg Bourne, WWF-Australia chief executive officer.

Everyone would have to change lifestyles -- cutting use of fossil fuels and improving management of everything from farming to fisheries.

"As countries work to improve the well-being of their people, they risk bypassing the goal of sustainability," said Leape, speaking in an energy-efficient building at Beijing's prestigous Tsinghua University.

"It is inevitable that this disconnect will eventually limit the abilities of poor countries to develop and rich countries to maintain their prosperity," he added.

The report said humans' "ecological footprint" -- the demand people place on the natural world -- was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste in 2003.

In the previous report, the 2001 overshoot was 21 percent.

"On current projections humanity, will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 -- if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said.

"People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."

RISING POPULATION

"Humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003," it said. Consumption has outpaced a surge in the world's population, to 6.5 billion from 3 billion in 1960. U.N. projections show a surge to 9 billion people around 2050.

It said that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain.

Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.

"Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added.

The WWF report also said that an index tracking 1,300 vetebrate species -- birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals -- showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms.

Among species most under pressure included the swordfish and the South African Cape vulture. Those bucking the trend included rising populations of the Javan rhinoceros and the northern hairy-nosed wombat in Australia.

link
It's the circle of life.
 

AbAbber2k

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
6,487
1
0
Sounds like a bunch of over-the-top speculation by the extreme-left. Way to push your psuedo-science. :roll:

Note: I'm a left leaning moderate. :p

Are these issues important? Of course. Are they as bad as they're being made out to be? Probably not.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,172
2,036
126
Its no secret the world is overpopulated, overpolluted and its resources are overconsumed. And its not getting any better.

But dont worry, nature/life has a way of doing away with excess population: disease, malnutrition, war, pestilence, famine, heart attacts due to obesity, stray gunfire, robbery, world of warcraft, double quarter pounders with cheese, large fries and a shake contaminated by an improperly trained or uncaring food service worker.....:evil:
 

Nik

Lifer
Jun 5, 2006
16,125
2
56
The world is not overpopulated. Not by a long shot. Total square miles of land divided by the total number of people on earth. The earth is SPARCELY populated. People just bunch up together in cities.
 

intogamer

Lifer
Dec 5, 2004
19,222
1
76
We'll just start over. Some nuclear sh1t is gonna happen. Then we'll be bacteria and organisms.

Then we'll grow and evolve into something else.
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,172
2,036
126
Originally posted by: GuideBot
The world is not overpopulated. Not by a long shot. Total square miles of land divided by the total number of people on earth. The earth is SPARCELY populated. People just bunch up together in cities.

And what, precisely, is the current sq miles of land to curr population ratio? Shouldnt there be an ideal number?

People love to say we arent overpopulated simply because there is so much land to live on. But people dont eat what they grow in their back yard, and the Earth contains alot of unliveable space (Antartica, the seas, deserts, etc). Do you want to take up residence in Somalia? The Sahara? The dense jungles near Manaus, by the Amazonas, full or pirhanas? I didnt think so, and millions if not billions of people feel the same way.

I look around and weve overdone it already. The third world sucks, most people want to leave and theres just no room for every person who desires too. Unless of course you like $900,000.00 two bedroom condos. There are also no jobs in far rural areas, so nobody wants to live there either. Taking all this into perspective we are overpopulated.

But for the sake of argument we convice 1,000,000 people and associated businesses to settle in a rural area. They need water from a dwindling water table, food from parched farm lands, and you bet your sweet ass they will pollute the hell out of the area. But, oh well...we can support 100,000,000,000 people! Booyah! :roll:
 

wheresmybacon

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2004
3,899
0
76
i had a human ecology teacher in college 13 years ago who told us by this time (2006) there would be no gasoline and the oceans would be swallowing coastal towns due to global warming.

gg prof
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
29,172
2,036
126
Originally posted by: hungfarover
i had a human ecology teacher in college 13 years ago who told us by this time (2006) there would be no gasoline and the oceans would be swallowing coastal towns due to global warming.

gg prof

There is gasoline......for a price...:evil:

And the ocean did gobble up New Orleans until we took it back. But I expect the seas to make a comeback. :(
 

DeadByDawn

Platinum Member
Dec 22, 2003
2,349
0
0
I don't think we're overpopulated yet. When I see people growing crops instead of grass in their front yard, then we might be there.
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: GuideBot
blah blah blah blah

Tree-hugging agenda-driven garbage.

Very well thought out response to Felix....

It's an unrealistically narrow view to limit your definition of overpopulation to if somebody else can stand next to you.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
so according to them:
1) trees don't grow back
2) food doesn't grow over and over...and over again
3) water doesn't get recycled through the natural cycle
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Originally posted by: GuideBot
Total square miles of land divided by the total number of people on earth.

....is about the stupidest measure of overpopulation that I've ever heard. Oversimplify much?

Nature will deal with anything we throw at it. Our job is to figure out how we can sustain human life as we know it, without disasterous plagues/war/famines/drought when nature starts throwing stuff back.

For things to go smoothly along the current track, we'd use the cheap and easy resources until they start getting harder to find, and then we'd smoothly transition to a new source or new lifestyle that doesn't have the constraints that we were starting to run up against. You can see that starting to happen with cars...people start driving more efficient cars, hybrids, alternative fuel cars, or taking the bus, and as more and more people make the transition, we're able to expand in a new direction without gasoline riots or anything miserable like that. Once oil is at unaffordable prices, almost no one is driving a regular gas-burning car. For the most part the economy itself will take care of the transitions, but it needs some direction from a government that understands the problem and is forward-looking.