Sustainable living - OT from "off the grid" thread

[Humpback]

SNIP
To think it's just a case of 'killing half the population' is a bit naive, and does not really adress the issue; SNIP

Mikkel
I don't think anyone has mentioned "....killing half the population....." I certainly haven't,
If you read my contributions here I suggested "Reducing the growth in the number of souls on this planet is a necessity" the bold was in the post.
Perhaps its the lost in translation situation?
Your phrase has unfortunate conotations I don't adhere to.
Regards
Alan

 

[Mikkel]

it was of course only to exaggerate the point of population reduction.

If we halves the population, and instead double or resource consumption, then we are back where we started.

If we instead maintain the current population, and halves our consumption, then we get a more sustainable and more humane result.

Of course, reacing both goals would be even betterm but we need to be realistic. it would also be nice if we found another identical planet within traveling distance, but it's probably not going to happen.

Do you have any numbers on how it can not be done, to support the current population by restructuring the agricultural sector? If meat were completely removed from the production, the outout in food energy would be immense compared to what it is now. Not that i'm a vegetarian, but it's an interresting thought.

 

[Husky]

I don´t know the data behind the calculations of how many people the world can support but I question the level of development that these calculations are based on.
Mikkel has seen a figure of 10 billion and I would be interested in what kind of lifstyle this incorporates.
The WWF calculates that todays population allows for 2,1 hectares /capita of global resorces. This includes what is needed for food, clothing, buildingmaterials and also for forests that bind the CO2-emissions from fossil fuels.
The world today is at an avarage of 2,7!
Of course a reduction in our consumption of fossil fuels will then reduce the area/capita needed but can we get down to 2,1? This calculation also requires an imediate stop to population growth.
If we do this then where do we end up?
The UN has developed a Human Development Index "HDI" based on poverty, analfabetism, childmortality and lifeexpectancy, among other things. The lowest acceptable level according to the UN is an HDI of 0,8.
This is today not reachable at a consumption level of 2,1 hectares/capita!

To reduce our rate of consumption, what can we do without?
Do we stop all scientific research? Medical research, hospitals etc?
A space program? If we one day want to use the resources from the moon or even mars?
Satelite communication? Internet?
What does an agricultural society actually mean?

 

[HillBill]

It means everyone grows their own food etc no waste from industries no packaging on everything local economies supporting each other that kind of thing. Basically the majority are farmers rather than what we have now.

 

[Cobweb]

Bring on the plague!!
j/k

 

[Husky]

http://http://opr.princeton.edu/popclock/popupclock.html
:yikes:

Ok, problem presented.
Now for the solutions i.e. what makes humans human! Suggestions?

Can we have an acceptable level of technology and development based on wind water and solarpower leaving the agriculture to produce food and not fuel?
There are already succesfull projects going on about making compressed air powered cars made out of recycled materials.
Meat should not be raised on wheat and soja but culled from populations of wildlife that forage on areas not suitable for agriculture.
The developing countries need to be steered to a different path of development then the one we have taken.
Reducing population growth is more important then climatechange in changing the outcome!

 

[rik_uk3]

Husky, can't be done in the UK mate, we are too small an island with far too many mouths to feed; lets get those atomic power stations built straight away to stop very cold homes in the next few years

 

[Husky]

Of course the world population is, and will be, varying in density. If you all want to live in the UK then we will have to figure out a sustainable organisation for transporting food and stuff to your island.
Migration will also always be an option.
Sweden has 2 square kilometres(!) / person, half of it is woodland, the densest moosepopulation in the world and bushcrafters are especially wellcome!

 

[rik_uk3]

Of course the world population is, and will be, varying in density. If you all want to live in the UK then we will have to figure out a sustainable organisation for transporting food and stuff to your island.
Migration will also always be an option.
Sweden has 2 square kilometres(!) / person, half of it is woodland, the densest moosepopulation in the world and bushcrafters are especially wellcome!

Migration is not really an option, to where and what? Would your country welcome 1 million brits who fancied living a green life in your woodlands? Very doubtful IMO

This is worth reading
http://www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=406

 

[Husky]

Maybe I should have put a smilie in my last post. I´m not trying to push an agenda, just trying to steer toward solutions instead of the problem.
To answer your question, if you can show that you can support yourself and your lifestyle is within the law I don´t see that you would be unwellcome.

I am curious about your lack of enthusiasm. You live on an overpopulated island that can´t support its population in any manner. Have you all just given up and are calling a "walk over" or do you have a different solution in mind?

 

[philaw]

I think that what we need is for the environment to visibly decline, because that's the only thing that will unite people in doing something about it. As long as we're talking about reducing standards of living or stopping peope having as many children to prevent future problems, it won't matter how solid the argument is.

Having lived in China, I was always amused by people here criticising the one child policy as though there was no purpose behind it except spite. People there generally accept it.

It was instigated because the government decided that 500 million was the optimum population for the country, and it has never stopped the population growing, despite being credited with preventing around 400 million births.

Where would the world (let alone China) be now without that foresight and sacrifice?

 

[rik_uk3]

Maybe I should have put a smilie in my last post. I´m not trying to push an agenda, just trying to steer toward solutions instead of the problem.
To answer your question, if you can show that you can support yourself and your lifestyle is within the law I don´t see that you would be unwellcome.

I am curious about your lack of enthusiasm. You live on an overpopulated island that can´t support its population in any manner. Have you all just given up and are calling a "walk over" or do you have a different solution in mind?

I'm all for migrating, my wife and I failed to take up the opportunity of work and move to New Zealand about 7 years ago for various reasons we did not go. We are pushing both our Children to leave the UK as soon as they can.

What about the people without skils, economic refugees? Reading the link I posted, Sweden has problems with refugees now, so I don't think the door would stay open for long.

For brits Australia has made it easier to migrate there, alas I'm now too old but I am looking at ways of retiring to Portugal in about eight years when my wife and I retire

 

[Ex Member - Sidney Bounty]

That will not be the case in reality as long as people have their star bucks coffee to sip their TV and beer in the fridge they wont care if their is any environment left or not....

I think that what we need is for the environment to visibly decline, ?

And what a scary precedence that makes for the future its propaganda that makes it acceptable its no different than the propaganda machine did with removing the guns in the UK this is a very slippery slope as far as I am concerned as were will it stop? what if they decide to take it all the way to the handicapped or mentally challenged or old over 60 over 40 over 30? very very scary way of thinking it takes away a humans rights every one that is taken away makes you less human and more akin to docile domesticated sheep you seriously better rethink your acceptance philaw....

Having lived in China, I was always amused by people here criticising the one child policy as though there was no purpose behind it except spite. People there generally accept it.

It was instigated because the government decided that 500 million was the optimum population for the country, and it has never stopped the population growing, despite being credited with preventing around 400 million births.

Where would the world (let alone China) be now without that foresight and sacrifice?

 

[philaw]

Bill, the overpopulation is so bad there that people are unable to see any other option. China is the same size as Canada, but about one third is mountainous and unproductive, and another third is taken up by the Gobi desert, all with a population of anywhere between 1.3 and 1.4bn people. They have to deal with all kinds of shortages:

Water: with the worlds largest irrigation project, pump water from south to north.
Shortages of land: by managing development, with strict controls on things like golf courses.
Shortage of electricity: by burning more coal
Potential food shortage: China can't develop like every other industrialised country and become dependent on food imports, because there could never be enough supply.
Unemployment: China can't develop it's agriculture, because the countryside is so heavily populated that too many would be put out of work. When each family only has an acre or so, how do you mechanise? Who leaves the land and where do they go? There are too many people to ever have the standard of living we enjoy here.

Phrasing the one child policy as a question of rights really misses the point of how do you deal with these things? People don't like having these things imposed on them, but rationally would be forced to do the same for themselves in the same conditions. People there say we're lucky for being able to have more kids, but no one ever said they'd felt wronged.

And what a scary precedence that makes for the future its propaganda that makes it acceptable its no different than the propaganda machine did with removing the guns in the UK this is a very slippery slope as far as I am concerned as were will it stop? what if they decide to take it all the way to the handicapped or mentally challenged or old over 60 over 40 over 30? very very scary way of thinking it takes away a humans rights every one that is taken away makes you less human and more akin to docile domesticated sheep you seriously better rethink your acceptance philaw....


Quote:
Originally Posted by philaw
Having lived in China, I was always amused by people here criticising the one child policy as though there was no purpose behind it except spite. People there generally accept it.

It was instigated because the government decided that 500 million was the optimum population for the country, and it has never stopped the population growing, despite being credited with preventing around 400 million births.

Where would the world (let alone China) be now without that foresight and sacrifice?
quote]

 

[Husky]

I do understand Bills concern though.
If we decide that we can´t afford to have children (the basic biological reason for living and a heavily emotional subject) then soon we will ask ourselves if we can aford to have disabled people.
China adressed that problem to and only resently was it declared that mental illnes is not a reason for execution. At the same time it was declared that there are no mentally ill persons i China so it is not a problem.

To not adress the problem is actually to decide that the best solution is that poor people in africa starve to death.
Either way it will always be the rich and powerful who decide what is right...

 

[rik_uk3]

I do understand Bills concern though.

China adressed that problem to and only resently was it declared that mental illnes is not a reason for execution. At the same time it was declared that there are no mentally ill persons i China so it is not a problem.

It does recognise mental health problems

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200011/22/eng20001122_55806.html

 

[demographic]

One of my brothers mates lives off the grid, he uses propane for some of his cooking, has a small windmill and a bit of a solar panel.

He gets by with about 80 watts maximum charging up a bank of batteries and manages to power a breadmaker and computer off it.
He owns an old watermill but the wheel isn't in place otherwise he would have a hell of a lot more power to play with.

He's going to sort it at some point but it wil involve a bit of cash so it might have to wait a while.