- —

That’s exactly my point. We have to look closely at “the spectre of mass extinction,” acknowledge that it is happening, and then ask ourselves a few questions regarding our function or dysfunction inside this biosphere, which is the Earth, and, on a more local level, inside the ecosystems that are immediately around us, wherever we may be.

The next step will be to protest, as we may come to realize that we’d much rather be a large bunch of garderners and protectors of the living nature, as this would suit the planet much better. I mean: we do not have to keep polluting the place with every kind of toxins that is available to us, as a matter of human nature?

We need to think twice now, and reach a decision which is pleasing to the brain, to the soul, to the heart, and to the spirit.

Without thinking too much about it, here’s a back-of-the-envelope guestimate:

– 6.6 billion people
– 50% too young, not intested, or not able to have sex
– sex once a week on average
– 5 minutes per copulation on average
– 24 * 7 * 60 = 10,080 minutes in a week

So, at any one moment there are about
6.6 billion * 0.5 * 5 / (24 * 7 * 60) = 1.6 million
or 800,000 couples copulating (… Eight maids a-milking / Seven swans a-swimming / Six geese a-laying / Five golden rings … And a partridge in a pear tree).

Another question is, how many of these couples are trying to have a baby? Of those who aren’t, how many have access to birth control? And, of those, how many are using it?

It is not possible for me to say what parts or how much of all you report that I am understanding, but then, that is not what is most important. What is most important is that you keep thinking and sharing experience.

You are correct in noting that I do not see human beings as parasites or pathogens, even smart ones. It may be, however, that what human beings are doing on Earth in our time is approaching a point in history when our species, “as a functional whole,” looks like something we are not, definitely not.

Keep going.

Steve

- —

Dear Steve.

I don’t know whether or not you can understand half of what I am saying most of the time, or if — to the contrary — you are able to follow my way thinking all the way home, as you have come to understand and appreciate the fact that I must be some kind of extraterrestrial being or another, a rather ugly freak of nature, and/or a desperado. I believe I can subscribe to all three descriptions.

I’m a dreamer. I have, on many occasions, had the same kind of dream as you have had now: I’m thinking of the idea that everything just stopped. I’ve not been dreaming of technical devices that could make this actually happen. Just stopping the world like that, as if like pushing a button or pulling a switch. No, I’ve been dreaming of space aliens. A race of extraterrestrial beings which had the brain power to really make sense of all the things that goes on in the minds of a sample of humans, and indeed also of the entire human race, as a functioning collective. Unfortunately, a dysfunctional collective of thinking, feeling and dreaming individuals who are slowly, and very painstakingly, coming to realize that the human species — as a functional whole — must surely be regarded as a very destructive, and, in the eyes of the observing space aliens, and after a while, humanity itself, a most pathetic, paracitic species. One that is quite able to, knowingly and willingly, destroy it’s home planet’s ecosystems, methodically and perversely, by means of poison like oil, gas, and coal: substances that this species has become addicts of, and just cannot do away with for the presise reason that the whole species is addicted to the shit. But the realization that we just might be a paracitic lifeform doesn’t have to be bad news. To the contrary: as more people are becoming aware of the ecocidal developments on this planet, then maybe, just maybe, will most of us decide to change our ways. Simply because it is unbearable to think of ourselves as a paracitic species, I suppose. Well anyway: I have a dream.

I know from before that you are not particularly fond of the idea that the human race has certain paracitic traits. The way we are overwhelming all ecosystems. The way we double our population in a matter of no time (in a cosmic sense). I think you’re frightened of the idea. And this I think all humans will have in common. We’ll be afraid that we just might be able to strangulate this planet by means of atmospheric poison; the world coming to resemble a veritable gas chamber. And human beings all over the place, running, driving, flying and sailing around like some funkling maniacs. I believe you get the picture?

I have for a very long time been thinking about this manuscript for a novel which is never going to be written, since I intend never to humiliate myself like that, ever again. My last plan to write the story of a group of space alien researchers on the human predicament. I was thinking that the individual researchers were all appalled by what they were seeing here, on this planet. And very afraid that this very warlike and very murderous race of vampires, zombies and zappers was one day going to discover interstellar travel power. I mean: the idea of having humans invading space would simply be out of the question.

The combination of over-industrialization and population explosion is going to make this planet look like a something very difficult to describe, I guess. — If only I had a magic wand. –

http://trinifar.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/decoding-bali/#comments

Trinifar (comment #14): “More people are switching on to the nature of the problem. Is this happening at an exponential pace? There’s no way to know.”

Exactly like everything else in this world seems to be happening or escalating at an exponential rate, why not assume that this could be the case with awareness, and even attitudes? It sure is a brilliant idea.

- —

Steve: “… and, also, to begin addressing the predicament by modifying the course of economic globalization, limiting increasing per human consumption, and regulating skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers…….. with all deliberate speed?”

I doubt that. As a matter of fact, I know that the Norwegian government is by no means the only government of this world to having made the to allow CO2 emissions to keep rising at a very high speed; all in the name of metallurgy, and serving the best interest of industrial power-houses like Statoil-Hydro, Aker-Kværner and Norske Skog, among other such powerful interest groups and intimate political-economic players.

On top of that, I know that the vast majority of the adult Norwegian population dwell on a very relaxed attitude towards the matter of increasing Norwegian CO2 emissions, quite simply because they can all understand that these emissions, to a most significant degree, are the by-products of economic activities, which are needed in order to secure work and employment.

You see: this is a vexing issue! There are such a lot of dilemmas and paradoxical situations here. The problem with the environment, locally and at large, are all problems concerned with the way of life of modern, westernized humanity. I mean: look at it! Everywhere you go, in all four corners of the planet, and in almost every location within these corners, there is currently a building and construction boom taking place. New shopping malls, new skyscrapers, new airports, new roads, new everything is currently being built; not only in the USA, in Scaninavia and Japan, but also in China, Malaysia, India, Mocambique, Cameroon and Uruguay. Everywhere. These activities are all extremely energy consuming. So what is going on here, on ground level, humanity’s demand for energy is booming. The cheapest kind of energy humanity can think of is fossil. Coal, gas, and oil: those are the substances we most often make use of, and those are the substances that are creating the greenhouse effect. We know this. Yes, we’ve all been informed about that. Our governments are all treating the situation as a serious crisis, at least in lovely, little greenwashing speeches, in which they send someone to stand in front of a television camera or eight, and talk about all the things that must be done twenty years from now, only not right now, because that would never be a very wise economic move.

And the fact is fact is fact is fact: while some of the politicians keep talking about what is known as “climate change action”, CO2 emissions keep increasing.

Dream on.

Yes, this is a question that awakened me only last night!

Let me add here a bit more about what is on my mind.

Last night I awakened out of what felt like a deep sleep. I had this idea of “the world having stopped spinning.” By that I mean everything just stopped. Then I imagined that a set of giant, solar-powered reflectors were placed skillfully and carefully in space so that it became possible for anyone on Earth to “stop the world” by observing (with the help of supercomputers, of course) what everyone on the planet was doing at any moment in time. With assistance of computers and reflectors, people could gain a species-level perspective of what is actually happening in a moment of space-time. People could see the world we inhabit from a different point of view. Their scope of observation would change.

Then, I asked myself how many people, let us say at noon, Greenwich Mean Time, would be engaged in sexual intercourse worldwide; how many people would be foregoing sex at that moment in order to eat; and how many people would be not be having sex or eating, but working? I also thought that it would be helpful, but not necessary, to know how many people were sleeping at noon GMT as well as how many people were somewhere purposefully playing and galumphing at noon.

Then, I wondered what it could mean to members of the human community if we could see what the human species is actually doing currently with regard to its unchecked propagation activities, its unrestrained per capita consumption activities and its unbridled expansion of big-business production capabilities on the surface of Earth at any moment in time. (People slumbering and playing, I am supposing, are not presenting major problems for life as we know it or the integrity of Earth.) Would it not become immediately possible for many people to recognize the distinctly human-induced predicament humanity is approaching and, also, to begin addressing the predicament by modifying the course of economic globalization, limiting increasing per human consumption, and regulating skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers…….. with all deliberate speed?

Wonderful comment, Magne. Thank you for it.

Always,

Steve

Is this a question that seems to be is keeping you awake at night?

Since this thread speaks directly to the overpopulation issue, I have a question for all of you that belongs here.

I am looking for creative ways for determining how many people on the surface of the Earth are having sexual intercourse at any single moment in time. Any ideas for this calculation?

Thanks,

Steve

At WaPo I had to register and log in to post a comment. But the comments under that article are generally of such a low level of discussion and just so silly, I think it’s hardly worth the time.

The Grist discussion is a little better. I guess I’ve taken on the role there of challenging advocates of the “don’t talk about population; just address the underlying social issues” approach. I just know someone is going to come up with some social issue which was successfully addressed by avoiding talking about it.

Let us be crystal clear about one thing: We are going to make a difference that makes a difference leading to a good enough future for life as we know iton Earth………. or we will die trying. That simple.

Always,

Steve

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/20/AR2007122002725.html

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/17/18180/853

I see there are some asserting the common argument that if we just cut consumption enough we could support the current or even a larger population sustainably.

This is probably my favorite topic right now, one I’ve been investigating and thinking about a lot. It’s something I’ll write about soon, but the more I look into it, the clearer it becomes that those arguing the line of reasoning seen by those in the Grist comments are just flat wrong.

No time right now for detail, but below are some items for which these folks usually fail to account. The first three items are, in my view, enough to counter most such arguments. (These are an adaptation and condensation of parts of an email I recently sent to someone in discussing this.)

1) Population size multiplies with per capita consumption to determine total consumption. So it’s obviously wrong to say, “It’s not population, it’s consumption!”

2) There is often an underlying assumption that there’s some important reason to try to maintain or grow our current numbers. This has no basis in much of anything.

3) You have to begin with recognition that we’re already deeply into overshoot. This is supported by widely available, highly reputable data, and provable with simple logic. The implication is that we need to get our numbers down far lower than the current level. Therefore, any efforts to address population today will help in the short term (fewer people born into a world of diminishing energy and other resources) and is essential for the long term.

4) The available data tell us that to bring our current numbers back to within carrying capacity merely by reducing per capita consumption we’d have to drop to levels comparable to some of the poorer counties in the world. To account for anticipated population growth we’d have to go far lower, probably to levels below those of the poorest countries. (A complete switch to renewables is fairly far off. But based on these data, it would, in any case, almost surely be insufficient.)

6) The best established and best organized available data on this topic do not yet account well for a number of key areas of consumption. To do so would tell us we’d need to drop per capita consumption considerably further than indicated above.

7) A thought: To conclude the earth’s carrying capacity for humans is over 7 billion, is to say, “Well, our numbers were only in the millions for about 99.999% (literally!) of our history. (Our numbers are estimated to have been under 10 million prior to the beginning of agriculture.) After that, after exceeding 1 billion, we commenced serious ecological damage. Okay, I’m going to guess the carrying capacity for humans is over 7 billion.” This doesn’t prove anything, but should give us pause.

8 ) We humans seem to have developed a widespread sense of entitlement to the earth’s resources regardless of the impacts on our fellow earth inhabitants. We seem to feel entitled to usurp those resources by growing our numbers vastly out of proportion to any comparable species. (What is the larges number of gorillas that ever existed? What would be the impact on humans and how would we react if gorillas or chimpanzees suddenly numbered 7 billion — rather than being on the brink of extinction due to largely to our numbers? Note that those species consume at levels that are about as low as we could go.)

Humans now usurp as much as 40% of all products of photosynthesis on Earth. Yet we resist the simple observation that it’s easy, humanely and volutarliy, to bring our numbers down. We seem to think it’s important to push to or well beyond the limits of carrying capacity. This is clearly at great cost to other species, and ultimately to out own. Every acre of land we take, every bushel of corn we grow, destroys habitat and takes from the sustenance of other species. Why then do we persist in thinking it’s okay to number nearly 7 billion and counting?

As I mentioned, I hope to write an article on this soon, and will provide all data, math, etc. there.