WWF says over-consumption threatens planet

May 15, 2012
Crowds of vacationers are seen here at the Haeundae beach in Busan, South Korea, in 2007. The spiralling global population and over-consumption are threatening the future health of the planet, according to conservation group WWF.

The spiralling global population and over-consumption are threatening the future health of the planet, according to conservation group WWF.

The demand on natural resources has become unsustainable and is putting "tremendous" pressure on the planet's biodiversity, the body said on Tuesday.

In its latest survey of the Earth's health, WWF named Qatar as the country with the largest , followed by its Middle Eastern neighbours Kuwait and the .

Denmark and the United States made up the remaining top five, calculated by comparing the consumed against the earth's .

The Living Planet Report found that high-income countries have an ecological footprint on average five times that of low-income ones.

Graphic showing the carbon footprint of food items. Over-consumption is threatening the health of the planet, conservation group WWF warned on Tuesday.

Across the globe the footprint has doubled since 1966.

"We are living as if we have an extra planet at our disposal," said Jim Leape, WWF International director general.

"We are using 50 percent more resources that the Earth can sustainably produce and unless we change course, that number will grow fast -- by 2030 even two planets will not be enough."

The survey, compiled every two years, reported an average 30 percent decrease in biodiversity since 1970, rising to 60 percent in the hardest-hit .

The decline has been most rapid in lower income countries, "demonstrating how the poorest and most vulnerable nations are subsidising the lifestyles of wealthier countries," said WWF.

Globally, around 13 million hectares of forest were lost each year between 2000 and 2010.

A lone scavenger with a large sack of refuse is seen at a garbage dump in Mexico City, in January. The spiralling global population and over-consumption are threatening the future health of the planet, according to conservation group WWF.

"An ever-growing demand for resources by a growing population is putting tremendous pressures on our planet's biodiversity and is threatening our future security, health and well-being," said the group.

The report comes ahead of June's Rio+20 gathering, the fourth major summit on sustainable development since 1972.

French President-elect Francois Hollande have confirmed they will be among 100 global leaders at the summit seeking to outline a path towards an economy that can balance economic growth, poverty eradication and protection of the environment.

The WWF wants to see more efficient production systems that would reduce human demand for land, water and energy and a change in governmental policy that would measure a country's success beyond its GDP figure.

But the immediate focus must be on drastically shrinking the ecological footprint of high-income countries, particularly their carbon footprint, the WWF said.

"Rio+20 can and must be the moment for governments to set a new course towards sustainability," said Leape.

"This report is like a planetary check-up and the results indicate we have a very sick planet, said Jonathan Baillie, conservation programme director of the Zoological Society of London, which co-produced the report along with the Global Footprint Network.

Explore further: NASA image: Signs of deforestation in Brazil

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Time to find a second Earth, WWF says

Oct 13, 2010

Carbon pollution and over-use of Earth's natural resources have become so critical that, on current trends, we will need a second planet to meet our needs by 2030, the WWF said on Wednesday.

China's ecological footprint continues to grow

Nov 15, 2010

The spread of consumerism among China's burgeoning middle class is behind the rapid growth of the Asian giant's environmental footprint, a conservation group said Monday.

Humanity falls deeper into ecological debt: study

Sep 20, 2011

Humankind will slip next week into ecological debt, having gobbled up in less then nine months more natural resources than the planet can replenish in a year, researchers said Tuesday.

Recommended for you

Is Hawaii prepared for the impacts of climate change?

15 minutes ago

The Hawaiian Islands represent a wide diversity of ecosystems and environments, including areas of breathtaking natural beauty as well as densely populated coastal cities. These unique environments are already ...

Water in the Netherlands–past, present, and future

5 hours ago

The storm in the Netherlands began on a Saturday afternoon in February 1953. Ria Geluk, who was 6 years old, told me that it peaked during the night when nationwide communications were on their nightly pause. ...

User comments : 57

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

unicorn27
2.9 / 5 (20) May 15, 2012
I always laugh when I hear phrases like "threaten the planet", like the planet is in any real danger. This planet has been through far worse than anything we can throw at it. If we let off every nuclear device ever made in one go and distinguish all life, including our own, from the surface. The planet will go on just fine without us. In a few tens of thousands of years, new life will have formed and will be thriving on a perfectly happy Earth. Just as the dinosaurs had to die out for us to emerge, perhaps we need to die off for something better to have a chance. Please don't say "Save the Planet" when what you're really talking about is saving your own skins.
gmurphy
4.6 / 5 (10) May 15, 2012
What about saving the planet for our children? or our childrens' children?, we've been withdrawing credit from our global account and some unfortunate future generation will have to pay for our short-sightedness. That's taxation without representation.
runrig
4.8 / 5 (8) May 15, 2012
Strange - I always take it that references to "the safety of the planet" in statements referring to the unsustainable consumption we make of it, actually carry the implicit inclusion of "so mankind can live in harmony with". Maybe it's me but I just don't see your point. It is irrelevant what would happen to the Earth once man is absent.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (19) May 15, 2012
"We are using 50 percent more resources that the Earth can sustainably produce and unless we change course, that number will grow fast -- by 2030 even two planets will not be enough."


Yet more leftists political propaganda dressed as a "study" and spoon fed to Huffington post readers.

The value of those resources will go up if they become more in demand and scarcer, thus use will self regulate in a free market, so use will actually not go out of control. Instead alternative technology will compete and improve.

We don't need idiot socialists like the rich hypocrite, and new French president, Hollande, and anti-capitalist UN,.... controlling people's behavior. Redistribution of wealth, and ad-hoc regulation of economies and general implementation of far left "progressive" liberalism is what these fools want,... all at the price of liberty.

Technology will be the key, NOT controlling human behavior as the "progressives left" desire. Fundamentally, capitalism is about freedom.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (12) May 15, 2012
What about saving the planet for our children? or our childrens' children?, we've been withdrawing credit from our global account ...


Of course it is a good thing to try to get off CO2 based energy as it is dirty. But do you fully understand what is at stake here wrt the political motivation of the far lefts proposed solutions? Our children and their children will be living engineered lives, oppressed and controlled by the government. This is counter to human nature, and when it is attempted in past history millions have died. East/west Germany is a case study,... look at how Mao and Stalin starved millions to death. The best means of production and consumption is always the natural one, free market capitalism.

Look at Greece,... people there protest in the streets and fight the police just because of simple austerity measures,.. how are people going to their choices being regulated?

Gov's can't even manage debt right, nor solve basic problems,..
Shelgeyr
1.4 / 5 (10) May 15, 2012
The WWF is a bunch of out-of-control statist alarmists. Fortunately, they're not even all that original... This has all been covered before, even in sci-fi. See also: "Fallen Angels", by Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn.
Lurker2358
1.3 / 5 (10) May 15, 2012
Noumenon:

You're an idiot man.

what this article fails to mention, is the U.S. is the only nation in the world which actually enforces conservation laws, such as using circle hooks in fishing and things like that.

Not to mention, cattle is a major source of meat in the U.S., but Europe and the middle East and other parts use a lot of Lamb, which is 50% less cost efficient in terms of carbon by their own reconing, yet they blame the U.S. for pollution?!
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (11) May 15, 2012
The best means of production and consumption is always the natural one, free market capitalism.


So-called "Free market" capitalism is not natural.

Read a few articles about historical, archeological surveys, the most ancient towns are always communal. Moreover, most animals in nature are in some way communal.

Improvements in technology only go so far. If our automobiles are 30% efficient on the highway, and 0% while stopped at a red light, and 20% averaged, then even if you had the engine at the Carnot limit of 66% and all other gears and wheels were 99% efficient so that you have a total efficiency of about 60% when driving on the Road, that would still be an average of about 50% for real world use.

80% waste vs 50% waste increases productivity by about 250%.

However, by the time you consider 9 billion projected population by 2030 this really won't break even with demand.

We are nowhere near Carnot limit for automobile engines, and a bit to go for very large engines.
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (10) May 15, 2012
Other words, supertanks and cargo ships that use the most advanced modern engines are 50% efficient already, which means they have 50% waste.

They cannot theoretically be improved beyond 66%, or 34% waste.

This means you can never get a diesel engine that uses less than about 75% as much fuel per unit horse-power as they currently use.

therefore the maximum theoretical range of improvement on the most advanced tankers and transports is about 25%, which will not keep up with increased demand of population growth alone over the next 20 years, never mind modernization and increased "per capita demand" of 3rd world countries and other developing countries.
joefarah
1.4 / 5 (11) May 15, 2012
Just to be clear, does someone want to define the real meaning of spiraling?

Apart from that, the Earth can COMFORTABLY sustain a population of 1 Trillion people, with plenty of farmland, green areas and living area. When we reach 2 trillion, things will start getting tight. Instead of a North American style of life, we'd have more of a Hong Kong/Tokyo style.

So when we reach 1 trillion could someone please sound an alarm so that we may prepare for population issues. And by that time, should the end not be here yet, our interplanetary capabilities will likely have given us additional breathing room, so to speak.

By the way, you could have used a more stunning picture by photographing a crowd at a football game instead of at an over-crowded beach. Nevertheless, great use of Depth of Field to make the beach look even more crowed than it really is.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (9) May 15, 2012
The best means of production and consumption is always the natural one, free market capitalism.


So-called "Free market" capitalism is not natural..


You make such statements after calling me an idiot?! Of course society is absolutely essencial to capitalism,... so we are in a community as a result. That aspect of free market capitalism that accords with the nature of man are, competition and suvival of the fittest,, freedom of choice, egoistic individualism, desire of profit and increasing ones standard of living, etc.

The existent global economic system is as a matter of fact, a free market capitalist one ,... so anyone proposing that it be regulated and controlled are the idiots.

How many examples of government failure do people like you require before understanding that communistic or socialistic control will not work.

Burnerjack
4 / 5 (2) May 15, 2012
Unicorn27 is (IMNSHO) fundamentally correct. The planet itself will survive us in the end. After our time has past, the planet will heal itself and life will go on, as life in the region surrounding Chernobyl has shown. That does not mitigate any moral obligation to treat our home and it's co-inhabitants in a respectful and moral fashion. with great power comes great responsibility. Ultimately (again, IMNSHO), the absurd level of success our species has reached is the base of almost all of our maladies. Ironically, recently, Vladamir Putin was quoted as declining population as the single greatest national threat his country faces. Technology is great. It can solve or minimize a large number of issues. If it is used so that 20 billion people have the same impact as the present 6.8 billion, I see no net improvement. Using population growth as an economic and political weapon is a reality and an impediment to true improvement.
axemaster
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2012
The value of those resources will go up if they become more in demand and scarcer, thus use will self regulate in a free market, so use will actually not go out of control. Instead alternative technology will compete and improve.

Nouemon, you're right, except you're missing something very important. Our economy depends on certain resources being available at low prices. If those prices rise too much, we will be forced to stop using them - but in the process the worldwide economy will be destroyed. There's no liberal conspiracy here, just well known economic facts. It's to everyone's benefit to regulate the use of these critical resources to prevent such a scenario from taking place. This is particularly true of renewable resources, which under less pressure would actually regenerate themselves...
Noumenon
1.2 / 5 (6) May 15, 2012
@axemaster,

I respect your point, however I don't agree with the time frame in which it will play out,... as if we would just run flat out, say of oil, and hear that slurping sound all of a sudden on a tuesday, and only then oil prices increase.

Instead it will occur gradually over decades and generations of time. The prices gradually increase as it becomes more costly to extract. When this occurs over long periods of time, there will be time to develope alternatives. There simply is no profit motive right this minute in alternatives,.. the market is not ready. Also, we will not actually run out of oil, it will just remain in the ground as more expensive to remove than alternatives.

Also, the politics side of it is absolutely about socialism vrs capitalism, one only needs to read the constant barrage of "studies" posted on this site.

Canada pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, and the USA never even signed. Both reasons were to protect their respective economies,.
wwqq
1 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
Of course it is a good thing to try to get off CO2 based energy as it is dirty. But do you fully understand what is at stake here wrt the political motivation of the far lefts proposed solutions?


And you have to understand that rightwing nutters are empowering the far left.

If you hold a religious faith in the omnipotence of the free market and hold it up as the solution to every problem; then you end up in a place where you have to deny that climate change even exists in order to protect your view that markets magically internalize all externalities.

The atmosphere is a commons. The polluter captures all the gains associated with the activity that causes the dumping of waste in the common atmosphere, but only an infinitesimal share in the harmful effects.

Emissions trading was supposed to be the market solution to GHG. When the mainstream left moved far enough right to embrace it the right disowned it and continued right into lala-land, fantizing about abolishing the EPA.
Terriva
1.3 / 5 (7) May 15, 2012
The ancient Romans were quite wasteful with compare to Keltian nomades - but the historical buildings survived are from Romans, not Keltian. The highly developed countries are indeed known for their high carbon footprint and overconsumption - but absolute majority of research and new findings and technological progress comes right from there. The large developing countries like the Mexico or Brazil are based on the pure reproduction: their people are living relatively well, but they just have children and that's everything, what will remain after them.

It means, the actual progress of human civilization is always connected to some dissipation of resources over the average. I don't consider the environmentalists seriously, because the only way, how to reduce the greenhouse gases in sustainable way is the cold fusion - but the lobby of wind and solar plants is as dismissive toward cold fusion, as the fossil fuel lobby. These two lobbies are just fighting for power and job places.
Terriva
1.3 / 5 (7) May 15, 2012
The problem of "sustainable energy sources" is, they're often only replacing the consumption of irrecoverable sources of energy with increased consumption of raw materials, which are dissipated like the waste into life environment. In this connection, the so-called "green technologies" like the biofuels are real tragedy for life environment: without fertilizers the soil becomes exhausted after few harvests and they're just changing rain forests and another rare ecosystems into deserts. We have not enough of fertilizers and water for production of normal food, and without fertilizers these biofuels aren't sustainable at all. They're just serving as an evasion for biotechnological lobby for another destruction of life environment. If we account to these damages, then the oil or earth gas suddenly appear as a quite clean sources of energy.
Terriva
1.4 / 5 (7) May 15, 2012
The hidden risk of fossil fuel forces is not in the global warming, which I presume is rather of temporal cosmological origin. Their risk is in the geopolitical instability and risk of nuclear war, which will emerge whenever the price of oil jumps above 200 - 300 USD/barrel. Therefore I do support the gradual replacement of fossil fuel sources with another sources, because it's the only way, how to maintain global piece at the planet. But we should always keep on mind, these replacements are going with their own less or more secret price. For example the arrays of wind turbines are suspected from hindering of atmospheric circulation and from the recent waves of devastating droughts at Texas. Before few years such a consequence was solely unexpected. So I presume, the only sustainable technology of energy production is the cold fusion. All other ways are just delaying the final solution of environmental and energetic crisis.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (9) May 15, 2012
Apart from that, the Earth can COMFORTABLY sustain a population of 1 Trillion people
I suppose that may be true if we are content to live in the open and eat lentils and sun dried tomatoes all the time.

One problem is that, with todays backward cultures in force, we would not stop at 1 trillion. We would QUICKLY produce the next generation of 100 billion, who would quickly begin to starve.
Technology will be the key, NOT controlling human behavior
Technological advances have ALWAYS enabled pops to grow at greater rates relative to carrying capacity, by increasing survivability, curing disease, and increasing lifespan. Tech of the sort which would moderate our tropical repro rate, perhaps making our reproduction seasonal like the other temperate animals; or even outsourcing repro altogether; might help.

But destroying the cultures which force overpopulation and prevent education in family planning, is the ONLY solution, besides the traditional war, famine, and disease.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) May 15, 2012
One glaring FACT that overpop denialists always fail to include in their decision-making and opinion-forming, is the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS which have taken place worldwide within the last 100 years. A country the size of india, and their descendents to 3 and 4 gens, were never born into eurasian religionist cultures destroyed by the world wars and communism.
http://www.johnst....html#SU

These abortions, and the family planning practices which prevented millions more pregnancies, could not have happened with those cultures still in place. Most of europe and northern asia are war-free for the first time in history, BECAUSE those cultures no longer exist.

But throughout the middle east, africa, and southern asia where similar cultures still do exist, war, famine, and disease still prevail. Populations there are growing unchecked and western countries struggle to accommodate refugees.
Terriva
1 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
the Earth can COMFORTABLY sustain a population of 1 Trillion people
Theoretically yes - but it would require the application of very complex and strict technocratic rules to the human society. Currently the narrow layer of highest class dissipates too many resources for its existence, whereas the poorest classes don't contribute to the research and knowledge with anything, but pure reproduction and dissipation or resources. Only the middle-class remains productive with respect to the sustainable evolution: the very rich and poor people are essentially useless for it. I'm afraid, such a compact and dense civilization would have been very socially homogeneous in the style of communistic Utopians - or it couldn't remain stable and sustainable. We should sacrifice a huge portion of personal freedom and individualism for it. These collectivist traits can be observed at the traditional East Asia society, which was historically more dense, than the Western society.
Lurker2358
1.9 / 5 (7) May 15, 2012
the Earth can COMFORTABLY sustain a population of 1 Trillion people, with plenty of farmland, green areas and living area.


Only through nearly 100% recycling, massive, multi-storied hydroponics and aeroponics, and Arcology style building to maximize spatial efficiency. You would need to ban sub-divisions and such in sub-urban and rural areas, and pretty much have everyone live exactly where they work if they are still involved in any form of manual labor not solved by robotics.

Apex predatory fish are reduced by up to 90% in the past few decades, so in order to maintain enough food supply in the oceans, you would need to sacrifice predatory whales and sharks so that food supply fish could be grown at maximum efficiency.

By the way, human respiration produces approximately 0.1PPM CO2 per billion people per year, so if you had 1 trillion people, breathing would produce 10PPM CO2 per year. The oceans and plants currently absorb about 4PPM CO2 per year...
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (5) May 15, 2012
So having said that, it would be very, very difficult to conceive of a way to push human populations levels above 400 Billion even with the most absurdly advanced technology, because after 400 Billion, we would need to start inventing artificial means of recycling CO2 to produce oxygen in order to keep up with respiration while preventing net CO2 gain (even if all other human activities were truly carbon neutral).

At 400 Billion people, world population density would be 785 persons per square kilometer average, and that counts the oceans surface. If you used land area only it's just over 3000 persons per square kilometer area, or 12 people per acre of land.

Additionally, I didn't even count the breathing of livestock animals and whatever wildlife continued to exist at that time, so that brings the limit down farther.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (6) May 15, 2012
Actually, I mis-carried a decimal above.

At 1 trillion humans, they would produce 100PPM CO2 per year through breathing.

100 billion would produce 10PPM CO2 per year

10 Billion would produce 1PPM CO2 per year

So the limit is actually around 40 Billion humans before you need an artificial CO2 recycler, assuming all human activity besides breathing is carbon neutral.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 15, 2012
A Mathematical Challenge to ObesityBy thes hypothesis of its author the obesity epidemic was caused by the overproduction of food in the United States. But some others are saying, wild animals are becoming obese too and the elevated CO2 concentration is the main culprit here.
Lurker2358
1.8 / 5 (4) May 15, 2012
If all nations were populated equally based on land area and population density, the U.S. would have 2.56 billion inhabitants by the time world population reached 40 billion.

Seeing as how many areas of the world are extremely uninhabitable for large scale populations, it is unlikely population would ever be distributed equally by land area, therefore the U.S. and Canada would probably be over populated relative to the world average, because of the availability of fresh water. So you're probably looking at more like 5 billion in the U.S. alone by the time world population made 40 billion, if it ever did.
rubberman
2.6 / 5 (5) May 16, 2012
My hyundai elantra can hold 18 people....it can't drive 18 people around because the first pothole will destroy the suspension but it will "support" that population. Until nobody on earth dies of starvation due to the lack of availability of food (not starvation caused by other circumstances) why would we even consider a number like 1 trillion? Or 8 billion?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) May 16, 2012
why would we even consider a number like 1 trillion? Or 8 billion?
'We' wouldn't. The 1T figure is a nonsense number anti-abortionists use to engage the emotions. It has absolutely no basis in fact. And yes that is a challenge. Anyone care to post the original source?
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (10) May 16, 2012
At 1 trillion humans, they would produce 100PPM CO2 per year through breathing.

100 billion would produce 10PPM CO2 per year

10 Billion would produce 1PPM CO2 per year


Parts per million gives a percentage of total... you can't make comparisons based on a percentage of total because it is not a linear scale, IE. as PPM goes up it takes MORE to make it go up again by an equal amount (obviously because there is a limit at 1m PPM). Why didn't you just give the total CO2 output of those different populations in terms of mass or volume or something meaningful so that you can actually compare them? You don't even know what you're doing do you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2012
Lurker/QCs calcs are readily available somewhere on the net. He would do himself and the people here a service by researching them and posting links rather than flummoxing them up all by himself.
Deathclock
1.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2012
Actually, I mis-carried a decimal above.


I wish your mother had miscarried you...
Howhot
5 / 5 (3) May 17, 2012
I totally disagree;
the Earth can COMFORTABLY sustain a population of 1 Trillion people

BS! I don't think you could get 1 Trillion germs to co-exist, much less people. 7 Billion people is tops.

kaasinees
2 / 5 (8) May 17, 2012
I would say 4 billion tops.
axemaster
5 / 5 (4) May 17, 2012
Apart from that, the Earth can COMFORTABLY sustain a population of 1 Trillion people, with plenty of farmland, green areas and living area.

Wha... WHAT???? Are you completely insane? China has 1.3 billion people, and they're so heavily stressed that they had to implement a 1 child policy just to save themselves, and you want them to have over 150 billion? WHAT?
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (10) May 18, 2012
If you think the WWF is qualified to take the high moral ground and tell us all what we need to do maybe you should read this.
http://independen...rvation/
or this
http://www.rainfo...t-saying
or this
http://www.telegr...ees.html
Sinister1811
1.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2012
@joefarah

Apart from that, the Earth can COMFORTABLY sustain a population of 1 Trillion people, with plenty of farmland, green areas and living area. When we reach 2 trillion, things will start getting tight.


Huh?! With 1 trillion people, there won't be enough room for farmland, green areas or living areas. There won't even be enough breathing space. Think about it! Especially when you consider that only a third of the Earth's surface actually consists of dry land. You didn't even think that through!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) May 18, 2012
Apart from that, the Earth can COMFORTABLY sustain a population of 1 Trillion people, with plenty of farmland, green areas and living area.

Wha... WHAT???? Are you completely insane? China has 1.3 billion people, and they're so heavily stressed that they had to implement a 1 child policy just to save themselves, and you want them to have over 150 billion? WHAT?
Simple, just redistribute. For instance the gobi is largely uninhabited. Like the antiabortionists love to point out, texas is full of prime real estate. Israel lived for 40 years in the sinai. Jesus lived 40 days in the wilderness.

I am sure god will send coke machines and hot dog stands because filling up the earth homogeneously is just the right thing to do. And I am sure nobody will mind at all.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (9) May 18, 2012
What about saving the planet for our children? or our childrens' children?


My child sure, but screw my child's child, my child can deal with that brat!
Shelgeyr
1.3 / 5 (8) May 18, 2012
Well, if we're going to go with silly population densities, and strict math irrespective of landscaping (to say nothing of infrastructure needs), you could put the entire current population of the earth within the borders of the United States, and give everyone about a third of an acre for their very own. Or for that matter you could put them all in Texas if you divided it up into 1000-square-foot plots.

Even if you took half of that for roads, you'd still have a little elbow room, with the rest of the planet left over for farming, ranching, and fishing.

Of course, it would still be a totalitarian nightmare, but I guess you've got to break some eggs...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
Well, if we're going to go with silly population densities, and strict math irrespective of landscaping (to say nothing of infrastructure needs), you could put the entire current population of the earth within the borders of the United States, and give everyone about a third of an acre for their very own. Or for that matter you could put them all in Texas if you divided it up into 1000-square-foot plots.

Even if you took half of that for roads, you'd still have a little elbow room, with the rest of the planet left over for farming, ranching, and fishing.

Of course, it would still be a totalitarian nightmare, but I guess you've got to break some eggs...
Where do you people get this nonsense? Provide a link to the original source or STFU.
Terriva
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2012
IMO the moral barriers of people are very thin - the people are cheaters by their very nature and they cannot resist the temptation for too long time. If we propose a social arrangement depending on this brittle morality, a breakdown of resources or power will always occur. We can make an appeal the people for more effective redistribution of resources, but at the case, when such redistribution would be controlled with few peoples, the moral pressure to their bribing or abuse of their power will be too strong. The only stable social system is the system, which doesn't exert strong moral pressure to the individuals and which punishes all moral failures automatically. For example, when abusive consumption of food would be punished with elevated social or health insurance payments (taxes), then the people would apply the limits for their consumption willingly. Such a system would be very expensive and it would violate the privacy of individuals too.
Shelgeyr
1.1 / 5 (7) May 19, 2012
Ghost:
Total Acreage in Texas: 172,044,800
Total Acreage in United States: nearly 2.3 billion
http://www.ers.us...s/eib14/

Total World population projected to 05/19/12 is 7,014,408,138
http://www.census...rld.html

Seven billion people spread across the USA's 2.3 billion acres equal 0.328..., or about a third of an acre each.

Spread across Texas' 171,904,640 acres equals approx 0.0246 acres or about 1070 square feet per person.

Either corrections to my math, or your apology, is expected.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
Ghost:
Total Acreage in Texas: 172,044,800
Total Acreage in United States: nearly 2.3 billion
http://www.ers.us...s/eib14/

Seven billion people spread across the USA's 2.3 billion acres equal 0.328..., or about a third of an acre each.

Spread across Texas' 171,904,640 acres equals approx 0.0246 acres or about 1070 square feet per person.

Either corrections to my math, or your apology, is expected.
You are talking about placing dead bodies, not viable human beings who need food, shelter, services, and the means to produce and distribute them. You cannot say a given area will accomodate people unless you plan on burying them there.

Your numbers are meaningless and grossly misleading. Produce figures showing how LIVING, BREATHING people can live comfortably within a given area for an indefinite period of time or, as I say, STFU.
Shelgeyr
1.8 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
Ghost, even though you quoted me, it seems you missed where I started with:
Well, if we're going to go with silly population densities, and strict math irrespective of landscaping (to say nothing of infrastructure needs)


...and ended with:
Of course, it would still be a totalitarian nightmare...


So when you say:
Produce figures showing how LIVING, BREATHING people can live comfortably within a given area for an indefinite period of time or, as I say, STFU.


...you're just being stupid or intentionally argumentative.

Do you REALLY think I was seriously proposing moving everyone on Earth to Texas? What part of "silly population densities, and strict math irrespective of landscaping (to say nothing of infrastructure needs)..." did you not understand?

I think the Earth can comfortably support more than it currently does, and that virtually all the reasons it doesn't now are political.

But a trillion? I don't think so...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) May 19, 2012
Do you REALLY think I was seriously proposing moving everyone on Earth to Texas? What part of "silly population densities, and strict math irrespective of landscaping (to say nothing of infrastructure needs)..." did you not understand?
So then what was the point of restating the same sort of statistics that antiabortionists enjoy misusing so much? You just showing off? Bored maybe?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 19, 2012
With 1 trillion people, there won't be enough room for farmland, green areas or living areas.

With a population density equivalent to Singapore, 7253 people/square km, 1e12 people would require 137,873,983 square km.
Total world land mass: 510,072,000 square km leaving 372,198,017 km for farming.
Off course with technology, population density can increase up and down, on the oceans and under the oceans.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) May 20, 2012
With 1 trillion people, there won't be enough room for farmland, green areas or living areas.

With a population density equivalent to Singapore, 7253 people/square km, 1e12 people would require 137,873,983 square km.
Total world land mass: 510,072,000 square km leaving 372,198,017 km for farming.
Off course with technology, population density can increase up and down, on the oceans and under the oceans.
More senseless religionist bullshit. This sort of conclusion would require a book full of calcs involving ACTUAL habitable space, logistics, economics, weather, etc. As well as dissolving all contention among peoples, and a good deal of manna from heaven.

And despite what you believe, your religion would not make this possible. As soon as someone got a little anxious, a new faction would erupt as it always does and the bloodletting would begin anew.

Your post, as usual, is nonsense.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) May 20, 2012
a book full of calcs involving ACTUAL habitable space, logistics, economics, weather, etc. As well as dissolving all contention among peoples,

Why are socialists so pessimistic?
Probably because they need to highlight problems to keep the govt in place. But the govt never solves the problems. If they did, they would loose control.
The geometric increasing population and prosperity are due to the principles of economic liberty and property rights that are a major part of what is called Western Civilization.

BTW, in Singapore, each person has 125 square meters of space, today. In Macau, each person has 54 square meters.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) May 20, 2012
BTW, in Singapore, each person has 125 square meters of space, today. In Macau, each person has 54 square meters.

"The highest PSI reading on record in Singapore is 226 in September 1997."
http://en.wikiped...ds_Index
Shelgeyr
1.7 / 5 (6) May 20, 2012
Ghost, where does "antiabortionists" come into play here?

You seem to try to assign motivations to your ideological opponents where they're not applicable. And since you're not psychic, what's your game here?

For example, I myself am an "antiabortionist" all the way, but that stance has NOTHING at all to do with anything I've posted here, nor does it have anything to do with my opinions regarding how large a human population the Earth can support.

In other words, your phobic overreaction to your own straw-man assumptions is causing you to err on the side of stupidity.
DaveMart
2 / 5 (8) May 21, 2012
The WWF has destroyed it's credibility by deliberately setting out to deceive the public.
It was responsible for a study to determine which European country has the lowest CO2 emissions, and according to them Germany came out best.

Only extensive digging through the notes produced the gem that they had rated nuclear power AS THOUGH it were produced by natural gas, and by this device created entirely hypothetical molcules of CO2.

Their grounds for this? They said that they do not much fancy nuclear power.

Nuclear France, not Germany and has the lowest CO2 emissions

Joining them in this duplicity was Allianz, who on being contacted about this bare-faced deception ludicrously claimed that it is all good, as they said this deep in the footnotes.

I leave others to determine what Allianz buries in the same way in it's financial accounts, and in it's policies.

The WWF is engaged in agitprop, not information, and have the same attitude to truth as the old Soviet propagandists..

Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) May 21, 2012
Ghost:
Total Acreage in Texas: 172,044,800
Total Acreage in United States: nearly 2.3 billion
http://www.ers.us...s/eib14/

Seven billion people spread across the USA's 2.3 billion acres equal 0.328..., or about a third of an acre each.

Spread across Texas' 171,904,640 acres equals approx 0.0246 acres or about 1070 square feet per person.

Either corrections to my math, or your apology, is expected.


Not your math, but your logic... not all land is suitable for building, in fact very little of it is. Further, using your numbers there would be no roads, no sidewalks, no public parks, no commercial buildings or factories... no FARMS... etc.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2012
Ghost, where does "antiabortionists" come into play here?

You seem to try to assign motivations to your ideological opponents where they're not applicable. And since you're not psychic, what's your game here?
The people who originally brought up your figures did so because of their religious bias. They were aping what they read on an antiabortion website I assume. I asked for a source for their figures. Did you read the thread shel?

Abortion is bad but overpopulation is worse. Religions produce gens of adolescents who have absolutely nothing else to do but fight and die on the battlefield and in the streets.

Religions are currently driving the overpopulation which makes war and revolution inevitable, and abortion the only chance of avoiding these things. Religion is RESPONSIBLE for abortion.

In order to avoid admitting this they will claim that they have not yet filled up the earth, and use nonsense figures like yours to do so.
wwqq
1.3 / 5 (3) May 21, 2012
Actually, I mis-carried a decimal above.

At 1 trillion humans, they would produce 100PPM CO2 per year through breathing.


This CO2 is comming from food, and to grow this food you need to capture 100 ppm CO2 from the atmosphere.
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 09, 2012
joefarah made a ridiculous claim - with zero substantiation
..the Earth can COMFORTABLY sustain a population of 1 Trillion people
Please indicate how this can be possible and especially so when there are many that consume far more than their fair share of available resources ?

Is yours a religious position, gawd no, I hope not...!

and how many of these people are good managers allowing how many other people to live far above the poverty line ?

and by corollary how many will then live below the poverty line ?

Where are you in this position, a consumer with any sort of understanding of resource management or a manipulator/schemer of others ?

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2012
Ya, I read that on some WhackTard Conservative blog a while back.

It is sad that you can't distinguish between reality and the prattle of the brain dead Teabaggers.

"Only extensive digging through the notes produced the gem that they had rated nuclear power AS THOUGH it were produced by natural gas, and by this device created entirely hypothetical molcules of CO2." - DaveMart
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 09, 2012
Why are no 'progressives' demanding DPRK, Zimbabwe, Cuba and other socialist 'paradises' change their socialist ag policies so they can raise more food?
Or do they believe these socialist 'paradises' are following the correct plan to 'save the planet'?