Comments on: Every extra human means fewer animals

By: James Webley

James Webley — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:24:27 +0000

I agree with CJAB but through education and advocacy that “bell” might not have to ring as loudly.

By: CJAB

CJAB — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:16:23 +0000

Hilarious – I fear the message will be lost in the ‘controversy’, but he’s not telling porkies.

By: Ecologist

Ecologist — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:04:48 +0000

Doug Stanhope provides a succinct, if somewhat controversial viewpoint on overpopulation that readers of this post might enjoy!

By: Geoff Russell

Geoff Russell — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:46:49 +0000

People? 335 million tonnes of liveweight, Livestock? 700 million tonnes.
22 million hectares of crop land produce many (5 to 10) times more food
than the 380 million which are grazed, trampled and
degraded … with plenty burned as well. 12 percent of what we (globally) coopt
provides 83 percent of our food while the 58 percent co-opted by
livestock provides … eventually … 17 percent. We can pretty well halve
our impact on the planet by changing diet. But plenty of people
don’t think the planet is worth such a change. Fancy
replacing that 17 percent with the same stuff that provides the other
83 percent? Of course for some individuals their diet ratios are a
little different so the change is bigger. BBQs easily trump any faux concern
for the planet.

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:48:20 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by conservbytes: Every extra human means fewer animals: http://wp.me/phhT4-Tw...

By: Robert Lawrence

Robert Lawrence — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 05:56:18 +0000

The I=PAT equation seems reasonable, but it does not take into account reproduction rates. It seems that population growth rates are relatively low in affluent societies and high for those in poverty. An important question is whether providing the carbon-free nuclear energy would be able to produce the affluence to reduce the world population growth without increasing the impact. Technology has the potential to also increase the effectiveness of recycling and resource recovery, which could reduce the impact per person. I am interested in finding out any opinions on this?

In South Australia, our government claims to be able to produce desalinated water and be carbon neutral in the process, yet they have a high population growth target that eclipses any savings by using renewable energy. The population target is short-sighted and irresponsible and seems to suit the business interests that provide political donations that drive our political parties. Political parties should be rejected by the electorate and we should vote for representatives in electorates that are interested in real people rather than narrow business interests. We cannot afford to have government and opposition parties working against each other. We all need to work together to solve the challenges of the new few decades and beyond.

By: Tweets that mention Every extra human means fewer animals « ConservationBytes.com -- Topsy.com

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:38:19 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by National Wildlife HS, ConservationBytes and ConservationBytes, Chris R. Chris R said: RT @conservbytes: Every extra human means fewer animals: As promised some time ago when I blogged about the imminent release of the … http://bit.ly/bt1A68 [...]

By: CJAB

CJAB — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:43:50 +0000

I think pain and loss of life are the only things that will finally ring the bell for most people. Sad, but likely.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:19:33 +0000

How do we wake up the world. Our current way of life is destroying where we live. Greed, waste and stupidity are ruining our world. So few of us care.