The use of our planet is no longer sustainable

[Anti]

Quite rarely actually, politics remain the main cause of famine. Overpopulation can cause famine, but on rather localised areas (and even then, it's often politics which prevents food to reach these areas).

If there weren't too many people for that section of land, there would be food for them to eat. If the food needs to be brought in from other areas... it's ultimately overpopulation (of that area) that drives the famine.

Overpopulation creates unbalance in the environment, with lots of different consequences, like landslides such has happened in over populated Mount Elgon, Uganda, few weeks ago. A lush & fertile enough area to feed everyone living there, but so many people cleared the volcano slopes for growing, that nothing holds the soil anymore, and when rain comes it get disastrous.

If it were lush and fertile enough to feed everyone living there then there would be no reason for people to have cleared the volcano slopes for cultivation... which caused the soil to erode and rain to cause disaster.

Overpopulation of that area necessitated (in the minds of those doing it) the cultivation of those slopes.

Why in Kenya, in some places lions enter villages & houses at night to catch someone for diner. Overpopulation has caused encroachment on the lions territories, with disastrous results, but no famine.

I didn't say that overpopulation always instantly leads to famine.

There's famine in some North-Western Nepal valleys (a very very well hidden famine), but not because of overpopulation, it's because rain doesn't fall enough anymore overthere, and crops don't grow.

Because they were already overpopulated enough to need to cultivate crops (in order to feed this population), when the rain failed, the crops failed and there was not enough food to support the people in the region. Therefore famine caused by.... ?

Nepal Gov; could shuffle food there, with some copters, but seems it doesn't happen. Is there a political reason or will, not to do so ? probably. As a matter of fact, only a French NGO is bringing food to these people, not with copters, but with porters.

This is an example of the transportation system breaking down, leaving the indigenous population without the natural resources to hunt and gather their own food. There are too many people living there, so they have to depend on crops. When crops fail, they have to depend on transportation of crops. When transportation fails they are faced with famine based on overpopulation of a given area.

If in the past, overpopulation might have created famine, it is something totally impossible in today's world. There are enough stocks & money on the planet to kill any famine in the egg. BUT, is there the political will to do so ? certainly not.

A grain of truth in there. But still, overpopulation of a given area (beyond what that area can naturally support) is the root cause of these famines.

few years ago, Malawi experienced some famine (not enough rain, bad crops). The UN World Food Program called for help from wolrd governments, nearly no one gave.

Too many people for the area to support, so they turned to agriculture.... when agriculture failed (not enough rain, bad crops) there was a famine caused by too many people living in a region which could not support their food needs. (Then there was a transportation break down and they couldn't get supplies from elsewhere.)

Same happen regularly for Afghanistan during winter time. WFP calls for help, nearly no one gives. Governements don't give a shit about famine, this is a fact. In today's world, the only cause of famine is politics, period.

The main cause of famine is the overpopulation of the earth which is CAUSED IN THE FIRST PLACE by dependence on totalitarian agriculture!

A small tribe living in the middle of nowhere in the Australian outback does not need to grow copious amounts of food in order to feed their population. They find it growing on the side of the river, crawling across the dirt path, swimming through the streams, flying through the trees.

Once that tribe begins to practice agriculture as their primary means of sustenance, any excess food produced will be used to create new people, which will put a strain on the food supply, which will in turn require more land to be put under cultivation, which will in turn lead to new people, which leads to more land under cultivation....which leads to expansionism, which leads to poverty, classes, war, etc.

 

[Anti]

In the book of Genesis, God gives man a garden paradise to live in, but man insists that he must have God's knowledge of Good and Evil, so he eats of the forbidden fruit (agriculture?) and now that he has done so, he is cast out of the garden, to earn his food by the sweat of his own brow.

Adam's son Abel is a sheepherder. Adam's other son Cain is a FARMER.

They both present their gifts to god... Abel's gift is of the sheep he has cared for. Cain's gift is the bountiful fruits, vegetables and grains he has grown.


But god does NOT find favor with Cain's offerings!

So Cain (the cultivator) SLAYS his brother (the shepherd)!

IMHO, this is a description of what the author of this book saw happening in the world.

Cain's ancestors had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so they believed that they knew as well as God did. Cultivation allowed their numbers to grow until they needed to expand... when they did, they ran into their brothers who had NOT eaten of this fruit, who survived by animal husbandry and hunting and gathering.... and they KILLED THEM because they were taking up space that would better be served (in the minds of Cain) for cultivation.

 

[bombadil.360]

In the book of Genesis, God gives man a garden paradise to live in, but man insists that he must have God's knowledge of Good and Evil, so he eats of the forbidden fruit

there story does not run like that... adam (man) does not insist that he must have God's knowledge at all; man and woman were tricked by the Tempter to eat out of the forbidden tree; and right after they ate from it due to falling for the trickery of the 'snake', they repent and realize the mistake they have made.

yet, they cannot escape their responsibility, since they ate out of their own free-will; but they ate from it out of their free will but through being tricked, not because they 'insisted' that they 'had' to 'have it'.

Adam's son Abel is a sheepherder. Adam's other son Cain is a FARMER.

They both present their gifts to god... Abel's gift is of the sheep he has cared for. Cain's gift is the bountiful fruits, vegetables and grains he has grown.


But god does NOT find favor with Cain's offerings!

So Cain (the cultivator) SLAYS his brother (the shepherd)!

Cain actually wonders why God would find more liking in Abel's offer than in his, since Cain had not slain any animal, had not caused any death... yet, Abel's offering shows that Abel has no inclination to idolize animals, it also shows Abel accepts his mortality as well as the mortality of animals and understands that in death we all return from whence we arose/ were created.

 

[Open Eyes]

I read this whole thread this last hour because i found it interesting.

Anybody with some intelligence will see that when you put 1500 rats in an environment meant to sustain 100 that some of those rats will die due to starvation. If you cannot see this you are either really dumb or really dumb.

We are an intelligent species but too stupid to save ourselves from ourselves due to politics, religion, e.g. the churches policy on condoms, and the sheer selfish greed and ignorance some of us display.

To say that we can go on pro-creating without consequences on our finite resources is a dangerous statement. In the UK today we import larger and larger amounts of consumables since we do not have enough people producing them domestically. People in Africa are now providing the UK with foods that we eat on a regular basis and people here do not see anything wrong with this way of providing food?

I have read some, how shall i put it, interesting comments (read blatantly stupid and ignorant, selfish) here today that leaves me thinking we are fucked as a species.

 

[arcticsun]

Originally Posted by Anti
Adam's son Abel is a sheepherder. Adam's other son Cain is a FARMER.

They both present their gifts to god... Abel's gift is of the sheep he has cared for. Cain's gift is the bountiful fruits, vegetables and grains he has grown.


But god does NOT find favor with Cain's offerings!

So Cain (the cultivator) SLAYS his brother (the shepherd)!

Cain actually wonders why God would find more liking in Abel's offer than in his, since Cain had not slain any animal, had not caused any death... yet, Abel's offering shows that Abel has no inclination to idolize animals, it also shows Abel accepts his mortality as well as the mortality of animals and understands that in death we all return from whence we arose/ were created.

[/quote]

I understood it so that Cain brought the fruits of the earth, while Abel brought the newborn lamb. GOD appreciated the lamb more because in them he saw his innocent children.

Now if Cain had brought the sowing seeds to GOD... get my drift? I dont think it has anything to do with who is a farmer and who is a herder.

Unless maybe someone can enlighten us on whether or not GOD says something specifically about the farmers somewhere?

 

[MarquisBlack]

Adam's son Abel is a sheepherder. Adam's other son Cain is a FARMER.

They both present their gifts to god... Abel's gift is of the sheep he has cared for. Cain's gift is the bountiful fruits, vegetables and grains he has grown.


But god does NOT find favor with Cain's offerings!

There is a theory amongst some occultists that Cain was the first to cultivate Cannabis.

WHAT DO I CARE ABOUT INCENSE FROM SHEBA OR KANEH FROM A DISTANT LAND? YOUR BURNT OFFERINGS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE; YOUR SACRIFICES DO NOT PLEASE ME.

JERIMIAH 6: 20

I also find it interesting that Mme Blavatsky explains that Cain (Chiun) is related to Saturn. (And thus, the God Shiva, whose followers to this day smoke charas as a sacrament..)

I'm sure most of us have heard the theory that Kaneh Bosm in the bible refers to Cannabis..

Back to the topic at hand..

 

[bombadil.360]

There is a theory amongst some occultists that Cain was the first to cultivate Cannabis.



I also find it interesting that Mme Blavatsky explains that Cain (Chiun) is related to Saturn. (And thus, the God Shiva, whose followers to this day smoke charas as a sacrament..)

I'm sure most of us have heard the theory that Kaneh Bosm in the bible refers to Cannabis..

your quote from Jeremiah is a really good one.

although the use of cannabis as a sacrament and/or medicine that not only heals the physical, is used for our advantage, but not to offer it as a sacrifice in the sense that Jeremiah uses.

that is, many people use cannabis to help effect changes within oneself for the benefit of one's physical, mental and spiritual health.

but it is not used as a payment of sorts towards God; since God has no need for any of it; hence why Jeremiah scolds the priests in the temple of the old days, since they had forgotten that true religion is something interior, and that outward rituals and sacrifices are not the way to go.

also, Blavatsky is well, how do I put this... um... a joke? no offense to anyone who digs her though...her "secret doctrine" is so inconsistent I dunno how some people still flip through those pages... well, I did once, and laughed a lot for sure...

peace

 

[hippie_lettuce]

Let's not add religion to the discussion. After all, the Cain and Abel story is just going to result in alot of assumptions and speculations. Let's stick to the facts...in 1992 the population was increasing by 1.8% every year. Now, it's "only" increasing 1%, even though populations should stick close to the 0% mark. Whatever a driving force behind famine or starvation may be - in some cases, politics, such as in North Korea - the fact is that an increase in the growth of the human population, as it had been increasing in the past half century, is NOT sustainable.

 

[bombadil.360]

Let's not add religion to the discussion. After all, the Cain and Abel story is just going to result in alot of assumptions and speculations. Let's stick to the facts...in 1992 the population was increasing by 1.8% every year. Now, it's "only" increasing 1%, even though populations should stick close to the 0% mark. Whatever a driving force behind famine or starvation may be - in some cases, politics, such as in North Korea - the fact is that an increase in the growth of the human population, as it had been increasing in the past half century, is NOT sustainable.

population size today is not big enough to cause catastrophic results; there is enough food production today to feed everyone, without even using all of the planet's actual useful land.

population controls itself through death, it is inevitable... everyone alive today, will be dead in 120 years...

over-consumptions of resources by a few egotistical societies is a real threat though... a few millions can screw it up for everyone else.

peace

 

[mriko]

but it is not used as a payment of sorts towards God; since God has no need for any of it;

If God doesn't need the offerings, the human needs to make them. Once, when i was in Nagga, Kullu valley, one of my local friend told me how he would go rub some jungli charas on some afternoon, and after finishing the work would prepare a dhoop stick with part of the stuff, and light it as offering and let it burn, just like an incence stick. what is not offered is used of course eheh...

If it were lush and fertile enough to feed everyone living there then there would be no reason for people to have cleared the volcano slopes for cultivation... which caused the soil to erode and rain to cause disaster.

Overpopulation of that area necessitated (in the minds of those doing it) the cultivation of those slopes.

Well, I probably haven't been clear enough. What attracted the high number of people is the rich and fertile soil, where anything could be grown fastly & in abundance. I am not talking about hunting-gathering tribes who turned into farming communities, but about peasants who settled there, attracted by the prospect of good crops.

Because they were already overpopulated enough to need to cultivate crops (in order to feed this population), when the rain failed, the crops failed and there was not enough food to support the people in the region. Therefore famine caused by.... ?

Famine caused by drought. Here again you seem to imply that it was hunting-gathering communities who had to turn to agriculture because not enough natural resources. And by the way, there's no such thing as overpopulation in Western Nepal valleys.

This is an example of the transportation system breaking down, leaving the indigenous population without the natural resources to hunt and gather their own food. There are too many people living there, so they have to depend on crops.

But i am not talking about hunting-gathering communities ! Moreover, these are usually nomadic communities, so when there's no more food to get in the area where they are, it's simple, they move to another place, oftenly following this or that game, & according to seasons. We are talking about two totally different systems here.

Too many people for the area to support, so they turned to agriculture.... when agriculture failed (not enough rain, bad crops) there was a famine caused by too many people living in a region which could not support their food needs. (Then there was a transportation break down and they couldn't get supplies from elsewhere.)

But why are you talking about hunter-gatherers ?? I just don't get from where you pull'em out. Them Malawi farmers grew enough food for them and for sell, but 2 or 3 years of drought in a row took its toll on the crops. Population hadn't suddenly doubled, it's the crops that crashed, because of climatic conditions, not because of too many people. Here again it's not about overpopulation.

The main cause of famine is the overpopulation of the earth which is CAUSED IN THE FIRST PLACE by dependence on totalitarian agriculture!

I'd rather be tempted to think that overpopulation is the consequence of better availability of medicinal treatment. Industrial agriculture plays some role, but more surviving people, means more food needed.

A small tribe living in the middle of nowhere in the Australian outback does not need to grow copious amounts of food in order to feed their population. They find it growing on the side of the river, crawling across the dirt path, swimming through the streams, flying through the trees.

Once that tribe begins to practice agriculture as their primary means of sustenance, any excess food produced will be used to create new people, which will put a strain on the food supply, which will in turn require more land to be put under cultivation, which will in turn lead to new people, which leads to more land under cultivation....which leads to expansionism, which leads to poverty, classes, war, etc.

Excess food would rather be used for trade with other tribes, for food or items the settled tribe doesn't produce or own.

By the way, why would the hunting-gathering tribe shift to settled agriculture ? Well, in Australia it's simply impossible, and "Australian Aboriginal people found that, by maintaining stable populations below the effective carrying capacity of the environment, would enable an adequate supply of food, even in drought years, so maintaining a stable culture."

I hardly see how a hunting-gathering community could be subject to overpopulations, considering that their very life-style is a mean of population control in itself. Most of the time, the shifting is imposed by environmental factors. Look at the Sahara, 12000 years ago, it was all lush forests & rivers, inhabited by hunting-gathering communities. 6000 years ago, gone where the forests, replaced by dry savannah, which had made the people to regroup and settle around water points, and start to to sme cattle breeding and grow some plant foods.

Look at the middle east. People've been citing the Holy Bible and how Adam & Eve were expelled from Eden, and the story of their sons. Great example for the discussion as A&E being expelled from Eden is supposed to describe how the people living there used to live in a lush and generous environment, which provided hunting-gathering communities everything needed. That was 10000-12000 ago. But at some point indeed, some climatic event occured which tranformed the environment to such a point that it could not support matriarcal hunting-gathering communities anymore which, with time, were turned into settled patriarcal farming communities, these very same who have provided us with the pre-historical fertile crescent, supposed birth-place of agriculture.

Environment makes communities turn to agriculture, not overpopulation. Agriculture is too slow for absorbing the effects of overpopulation, there's enough time for all the "surplus" people to die before the crop is harvested ! Quickest solution is war, invade your neighbour, get his stocks, or why not even his land !

Irie !

 

[arcticsun]

You may enjoy this film, it offers a perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sc-vj3b_YA

 

[Anti]

I hardly see how a hunting-gathering community could be subject to overpopulations, considering that their very life-style is a mean of population control in itself.

Thank you for divining for yourself my central point in that post.

Environment makes communities turn to agriculture, not overpopulation. Agriculture is too slow for absorbing the effects of overpopulation, there's enough time for all the "surplus" people to die before the crop is harvested ! Quickest solution is war, invade your neighbour, get his stocks, or why not even his land !

Quite right. Now are you beginning to understand what I mean by overpopulation of an area and the links to famine, war, etc.?

Planting crops is not a response to famine, it is the CAUSE of famine! You can no more plant crops to battle famine conditions than you could sew a parachute after falling out of a plane.

The famine is caused because the surplus food created a surplus population, thus, when the crops fail, depriving the increased population made possible by said crops of the ability to forage for themselves because they have a population which outstrips the available resources.

For about 2 million years the tribal lifestyle worked very well to keep humans and their ancestors alive. For 10,000 years the agricultural lifestyle has allowed us some advances, but at a growing price. We are only starting to see the negative effects of this choice in the last 50 years or so.

Boiling frogs.

 

[hippie_lettuce]

In 40 years our population size may be pushing 10 billion people. Tell me that that won't cause catastrophic harm to the planet. We'll need 4 more Earths to sustain the human population if all of the countries lived like the U.S. Now there will be checks and balances, but those predictions are looming right around the corner.

You can't tell me that the population size of humans today is not a factor in starvation. There are many factors, but we can't ignore that one fact.

 

[bombadil.360]

We'll need 4 more Earths to sustain the human population if all of the countries lived like the U.S.

maybe a cultural change is in order, rather than choosing who gets to breed and who does not. makes a lot more sense.

so-called developed countries rape the earth at a speed that is alarming, and they do it not because of some over-population they need to sustain, but rather because of greed.

peace

 

[hippie_lettuce]

Never said anything about "choosing who gets to breed and who does not." Only that actually, women are choosing to have fewer kids. Natural selection through thousands of years have taught people to have lots of kids because most of em died. Now, because of better medical practices, women can have just one or two kids. It's really about sexual education and practice.

It's a combination of things, not just greed. There's also a large portion of humanity which is ignorant to the situation on hand. Again, the human brain is wired to think of immediate benefits, not in terms of long term consequences and benefits. So, we'd rather cut down plenty of trees for the lumber or paper industry. But where do all the original forest covers go??

 

[arcticsun]

I urge you to seek deeper into the mind of Dr Arne Naess, he is a profound ecologic thinker that founded a movement called the deeper ecology movement.

Three quotations by Arne Næss

Organisms, ways of life, and interactions in the biosphere in general, exhibit complexity of such an astoundingly high level as to color the general outlook of ecologists. Such complexity makes thinking in terms of vast systems inevitable. It also makes for a keen, steady perception of the profound human ignorance of biospherical relationships and therefore of the effect of disturbances.

Every living being is connected intimately, and from this intimacy follows the capacity of identification and as its natural consequences, practice of non-violence .. Now is the time to share with all life on our maltreated earth through the deepening identification with life forms and the greater units, the ecosystems, and Gaia, the fabulous, old planet of ours.

The ecosophical outlook is developed through an identification so deep that one’s own self is no longer adequately delimited by the personal ego or the organism. One experiences oneself to be a genuine part of all life .. We are not outside the rest of nature and therefore cannot do with is as we please without changing ourselves ... Paleontology reveals .. that the development of life on earth is an integrated process, despite the steadily increasing diversity and complexity. The nature and limitation of this unity can be debated. Still, this is something basic. “Life is fundamentally one.”

Dr Arne Naess Sr, he is the modern father of the deeper philosophic understanding of ecology.

I strongly urge you to see this whole film to get an essence of his world; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sc-vj3b_YA


I also recommend this book by a certain Thor Heyerdahl.
Its originally called "hunting for paradise", later renamed FatuHiva, back to nature. He was possibly the first of young westerners in modern history seeking back to nature when he and his wife went on their honeymoon in 1937 to a polynesian island determined to spend their days there forever. Possibly the first hippie?

Fatu Hiva
Penguin edition, 1976
The original b/w photo is printed in the book with the caption "Feeling like a king, I could actually put an ancient Marquesan royal crown on my head for the occasion. Or was I the first hippy?"

 

[SpasticGramps]

To clarify my point. I wasn't arguing that population control isn't necessarily necessary. You can't have an infinite amount of creatures surviving off a finite set of resources. If the resources aren't replaced somehow, the population eventually dies off until equilibrium is met again.

I'm was merely pointing out their are several ways of going about this. Education and full access to the whole truth is the best way, but you don't see that very often in history because absolute power corrupts absolutely. Happens every time.

You usually see the more nefarious usual suspects of genocide and wars popping up. However, the American corporate marketing machine is so sophisticated that they feed us stuff such that we off ourselves over time. Pharma drugs, junk found, CORN, cigarettes etc. Sold with lies and deception for profit.

Like Hippie Lettuce said, the human brain is wired for instant gratification. A few people with a whole lot of power and money have known that for a very long time. They are working hard on it though.

 

[mriko]

In 40 years our population size may be pushing 10 billion people.

I have some doubts about that actually. Some tipping point will be reached before those 10 billions are so, I think. Both the planet and the human population won't be able to take it.

Let's not add religion to the discussion.

Why not ? It plays a great part in today's situation actually. Read

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

This is exactly what we did, and did it the worst way. For centuries, there have been a divine order to exploit the planet, but dumb white minds took the thing really literally and went to the point of rapping the planet, exploiting & destroying by greed and for immediate profit. Who would thought agressive capitalism has religious roots !

maybe a cultural change is in order, rather than choosing who gets to breed and who does not.

Not only a change, but a true cultural revolution & of global proportions ! Man, that's heavy...

Like Hippie Lettuce said, the human brain is wired for instant gratification.

Is it really ? Or isn't it something rather cultural. "More, faster & easier" is a Western moto !




Irie !

 

[SpasticGramps]

Is it really ? Or isn't it something rather cultural. "More, faster & easier" is a Western moto !Irie !

I'm pretty confident that instant gratification is a human species as opposed to culture thing.

The western civilization have taken it to another level,yes, but instant gratification is a hereditary survival mechanism deep within our subconscious.

Sex and Food is all about instant gratification. They happen to be the two most important behaviors for propagating any species.

 

[GET MO]

Bottom Line: We need to find a new planet to destroy, fast.
and thats the bottom line.


..... no wait, this is the bottom line VVV

____________________________