Deforestation: Problems

[Jiro]

IMO (and this is just my speculation) the root of the problem is too many humans.

We might not be able to control what people want and what they want to do and reasons for doing so, but we can control how many humans are on the earth...

This might be a bit radical but the theoretical solution is simple: if you lessen the amount of humans, there is less you have to bother with fearing about mankind destroying nature. It can't be helped, since more space and resources are needed to be consumed.

Who knows, maybe we might have a war soon and nukes will kill 80-90% of the world's population.
It might not be such a bad idea for nature, as radical as it sounds.

Unfortunately, that is the problem. There are too many human beings, but I am not in favour of killing them off. Far from it.

I have mentioned in the past that the only reason why we are able to sustain a population of this size is due to the oil, coal, fossil fuels and the natural resources. Without these, we wouldn't be able to sustain a population of more than 500 million.

it's a very popular notion yet a huge misconception that our world problem is due to overpopulation.

I can't remember who but somebody, I think a Nobel Peace Prize winner, brought up a very interesting finding that it is due to misallocation of resource. For example - A family of 4 in modern American suburb is consuming enough resource to sustain a village of 20 people.

amazing discovery he made. it was a very radical thought that changed our view of tackling "overpopulation" issue when it wasn't really caused by overpopulation.

 

[naisho]

it's a very popular notion yet a huge misconception that our world problem is due to overpopulation.

I can't remember who but somebody, I think a Nobel Peace Prize winner, brought up a very interesting finding that it is due to misallocation of resource. For example - A family of 4 in modern American suburb is consuming enough resource to sustain a village of 20 people.

amazing discovery he made. it was a very radical thought that changed our view of tackling "overpopulation" issue when it wasn't really caused by overpopulation.

Yea I see your point for here in US, however you gotta see you only saw it from USA perspective, it's not our US that is the problem with population.
The US is already developed, we don't rely on old tech to generate energy that they are using in south america, India, indonesia, country side of China, the poorer countries etc - the thing is, these countries is where they have a lot of natural resources in the form of biomass, biodiesel, and the poor can only rely on those while we rely on hydro-generation. Hoover dam for one, solar, ocean, wind, physics, all sorts of alternatives. Rarely we will burn firewood or use biomass as primary source of electricity, except for certain communities like amish on east coast.

Our country's natural resource only relys on coal, natural gas. We don't rely on biomass and a lot of forests have protection laws which you already know. Energy source is already super sustainable and only gets better because we have the tech.

See the chart in #28 that compares the use of Brazil's type of energy sources compared to the rest of the world, it's evident they are relying on it to live. They also have no choice because they are growing as a country and have more people living there, their population size is huge right now but their tech isn't up to date.

 

[Jiro]

Yea I see your point for here in US, however you gotta see you only saw it from USA perspective, it's not our US that is the problem with population.
The US is already developed, we don't rely on old tech to generate energy that they are using in south america, India, indonesia, country side of China, the poorer countries etc - the thing is, these countries is where they have a lot of natural resources in the form of biomass, biodiesel, and the poor can only rely on those while we rely on hydro-generation. Hoover dam for one, solar, ocean, wind, physics, all sorts of alternatives. Rarely we will burn firewood or use biomass as primary source of electricity, except for certain communities like amish on east coast.

Our country's natural resource only relys on coal, natural gas. We don't rely on biomass and a lot of forests have protection laws which you already know. Energy source is already super sustainable and only gets better because we have the tech.

See the chart in #28 that compares the use of Brazil's type of energy sources compared to the rest of the world, it's evident they are relying on it to live. They also have no choice because they are growing as a country and have more people living there, their population size is huge right now but their tech isn't up to date.

hence..... a misallocation of resource.

 

[naisho]

hence..... a misallocation of resource.

Their population is too big for the way they are living in right now, thus it's overpopulation - there is no regulation for their standards, hence being overpopulated.

If you picture NYC was relying on firewood to cook food for dinner everyday. Would you think it is misallocated of resources or is it overpopulated?
That's what some cities and towns near Amazons are going through...

 

[FireTiger]

This is easier then the 'scholarly articles', Biosphere 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biosphere 2 is a 3.14-acre (12,700 m2)[1] structure originally built to be an artificial, materially-closed ecological system in Oracle, Arizona (USA) by Space Biosphere Ventures, a joint venture whose principal officers were John P. Allen, inventor and Executive Director, and Margret Augustine, CEO. Constructed between 1987 and 1991, it was used to explore the complex web of interactions within life systems in a structure that included five areas based on biomes and an agricultural area and human living/working space to study the interactions between humans, farming and technology with the rest of nature.[2] It also explored the possible use of closed biospheres in space colonization, and allowed the study and manipulation of a biosphere without harming Earth's. The name comes from Earth's biosphere, Biosphere 1. Earth's life system is the only biosphere currently known. Funding for the project came primarily from the joint venture's financial partner, Ed Bass' Decisions Investment, and cost $200 million from 1985 to 2007, including land, support research greenhouses, test module and staff facilities.

 

[Jiro]

Their population is too big for the way they are living in right now, thus it's overpopulation - there is no regulation for their standards, hence being overpopulated.

If you picture NYC was relying on firewood to cook food for dinner everyday. Would you think it is misallocated of resources or is it overpopulated?
That's what some cities and towns near Amazons are going through...

simple - reallocate the population to somewhere else.

if NYC is being overpopulated - simple.... move somewhere else. In essence, it's not the overpopulation. It's person's stubbornness to not budge

 

[Jiro]

This is easier then the 'scholarly articles', Biosphere 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there you go. it's not just for space.

and notice this from your link

These mini-missions were, of course, far too short to attempt any meaningful agriculture or animal husbandry. No data was gathered that might have been useful in estimating whether the Biosphere itself was capable of sustaining eight people for two years.

by the time we need to live in biosphere, I'm sure we'll have technology and process to tackle that issue but I do not foresee any viable solution for raising livestock.

 

[jillio]

there you go. it's not just for space.

and notice this from your link


by the time we need to live in biosphere, I'm sure we'll have technology and process to tackle that issue but I do not foresee any viable solution for raising livestock.

Did you read the bolded sentence in the post?

 

[naisho]

simple - reallocate the population to somewhere else.

if NYC is being overpopulated - simple.... move somewhere else. In essence, it's not the overpopulation. It's person's stubbornness to not budge

Yeah it's easy to say that's will fix, but what about the dudes chopping down wood to get some $$?

Say they move to another place, maybe more modern, what job do they get in the new city now? Will they like the pay?
It's like if I tell NYC's people to move to shitty area like upstate or boonies. Now what happens to their jobs?

Who's gonna pay them to use the gas?
True it's misallocation, but I wonder who will donate the money for these countries to improve? Probably nobody except environmentalists and tree-hugger.

 

[FireTiger]

Chickens are great, they eat garbage, they are self sustained as far as every 21 days a new group is possible... depending on breed they can lay lots of eggs- grow quickly to butcher size or both, feathers can be used, bones are easy to grind for more calcium... they are small and use little water/space...

 

[Jiro]

Did you read the bolded sentence in the post?

yes and?

 

[jillio]

yes and?

Did you understand what it was saying?

 

[Jiro]

Yeah it's easy to say that's will fix, but what about the dudes chopping down wood to get some $$?

Say they move to another place, maybe more modern, what job do they get in the new city now? Will they like the pay?
It's like if I tell NYC's people to move to shitty area like upstate or boonies. Now what happens to their jobs?

Who's gonna pay them to use the gas?

yea oh well

True it's misallocation, but I wonder who will donate the money for these countries to improve? Probably nobody except environmentalists and tree-hugger.

For that - I will refer you to Muhammad Yunus - 2006 Nobel Peace Prize economist. "Banker to the Poor".

 

[Jiro]

Did you understand what it was saying?

Yes and?

It speaks of "theoretical". That's the keyword. It's to study to see what works and what doesn't. And I'm telling you what works and what doesn't work. You don't believe me? Ask the guys (and gal) living at ISS

 

[jillio]

Yes and?

It speaks of "theoretical". That's the keyword. It's to study to see what works and what doesn't. And I'm telling you what works and what doesn't work. You don't believe me? Ask the guys (and gal) living at ISS

Then you saw this:

to study the interactions between humans, farming and technology with the rest of nature.

Just wondering if the words "humans, farming, technology, and rest of nature" rang any bells with you?

 

[FireTiger]

ISS is not a BIOsphere... it's just a space station, they are doing experiments in it to see how mice breed, and which direction plants grow in microgravity...

To find out if an orbiting biosphere would be possible...

 

[Jiro]

Then you saw this:

to study the interactions between humans, farming and technology with the rest of nature.

Just wondering if the words "humans, farming, technology, and rest of nature" rang any bells with you?

yes and what did they conclude?

 

[Jiro]

ISS is not a BIOsphere... it's just a space station, they are doing experiments in it to see how mice breed, and which direction plants grow in microgravity...

To find out if an orbiting biosphere would be possible...

ISS is a self-sustaining space station. That's what biosphere is.... a self-sustaining and closed artificial environment.

 

[FireTiger]

ISS is a self-sustaining space station. That's what biosphere is.... a self-sustaining and closed artificial environment.

Self sustaining in this case if for power, and astronaut air, not a complete biome.

I'll argue your definition of biosphere...

An artificial biosphere is a self sustaining ecological closed artificial environment.

otherwise an airplane pressurized cabin is a 'biosphere' to you... and the inside of a sub... etc etc...

 

[Jiro]

Self sustaining in this case if for power, and astronaut air, not a complete biome.

I'll argue your definition of biosphere...

An artificial biosphere is a self sustaining ecological closed artificial environment.

otherwise an airplane pressurized cabin is a 'biosphere' to you... and the inside of a sub... etc etc...

if you live in underwater biosphere, it's pressurized as well. if you live in Mars/Moon biosphere, it's pressurized as well.

Air pressurization is not a criteria that disqualify the term "artificial biosphere".

As I stated in my previous post -

there you go. it's not just for space.

and notice this from your link


by the time we need to live in biosphere, I'm sure we'll have technology and process to tackle that issue but I do not foresee any viable solution for raising livestock.

We have not reached a stage where we can build a completely self-sustaining artificial biosphere. I hope that people will soon realize that it's just much cheaper and simpler to take care of our natural biosphere than artificial biosphere.