Are we reproducing responsibly?
It is time that we decide how much humans are feasible to live on the planet without causing any harm to the other life forms, it is most important if we want our species to live on, we must pay attention to root of all our problems.
We don't realize the extent of damage we are heaving upon the planet with the kind of irresponsible breeding we have seen in last five decades. Actually it is not that we have suddenly started to reproduce more children, but it is just that the average life expectancy in the world has gone up considerably, from 52 years in 1960 to 72 years in 2016, which means more person are coming into the world than those who are leaving.
We are almost 7.7 billion right now and estimated to be nearly 9 billion by 2050, well it seems, that is hell lot of a number which planet earth is struggling to sustain, every kind of ecological and environmental problems are creeping up in the world, surely planet is feeling the heat of these many people.
We have a very important choice to make right now, where do we want to take humanity in the future, because ultimately we are the one who will suffer. Planet is here from billions of years, it would be so ridiculous to think of saving the planet, who we are to save it. But ultimately we will suffer the consequence of our own action if we don't correct our action now.
follow me: @banzzara
I've been saying we need to find the balance in industry and nature since I could understand the concepts, neither one is going away withpout a fight so we need to balance it all before nature bites us big time.
Congratulations @banzzara! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP🙄 https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2011/07/20/the_world_is_not_overpopulated_106247.html
This article does nothing to address the actual environmental problems caused by overpopulation. Simply stating that population growth is slowing and will, at some point in the future, plateau, simply ignores the fact that there are very serious challenges being caused by the size of the human population right now and it completely misses the point that those problems are predicted to become devastatingly destructive to humanity and to the natural world at some point in the very near future (some say they already have) prior to peak human population being achieved.
The issue is not "will the human population stop growing at some point in the future?" the issue is "what is the maximum number of humans that can live sustainably upon the Earth and in complete and non-destructive harmony with the ecosystem that sustains the whole of life on the planet?"
In my opinion, and the opinion of many others who see the science every day, we have already far exceeded that harmonious balance.
Still 9 billion are too much to live off the planet...
Posted using Partiko Android
Accept it's not, humanity has never thrived more then it has now.
Well, human have occupied so much of a space that what ever we will do, it will leave huge footprint which is ultimately harming us...it does not matter how much efficient our cars are, there are too many of those...
Posted using Partiko Android
I suggest doing some actual research on this topic, instead of just speculating. Human beings are ingenious, industrialization and technology are in their infancy. We’ve taken 90% of the world out of poverty with capitalism. Most of human history, people dealt with extreme food scarcity and the average life span was extremely short. As societies progress, people procreate less. The reason being is there is less fear that your offspring will die from disease or famine.
Well, China is the most populous country which came out of poverty recently and it is not capitalist and Russia is also not capitalist so taking 90% of population out of poverty with capitalism is not all right.
That aside, you are right we are living in the best time compared to previous generations, but we should not stretch the resilience of mother earth too far, now when we have settled basic things in our life, it is time we pay attention towards the damage we have caused because of our fast paced growth.
Up till now we have not realized the extent of damage we were causing ( I don't want to mention what damage I am talking about, you can find it anywhere) because we were busy taking care of ourselves, but now if we wait too much it will be too late to correct our course.
Posted using Partiko Android
Russia is a capitalist country and China opened up to the free markets (capitalism), that’s what brought it out of poverty. Again, do some research. Opinions are like assholes everyone has one.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I won't say much..
Capitalism- an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
You decide which is which.
Talking about opinion, climate change is definitely not an opinion.
Please don't compare asshole to opinion, asshole is very important part of body unlike opinion.
And there's the issue - humanity is thriving far, far too successfully.
But we have to be clear that the thriving of humanity is not the same as having a sustainable human population living in complete and non-destructive harmony with nature. In fact, it could be argued that the two things are mutually exclusive (or at least, within the context of our traditional definition of the word "thriving" as being dominate, populous, numerous, pervasive, overbearing etc etc).
Humanity is thriving far beyond the means of the Earth to sustain the consumption of man and a rising population, each and every new human that expands our population, compounds the problem and makes it far harder to achieve balance within our ecosystem.
Maybe we need to re-define the concept of a thriving population to determine future prospects of sustainability and lifestyle improvement rather than the more traditional and very short-sighted definition that we tend to refer to.