The Greatest Threat to Life on Earth -- George Monbiot

[Gaugamela]

This major driver of climate change doesn’t get talked about nearly enough. . .

[patphil]

1. Actually, farming is a symptom of the problem...8 billion people who all need to eat.

That's the real problem. We've overpopulated the planet, plain and simple.
We consume and we pollute.
Modern technology has just made it easier to do this on a really massive scale.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

4. It's more fossil fuels than technology that enabled this overshoot, but otherwise agree 100% :)

Also, the relative peace the world has enjoyed since WWII.

Peace which is enabled in huge part ... by fossil fuels. As long as they're flowing and cheap (relative to the work they're able to do, they're DIRT cheap ... a barrel of petroleum can do the work equivalent of about 5 years of a single human's manual labor), the world will likely stay relatively peaceful.

[Gaugamela]

6. Please see my response in post #5

[Hugh_Lebowski]

9. Okay I did and you make a lot of good points, thanks for the thoughtful discourse

My one complaint would be ... I can point to 'overpopulation' as the 'underlying problem' here ... without blaming anyone specifically, black, brown or otherwise ... for their birth rate.

It is definitely true that the most important group of people who need to reduce their populations ... are the people with 1st World energy consumption levels. NO argument from me. I'm well aware of the disparity in terms of carbon emissions between 2nd/3rd World countries per capita vs 1st World Ones.

However this also logically leads me to believe that people moving from 2nd/3rd World countries to 1st World ones ... is NOT a good thing. I know as a liberal I'm supposed to love people migrating to the US from Guatemala or wherever, but I don't. And it's ABSOLUTELY nothing personal/racist in any way. It's because, very simply, the 1st World needs to shrink in population, not grow. That said, we should be helping these countries a lot more, to make it so the places they live don't totally suck to live in, thus making them flock here in large numbers.

And lastly, I basically agree with patphil's assessment of the situation ... again with a small exception ... besides his points, I also don't think humanity will 'peacefully transition' because I do not believe there is A WAY TO DO SO.

I believe the only POSSIBLE solution is ... one fuck of a lot less people on this planet. Period. Either we do it ourselves in a conscientious way, which is my preferred solution (lower birth rates for example, ESP in 1st world countries), or Nature/Gaia/etc ... is going to do it for us, and that route will likely be even more unpleasant.

We should've started 50 freaking years ago.

[Gaugamela]

10. All good points. I too am less than optimistic.

[Gaugamela]

5. While I agree that overpopulation is a problem, outside of educating women globally

and providing access to contraceptives, there's not much we can do about it — unless we want to sink into a discussion of eugenics and genocide, which I'm sure no one on DU wants. But I'll make a few points:

1. Generally, the highest birth rates are in developing countries with the lowest per capita carbon emissions. Mali and Uganda are among the highest in birth rates. If the rest of the world had per capita carbon emissions like Mali and Uganda, we would pretty much have met the Paris Climate Accord targets.

2. Global population is projected to start coming down later this century, so the problem will reverse itself without any undue interventions.

3. In many industrialized countries where emissions are worst the population is already falling, such as China, Japan, Germany, Italy, etc.

4. Blaming climate change on the birth rates of Black and Brown people deflects the responsibility for climate change from wealthy consumer societies and the global elite. This argument comes perilously close to "white replacement theory" trumpeted by the far right.

5. In the meantime, while we're waiting for global population to decline, we need to feed those who are here and those who will be born. George Monbiot addresses how we can transition to a more sustainable farming model.

As you point out, the population isn't itself the problem, it's population x affluence x technology. I have a deep suspicion that the core problem is actually civilization itself — that civilization is inherently unsustainable. But nobody wants to go back to a nomadic lifestyle on the savannah (I sure don't), and with the current global population that would be impossible anyway. Our only way forward is to transition as quickly as possible to more sustainable lifestyles, technologies, and farming, and hope that eventually we will find a feasible path toward a truly sustainable and fulfilling civilization for everyone.

[patphil]

8. The core problem is actually civilization itself.

Yes, exactly. Overpopulation couldn't have happened without a civilization that tended toward insulating itself from the natural world, and, through the industrial revolution, ultimately lead to where we are today.
But, the modern, industrialized world isn't the actual problem either. It's the decision by humanity to recreate the world as an extension of this mechanized, computerized, ever increasingly impersonal lifestyle we have built for ourselves.
I don't believe humanity will make the transition to a more rational, sustainable lifestyle as the way forward. As a species, we don't appear to be willing to do that.
Sometime, not that far in the future, humanity will crash and burn, and take a lot of the planet along with it.
We are a greedy, selfish people, who routinely cut off our noses to spite our collective faces.
We are too busy demonstrating how little we love each other, how much we are focused on the differences between people, how much we want for ourselves at the expense of others to ever make an intelligent, compassionate, loving decision about the future of our species.
Given the alarming rise of fascism across the world, I think that end will be sooner than later.

[Gaugamela]

11. I generally agree with you here. I'm doubtful civilization will outlast this century.

[patphil]

13. I'm inclined to believe that's a rosy outlook.

[Wild blueberry]

2. Human overpopulation

That's what few talk about. Too many humans.
Best remedy is educated women. And access to contraception.
Educated women have fewer children and are able to take good care of their children.

Monbiot has excellent ideas about food and farming.
Thank you.

[Gaugamela]

7. Please see my response in post #5

[Hugh_Lebowski]

3. I'd repeat my usual spiel but 2 others already did it for me

Love Monbiot, as an aside.

[housecat]

12. All good points. I would emphasize a few things that George Monbiot said directly or indirectly.

Factory farming animals -- cows, pigs, chickens -- has pros and cons.

First the cons:
1) As George Monbiot and others have shown, an unimaginable percentage of forests are destroyed for agriculture.
(and we no longer need wood for most of the things wood is still used for.)
2) Crops are grown to feed people and billions of farm animals; and many harvested crops are wasted.
3) We destroy biodiversity by robbing animals of their habitats.
4) We lose the natural world to feed cows and slaughter them in horrible ways.
5) Farmed animals (including fish) require that more of the natural environment is destroyed.
6) Animal feed crops waste water, which we are running out of.
7) Toxic chemicals are used to grow these crops and pollute what little water there is.
8) Eating red meat contributes to the astounding amount of heart disease in industriallized populations
9) Global warming could be cut significantly if there were no cows releasing gases into the air.
10) Global warming could be cut significantly if forests were left to absorb carbon.
11) Global warming could be cut significantly if oceans were protected and left to absorb carbon.
12) Many human populations starve while farmed animals eat, only to be eaten by wealthy human populations.


Pros of factory farming animals.
I can't think of any.