Atheist Nexus Logo

Eco-Logical: A Group for Environmentalists

Information

Eco-Logical: A Group for Environmentalists

Eco-Logical is a group for anyone who cares about clean air, drinkable water, a sustainable economy, and environmental justice.

Location: The Irreplaceable Earth
Members: 332
Latest Activity: yesterday

Welcome to Eco-Logical: A Group for Environmentalists

 

Note: Sylvain Duford, the group's creator, has left A|N. I am acting as moderator of the group in his place. Please contact me if you have any questions. - Dallas the Phallus.

Discussion Forum

Climate change destroying fisheries: not just Someone Else's Problem

Started by Grinning Cat. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on Thursday. 13 Replies

Thermohlaine Circulation faltering in Southern Hemisphere!!!

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Mar 25. 14 Replies

Ocean Oxygen Decrease

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Plinius Mar 24. 1 Reply

Vegetation carbon sink will be gone at four degree rise

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Mar 23. 2 Replies

Scorched Earth Coming

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Mar 23. 7 Replies

East Antarctic Ice Sheet not so stable

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Mar 18. 3 Replies

Antarctica melting twice as fast

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Mar 10. 5 Replies

Abrupt Climate System Reorganization in one or two decades

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Feb 2. 2 Replies

Feedbacks Accelerate Greenland Ice Melt

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jan 23. 2 Replies

The Great Acceleration toward an inhospitable planet

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Randall Smith Jan 17. 1 Reply

Wind Turbine Advance

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jan 5. 0 Replies

signs of climate tipping points

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Dec 31, 2014. 27 Replies

Methane, more scary than we thought

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Dec 22, 2014. 33 Replies

Tropical Rain Forest loss means you'll go hungry

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Dec 19, 2014. 0 Replies

Greenland melt rate doubling

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Dec 16, 2014. 2 Replies

Another Positive Feedback we'd missed

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Dec 14, 2014. 4 Replies

Negotiating Human Extinction

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Dec 9, 2014. 6 Replies

Frack under the Ohio River

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Randall Smith Oct 2, 2014. 2 Replies

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of Eco-Logical: A Group for Environmentalists to add comments!

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on October 11, 2012 at 11:42pm

TNT666, when I use the word "sustainable" I mean human beings living within the carrying capacity of our planet. No particular economic theory implied.
I do agree with your sentiment that thinking breeding is a "right" is as ridiculous as the "right" to own slaves".

Comment by TNT666 on October 11, 2012 at 11:11pm

IMO the rational biological approach is best. Discounting large animal populations past their tipping point such as lions/tigers/rhinos/polar bears who's numbers are too small, we can still look at other large animal populations, certain whales, moose, deer. Looking at those other lifeforms populations truly puts our own ridiculous population into perspective.

1-Our governments/corporations subside population growth through baby programs and marriage incentives. Eliminating those two would put a good starting dent.

2-The next hurdle is harder to overcome: getting away from religious morals, which look onto breeding as the morally righteous thing to do. Most atheists on these sites are recent deconverts and still pursue religious values, even though they don't believe in gods. If convincing atheists of this is a challenge, it's 10-fold harder going after faithers.
3- items 1 and 2 can only I reckon accomplish less than 30% of the breeding changes the planet needs. Whence enough people understand that us outnumbering all other large animals is ridiculous, then we need to enshrine it into culture, to make breeding extremely unpopular, and to have the sense that breeding is a "right" is simply ridiculous, as ridiculous as the "right" to own slaves. Once the "morality" of breeding has reached a tipping point, then we can legislate that away completely, and ensure that healthcare providers are freely doling out sterilisation, and encouraging it at all age groups. I wish for a day when only a very small percentage of the population partake of breeding, hopefully under some sort of lottery system that would ensure an reasonable level of fairness.

Comment by Chris G on October 11, 2012 at 10:17pm

Ning's AN kills me. It's sooooo slowwww! I would probably have to wait about an hour before the editor boxes appear.

I understand your point about "sustainability" being hijacked by economists. Anthropologists should decide which groups have fewer children for immigration policy that reduces population.

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 11, 2012 at 9:49pm

TNT666 the word "sustainable" IS an incorrect word for what we need to do. You wrote "sustainable" no longer belongs to biology."

What would state that which we need? Living in balance with nature, perhaps? Or human numbers in balance with other large mammals on the planet? 

Now we get into the question, how do we decide the proper numbers of humans the Earth will support, and how do get populations down to that number? Pandemic? Wars? Enforced sterilization? 
We are kind of like rats, are we not? And just as voracious. 

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 11, 2012 at 9:41pm

TNT666, thanks for alerting me that I had posted the same material twice. Correction made. 

Comment by TNT666 on October 11, 2012 at 7:17pm

Chris, in the past couple of decades, the word "sustainable" has come to mean very little. It's not a biological concept but an economic one, it is usually loaded growth dogma bias. My opinion goes with the rest of true environmentalists on this one, "sustainable" no longer belongs to biology. It is for this reason I hope that environmentalists everywhere can work on a number which depends not on sustainability but which places all the emphasis on the population sizes of other large mammals on the planet, a strictly biological perspective. This is what I bring to the table when I meet with other environmentalists locally... but there's still a lot of anthropocentrism (sorry for the "morphism" misspell in my previous comment :) in the environmental movement, it's the largest challenge I find out in the field.

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 11, 2012 at 3:29pm

Illusions of Prosperity

"In January of 2000 there were 281 million people in America. Now there are 309 million. We have 10% more people but roughly the same overall net worth. Therefore, the average American is 10% poorer than they were 10 years ago."

Comment by Joan Denoo on October 11, 2012 at 3:09pm

Have you noticed how many changed took place in the 1970s? Look at economic, political, energy charts and graphs and you will see tremendous  changes taking place with exponential growth. 
World Population and the 7th Billion

Comment by Chris G on October 11, 2012 at 2:51pm

Two million people sounds too low for 2000 years ago.  Here's a UN chart showing 0.30 billion people in year 0. I saw estimates ranging from 170m to 300m.

Here's a paper saying the world can sustainably support between 1.5 and 2 b people at the world's average footprint. It continues with the sustainable level is the maximum number. It doesn't provide an optimum population number.

Comment by TNT666 on October 11, 2012 at 11:35am

During my time in university in biology, the number that was stated by population biologists was around 2 million for the entire planet, that would put us in balance with other species... that is, were the populations of other species at pre-Roman levels. With today's across the board extinction levels, even 2 million humans could be hard on the planet. From 7 billion 2 million, that's over 90% in population reduction. That's my aim in all conversations on this topic. The USA has a few cities which have died due to corporate changes. Downsizing a modern western city is a difficult process because we have only ever practiced GROWTH. If we start planning and practicing DE-growth, we'll get better at it. The single-child policy in China I don't consider a good option, socially speaking it causes competition between M and F births, causes widespread cheating unless the government police's it heavily. The Chinese people never did accept that policy in their minds. What we need is a total change in perspective. We need to decide on a number, and then sell it for all it's worth!

 

Members (332)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

Nexus on Social Media:

Latest Activity

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service