Vegetarianism

[Sculptor1]

Lucanor's numbers are not up for challenge. But whilst they might show a reduction in rate of increase, the trend is still more and more people with every generation.
That reduction has been hard fought for in some respects. It has been achieved by disgraceful overcrowding in urban environments, where the phrase "right to be a parent" is a sick joke; it has been achieve by throwing people off their lands, by mega-agricultural monoculture; it has been achieved by inter-generational famine; and it has also been achieved more positively by putting birth control in the hands of women.

Overpopulation is already here, and has been a continuing problem for generations.
China's one child policy has been suspended simply by exporting their exploitation of resources, focusing on Africa to feed a growing Chinese economy.

The news is bad. Growth in numbers is at least potentially exponential, and has been inhibited by the most gross and soul destroying overcrowding.
There is not much good news here, since the earth is suffering if not from greater human numbers but from the resources each human needs to have some kind of life worth living.

[Sculptor1]

https://www.racfoundation.org/wp-conten ... t-britain-
leibling-171008-report.pdf

Eg look at page five. What good is a stabilising population growth when we are being overtaken by cars.

[Count Lucanor]

Count, while human "experts" claim that human overpopulation is no problem, the almost complete annihilation of other large animals says otherwise. Did you know that humans and their stock make up 96% of all mammal biomass? Do you find that acceptable? Birds are struggling too. Repiles, amphibians, insects.

The almost complete annihilation of other large animals only tells more about commercial, for-profit activities, than about simple demographic pressure. It is not the fertility rate of Japanese women that almost wiped out whales from the Earth, but Japan's commercial fishing practices. And you can say the same for almost all endangered species.

Let's talk biomass with actual data. This is the current picture extracted from the paper The Biomass Distribution on Earth in PNAS(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA), by Yinon M. Bar-On, Rob Phillips and Ron Milo, June 19, 2018 115 (25) 6506-6511; first published May 21, 2018. Edited by Paul G. Falkowski, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, and approved April 13, 2018 (received for review July 3, 2017).

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/2 ... carousel=1

An interesting graph indeed. Besides giving a good argument to vegetarians (I mean, there's so much plant biomass that it seems a never ending resource), I don't see data that particularly points to a problem related to demographics. Assuming size of biomass was related to a success story, insects (all arthropods actually) seem to be doing fine, being six times the biomass of all mammals. Most marine biomass seems to be doing excellent. Wild birds not so good, while reptiles and amphibians are negligible, the poor ones. Humans make just 0.03% of the biomass in the biosphere, but they and domesticated mammals make, as you said, 96% of mammal biomass. Maybe if we had the numbers from 100, 200, 1000 years ago, we could make an informed assessment of whether there's a big problem there or not, based on the relative portions of biomass in mammals. If one type increased and the other decreased, it could be the simple change from wild life to domesticated, without their whole biomass changing drastically.

The increasing desertification of many lands also makes clear that we have overpopulated. The heating atmosphere, the dying corals too. You say that I just give opinions - these events are not opinions but unfolding tragedies that too many human-obsessed humans do not care about. Most major problems we have today would be vastly improved with many fewer people.

No, in all cases you're pointing to a nonexistent cause, and these things happening have no relation to demographics. They might be correlated, but not related. Correlation is no causation. You're attributing human-caused impacts to broad demographic processes, instead of concrete human activities, and this could be meaningless if it wasn't because there's a long history in social fields of introducing an ideological bias that pretends to naturalize social and political processes. Geography has not been as technical as one may think. Humans have caused impact on the environment, certainly, but not by simply growing. There is where you can only throw your opinions, without providing any evidence. All evidence points at certain human activities, carried out by a very small group of people and countries, as responsible of human impact on the environment. These human activities are linked to particular unsustainable lifestyles concentrated in a few countries. Al the pollution of concern is generated by only around 7% of people, most of them living in those few countries with a high-consuming way of living. Do you want to point at the real troublemakers? Why don't we look at the homes of the average US household, with their double or huge size refrigerators full of unnecessary junk food? Why don't we look at their disposal of 30%-50% food that is never eaten, while they carry their over weighted bodies through an obesity epidemic? Why don't we look at their garages with two or three fuel-based and large sized "sport utility" automobiles? Why don't we look at their streets and highways packed with fossil fuel cars transporting one single individual each? Why don't we look at their energy consumption, their dependence of more electronic devices? Why don't we look at their plastic? Their waste? All fingers should point to a particular way of living, not precisely of the majority on Earth. If there's one reason to ring the alarm is that the poor majority ever aspires to imitate that same way of life. And maybe US politicians should take a second look at Cuba, the usual target of scorn for its modest way of living.

Trouble is, you ignore the elephant in the room - that we are already overpopulated and have been so for a long time. Population growth is not as rapid as before - but still occurring at a rate of 2:1. That is still leading to disaster. We have been unsustainable for some time.

I have shown with actual data that this overpopulation narrative is complete nonsense. I have shown that your interpretations are wrong. I think it is now very obvious who's ignoring the big elephant in the room.

Now you, as a champion of the poor and downtrodden should appreciate that "disaster" does not refer to the fates of Koch, Trump, Putin, Xi, Murdoch and other architects of environmental destruction. No, the first to suffer and die are wild animals. Then comes the poor. The poor are suffering more than any from overpopulation, while the wealthiest remain insulated.

Every one has their personal priorities and moral views, if you want to put animals alongside humans, it's up to you, I don't judge. I will not mock you for being the champion of whatever cause. But when dealing with the facts, the truth is that the poor are not suffering from overpopulation, they are suffering from inequality and other social diseases that come along with the global expansion of capitalism. We should be talking about overcapitalism.

BTW, you break posts up into small chunks and address each out of context, as if they were unrelated to, and untempered by, preceding or succeeding statements. This leads you to fail to properly address points being made and you end up in long arguments that appear to be largely based on misconceptions. For clarity's sake it is better to write here like a writer than a Twitterer.

I couldn't disagree more. I break the posts in as many pieces as are necessary, so as to let every argument be addressed. Facebook and Twitter are terrible for debating ideas in an orderly fashion. Making long statements without addressing particular remarks allows for vagueness and avoiding the issues being challenged. I'm still waiting for some concrete data from a good source that invalidates my assertions.

[Sy Borg]

I cannot continue because context-free chunks never generate useful debate and you have provided baseless assertions that grossly downplay the severity of what is going on in the natural world.

The fact is that animal populations sometimes overpopulate. How do you know when overpopulation occurs? When animal numbers become too great to sustainability. That is currently the case with humans whether you admit it or not. I cannot imagine the kind of devastation needed to convince you that there are too many humans on the planet.

[Count Lucanor]

I cannot continue because context-free chunks never generate useful debate and you have provided baseless assertions that grossly downplay the severity of what is going on in the natural world.

The fact is that animal populations sometimes overpopulate. How do you know when overpopulation occurs? When animal numbers become too great to sustainability. That is currently the case with humans whether you admit it or not.

Baseless assertions? Ha! All my assertions have been backed by lots of verifiable information from reliable sources, even from the only source you managed to present, none of which has been even slightly disputed. Simple denial is not enough. Your opinions, on the other hand, remain as baseless assertions. You introduced biomass and when the data is shown you remain silent.

Your last assertion is one such example. You affirm that humans have "become too great to sustainability", but there is nothing to support that assertion, no evidence, no data, no source of reliable information, it is just a belief you can't detach from and to which you will add the "whether you admit it or not" tail, in other words, if it is real or not, matters too little for you, it simply has to be as you want it to be or your picture of the world will fall.

Secondly, I have never downplayed the severity of human impacts to the natural world. The impacts are severe, however, they are not created by simple demographic growth, but by the unsustainable mode of living associated with rich countries. That's not an opinion, but a fact. And I can't ever get tired of showing data that supports my assertions. Look at this graph, is amazing!!!

A cute graph that shows how Europeans and North Americans are destroying the planet.

Of course, this is per capita. When one looks at the absolute numbers, higher populated areas contribute more. No wonder why the high consuming countries want to get rid of them. Basically they don't want to give up their way of living, while it's easier to take away the hindrance of the irritating others.

I cannot imagine the kind of devastation needed to convince you that there are too many humans on the planet.

Actually is more simple than that and we don't have to wait: just show the evidence. There's plenty of evidence, on the other hand, of the devastation created by the 7% living in rich, but unsustainable societies.

[Sy Borg]

You are impervious to reason. You keep repeating your same unfounded nonsense based on utopian ideas that have NEVER been put in practice in the history of humanity. When do you think it is time to accept that human nature is both greedy and fecund? Never?

It appears that you see humans as divine, the one species that cannot overpopulate, no matter how much we destroy, no matter how cramped our lifestyles. You treat the work of biologists - every single one telling us that we are overpopulated - the same way that Pentecostal Christians treat the work of climate scientists. Demographers speak about population as though they understand these things better than biologists. However, like economists, demographers tend to be clueless academics who are out of touch with actual reality. They delude themselves into believing their soft sciences have anything like the grounding or credibility of real sciences like biology.

Like economists, demographers are pretending to understand something that is more complex than they assume. That is why economists so rarely forecast economic booms or busts. They are useful for city planning but are far out of their depth with broader concerns - like the planet.

There is no reality to demographer, arguments in the face of abundant physical evidence of the devastation left in our wake. Just repeating "I have some figures" (from idealistic demographers) "we are not overpopulated" is not convincing to anyone who thinks.

Do you think the Great Pacific Garbage Patch - covering 1.6 million square kilometres - would be possible with a species that has not overpopulated? Do you think it is the work of evil capitalists forcing billions of people to throw their plastic junk into the ocean?

If we cannot admit the problem then we cannot do anything to it. Unfortunately left-leaning demographers are pushing this insane line that there plenty of room for many more people. These are the same people who told Europe that they are be racist if they did not allow all of the Syrian refuges into their countries. They are out of touch with reality.

Most demographers seem to think that another three or four billion people will be fine, that lifestyles would remain the same (except we would all be in tiny apartments) and that it won't aggravate climate change or resource depletion. After all, who needs ecosystems, right? Demographers don't care about such things. Who needs other animals? Certainly not anthropocentric demographers, whose recommended policies logically result in greater extinction rates.

[Sy Borg]

Lucanor's numbers are not up for challenge. But whilst they might show a reduction in rate of increase, the trend is still more and more people with every generation.
That reduction has been hard fought for in some respects. It has been achieved by disgraceful overcrowding in urban environments, where the phrase "right to be a parent" is a sick joke; it has been achieve by throwing people off their lands, by mega-agricultural monoculture; it has been achieved by inter-generational famine; and it has also been achieved more positively by putting birth control in the hands of women.

Overpopulation is already here, and has been a continuing problem for generations.
China's one child policy has been suspended simply by exporting their exploitation of resources, focusing on Africa to feed a growing Chinese economy.

The news is bad. Growth in numbers is at least potentially exponential, and has been inhibited by the most gross and soul destroying overcrowding.
There is not much good news here, since the earth is suffering if not from greater human numbers but from the resources each human needs to have some kind of life worth living.

Exactly right. The way people are crammed up in some places beggars belief. Not too many of us? How many is too many? Lucanor seems to think we should all live like impoverished Africans and SE Asians, surviving on a few dollars a day. The poor themselves don't want to live like that, that so I'm not sure why anyone else would.

[Count Lucanor]

Yes Count, we must give up our modern lifestyles to live like Africans on $2 a day, given your great admiration of their "self control" in not consuming as much as westerners.

Do you believe that African lower consumption is due to Africans are intrinsically better and more moral people than westerners? That they exert self control that we cannot? Or might it be due to the crushing poverty in that continent caused directly by overpopulation and the corruption?

Another false dilemma. It is not either unsustainable way of living or extreme poverty. It is not either high consuming "sport utility" cars or extreme poverty. It is not either overspending and disposing from 30%-50% of uneaten food or extreme poverty. None of these are necessary attributes of a healthy society. Saying that sacrificing this is too much and they are better off applying eugenic policies to poor countries is not the best presentation card for a proposal of a sustainable future. Sustainability, let's be reminded, involves the three dimensions: the ecological, the economical and the social.

This is neither an issue of who's morally superior, such talk would be nonsensical tribal posturing.

Do you believe that other species overpopulate, or do you think they just consume too much per capita? Are humans the one species where there cannot be too many?

A term as overpopulation implies a deviation from a state that is considered normal or advantageous for the judging party. Who is to judge whether the natural footprint of a species is too much or too little?

[Sy Borg]

Do you believe that other species overpopulate, or do you think they just consume too much per capita? Are humans the one species where there cannot be too many?

A term as overpopulation implies a deviation from a state that is considered normal or advantageous for the judging party. Who is to judge whether the natural footprint of a species is too much or too little?

It depends on whether you believe the current rate of extinctions and ecosystem loss are satisfactory.

However, there is no power anywhere to change things? One can no more change the agendas of billionaires than one can control the reproduction rates of those in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. Thus, overpopulation means the death of the middle class.

Personally, I think that that is inevitable, and also that all other large animals will soon be gone from the wild. This century we are going to see the greatest culling of human life ever, on scales unimagined. COVID is trivial compared with what climate change and subsequent desertification will bring. All we can do is slow it for a "soft landing", but that appears most unlikely too due to denial.

[Count Lucanor]

A term as overpopulation implies a deviation from a state that is considered normal or advantageous for the judging party. Who is to judge whether the natural footprint of a species is too much or too little?

It depends on whether you believe the current rate of extinctions and ecosystem loss are satisfactory.

Personally, I think that that is inevitable, and also that all other large animals will soon be gone from the wild. This century we are going to see the greatest culling of human life ever, on scales unimagined. COVID is trivial compared with what climate change and subsequent desertification will bring. All we can do is slow it for a "soft landing", but that appears most unlikely too due to denial.

I think that it is a pity that many species (plants and animals) went or are going extinct, I cannot find that satisfactory in any sense. Yet, I would make a difference from a situation where the environmental pressure over a species is explained by the need of satisfying the basic needs of a community with a traditional economy, to a situation where that pressure comes from vain human desires, let's say hunting for sport or hunting rhinos to get bigger hard-ons. The first ones might have had very few options, but the latter certainly had. And it is the latter that I find irksome.

However, there is no power anywhere to change things? One can no more change the agendas of billionaires than one can control the reproduction rates of those in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. Thus, overpopulation means the death of the middle class.

There are things that can be done, it is hard, but not impossible. But the point is that we must focus on the real problems and the real causes. There's no human overpopulation, it is not a problem, it is not the problem. If you see the per capita carbon emission chart I just showed you, Sub Saharan Africa represents a ridiculous footprint compared to other regions of the world. And the worst countries in the Middle East are the rich oil monarchies that help provide the high consuming lifestyles of the West. Those are the real problems.

[Steve3007]

viewtopic.php?p=358769#p358769

2. We could reduce the developed world's levels of affluence, while keeping the undeveloped world poor, and thereby reduce consumption. i.e. make everybody poor.

That's another myth of libertarian economists, either allow high inequality or get flat equal poverty.

This has nothing to do with libertarian economists. I wasn't setting out what is or isn't deemed desirable economic policy and the consequences of that policy. I was simply setting out various global situations in which the overall environmental footprint of the human race would be reduced or increased. The trouble is, as if often the case generally, you mistakenly take an "is" to be an "ought". You take a statement of the form "if X then Y." to be a statement of the form "I want X!".

As I said in point 2, above, is it a fact, is it not, that if the whole world reduced its consumption level to that of the lowest consuming populations of the world then the global human environmental footprint would reduce? You've effectively said so yourself here, for example:

If you see the per capita carbon emission chart I just showed you, Sub Saharan Africa represents a ridiculous footprint compared to other regions of the world.

yet you say that statement 2, above, is "a myth" because you don't read what it says; you read into it things that it doesn't say.

As everyone has agreed, you are of course right to point out that there are very large differences in environmental footprint across the world. The trouble is, with the current methods of such things as power generation and food production, in order to keep that footprint from growing, either that inequality would have to remain or the whole world would have to average down. If the whole world averages up, and population levels stay the same or increase, then global human environmental footprint increases. This is a fact, yes? Tell me if you think it isn't.

Many people would say that they don't want the inequality to remain. They would say that they are in favour of global freedom of opportunity to become more affluent, and therefore (at least with current affluent lifestyles) increase footprint. But the point is, we don't have to consider the question of whether we agree with those people. In order to decide whether high population leads to unsustainable carbon footprint, we simply have to say "if you want this then you get this."

Hence the 3 footprint-lowering scenarios I set out in that earlier post. If we wanted a lower global human environmental footprint, then:

1. Global inequality is reduced by the world as a whole becoming more affluent. But the footprint of affluence is reduced. e..g "renewable" energy, changes to food production etc.

2. Global inequality is reduced by the world as a whole becoming less affluent.

3. Dramatically reduce the overall world population and leave global inequality the same (or increase it).

As I said in the previous post in which I listed these 3 scenarios, I choose 1, helped by a managed, slow decline in global human population. That decline may well actually happen as a result of affluence and education. It will not happen by, for example, mandatory restrictions on the number of children people can have.

But the fact that you can't reasonably deny is that if the global human population stayed the same as it is now, or grew, and global inequality reduced due to more of the world adopting the lifestyles of the affluent parts of the world, then this would increase global human environmental footprint.

Is there anything above which you think is factually incorrect? Note: I'm not asking you for value judgments here. I'm not asking for declarations which start with things like "who are we to dictate... ?" or "why shouldn't people be able to... ?". We're assessing what is factually true or false here, aren't we?

[Sy Borg]

It depends on whether you believe the current rate of extinctions and ecosystem loss are satisfactory.

Personally, I think that that is inevitable, and also that all other large animals will soon be gone from the wild. This century we are going to see the greatest culling of human life ever, on scales unimagined. COVID is trivial compared with what climate change and subsequent desertification will bring. All we can do is slow it for a "soft landing", but that appears most unlikely too due to denial.

I think that it is a pity that many species (plants and animals) went or are going extinct, I cannot find that satisfactory in any sense. Yet, I would make a difference from a situation where the environmental pressure over a species is explained by the need of satisfying the basic needs of a community with a traditional economy, to a situation where that pressure comes from vain human desires, let's say hunting for sport or hunting rhinos to get bigger hard-ons. The first ones might have had very few options, but the latter certainly had. And it is the latter that I find irksome.

However, there is no power anywhere to change things? One can no more change the agendas of billionaires than one can control the reproduction rates of those in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. Thus, overpopulation means the death of the middle class.

There are things that can be done, it is hard, but not impossible. But the point is that we must focus on the real problems and the real causes. There's no human overpopulation, it is not a problem, it is not the problem. If you see the per capita carbon emission chart I just showed you, Sub Saharan Africa represents a ridiculous footprint compared to other regions of the world. And the worst countries in the Middle East are the rich oil monarchies that help provide the high consuming lifestyles of the West. Those are the real problems.

What we speak about was true three decades ago when there were five billion people. How much more do you recommend we crush in? Should all westerners live in tiny units or people cages and be denied cars, while the increasing number of unemployed live on the streets? Perhaps as solidarity with developing countries? Can you imagine them doing the same for us?

We are simply heading for the hardest possible landing because there is no possible way of dealing with the rampant overpopulation, inequality and waste globally in an increasingly divided and uncooperative world.

[Count Lucanor]

This has nothing to do with libertarian economists. I wasn't setting out what is or isn't deemed desirable economic policy and the consequences of that policy. I was simply setting out various global situations in which the overall environmental footprint of the human race would be reduced or increased. The trouble is, as if often the case generally, you mistakenly take an "is" to be an "ought". You take a statement of the form "if X then Y." to be a statement of the form "I want X!".

Actually, you were elaborating on this main idea: "if we wish to reduce the negative effects of human activity on the environment and on other species then the possible rational conclusions depend on how affluent we want the world in general to be." So, you were showing us 3 ways in which environmental footprint could be reduced by managing levels of affluence, and thus the wish could be fulfilled. You clearly put on the table:

X. A desired future state of affairs in nature (the wish of reducing negative effects).
Y. A way to achieve that goal (managing affluence).
Z. A desired present human state of affairs (levels of affluence) that conditions the operation.

As it shows, you did not just present the form "if X then Y", it was more like "if human state Z and means Y, then natural state X", where Z and Y states are defined by human desires. And then you elaborate on the 3 possible variations of Z and X: the first one through equality in high affluence, the second one through equality in low affluence, and the third one leaving inequality as it stands now. All of this were dealt with one by one.

In the context of the discussion, managing a human state of affairs to achieve something, is exactly calling for a policy. And on a global scale, a policy related to levels of affluence carried out by some agents over a vast population, can't hardly be defended as not pretending to be an economic policy with its consequences. So, while it is true that you're describing scenarios, it is also true that they are not purely descriptive, they imply desired states and depend on managed human actions, so the "ought" is clearly implicit there: "if we wish to obtain X, we ought to manage what Z we want". And since you spoke in the plural first person on behalf of the agents that want, manage and achieve, there's no reason to exclude you from the analysis, although for me that's more accessory. Whether you endorse such hypothetical policies or not, doesn't change their nature as policies, and there's always good reason to believe that if any such proposals was to be applied programmatically, it would come top down, from the hegemonic centers of power, as usual.

As I said in point 2, above, is it a fact, is it not, that if the whole world reduced its consumption level to that of the lowest consuming populations of the world then the global human environmental footprint would reduce? You've effectively said so yourself here, for example:

If you see the per capita carbon emission chart I just showed you, Sub Saharan Africa represents a ridiculous footprint compared to other regions of the world.

yet you say that statement 2, above, is "a myth" because you don't read what it says; you read into it things that it doesn't say.

As per what is explained above, your comparison is invalid. I did present a descriptive scenario, a particular state of affairs, associated to a way of living. It is what it is. In your statement 2, however, you do lay out a policy (one of the three possible, according to you) to manage levels of affluence, indirectly affecting consumption levels. In this particular policy, it is implied that reducing any inequality is just the same as reducing high inequality, therefore making everybody poor. This is undoubtedly a libertarian economist point and I call it a myth, because it seems possible to reduce inequality, affecting consumption levels that would not put that much pressure on the environment, without making everybody poor.

As everyone has agreed, you are of course right to point out that there are very large differences in environmental footprint across the world. The trouble is, with the current methods of such things as power generation and food production, in order to keep that footprint from growing, either that inequality would have to remain or the whole world would have to average down. If the whole world averages up, and population levels stay the same or increase, then global human environmental footprint increases. This is a fact, yes? Tell me if you think it isn't.

Here you're laying out policy scenario #3 (leaving inequality as it stands now) and policy scenario #1 (equality in high affluence), both of which I already replied. Scenario #2 (equality in low affluence) is not the only alternative left, there could be reduced inequality by improving the life of the poor and downsizing the excessive lifestyles of the rich, both aiming to be sustainable societies. The ultimate goal, as I see it, is well-being, not affluence, which by no means is a measure of fulfilling lives.

Many people would say that they don't want the inequality to remain. They would say that they are in favor of global freedom of opportunity to become more affluent, and therefore (at least with current affluent lifestyles) increase footprint. But the point is, we don't have to consider the question of whether we agree with those people. In order to decide whether high population leads to unsustainable carbon footprint, we simply have to say "if you want this then you get this."

As I said, higher affluence is not necessarily better. There are many good things that only a good level of affluence can afford, but if we're looking at society as a whole, an average way of living that affords what is necessary for humans to flourish and build a sustainable system for the future generations, is much better than a system of irrational excesses, which turns out to be detrimental for that society, its future generations and the whole world.

But the fact that you can't reasonably deny is that if the global human population stayed the same as it is now, or grew, and global inequality reduced due to more of the world adopting the lifestyles of the affluent parts of the world, then this would increase global human environmental footprint.

That's scenario #1 (with our without any policy). Yes, that would worsen the environmental problem, but as I said, that is not the only alternative to reducing inequality.

Is there anything above which you think is factually incorrect? Note: I'm not asking you for value judgments here. I'm not asking for declarations which start with things like "who are we to dictate... ?" or "why shouldn't people be able to... ?". We're assessing what is factually true or false here, aren't we?

I hope that standard has been met, but please acknowledge that here we are handling issues like inequality, what it implies, how it can be dealt with, political and economic policies, etc., so you cannot expect this to be purely objective state of affairs.

[Count Lucanor]

What we speak about was true three decades ago when there were five billion people. How much more do you recommend we crush in? Should all westerners live in tiny units or people cages and be denied cars, while the increasing number of unemployed live on the streets? Perhaps as solidarity with developing countries? Can you imagine them doing the same for us?

It has very little to do with what we were decades ago or now in terms of population. But indeed there are more sustainable ways of doing things (transportation, buildings, energy, water use, etc.) now than three of four decades ago. It's not a romantic dream peddled by idealist without their feet on the ground, there are well known strategies and practices that can be deployed and have been deployed all over the world, from the private and public sector. I know because I have actually worked in them. They have a lot of potential and could mean a substantial improvement if they were adopted more extensively. Many for-profit organizations are getting onboard the sustainability ship, because while aiming at the three dimensions (human, economical and environmental) it helps them with the bottom line, it makes them more efficient, and those who are more efficient are gaining competitiveness. If you're willing to spend more water and pay a bill 3 times higher than your competition, you're actually throwing money down the drain. That should be the future, but these strategies also face opposition from economic and reactionary political interests, such as those we see coming from the current occupants of the White House.

[Sy Borg]

Do you understand why?

Our societies were founded on fossil fuels. Thus, they are amongst the wealthiest, most powerful and influential entities in the world. A whole bloc of them. We would have had electric cars in the 80s if not for their political interference.

My point is that these companies are now unstoppable, together being larger than most national economies. Just as you cannot stop sub-Saharan Africans from having six-child families and deepening their own poverty, you cannot stop fossil fuel companies from buying and owning political parties. This is the situation we have.

Nonetheless, no matter which way you look at it we are wildly overpopulated. It's not just companies that resulted in us and our food representing 96% of all mammal biomass, there's so many of us that we spread out and take over their environments. The only way to prevent this is to pile us atop each other in tall towers - massive hominid holders - so we don't spread out so much. That's bloody ridiculous! Is that any way to live? We've bred like flies and taken over the place.

Now we are overpopulated, that is, we are populated to the point where life sucks for ever more people, never mind decimation of other species.