Extinction.

[nimnarb]

Sir Richard Attenborough who just keeps going and going and I think he is over 90 years of age. So without getting too political here, I'm in the camp that does believe in climate change (and stopping the killing of so many animals). Many don't, including our esteemed President the Donald who doesn't and only the other day stated that the recent horrific fires in California have nothing to with climate change as there's a lot of dying trees and dried up leaves have caused this! Oh and naturally in March stated that its all just going to go away, this Chinese flu. etc, etc, you know the rest.

Regardless, a very important piece of filming done here and a remarkable man plus remembered vividly 40 years ago when he was with the silver back gorillas which they show again and I wouldn't have recognised him. Many leading scientists in this documentary believe if we do something now we might stand a chance. I don't think so. It's too late and luckily wont be alive to see it, not to mention hearing that we are on the verge of having at least 4-5 Pandemics even worse that we are experiencing now, per year!!!

BBC, iPlayer.

[AlumniLawn]

Many don't, including our esteemed President the Donald who doesn't and only the other day stated that the recent horrific fires in California have nothing to with climate change as there's a lot of dying trees and dried up leaves have caused this!

This is not quite as straightforward as it would first seem. According to Jared Diamond in his book Collapse (pages 44/45), the changing type of trees (more valuable and fire resistant Ponderosa Pine were cut down and replaced with less fire resistant but faster growing Douglas Fir) coupled with with improved fire suppression techniques and tighter objectives ("extinguish any fire by 10am on the day following the outbreak of the fire") mean that the forest understory comprising more dying/dead trees and leaves, becomes more dense and more combustible than it used to.

The result is more intense conflagrations when they do occur. It's complicated. The book was written in 2011 and there may have been significant changes to forest management in the interim which makes these observations redundant.

[Wuffle]

I believe that Sir Richard is extinct.

W.

[bungeejumper]

I believe that Sir Richard is extinct.

?????

BJ

[AleisterCrowley]

He is. Passed away in 2014. Sir DAVID Attenborough is thankfully still with us.

[scrumpyjack]

David keeps going, Richard died 6 years ago

[Bminusrob]

I got quite grumpy watching the program, because it seems nobody was prepared to talk about the elephant in the room. To my mind, most of the program was about solving the problems of excess human population and populatio growth, without stopping the exponential growth of humans on the planet.

Even if we addressed all the issues which the program raised, in 30 or so years, when the global population of humans has increased by anther 50%, Sir David Attenborough will be back on television at the age of 125, still not talking about the elephant in the room.

[redsturgeon]

We reach herd immunity at about 10 billion and after that we decline.

John

[Gersemi]

Even if we addressed all the issues which the program raised, in 30 or so years, when the global population of humans has increased by anther 50%, Sir David Attenborough will be back on television at the age of 125, still not talking about the elephant in the room.

David Attenborough has talked about the problems of population growth in the past - a quick google brings up this link https://populationmatters.org/news/2018 ... population . I think the reluctance to talk about is because most of the population growth is in less developed countries whereas the majority of the consumption in the more developed ones.

[Nimrod103]

Even if we addressed all the issues which the program raised, in 30 or so years, when the global population of humans has increased by anther 50%, Sir David Attenborough will be back on television at the age of 125, still not talking about the elephant in the room.

David Attenborough has talked about the problems of population growth in the past - a quick google brings up this link https://populationmatters.org/news/2018 ... population . I think the reluctance to talk about is because most of the population growth is in less developed countries whereas the majority of the consumption in the more developed ones.

But almost all the critical habitat destruction and extinction of species is happening in less developed countries.Consumption in the developed World doesn't have much to do with it any more.

[vrdiver]

David Attenborough has talked about the problems of population growth in the past - a quick google brings up this link https://populationmatters.org/news/2018 ... population . I think the reluctance to talk about is because most of the population growth is in less developed countries whereas the majority of the consumption in the more developed ones.

But that makes it even worse. All these "new", or at least "longer living" humans are going to want to improve their standard of living. (We see it now with the economic migrant influx into Europe). Either they are condemned to poverty, for them and their children, or consumption will massively increase. I think we already see both happening, with a growing middle class in countries like China, and with desperate poverty in areas of sub-Saharan Africa.

It is a problem; the developed world has no moral high ground from which to lecture the developing world, with any such message being treated as an attempt to keep all the good stuff for itself, but in the meantime the problem gets worse.

How much worse, before the wheels come off, is up for discussion, but the wheels are going to come off if we don't do something...

VRD

[vrdiver]

But almost all the critical habitat destruction and extinction of species is happening in less developed countries.Consumption in the developed World doesn't have much to do with it any more.

And that habitat is being destroyed for what? Palm oil, wood, mining, beef etc etc. And where do you think these resources then end up being consumed?

[Nimrod103]

But almost all the critical habitat destruction and extinction of species is happening in less developed countries.Consumption in the developed World doesn't have much to do with it any more.

And that habitat is being destroyed for what? Palm oil, wood, mining, beef etc etc. And where do you think these resources then end up being consumed?

I suspect mostly in the less developed countries which are rapidly developing, in order to reach the same level of development as the developed ones. A market of 1.1 billion Indians absorbs a lot of the materials you list (except beef of course).

[UncleEbenezer]

Even if we addressed all the issues which the program raised, in 30 or so years, when the global population of humans has increased by anther 50%, Sir David Attenborough will be back on television at the age of 125, still not talking about the elephant in the room.

David Attenborough has talked about the problems of population growth in the past - a quick google brings up this link https://populationmatters.org/news/2018 ... population . I think the reluctance to talk about is because most of the population growth is in less developed countries whereas the majority of the consumption in the more developed ones.

Was he on the BBC?

If so, the elephant in the room is likely a total taboo. For him - a well-educated white male and of the Establishment - to raise it would require at least a format in which an opposing voice could attack such racism and cultural imperialism.

[vrdiver]

But almost all the critical habitat destruction and extinction of species is happening in less developed countries.Consumption in the developed World doesn't have much to do with it any more.

And that habitat is being destroyed for what? Palm oil, wood, mining, beef etc etc. And where do you think these resources then end up being consumed?

I suspect mostly in the less developed countries which are rapidly developing, in order to reach the same level of development as the developed ones. A market of 1.1 billion Indians absorbs a lot of the materials you list (except beef of course).

The problem with that logic is that it implies it's OK for the developed countries to consume, but anybody else who wishes to join in shouldn't be allowed, as it's bad for the environment.

National Geographic sum up the issue quite nicely:

Americans often refer to growing consumption in China and other developing countries as “a problem” and wish that the “problem” didn’t exist. Of course it will persist: People of other countries want to enjoy the consumption rates that Americans enjoy. They wouldn’t listen if told not to do what Americans are already doing.

and

Today over a third of the world’s income is generated by about a tenth of the world’s population in wealthy countries. As incomes rise in poorer nations, consumption will rise also, thus depleting more natural resources to achieve a more affluent lifestyle.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maga ... d-diamond/

If consumption levels equalise at the current developed world levels, that (according to the article linked to above) would create a 10-fold increase in resource usage globally. Unless the developed countries can figure out a way to reduce consumption, then the citizens of the developing world will either try to move in with us, or imitate our consumption levels where they are. Neither option is feasible.

Consumption in the developed world is, in my view, the key driver of this whole issue (if we ignore the real key - too many people, and rising).

[Nimrod103]

And that habitat is being destroyed for what? Palm oil, wood, mining, beef etc etc. And where do you think these resources then end up being consumed?

I suspect mostly in the less developed countries which are rapidly developing, in order to reach the same level of development as the developed ones. A market of 1.1 billion Indians absorbs a lot of the materials you list (except beef of course).

The problem with that logic is that it implies it's OK for the developed countries to consume, but anybody else who wishes to join in shouldn't be allowed, as it's bad for the environment.

National Geographic sum up the issue quite nicely:

Americans often refer to growing consumption in China and other developing countries as “a problem” and wish that the “problem” didn’t exist. Of course it will persist: People of other countries want to enjoy the consumption rates that Americans enjoy. They wouldn’t listen if told not to do what Americans are already doing.

and

Today over a third of the world’s income is generated by about a tenth of the world’s population in wealthy countries. As incomes rise in poorer nations, consumption will rise also, thus depleting more natural resources to achieve a more affluent lifestyle.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maga ... d-diamond/

If consumption levels equalise at the current developed world levels, that (according to the article linked to above) would create a 10-fold increase in resource usage globally. Unless the developed countries can figure out a way to reduce consumption, then the citizens of the developing world will either try to move in with us, or imitate our consumption levels where they are. Neither option is feasible.

Consumption in the developed world is, in my view, the key driver of this whole issue (if we ignore the real key - too many people, and rising).

Fair enough, but can you list for me the things you are prepared to do without? Car, heating, university education, good doctors, clean water and soap? I'm sure you have some targets?

[Snorvey]

Wee Greta highlighted.....

'....fairy tales of endless economic growth.'

And I think she has a point. Surely we have to stop growing at some point? I mean it's like the 100m world record - all the big gains have been had. If anyone beats Bolt's record it's going to be because the latest timing gear measures in billionths of a second.

Saying that, things are much more efficient these days. My house uses about a tenth of the lighting energy compared to only a decade or so ago. And LED tv's are much more efficient than CRTs and so on and so on.

I guess if they perfect nuclear fusion we can provide enough electrical energy to run our personal transport devices, boil enough seawater to irrigate the whole planet, heat/cool our houses and so on and that will give us a significant driver for the future. I'm not holding my breath though.

[Stonge]

World human population growth is in decline. In 50 years world human population will be in decline.

This is a transition period.

Most animal species will be eliminated, reducing the number and risk of pandemics and pleasant suburbia will be established in the areas of the world which are disgusting at the moment. This will result in human birthrates tumbling and a sustainable global economy coming into existence.

Extinction Rebellion and all the other lookalikes and ignorant children are completely wrong.

I suspect this is the Donald's struggling vision.

Stoneg, enjoying the September sun but not the filthy CoViD pandemic.

[AlumniLawn]

If consumption levels equalise at the current developed world levels, that (according to the article linked to above) would create a 10-fold increase in resource usage globally.

I am not sure that this is true. In his excellent book "More From Less", Andrew McAfee details the decreasing amount of natural resources used in creating an increasing GDP, he (mainly) uses USA data as is is the largest and most reliable information available. For example, despite GDP increasing significantly between 2011 and today, steel usage has declined by 15%, aluminium by 32% and copper by 40%; irrigation water down by 22% from its peak in 1984 and fertiliser down by 25% since its peak in 1999 whilst crop tonnage is still increasing.

Anyway, even if there are flaws in the logic or data, the book is a heartening read and shows just how good we are at innovation and that it is not pre-destined that we will run out of resources (capitalists are very driven to reduce cost and increase efficiencies).

[Nimrod103]

I suspect mostly in the less developed countries which are rapidly developing, in order to reach the same level of development as the developed ones. A market of 1.1 billion Indians absorbs a lot of the materials you list (except beef of course).

The problem with that logic is that it implies it's OK for the developed countries to consume, but anybody else who wishes to join in shouldn't be allowed, as it's bad for the environment.

National Geographic sum up the issue quite nicely:

Americans often refer to growing consumption in China and other developing countries as “a problem” and wish that the “problem” didn’t exist. Of course it will persist: People of other countries want to enjoy the consumption rates that Americans enjoy. They wouldn’t listen if told not to do what Americans are already doing.

and

Today over a third of the world’s income is generated by about a tenth of the world’s population in wealthy countries. As incomes rise in poorer nations, consumption will rise also, thus depleting more natural resources to achieve a more affluent lifestyle.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/maga ... d-diamond/

If consumption levels equalise at the current developed world levels, that (according to the article linked to above) would create a 10-fold increase in resource usage globally. Unless the developed countries can figure out a way to reduce consumption, then the citizens of the developing world will either try to move in with us, or imitate our consumption levels where they are. Neither option is feasible.

Consumption in the developed world is, in my view, the key driver of this whole issue (if we ignore the real key - too many people, and rising).

Fair enough, but can you list for me the things you are prepared to do without? Car, heating, university education, good doctors, clean water and soap? I'm sure you have some targets?

We have in my town now an example of the enforced limit to growth, and certain conclusions can be drawn.

The county council has closed off various rat-runs to traffic, concentrating all traffic to the adjacent town and towards London onto a single main road. They have narrowed the main road by installing plastic bollards so as to prevent any vehicles going into the bike lanes on either side. All this has been done to encourage cycling and walking as part of the anti Covid, get Britain fit campaign funded I think by central Govt (ie the taxpayer).

I live on one of these rat-runs, and indeed my quality of life has improved. However, I used to frequently use said rat-run, yet now my journey during rush hour takes half and hour longer. Is there an overall benefit?