Scientists Warn That Civilization as We Know It Will End in "Next Few Decades"

Gyfts

legendary

Activity: 2828

Merit: 1515

CBS is propaganda rag. They've had many of the doomsdayers on their 60 Minutes broadcast and they all say the same thing: Humanity is doomed due to climate change unless we act now.

The "act now" portion is where they demand government pour money into their organizations which haven't produced any material solutions because the problem is nonexistent to begin with.

Quote from: franky1 on January 23, 2023, 11:14:24 AM

there is no over population nor food shortages. there is just the society decisions of the elites .. and waste

Not only is there no food shortages, there are food surpluses. There is so much food available that a plurality of those living in developed nations are obese.

Dewchim

newbie

Activity: 57

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hydrogen on January 04, 2023, 06:49:26 PM

Quote

On New Year's Day, several Stanford scientists joined CBS' Scott Pelley on the program "60 Minutes" to discuss the global mass extinction crisis. Spoiler: no one had any good news.

Tony Barnosky, a Stanford biologist whose work involves using fossil records to map changes in ecosystems over time, told CBS that his work suggests that extinction rates today are moving at roughly 100 times the rate typically seen in Earth's four-billion-year known history of supporting life.

According to Barnosky, such rapid population loss means that Earth is currently experiencing the worst mass extinction episode since the dinosaurs. And while Earth itself has repeatedly recovered from mass extinction events, the vast majority of the life existing on our planet at the time has not.

Unfortunately, that may well include us humans — or, at least, the trappings of our technological civilization.

"I and the vast majority of my colleagues think we've had it," Barnosky's Stanford colleague Paul Ehrlich, who also appeared on the show, told Pelley, "that the next few decades will be the end of the kind of civilization we're used to."

That grim reality, according to the researchers, means that even if humans manage to survive in some capacity, the wide-reaching impacts of mass extinction — which include habitat destruction, breakdowns in the natural food chain, soil infertility, and more — would cause modern human society to crumble.

"I would say it is too much to say that we're killing the planet, because the planet's gonna be fine," said Barnosky. "What we're doing is we're killing our way of life."

In other words? If humans don't drastically course-correct, the havoc we're wreaking on the planet will very unpleasantly do so for us. It's a grim warning, but one that other experts are echoing.

Ehrlich, it's worth noting, is somewhat of an overpopulation and mass extinction icon. He published "The Population Bomb," one of the first modern books on the dangers of excess human development and population growth, back in 1968, and was considered an alarmist for the controversial predictions he made at the time. Although not all of his contentious forecasts came true, two big ones — that greenhouse gases would melt polar ice, and that humanity would overwhelm the wild — have undoubtedly since materialized. And sadly, his reasoning for their realization feels depressingly familiar.

According to Ehrlich, the problem is "too many people, too much consumption and growth mania" — a reality that few would likely argue is showing any meaningful sign of slowing down.

"Humanity is not sustainable. To maintain our lifestyle (yours and mine, basically) for the entire planet, you'd need five more Earths," Ehrlich told his interviewer. "Not clear where they're gonna come from."

"Resources that would be required, the systems that support our lives, which of course are the biodiversity that we're wiping out," the 90-year-old researcher added. "Humanity is very busily sitting on a limb that we're sawing off."

https://futurism.com/stanford-scientists-civilization-crumble

....

No shortage of doom and gloom here:

Quote

That grim reality, according to the researchers, means that even if humans manage to survive in some capacity, the wide-reaching impacts of mass extinction — which include habitat destruction, breakdowns in the natural food chain, soil infertility, and more — would cause modern human society to crumble.

There is a question I have about projected future soil infertility. I think everyone knows there could be a deep connection between soil fertility and animal manure. As species across the world decline in population. There is a decreased volume of animal manure reaching soils. Which could cause soil to become infertile.

One example of this is the widespread devastation of bison herds in north america. Prior to european settlers decimating their populations, it was said that bison herds in north america flocked together like locusts in their annual migration across the continent. Reduced bison herds lead to reduced bison manure which contributes towards reduced soil fertility.

But even as far back as 100 years ago, it was still very common for many to reside in independent farming communities with many animals to maintain relative fertility of soil. More recently the social exodus from farms to cities and modern living may correlate with lower populations of animals per square acre (hectare). Which could correlate with reduced square footage of arable land across the globe.

But to be honest, I can't say I've looked very far into this topic.

It is known that independent farmers in remote desert locations have succeeded in growing many acres of forestland in areas where it was considered impossible to do so.

Saying that civilization will end is like ending human thinking and growth. Civilization simply means the diverse ways in which individuals view problems and solutions. Since no one can stop human beings from thinking, it's also difficult to stop civilization for any reason.

Johnds1

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

Quote from: Hydrogen on January 04, 2023, 06:49:26 PM

Quote

On New Year's Day, several Stanford scientists joined CBS' Scott Pelley on the program "60 Minutes" to discuss the global mass extinction crisis. Spoiler: no one had any good news.

Tony Barnosky, a Stanford biologist whose work involves using fossil records to map changes in ecosystems over time, told CBS that his work suggests that extinction rates today are moving at roughly 100 times the rate typically seen in Earth's four-billion-year known history of supporting life.

According to Barnosky, such rapid population loss means that Earth is currently experiencing the worst mass extinction episode since the dinosaurs. And while Earth itself has repeatedly recovered from mass extinction events, the vast majority of the life existing on our planet at the time has not.

Unfortunately, that may well include us humans — or, at least, the trappings of our technological civilization.

"I and the vast majority of my colleagues think we've had it," Barnosky's Stanford colleague Paul Ehrlich, who also appeared on the show, told Pelley, "that the next few decades will be the end of the kind of civilization we're used to."

That grim reality, according to the researchers, means that even if humans manage to survive in some capacity, the wide-reaching impacts of mass extinction — which include habitat destruction, breakdowns in the natural food chain, soil infertility, and more — would cause modern human society to crumble.

"I would say it is too much to say that we're killing the planet, because the planet's gonna be fine," said Barnosky. "What we're doing is we're killing our way of life."

In other words? If humans don't drastically course-correct, the havoc we're wreaking on the planet will very unpleasantly do so for us. It's a grim warning, but one that other experts are echoing.

Ehrlich, it's worth noting, is somewhat of an overpopulation and mass extinction icon. He published "The Population Bomb," one of the first modern books on the dangers of excess human development and population growth, back in 1968, and was considered an alarmist for the controversial predictions he made at the time. Although not all of his contentious forecasts came true, two big ones — that greenhouse gases would melt polar ice, and that humanity would overwhelm the wild — have undoubtedly since materialized. And sadly, his reasoning for their realization feels depressingly familiar.

According to Ehrlich, the problem is "too many people, too much consumption and growth mania" — a reality that few would likely argue is showing any meaningful sign of slowing down.

"Humanity is not sustainable. To maintain our lifestyle (yours and mine, basically) for the entire planet, you'd need five more Earths," Ehrlich told his interviewer. "Not clear where they're gonna come from."

"Resources that would be required, the systems that support our lives, which of course are the biodiversity that we're wiping out," the 90-year-old researcher added. "Humanity is very busily sitting on a limb that we're sawing off."

https://futurism.com/stanford-scientists-civilization-crumble

....

No shortage of doom and gloom here:

Quote

That grim reality, according to the researchers, means that even if humans manage to survive in some capacity, the wide-reaching impacts of mass extinction — which include habitat destruction, breakdowns in the natural food chain, soil infertility, and more — would cause modern human society to crumble.

There is a question I have about projected future soil infertility. I think everyone knows there could be a deep connection between soil fertility and animal manure. As species across the world decline in population. There is a decreased volume of animal manure reaching soils. Which could cause soil to become infertile.

One example of this is the widespread devastation of bison herds in north america. Prior to european settlers decimating their populations, it was said that bison herds in north america flocked together like locusts in their annual migration across the continent. Reduced bison herds lead to reduced bison manure which contributes towards reduced soil fertility.

But even as far back as 100 years ago, it was still very common for many to reside in independent farming communities with many animals to maintain relative fertility of soil. More recently the social exodus from farms to cities and modern living may correlate with lower populations of animals per square acre (hectare). Which could correlate with reduced square footage of arable land across the globe.

But to be honest, I can't say I've looked very far into this topic.

It is known that independent farmers in remote desert locations have succeeded in growing many acres of forestland in areas where it was considered impossible to do so.

Which scientists? It's astonishing to me that anyone is still believing the bull crap that is being put out. You would think by now that everyone would understand how politicians continually fund these supposed scientists with our tax dollars to continually put out lies just to create another slush fund to dump more tax money into.

So for the ignoramuses out there who still have their heads up their a$$es, here is a list of past doomsday tactics put out there that never came true:

1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
1970: Ice Age By 2000
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age By 2070
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
1974: Another Ice Age?
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
1980: Peak Oil In 2000
1996: Peak Oil in 2020
2002: Peak Oil in 2010
2006: Super Hurricanes!
2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
1970s: Killer Bees!
UPDATE:

42. 1975: The Cooling World and a Drastic Decline in Food Production
43. 1969: Worldwide Plague, Overwhelming Pollution, Ecological Catastrophe, Virtual Collapse of UK by End of 20th Century
44. 1972: Pending Depletion and Shortages of Gold, Tin, Oil, Natural Gas, Copper, Aluminum
45. 1970: Oceans Dead in a Decade, US Water Rationing by 1974, Food Rationing by 1980
46. 1988: World’s Leading Climate Expert Predicts Lower Manhattan Underwater by 2018
47. 2005: Fifty Million Climate Refugees by the Year 2020
48. 2000: Snowfalls Are Now a Thing of the Past
49.1989: UN Warns That Entire Nations Wiped Off the Face of the Earth by 2000 From Global Warming
50. 2011: Washington Post Predicted Cherry Blossoms Blooming in Winter

paxmao

legendary

Activity: 2366

Merit: 1624

Do not die for Putin

Quote from: Hydrogen on January 04, 2023, 06:49:26 PM

Quote

On New Year's Day, several Stanford scientists joined CBS' Scott Pelley on the program "60 Minutes" to discuss the global mass extinction crisis. Spoiler: no one had any good news.

Tony Barnosky, a Stanford biologist whose work involves using fossil records to map changes in ecosystems over time, told CBS that his work suggests that extinction rates today are moving at roughly 100 times the rate typically seen in Earth's four-billion-year known history of supporting life.

According to Barnosky, such rapid population loss means that Earth is currently experiencing the worst mass extinction episode since the dinosaurs. And while Earth itself has repeatedly recovered from mass extinction events, the vast majority of the life existing on our planet at the time has not.

Unfortunately, that may well include us humans — or, at least, the trappings of our technological civilization.

"I and the vast majority of my colleagues think we've had it," Barnosky's Stanford colleague Paul Ehrlich, who also appeared on the show, told Pelley, "that the next few decades will be the end of the kind of civilization we're used to."

That grim reality, according to the researchers, means that even if humans manage to survive in some capacity, the wide-reaching impacts of mass extinction — which include habitat destruction, breakdowns in the natural food chain, soil infertility, and more — would cause modern human society to crumble.

"I would say it is too much to say that we're killing the planet, because the planet's gonna be fine," said Barnosky. "What we're doing is we're killing our way of life."

In other words? If humans don't drastically course-correct, the havoc we're wreaking on the planet will very unpleasantly do so for us. It's a grim warning, but one that other experts are echoing.

Ehrlich, it's worth noting, is somewhat of an overpopulation and mass extinction icon. He published "The Population Bomb," one of the first modern books on the dangers of excess human development and population growth, back in 1968, and was considered an alarmist for the controversial predictions he made at the time. Although not all of his contentious forecasts came true, two big ones — that greenhouse gases would melt polar ice, and that humanity would overwhelm the wild — have undoubtedly since materialized. And sadly, his reasoning for their realization feels depressingly familiar.

According to Ehrlich, the problem is "too many people, too much consumption and growth mania" — a reality that few would likely argue is showing any meaningful sign of slowing down.

"Humanity is not sustainable. To maintain our lifestyle (yours and mine, basically) for the entire planet, you'd need five more Earths," Ehrlich told his interviewer. "Not clear where they're gonna come from."

"Resources that would be required, the systems that support our lives, which of course are the biodiversity that we're wiping out," the 90-year-old researcher added. "Humanity is very busily sitting on a limb that we're sawing off."

https://futurism.com/stanford-scientists-civilization-crumble

....

No shortage of doom and gloom here:

Quote

That grim reality, according to the researchers, means that even if humans manage to survive in some capacity, the wide-reaching impacts of mass extinction — which include habitat destruction, breakdowns in the natural food chain, soil infertility, and more — would cause modern human society to crumble.

There is a question I have about projected future soil infertility. I think everyone knows there could be a deep connection between soil fertility and animal manure. As species across the world decline in population. There is a decreased volume of animal manure reaching soils. Which could cause soil to become infertile.

One example of this is the widespread devastation of bison herds in north america. Prior to european settlers decimating their populations, it was said that bison herds in north america flocked together like locusts in their annual migration across the continent. Reduced bison herds lead to reduced bison manure which contributes towards reduced soil fertility.

But even as far back as 100 years ago, it was still very common for many to reside in independent farming communities with many animals to maintain relative fertility of soil. More recently the social exodus from farms to cities and modern living may correlate with lower populations of animals per square acre (hectare). Which could correlate with reduced square footage of arable land across the globe.

But to be honest, I can't say I've looked very far into this topic.

It is known that independent farmers in remote desert locations have succeeded in growing many acres of forestland in areas where it was considered impossible to do so.

On regards to soil fertility, the soil used for food production does not depend on the animal manure at all since decades ago. It is curious, to say it, that the guy that invented the gas used to kill the allied troops during WWI was the same person that industrialised the use of modern mineral fertilisers based on. He is also linked to the invention of Zyclon B, later used in concentration camps during the Nazi period.

Quote

Fritz Haber (German pronunciation: [ˈfʁɪt͡s ˈhaːbɐ] (listen); 9 December 1868 – 29 January 1934) was a German chemist who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1918 for his invention of the Haber–Bosch process, a method used in industry to synthesize ammonia from nitrogen gas and hydrogen gas. This invention is important for the large-scale synthesis of fertilisers and explosives. It is estimated that one-third of annual global food production uses ammonia from the Haber–Bosch process, and that this supports nearly half of the world's population.[4] [5][6] Haber, along with Max Born, proposed the Born–Haber cycle as a method for evaluating the lattice energy of an ionic solid.

Haber, a known German nationalist, is also considered the "father of chemical warfare" for his years of pioneering work developing and weaponising chlorine and other poisonous gases during World War I. He first proposed the use of the heavier-than-air chlorine gas as a weapon to break the trench deadlock during the Second Battle of Ypres. His work was later used to develop Zyklon B, used for the murder of more than 1 million Jews in gas chambers in the greater context of the Holocaust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer

Before this, it all pointed to gloom and doom and a Malthusian positive check on population (AKA as massive famine).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

royalfestus

hero member

Activity: 2464

Merit: 519

Quote from: Hydrogen on January 04, 2023, 06:49:26 PM

There is a question I have about projected future soil infertility. I think everyone knows there could be a deep connection between soil fertility and animal manure. As species across the world decline in population. There is a decreased volume of animal manure reaching soils. Which could cause soil to become infertile.

One example of this is the widespread devastation of bison herds in north america. Prior to european settlers decimating their populations, it was said that bison herds in north america flocked together like locusts in their annual migration across the continent. Reduced bison herds lead to reduced bison manure which contributes towards reduced soil fertility.

But even as far back as 100 years ago, it was still very common for many to reside in independent farming communities with many animals to maintain relative fertility of soil. More recently the social exodus from farms to cities and modern living may correlate with lower populations of animals per square acre (hectare). Which could correlate with reduced square footage of arable land across the globe.

But to be honest, I can't say I've looked very far into this topic.

It is known that independent farmers in remote desert locations have succeeded in growing many acres of forestland in areas where it was considered impossible to do so.

Different soil types exist around the world, and soil scientists and agronomists use different methods to restore them. In some cases, fertilizing the soil is used, and in others, fertilizing the crop, depending on the requirements of the particular crop. We can also use chemical fertilizer, mulch, mycohhriza, and many other methods besides animal manure. Moreover, they are effective in managing soils. In general, herbivorous animal dung is more beneficial for soil than other animal remains.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

But be realistic. If you die next year, civilization as we know it won't even exist... for you. Nobody really knows the future. But if anybody makes enough general predictions, he'll be right sometime.

Cool

CryptocurencyKing

hero member

Activity: 1288

Merit: 504

Quote from: Flexystar on January 23, 2023, 12:19:00 PM

Well, most recently we have added AI in the list who are going to take the world down with them and us. Believe me, we are moving towards the worst world one can imagine. It would be domination by violence followed by silence of earth's zero population day.

Am quite sure in all those movies, humanity always finds a way to win the war.

Perhaps this isn't Holywood fiction but, having the big brains in comparison to all the species and the projects we develop, I think we would always be capable to solve our problems as they arise.

Civilization inst going to end but would surely become more sufffisticated. That's what we could get at the speed we are running. There isn't any apocalypse to our end, its just not having to leave in the feature we see which would be better for the next generation and the would find means to solve there problems.

Die_empty

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 987

Give all before death

Quote from: Ozero on January 23, 2023, 10:00:07 AM

In my opinion, the problem on our planet now has more to do with overpopulation of people and the threat of a shortage of food for them than the problem of depopulation of the human race. In any case, if the population of the Earth decreases for some time, it will even benefit her, since overpopulation is a much greater threat to humanity and its survival.
There is a theory that the Earth is a living being, which itself is able to eliminate threats to itself, including regulating the number of people on it, sending all sorts of disasters and cataclysms if the population of people grows too much or people behave predatory on it.

Overpopulation is not the main problem of the world but global warming.Most countries are currently making policies to increase thier population because thier population is decreasing drastically and it is affecting thier economy negatively. China is currently paying it's citizens to increase the number of children they give birth to. Until the industralized nations of the world make a commitment to reduce the rate of harmful gases emitted in our environment, the earth would keep dying gradually.

If Africa would be able to root out corruption, overpopulation wouldn't be our main problem. This is because Africa has enough resources that can take care of it's inhabitants regardless of the size. Africa has massive fertile uncultivated lande that can increase the volume of food production to a larger scale.

Flexystar

full member

Activity: 1092

Merit: 227

Well, most recently we have added AI in the list who are going to take the world down with them and us. Believe me, we are moving towards the worst world one can imagine. It would be domination by violence followed by silence of earth's zero population day.
With increasing white collar jobs, farming is getting least importance around the globe. Only nations which are in the developing and under developed stages are trying to have income from the farming but that will also end soon in the coming decades.

We are already seeing natural calamities which are destroying the farmers which means people will start searching for the regular jobs, move to the cities and over burden them in the process. This will definitely destroy the natural cycle of farming over the time.

Increased fertilizers is already a big issue as evident around the globe.

We are stressing out many supply chains. They are disturbing for sure.

dothebeats

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1352

Cashback 15%

It's quite scary to think that the future of this world relies on the hands of a select few that doesn't directly partake on the conflicts that they create. These so-called policymakers and leaders are the ones deciding whether the future will be brighter for us or not. They are the ones that should really get the gears going and do the checks and balances for civilization to move forward. There isn't any shortage of food, but misallocation of food and other important stuff that affect food supply. Why is there a surplus of food in rich countries whereas in poor nations they don't have none? So this is IMO pure fear-mongering at best.

Climate patterns will become more intense, but human ingenuity and technological innovation will put us at better odds in weathering these things in the future - at least if we based it at the rate in which our technology is advancing right now.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

there is no over population nor food shortages. there is just the society decisions of the elites .. and waste

if people just had a well balanced diet of meat and a variety of veg. in 3 meals. they can sustain themselves

issues are that instead of growing a whole tomato to eat as a tomato, where only a tomato is needed as quarter of a plates content.
we instead use more tomatos wastefully to blend into a liquid with lots of other ingredients. boil out the excess water into a paste add in some other ingredients again.. just to then have ketchup

yea a couple spoons of ketchup are not as nourishing or as filling as just a few slices of tomato
yet a couple spoons of ketchup needed more then a few slices of tomato + other varied ingredients to make

if we picked just 4 types of meat and say 20 main staple vegetables or fruit. there is enough combination to make many many dishes to not feel like boring mundane eating. whilst freeing up alot of land wasted on the stuff we dont usually see

EG almond[insert many forms], palm[insert many forms] avocado[insert many forms] sunseed[insert many forms]
corn[insert many forms]

..
its funny how food charities feed 3rd world countries with just.. rice.. yep rice rice rice rice rice.. one variety day in day out
and if you were to read how many varieties of rice a 1st world country gets to choose from along with the branded stuff thats premixed with seasoning, herbs and flavours. .. then ad in all the sauces it starts to become clear.. its not a food scarcity problem its a food variety problem

while there are corners of the planet cutting away at the rainforests to make avocado spread and trying to tell people to stop buying dairy butter (bait and switch sales pitch) then the whole stop having peanut butter try almond butter gang.. al then using more land to farm almonds

its the over-choice thats the problem

coupable

hero member

Activity: 2338

Merit: 757

Many researches have alerted to this since the beginning of the last century, after noting the insane increase in the Earth's population and the shift of some societies to a consumerist character. What a country like the United States consumes in one month is enough for entire countries for months.
I support the results of those researches, but I do not imagine that all civilization will perish within a few decades, because it is still possible to remedy the matter through rationalization of consumption and control of resources, in addition to searching for additional resources in the nearby planets.

Aanuoluwatofunmi

sr. member

Activity: 672

Merit: 416

stead.builders

Quote from: Hydrogen on January 04, 2023, 06:49:26 PM

There is a question I have about projected future soil infertility. I think everyone knows there could be a deep connection between soil fertility and animal manure. As species across the world decline in population. There is a decreased volume of animal manure reaching soils. Which could cause soil to become infertile.

Decrease in population growth is very common especially to the primitive species than the advanced living organisms and humanbeings to be precise, it's not only the dead and decaying organisms that constitute soil nutrients but we have the combination of the plants and animals forming the soil bacter acting with the nitrifying bacterias to form the required soil balance, but there's what we called the recycling circle which is believed that there's a continuous lifecycle of plants and animals in the ecosystem, soil fertility has to do with the type of minerals content on that particular soil base on location and the soil profiles.

Ozero

full member

Activity: 2142

Merit: 183

In my opinion, the problem on our planet now has more to do with overpopulation of people and the threat of a shortage of food for them than the problem of depopulation of the human race. In any case, if the population of the Earth decreases for some time, it will even benefit her, since overpopulation is a much greater threat to humanity and its survival.
There is a theory that the Earth is a living being, which itself is able to eliminate threats to itself, including regulating the number of people on it, sending all sorts of disasters and cataclysms if the population of people grows too much or people behave predatory on it.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

civilization is about human civility.. EG caveman,, wild west,, to become democratic society of citizens with civility

i think civilisation in america died when everyone went trump in 2016-2020 and then went covid crazy in 2020-21

however population of humans is still on the increase.. and civility will increase when people stop treating CBD vapes as breath mint spray

we breached the 8billion number we didnt sink below the previous 7 billion number
the human numbers are fine, calm down

when it comes to earth population of animals and creatures, yes there are many species and breeds on the extinction list.

but its crazy to think that some christian fundamentalists need to cry and demand that all women stop working and immediately get pregnant due to some statistic they read that there are too many women are working instead of starting families and too many lesbians are not having families.
the truth is the human population is going to be fine

there are more 20year old females in 2022 than there were 20year old females in 2002. meaning more then enough fertile women to keep the population going

in short CHILL OUT!
save a lion not a lady, the ladies can look after themselves they dont need to be caged up and spend their lives breading

when "scientists" scream that women should stop working and start popping out babies because they.. (facepalm) seen it in a fossil.. that is of no bases to say humans are going to go extinct

Hydrogen

legendary

Activity: 2562

Merit: 1441

Quote

On New Year's Day, several Stanford scientists joined CBS' Scott Pelley on the program "60 Minutes" to discuss the global mass extinction crisis. Spoiler: no one had any good news.

Tony Barnosky, a Stanford biologist whose work involves using fossil records to map changes in ecosystems over time, told CBS that his work suggests that extinction rates today are moving at roughly 100 times the rate typically seen in Earth's four-billion-year known history of supporting life.

According to Barnosky, such rapid population loss means that Earth is currently experiencing the worst mass extinction episode since the dinosaurs. And while Earth itself has repeatedly recovered from mass extinction events, the vast majority of the life existing on our planet at the time has not.

Unfortunately, that may well include us humans — or, at least, the trappings of our technological civilization.

"I and the vast majority of my colleagues think we've had it," Barnosky's Stanford colleague Paul Ehrlich, who also appeared on the show, told Pelley, "that the next few decades will be the end of the kind of civilization we're used to."

That grim reality, according to the researchers, means that even if humans manage to survive in some capacity, the wide-reaching impacts of mass extinction — which include habitat destruction, breakdowns in the natural food chain, soil infertility, and more — would cause modern human society to crumble.

"I would say it is too much to say that we're killing the planet, because the planet's gonna be fine," said Barnosky. "What we're doing is we're killing our way of life."

In other words? If humans don't drastically course-correct, the havoc we're wreaking on the planet will very unpleasantly do so for us. It's a grim warning, but one that other experts are echoing.

Ehrlich, it's worth noting, is somewhat of an overpopulation and mass extinction icon. He published "The Population Bomb," one of the first modern books on the dangers of excess human development and population growth, back in 1968, and was considered an alarmist for the controversial predictions he made at the time. Although not all of his contentious forecasts came true, two big ones — that greenhouse gases would melt polar ice, and that humanity would overwhelm the wild — have undoubtedly since materialized. And sadly, his reasoning for their realization feels depressingly familiar.

According to Ehrlich, the problem is "too many people, too much consumption and growth mania" — a reality that few would likely argue is showing any meaningful sign of slowing down.

"Humanity is not sustainable. To maintain our lifestyle (yours and mine, basically) for the entire planet, you'd need five more Earths," Ehrlich told his interviewer. "Not clear where they're gonna come from."

"Resources that would be required, the systems that support our lives, which of course are the biodiversity that we're wiping out," the 90-year-old researcher added. "Humanity is very busily sitting on a limb that we're sawing off."

https://futurism.com/stanford-scientists-civilization-crumble

....

No shortage of doom and gloom here:

Quote

That grim reality, according to the researchers, means that even if humans manage to survive in some capacity, the wide-reaching impacts of mass extinction — which include habitat destruction, breakdowns in the natural food chain, soil infertility, and more — would cause modern human society to crumble.

There is a question I have about projected future soil infertility. I think everyone knows there could be a deep connection between soil fertility and animal manure. As species across the world decline in population. There is a decreased volume of animal manure reaching soils. Which could cause soil to become infertile.

One example of this is the widespread devastation of bison herds in north america. Prior to european settlers decimating their populations, it was said that bison herds in north america flocked together like locusts in their annual migration across the continent. Reduced bison herds lead to reduced bison manure which contributes towards reduced soil fertility.

But even as far back as 100 years ago, it was still very common for many to reside in independent farming communities with many animals to maintain relative fertility of soil. More recently the social exodus from farms to cities and modern living may correlate with lower populations of animals per square acre (hectare). Which could correlate with reduced square footage of arable land across the globe.

But to be honest, I can't say I've looked very far into this topic.

It is known that independent farmers in remote desert locations have succeeded in growing many acres of forestland in areas where it was considered impossible to do so.

Topic: Scientists Warn That Civilization as We Know It Will End in "Next Few Decades" (Read 118 times)