Humanity Has Consumed All Of Earth's Resources In Eight Months

Status
Not open for further replies.
hedron said:
And thinking that there can be resources after the resources have been used up isn't? No, seriously. You are using your PC, or maybe a smartphone, it required resources to power your PC/smartphone. If there are no more resources, how is there power getting to your PC/smartphone? Please explain.
Click to expand...

You go out to a bar with $100 to spend as your budget. You blow through that and start taking money out of your bank account/the ATM to keep the night going. BUT HOW CAN YOU BE SPENDING MORE MONEY IF YOU ALREADY BLEW THROUGH YOUR BUDGET?!?!?!?!?!

That is literally what you're asking. It's the allotted resources we had to use they are talking about that we used up.
 
Sustained destruction of one's habitat is a sign of overpopulation. We've likely greatly exceeded it for over a hundred years. Not to worry, the planet will fix the problem soon enough.
 
FM 3370 said:
Hmmm....maybe the Global Footprint Network (GFN) sustainability think-tank people should all kill themselves in the name of "saving the planet."

George Carlin - Saving the Planet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
Click to expand...

Did you even watch the video you linked? "The planet is fine; the people are fucked."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&feature=youtu.be&t=147

That's what this is all about. We are creating a planet that will be inhospitable to most, if not all, current life existing on it; including people. It's not about saving the Earth as just a planetary body. It's about saving the Earth in it's current hospitable condition in order to save our own asses. Or do you think we should just go quietly into that good night? Although, TBH, I believe it's already too late and humanity is just doomed. Now, it's just about how long do we want to prolong our inevitable death.
 
Frankie said:
Might want to read beyond the title before you start tell everyone what the article means.
Click to expand...

"Humanity has already used up 100 per cent of the resources produced by the Earth this year,"

See, once 100% of resources are gone, there are no more resources.

"meaning that any consumption from now on represents an unsustainable burden on the planet."

No, it means there are no more resources left to consume.

"It means humanity is on course to consume the equivalent of 1.6 Earths this year and, if the current course is maintained, we will be using the resources of two Earths per year by 2030."

This assertion is just physically impossible. If I have a hamburger and I consume 100% of it, there is no more hamburger to consume.

You go out to a bar with $100 to spend as your budget. You blow through that and start taking money out of your bank account/the ATM to keep the night going. BUT HOW CAN YOU BE SPENDING MORE MONEY IF YOU ALREADY BLEW THROUGH YOUR BUDGET?!?!?!?!?!

That is literally what you're asking. It's the allotted resources we had to use they are talking about that we used up.
Click to expand...
Well, considering that the Fed literally creates money out of thin air, that's not a very good analogy.

But, to answer your question and assuming there is no credit, I could not possibly spend more than my budget because the bartender doesn't give drinks away for free. So, once I have no more money, no more drinks for me.
 
So I take it you don't understand the concept that trees regrow, sea water evaporates and rains down as fresh water, or snow melts and replenishes stocks. They just aren't doing it at a 1:1 rate at which we are consuming these things.

You're the one not using apt analogies.
 
staknhalo said:
You mean like the ocean acidification currently taking place due to excess greenhouse gases?
Click to expand...

More total BS....absolute nonsense...an outright lie...but you go ahead and believe that if it makes you fell better I guess. Just don't start telling me what I can and can't do because of some tripe put out by your fantasy publications that only support your beliefs. Please go away and quit trying to spend my money on shite science.
 
phawkins633 said:
More total BS....absolute nonsense...an outright lie...but you go ahead and believe that if it makes you fell better I guess. Just don't start telling me what I can and can't do because of some tripe put out by your fantasy publications that only support your beliefs. Please go away and quit trying to spend my money on shite science.
Click to expand...

The amazing thing about science is it's true whether you believe it or not :)
 
We could really do without Asia, Africa and Middle East. The world would be a better price.
 
Taldren said:
Whoa, that is right out of Himmler. You a fan?
Click to expand...

The Earth can only sustain so many people given a certain level of technology. As our technology increases, we will be able to support more people. If population growth exceeds the technological capability of supporting that population, steps need to be taken to limit population growth if technological breakthroughs are not found to offset.

I'm in the oil business, but extremely cheap and renewable energy is the key to human advancement.
 
SilverSliver said:
but extremely cheap and renewable energy is the key to human advancement.
Click to expand...

It's already far, far too late for that. We're literally at the point that if we went 100% renewable by tomorrow; humanity would still die out due to climate change. All it will accomplish is it will buy us a metaphorical day or two more.
 
hedron said:
"Humanity has already used up 100 per cent of the resources produced by the Earth this year,"

See, once 100% of resources are gone, there are no more resources.

"meaning that any consumption from now on represents an unsustainable burden on the planet."
Click to expand...

If you want to be pedantic, you need to have the reading comprehension to back it up. The key point in that sentence is, "[...]produced by the Earth this year."

Just like the drought in California; we're using more water than it has rained this year because we're draining underground aquifers that have stored water in surplus years for years and years.
 
staknhalo said:
It's already far, far too late for that. We're literally at the point that if we went 100% renewable by tomorrow; humanity would still die out due to climate change. All it will accomplish is it will buy us a metaphorical day or two more.
Click to expand...

lol


Ok now i get why such tripes as 2012 the movie and all that crap appeared in theaters.


Have fun everyone bwuahahaha
 
hedron said:
"Humanity has already used up 100 per cent of the resources produced by the Earth this year,"

See, once 100% of resources are gone, there are no more resources.

"meaning that any consumption from now on represents an unsustainable burden on the planet."

No, it means there are no more resources left to consume.

"It means humanity is on course to consume the equivalent of 1.6 Earths this year and, if the current course is maintained, we will be using the resources of two Earths per year by 2030."

This assertion is just physically impossible. If I have a hamburger and I consume 100% of it, there is no more hamburger to consume.


Well, considering that the Fed literally creates money out of thin air, that's not a very good analogy.

But, to answer your question and assuming there is no credit, I could not possibly spend more than my budget because the bartender doesn't give drinks away for free. So, once I have no more money, no more drinks for me.
Click to expand...
I think they're talking about the resources PRODUCED this year. So say on a piece of property 50 young trees matured this year suitable for lumber. I chop down those 50, and then I chop down 15 more that have been here for hundreds of years. Not only did I use 100% of the newly produced resources, but I made the remaining resources a little smaller too. Get it?
 
staknhalo said:
It's already far, far too late for that. We're literally at the point that if we went 100% renewable by tomorrow; humanity would still die out due to climate change. All it will accomplish is it will buy us a metaphorical day or two more.
Click to expand...

Not true for a few reasons. One, the climate was going to change with or without our help. If we had unlimited* amounts of cheap energy, carbon sequestration becomes fairly trivial. Sea levels are rising, but if you look back 2000 years there are plenty of ancient coastal cities completely submerged. With cheap energy, crops can be grown where crops typically cannot be cultivated and potable water can be readily created from the ocean and deep, non-potable reservoirs.

Cheap, unlimited energy facilitates adaptation as a species.
 
Stiler said:
Stop polluting the earth, cutting down rainforests and destroying the world would be one main thing we could do.....
Click to expand...

What? And miss the appocolypse?

Don't worry about it. If it takes famine and war and alot of death to work things out don't worry about it. It'll be fine. urst me, we won't die, not all of us. The human race will survive and maybe it's even become a little more human as a result.
 
lcpiper said:
What? And miss the appocolypse?

Don't worry about it. If it takes famine and war and alot of death to work things out don't worry about it. It'll be fine. urst me, we won't die, not all of us. The human race will survive and maybe it's even become a little more human as a result.
Click to expand...

That's a little unrealistic. It's human nature to consume at the expense of others. That's going to be unavoidable until we can consume without the expense of others. Short of interstellar travel or a massive world wide eugenics program, unlimited cheap energy is the only thing we can move towards to sustain us.
 
SilverSliver said:
That's a little unrealistic. It's human nature to consume at the expense of others. That's going to be unavoidable until we can consume without the expense of others. Short of interstellar travel or a massive world wide eugenics program, unlimited cheap energy is the only thing we can move towards to sustain us.
Click to expand...

Same thing happens in other species. Deer will literally infest areas of the US where predators and hunting have failed to control their populations. You know what happens to those deer? They eat themselves out of food and die of starvation. Ask others here if I am correct. Humans are not unique in this trait even if the Matrix convinced you otherwise.

The supply regulates the population.

Homo Sapiens, always thinking the rules don't apply to themselves. Even when we think we are so smart and try tinkering with the natural order of things, sometimes our efforts cause unexpected results.
 
lcpiper said:
Same thing happens in other species. Deer will literally infest areas of the US where predators and hunting have failed to control their populations. You know what happens to those deer? They eat themselves out of food and die of starvation. Ask others here if I am correct. Humans are not unique in this trait even if the Matrix convinced you otherwise.
Click to expand...

What actually causes this natural imbalance was the removal of natural predators like wolves, bear, mountain lions. Leaving man alone to cull the herd and restore normal levels for the deer population. But leave nature alone, and there will be no deer starving to death. Guaranteed.
 
I love nature, and believe in global warming, but nature isn't that perfect that no animal, ever, starved to death.

What you likely won't see is mass die-offs, outside of extreme multi-year cycles, like you would where man removes all of the predator population and the deer population explodes.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
"I don't understand this so it doesn't exist!"
Click to expand...

sorry sonny boy...you will to age a little more to keep up with me...just sayin"...hahaha

hell I bet you didn't even know that one of Greenpeace's founders doesn't believe in "man made global warming"...your young so it is to be expected , but that is just an excuse
 
I agree, we really need to find a way to reduce the population before mother nature forces us to. A few thoughts.

1) 1st world countries are inflating the population of 3rd world countries by providing humanitarian support. Shipping food to poor nations isn't fixing the hunger problem, it's allowing more hungry people to survive.

Say 3 people survive on 3kg of food a day. give them 3 more kg of food and they will be full until they have 3 more kids who would have otherwise starved. Now you have 6 hungry people, 3 of which can't survive without outside aid.

2)The US and other major agricultural areas are farming at an unsustainable rate. Most midwest crops are grown using unrenewable well water that is quickly drying up. when will the water be gone? nobody is sure, but when it is, it's going to be a lot harder to prop up the starving people of the world.

3) Why are we still giving tax breaks for people having children? Could we reverse this and give out a tax break to people who voluntarily get sterilized?

4) the planet as we know it is most likely already screwed and were gonna have to try and ride it out and hope for the best.
 
guess you folks with all the answers had better look at some stats and direct your solutions to whom they belong...we have allowed way more immigration , both legal and illegal , than our system can manage...sorry "your a racist criers" ...it is a stone fact

2012 census:

White: 12,419 more deaths than births

Hispanic: 872,840 more births than deaths

Black: 312,926 more births than deaths

Asian: 131,953 more births than deaths

"More white people died in the U.S. last year than were born, a surprising slump coming more than a decade before the census predicts that the ranks of white Americans will drop with every passing year."

"The decrease was offset by 188,000 white immigrants, primarily from Canada and Germany, but also from Russia and Saudi Arabia. And non-Hispanic whites remain the single largest group, making up 63 percent of the country.

But demographers were surprised by the outsized drop in births compared to deaths, which the Census Bureau projects will begin happening with regularity by 2025."
 
"Than our system can manage"

So you're saying non-whites are something that need to be managed by "the system", otherwise, something something something, death of America, since there is a differential of 1.3M more non-white children born every year?

I'm interested in what your final solution to all this is!
 
Lol, immigrants are causing global warming :rolleyes:

This guy is either trolling, or was the literal mold for the stereotype.
 
TwistedAegis said:
"Than our system can manage"

So you're saying non-whites are something that need to be managed by "the system", otherwise, something something something, death of America, since there is a differential of 1.3M more non-white children born every year?

I'm interested in what your final solution to all this is!
Click to expand...

it's simple you knuckleheads are crying about "we gotta stop people from having kids"...well who is having them...and you should have read the original post...it isn't about "global warming" , it is about using up resources

please try to keep
 
Killahurtz said:
it's simple you knuckleheads are crying about "we gotta stop people from having kids"...well who is having them...and you should have read the original post...it isn't about "global warming" , it is about using up resources

please try to keep
Click to expand...

lol, pot kettle.
If you cant see the link, you are in the wrong thread.
 
aShrubbery! said:
What actually causes this natural imbalance was the removal of natural predators like wolves, bear, mountain lions. Leaving man alone to cull the herd and restore normal levels for the deer population. But leave nature alone, and there will be no deer starving to death. Guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Wrong on so many levels. There are numerous instances where predators or disease have consumed so much that it leaves huge imbalances in animal populations.

Responsible hunters understand the balance and abide by the hunting licenses given out by states and the wildlife department. This isn't the old school buffalo hunt days where hunters literally pissed on their barrels to cool them down because they were shooting their rifles so much.

Mankind isn't the boogeyman many would make us out to be. Yes we need to continue working on a balance between progress and nature but we're not a "virus" as Agent Smith would have you believe.
 
staknhalo said:
Lol, immigrants are causing global warming :rolleyes:

This guy is either trolling, or was the literal mold for the stereotype.
Click to expand...

More like the mold growing ON the stereotype.



Immigrants, taxes, gubment, guns, gay marriage - because the Old White Man (who's son is coincidentally Middle Eastern) up in the sky will punish us all. 'Murica!
 
Climber said:
Mankind isn't the boogeyman many would make us out to be. Yes we need to continue working on a balance between progress and nature but we're not a "virus" as Agent Smith would have you believe.
Click to expand...

No, we're just a kid left alone in the house, decided to pig out on all the food that first night (because fuck it, why not?), not realizing that food had to last us forever and we will now starve to death. You can't really blame us though at the same time, cause we never had any parents or anyone else to teach us and tell us any better. All metaphorically speaking of course :D
 
Its worse than that.
Its multiple kids left alone in the house fighting for who gets to party the most without realising when the food and balloons will run out.
 
Nenu said:
Its worse than that.
Its multiple kids left alone in the house fighting for who gets to party the most without realising when the food and balloons will run out.
Click to expand...

Well, no the kid is humanity as a whole in my metaphor - not just one person or one group of people as in yours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top