Earth will expire by 2050

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 07-07-2002 10:11 AM

Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be colonised

Mark Townsend and Jason Burke
Sunday July 7, 2002
The Observer

Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.
A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.

Using the image of the need for mankind to colonise space as a stark illustration of the problems facing Earth, the report warns that either consumption rates are dramatically and rapidly lowered or the planet will no longer be able to sustain its growing population.

read more...

Post by **Linnea** » 07-07-2002 12:47 PM

Asho - We know this is happening. Now we'll see what world leaders - and ourselves - one by one, intend to do about it. Excellent article to post here. This is one of the reasons we are here, on this forum, in our mutual cyberworld.

I hope we get a lot of genuine discussion of this issue - without blame - to discover solutions.

dansgold · Post by **dansgold** » 07-07-2002 01:36 PM

I'm still recovering form the last disaster. Doesn't anyone remember that 20 years ago the same people were predicting that "we only have 10 - 15 years left!"

Somebody wake me when tehy get one right. There's something going on with the weather to be sure, but these kind of scare tactics, which at their root seem to be nothing more than political ploys for more money, do little to inform the debate.

------------------
-- dansgold
The avalanche has started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.

Black Tassel · Post by **Black Tassel** » 07-07-2002 02:44 PM

Believe it or not, ASHO, that story had top billing on our foremost local talk station (CKNW) this morning -- Vancouver's #1 . Peter Warren hosting ..... had guests from the David Suzuki Foundation.

------------------

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 07-07-2002 03:29 PM

So we have less than 50 years to change our ways or completly consume the earth and die off while taking most forms of life with us.

There are many nations and peoples who want the american way of life and are beginning to atain it, which is only going to put more pressure on the bioshpere.

To me this is no longer a matter of changing technologies.
It's really about population control.
I think it was Lutfisk who commented about this topic in the brig about us playing god.
That is what I think is about to happen and there are a lot of people who want it to happen as well.
Here are a few links I found today,
Can't say I agree with every thing on the linked pages but there is some good info.

http://www.radioliberty.com/pca.htm
http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm
click here

http://www.lucistrust.org/
http://educate-yourself.org/nwopopcontrol.html

Mercury · Post by **Mercury** » 07-07-2002 03:39 PM

So? I (and most of you) will also EXPIRE before 2050.

eliza_nightvoice · Post by **eliza_nightvoice** » 07-07-2002 08:23 PM

Not to say that we are indeed the world's over consumers, but . . .

For the last 30 years we've only had another 10-20 years of oil reserves left. Why haven't we run out of oil? The estimates are only made for a 20-year timeframe.

Hybrid cars are going to start coming onto the market shortly. I think Toyota has one out now. It is a combination engine and electrical generator that charges the car's set of batteries and makes use of wasted mechanical energy by converting it also into electricity for the batteries. Frankly, I would much rather take a train than a car, but with the distance I would have to drive to get to rail transportation, I might as well drive the few more miles to my destination. At the turn of the century, my little town had 3 trolly lines passing through which could take you to a major city with one transfer, a distance of over 100 miles. We don't even have a bus stop since a few years ago.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » 07-08-2002 12:12 AM

(Sigh) Nothing personal, but I'm getting tired of hearing the things that come out of the mouths of all the "Sooth Sayers" these days. To wit: Planet X, the Sun, The War, Depletion of Natural Resources, etc.
By the year 2050, none of us are going to be around to care. I know I won't and I know that once I leave this plain of existance, I'm not going to worry about it. Neither should you.

IMHO, we should concentrate on the here and now in order to insure a better future for our children (if any) and our Children's children.

Peace and Love from A Tree Hugger

,

Captain Kundalini

PS: I hate Granola and the only Bunnies I've ever kisssed were a couple who were in Playboy Magazine.

PPS: I've always been a supporter of clearing out Dead trees and brush.

[This message has been edited by Captain Kundalini (edited 07 July 2002).]

Sandreckoner · Post by **Sandreckoner** » 07-08-2002 02:00 AM

Uh, have you actually worn those garbs? They may help keep you from overheating, but they they smell terrible - and _you_ smell terrible wearing them, and both of you get that way pretty rapidly.

As for the report itself, it's just more of the same. It'll bash the snot out of the United States for its 'consumption' without actually paying a lot of attention to things that actually inflict severe harm to things that are undeniably decimating portions of the ecosystem. After all, to get any attention and money you've gotta bash the U.S. (getting money _from_ the U.S.). There probably will be only passing mention of _actual_ pollution, toxins, etc. dumped into environments such as is being done wholesale in China. Instead they'll concentrate on 'consumption' (yeah, we use more land per person - we've got to TRAVEL and TRANSPORT everything further, plus we've got more land to use, unlike in Europe where they may have 1 or 2 acres per person average vs about 8 in the U.S.) and 'carbon dioxide emissions'.

This stuff is really disgusting. I'm sad I ever contributed to the WWF in the past.

Cherry Kelly · Post by **Cherry Kelly** » 07-08-2002 10:39 AM

It appears that scientists will find anything they are provided grant monies to find. (HMM where have we heard this one before.)

We have what used up? Let get down to the nitty gritty here - and get the facts out that they are pushing around. WHAT renewable resources have been so used up? (In notation if its renewable it means what?)

sandy interrante · Post by **sandy interrante** » 07-08-2002 09:26 PM

I just get really tired of hearing about all the resources we are destroying. We took a ride from Chicago to southwestern Wisconsin yesterday along remote highways. After, say 60 miles out of Chicago, there was nothing but farms with acres of corn, clear blue skies, heavily forested areas, hardly a scenario that speaks of destruction of our resources. For some reason, Americans always feel guilty for using our natural resources. Yes, waste is a problem, a huge problem in what we throw away. Yet, look at the horrid conditions in other countries that don't have safe water, sanitation, electricity, or fields of crops, and I wonder who would want to in these countries. It's silly to think that we'll have to colonize other planets just to survive in a few decades. Back in the 60's, we heard this nonsense that, by 2000, we'll all be living like something from the film "Soylent Green." Yes, work must be done to control some of our wild consumptions, but keeping warm or cool, being able to travel to our jobs in cars are hardly considered as luxuries.

Ninerism · Post by **Ninerism** » 07-09-2002 02:43 PM

Maryals, you brought-up a very important issue that most simply want to dismiss as 'fashion', when we know that less-restricting forms of clothing, eg. robes and loose-fitting dress-wear, are truly supporting a more natural comfortable style.

Some time ago some exec's and others began wearing dress-casual to work, rather than tight suits and ties, and it began with just a small thing, by wearing up-scale tennies and "loafers" rather than hard-soled shoes, and that began a mini-revolution in itself.

If we are wearing suits in very hot environments, it is plain stupid, and we are not better for it, productivity declines and people get 'hot under the collar' just by going out-doors.

Saner dress-policies must prevail, as part of a larger picture as to how we actually see and understand our local prevailing climates and seek to dress accordingly, rather than a very tired work-ethic garb that looks we are ready for a funeral or a hanging. Why are suits being worn in the summer in very hot climates of Dallas/Texas, LA/southern California, New Mexico, Nevada, etc etc.? Those out-moded rituals must go.

Ninerism

Ninerism · Post by **Ninerism** » 07-09-2002 03:14 PM

Readers, Seems to me as we read the various pros and cons of environmental concerns here, we may think that the United States, alone, has the best concerns for the environment, though we do understand that we consume a major portion of all Earth's resources unlike other nations.

I think that in this discussion, we also need to be mindful that so-called 'laissez faire capitalism' requires a bit of the conguering mode to sustain our rapacious life-styles (rapacious in the sense of consumer satiations compared with many other nations and Third World countries).

We probably could not sustain the "good life" unless we did perform some well-executed economic hegemonies against other nations, until they become relatively literate and cognizant of their own "exploitations" (dare we say "developments" with a questioning mind?).

One book, 'CRY OF THE PEOPLE' elucidates the point I am attempting to make, and more recently, Bill Moyer's hosted a guest-author who had far more troubling things to state about our direction with her troubling book, 'THE SILENT TAKEOVER'.

The DISTRIBUTIONS of the wonders of developments from our natural resources is a key issue -- as we see that many millions if not billions on our planet hardly eke out an existence, let alone know the creature comforts of 24/7 electrictiy and running water in their shanty make-shift homes. They barely have sufficient FOOD to eat EACH DAY.

I would say that we need to continue understanding how we must respect Mother Earth, develop resources, and also RE-CYCLE, and place more emphasis on developments of NATURAL RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, so that we donot endlessly create our needs and desires for oil-wars and such.... and with such ready-energy, can provide schooling to those nations desiring to make their place in the sun, too.

If we can spend $BILLIONS to go to war to place pipelines, surely we have the ability to redirect some focus, place the money required for R&D, and go ahead and truly develop zero-point energy, solar energy systems, natural-steam systems, ocean-movement systems, and the like, so that we donot need to go to war all the time, and donot need to create our mis-thinking about what constitutes terrorism/terrorists.

There are real Malthusian plots afoot via SECRET SOCIETIES, and we need to constantly understand that component within the equation as to whether or not earthlings by nature of births un-stoppable, are simply over-powering recoverable and sustainable natural resources due to sheer numbers of people. Population controls are probably required right now.

Moreover, Malthusianism is not some pie-in-the-sky airy-fairy attitude conducted by elitists upon the masses -- as it is quite a deliberate and very real attempt to keep millions in shackles, or keep them "employed" in the arts of war-making, all as direct hoped-for consequences of Malthusianists to rid the planet of "useless eaters".

Now that 'A HIGHER FORM OF KILLING' is known beyond conventional warfare, with biologicals designed, produced and un-leashed, we have all sorts of increasing "AIDS FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER" as vast populations reductions are now occurring in many African nations. These are direct results to reduce human populations on planet Earth, there is no doubt.

We really donot have to question whether or not population controls exist with or without birth controls. Malthusianism is supported by the World's oligarchies -- and they consider war to be a "natural" method by which to cull the masses. Now with developments of biologicals as silent and stealthy weapons unleashed, 'a higher form of killing' is no longer mere wishful thinking.

Since the Earth will expire by 2050, let us immerse ourselves in that idea, and thus nothing really matters a'tall.

Ninerism

Poptart8 · Post by **Poptart8** » 07-10-2002 12:23 AM

Ninerism with that type of attitude none of our grandchild will see the forest for the trees.

We are all responsible care takers of this planet, so we need to accept that change is an evolutionary by product of our current westernization.

Cherry Kelly · Post by **Cherry Kelly** » 07-10-2002 09:37 AM

There is nothing wrong with recycling - IF you can find recyclers. We take aluminum cans to a local recycle place, but of course you have to have a whole lot of them. Paper - where and paper recycling has become extremely picky - no colored sheets - fine - half the paper is colored sheets or contains colored pictures. Then again - find one or find companies that will pick up paper bundles or even a place you can take them to - glasswear - same thing - plastic - same thing. Unless you are in a major city - where you gonna take things for recycling? More and more of these "dump off places" are disappearing.

Wanna use recycled paper -- it costs more than regular paper. So I'll just rollpaper logs for the wood stove.. works fine.

- - -
As for biologicals - in reality the attempt to create better seeds that can produce high yields in less space under adverse growing conditions. With the ever decreasing farm lands - more production from existing fields becomes necessary. Yet the fields cannot be used year after year after year without depletion of natural ingredients IN the soil - so they (bio guys) have to produce additives to replace depletions. People want to eat - so feed lots are created so allow feeding more animals in less space - which in turn creates a different problem. Its a never ending cycle. How to obtain more from less and less open land...