There Is No Overpopulation

[yerrag]

Our perception defines what constitutes overpopulation. Me, I like that the rhino's and lions and tigers and wolves can roam freely without human settlements and cities encroaching on their turf. Not only that, that the demand for rhino horns or elephants tusks are so miniscule that there won't be so many poachers making rhinos extinct and needing protection.

Why is poaching even a livelihood? Probably because the poacher has to feed his family, and between saving his family and making rhinos extinct, he chooses the former. If he has another livelihood, he may not be a poacher. In an overpopulated world, having a good livelihood gets scarce.

Seems like humans can't stop themselves from polluting. More humans, more harm to the environment. It's never going to change. Is there any question that the more populated earth is with humans, the more unliveable it gets for all God's creatures?

Look at all the seashore beside major cities. Try swimming in the Baltic, for example. Go to major rivers where civilization flourishes. How fares the water quality. The more sparse the population, the cleaner water gets. You can enjoy paddling down a river or stream and see the flora and fauna it supports.

Why are we even living in pigeon-holes called condos? Why aren't people waking up to birds chirping or cicadas humming?

Why do people make life on earth so devoid of bliss that they long for an eternal life in paradise? Why can't earth be paradise? Isn't it time reconsider the exhortation of Jesus to go forth and multiply? I mean, you don't have to multiply like rabbits anymore. Perhaps when we go back to an agrarian age, we could.

I admit I hate seeing my city go from my childhood to a traffic-congested sprawling metro where the commute robs people of the full expression of community. This is where you have more time to be with family and friends, and still have time left over for yourself - to read, to tinker, to explore, to learn, to meditate. Without quality time, we easily become creatures of programming - from mass media.

We as humans think too highly of ourselves. Many would use the Bible to interpret humans as having dominion over other creatures as a license to crowd them out instead of acting as stewards to protect them. Overpopulation forces us to choose between helping humans on the brink of starvation over other creatures as we encroach on their natural habitat.

While we argue over what's right and what's wrong, we keep growing--out of bounds. But the earth has its own ways to re-establish balance. Or we can simply push ourselves to mutual attrition, as our collective mood will bring about the equivalent of species apoptosis.

 

[Kunstruct]

Why aren't people waking up to birds chirping or cicadas humming?

Are you doing that?

 

[LeeLemonoil]

@Ivysaur

To blame most of the structural problems of some African and Asian regions to European colonialism since the 16th century is completely unsubstantiated. It’s racisms too, plain and simple. Especially in Africa the colonization in the 19th/20th Century brought many benefits too, and these countries have been released into independence for at least 60 years now, with billions of dollars in development long since have overcompensated the damage.
The states and nations in Africa are responsibly for their own problems, to say they’re are poor victims of history is to infantilize and take away their souvereignity once again. That’s freakin racism.

 

[yerrag]

Are you doing that?

Yes, more birds now that I planted more trees and have a fishpond in my backyard. When it's rainy season, frogs croak when it rains-mostly bullfrogs but also tree frogs. I'd leave a basin of water and there would be tadpoles growing into frogs. Ants grow large and they protect the home from termites. They don't bite me at all--even the red ants. There are also some harmless snakes, including pythons, as well as skinks. Fruit bats at night from the nearby mountains. Also dragonflies, crickets and beetles that I used to buy as a child. I get migratory birds as well. Even herons, once in a while. And to think I live in a suburban part of a city where car traffic is a problem and tall condominiums are rapidly dotting the landscape.

 

[Kunstruct]

That's great. I picked up 200 acorns from an oak tree checked to for no weevil larva inside in an attempt to raise some oaks in spring. I've grown some sycamore trees in pots thinking that some might want to plant them, yet nobody wants them.
Most people want and live in apartment buildings, in reality most people do not even want to be troubled with having a garden, s small wooded area or anything like that.

 

[yerrag]

Also in your neck of the woods? I thought it was mostly the people in crowded cities, especially in Asia. My neighbors prefer minimal greenery as they don't value trees and greens well enough to be bothered to care for them. Those that do hire gardeners, and all the landscape looks the same - modern and designed by Edward Scissorhands.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Those people don’t know what they’re missing. There is not much more pleasing in the world than than your own garden, piece of land or forest.
Curiously, these Appartement-dwellers or suburban sterile-garden owners are very concerned about climate-change and the environment. It’s a lifestyle.

 

[soul_rebel]

Hmmm, I do think the earth has the space and humans can CREATE the resources to accommodate many people. Looking at historical records and estimates India and China have always been large population centers. Europe and the West relative to its landmass has always had high density.

I think this density in Europe is big reason for the colonization of the Americas and Africa. Those places pre-industrial did have fairly sparse populations. Based on historical estimates Western Europe had more population than the Americas and Africa combined (estimates obviously accuracy is the issue).

BUT for human population to have a relative steady growth for millennia and then have the rate of growth post industrial does cause some concern. Africa went from a continent with not many people relative to other places in the world to exploding in population.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

Population of Syria:

1950 - 3.4 Million

1975 - 7.5

2010 - 20.7

2012 - Civil war.

Similar figures apply to virtually all areas of the world where civil war, political upheaval or emigration occurred in the last few years.
Too many people.

People kill elephants in Africa because people now live across traditional tracks and pathes of Elephants, hundreds of years old tracks. Now people kill them because they intrude their (the humans) areas? With what legitimation? Why do mothers in some African states give birth to 5-7 children when they can’t provide for them without supply from outside and without them having much of a future perspective? I can’t see any argument in favor of that apart from a fanatic humanocentrism.

 

[postman]

Population of Syria:

1950 - 3.4 Million

1975 - 7.5

2010 - 20.7

2012 - Civil war.

Similar figures apply to virtually all areas of the world where civil war, political upheaval or emigration occurred in the last few years.
Too many people.

People kill elephants in Africa because people now live across traditional tracks and pathes of Elephants, hundreds of years old tracks. Now people kill them because they intrude their (the humans) areas? With what legitimation? Why do mothers in some African states give birth to 5-7 children when they can’t provide for them without supply from outside and without them having much of a future perspective? I can’t see any argument in favor of that apart from a fanatic humanocentrism.

Civil war in Syria only happened because USA, Israel, and Saudi Arabia wanted it to happen, they funded and gave weapons to salafist terrorists.

 

[sunraiser]

Our perception defines what constitutes overpopulation. Me, I like that the rhino's and lions and tigers and wolves can roam freely without human settlements and cities encroaching on their turf. Not only that, that the demand for rhino horns or elephants tusks are so miniscule that there won't be so many poachers making rhinos extinct and needing protection.

Why is poaching even a livelihood? Probably because the poacher has to feed his family, and between saving his family and making rhinos extinct, he chooses the former. If he has another livelihood, he may not be a poacher. In an overpopulated world, having a good livelihood gets scarce.

Seems like humans can't stop themselves from polluting. More humans, more harm to the environment. It's never going to change. Is there any question that the more populated earth is with humans, the more unliveable it gets for all God's creatures?

Look at all the seashore beside major cities. Try swimming in the Baltic, for example. Go to major rivers where civilization flourishes. How fares the water quality. The more sparse the population, the cleaner water gets. You can enjoy paddling down a river or stream and see the flora and fauna it supports.

Why are we even living in pigeon-holes called condos? Why aren't people waking up to birds chirping or cicadas humming?

Why do people make life on earth so devoid of bliss that they long for an eternal life in paradise? Why can't earth be paradise? Isn't it time reconsider the exhortation of Jesus to go forth and multiply? I mean, you don't have to multiply like rabbits anymore. Perhaps when we go back to an agrarian age, we could.

I admit I hate seeing my city go from my childhood to a traffic-congested sprawling metro where the commute robs people of the full expression of community. This is where you have more time to be with family and friends, and still have time left over for yourself - to read, to tinker, to explore, to learn, to meditate. Without quality time, we easily become creatures of programming - from mass media.

We as humans think too highly of ourselves. Many would use the Bible to interpret humans as having dominion over other creatures as a license to crowd them out instead of acting as stewards to protect them. Overpopulation forces us to choose between helping humans on the brink of starvation over other creatures as we encroach on their natural habitat.

While we argue over what's right and what's wrong, we keep growing--out of bounds. But the earth has its own ways to re-establish balance. Or we can simply push ourselves to mutual attrition, as our collective mood will bring about the equivalent of species apoptosis.

I like reading your long and thoughtful posts sometimes yerrag - this one was really beautifully put.

I read a passage in a book once that effectively said "when it comes to science and human progress, often our minds race ahead while our hearts lag behind."

I hate the way everything becomes a commodity in modern discourse - you cannot put a productivity value on a beautiful area of trees and green space because it's an abstract notion. These things are too easily disregarded but in reality they're priceless.

 

[milkboi]

I like reading your long and thoughtful posts sometimes yerrag - this one was really beautifully put.

I read a passage in a book once that effectively said "when it comes to science and human progress, often our minds race ahead while our hearts lag behind."

I hate the way everything becomes a commodity in modern discourse - you cannot put a productivity value on a beautiful area of trees and green space because it's an abstract notion. These things are too easily disregarded but in reality they're priceless.

True. But you can still buy your own piece of green space (if you are productive enough).

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

I think overcrowding is the real concern that people generally conflate with overpopulation. Life would be better if there were more space between "home spaces", major transportation corridors, and businesses. I don't want to be breathing tire and exhaust particulates from the 40mph road 30ft from my house. I don't want to be subject to my neighbor's use of fertilizers, pesticides, air fresheners, detergents, etc. I don't want to be across from a hotel that has their fluorescent lighting on 24/7 for the benefit of their tenants.

There is way more than enough space on earth for these to not be problems. Infrastructure and maybe social stubbornness are the limiting factors I think.

I agree with those points. I see this a lot when I go downtown. The offices are just a few meters from the streets, and there is so much exhaust in the air. The use of substances on one's fields may be the reason why even organic foods can be contaminated with glyphosate. If the wind blows, it may send those toxins to other people's fields. Wires also come to mind. Some houses are build very close to lamp posts that are surrounded by wires. Those EMFs can't be good.

I think you are somewhat right. In 1994 UN release a report claiming that only 5% of the Earth surface was seen by the naked eye of man.

I believe we are close to 7-8 billion people but we are most all together in the same places and there is more than enough for everyone. Resources are poorly distributed.

The scale is heavily tipped to greedy bellys. Some new ideias introduced in the latest years are very good like drones, automation and AI, this alone could sustain probably the triple of humanity. But monetary resources good only to wars. How come there are super sonic rockets that blow peoples houses but there are none super sonic rockets to deliver food or medications? how come there is not a supersonic rocket to save someone from drowning at sea?

Lets execute ideas that improve the Earth for mankind.

Start with genetic socio/psicopathy tests for high ranking positions in government, military and large companies.

I'm not closed to the idea that there are indeed 8 billion people now in the planet, I just doubt it, so I think it's possible that it may just be bad use of resources.

I think that the fact that all these technologies haven't really been used for the good of mankind means that those who control it don't care about people, sadly.

I disagree with the genetic testing, due to information that haidut and others have posted, but I do agree that some test as well as lots of observations need to be done to tell if somebody in power is mentally sick. Perhaps watching them without them knowing that they are being watched( not very ethical though). Sick people with power is a terrible combination.

At the end of the day wouldn’t it all boil down to resource availability and space? There’s plenty of space, are there plenty of resources?

I think it does boil down to those things. I don't know if there if there are enough resources. Perhaps an easier question would be "why wouldn't we have plenty of resources?". Regarding food, animal agriculture done right is probably the best way to get nutrients and calories, with the least environmental impact.

Even Overcrowding is a bit of a myth. My science teacher in middle school did an experiment where we marked out an acre, and put 30 of us on that acre. It was quite a bit of space. We then were asked where we could fit the world's pop (which I think was estimated to be 4-5 Billion at that time) into a space. We all guess things like several continents or something the size of the pacific ocean, but she revealed that the state of Texas would house everyone at that rate, along with thousands of acres to spare. Even if the pop is triple from that time, we should still all fit in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. 12-20 people per acre is pretty easy, as a family home on 1/4 of an acre that houses 4-6 people can be quite nice with lots of space. Thinking about skyscrappers in places like NY, you might be able to house 1000s of people per acre.

Wow. That's very interesting!

Sometimes I am under the impression many people on this forum do not listen to people in real life, probably many just preach to those around them and do not have the time to listen to them.

People deliberately chose not to have children, use birth control, use condoms, do abortions and I know this not because of statistics, because I know people who simply say they do this.

Since the proliferation of smartphone, rise of the internet and video pornography, non-vaginal ejaculation is the norm with casual sex or the use of a condom.
Sexual interaction with multiple partners is also not going to bring on children.
Today you do not have to leave a woman pregnant to be with you. I know at least two women who keep asking their partners for a child and they refuse, yet that did not made them to leave them. Now this would have been a major issue 50 years ago, hardly any today.
Unless you are living under a rock you would know this. Not sure exactly why people are so fascinated by the lack of fertility when this is how people interact sexually today.

Deliberately? So you think there is no brainwashing going around for people to "deliberately" choose that? There is obviously a push for people to have less children.

Lol dude, I obviously know that's how things work. But just because reality is like that, does it mean it's good? Certainly not! Saying "this is how things go" and thinking that's ok is just going with the flow, and that's pretty serotonergic.

What do you mean "Not sure exactly why people are so fascinated by the lack of fertility"? Not sure if you know but, people are only created when they have healthy, fertile parents. How is this lack of fertility not negative for humanity in general?

I guess you don't live in Los Angeles.

I don't.

I kind of agree with the idea that overpopulating is mostly a perpetuated myth or "boogeyman" sort of thing.

Also, seeing more life being brought in to the world as inherently bad is somewhat of a negative/pessimistic way of seeing things. Not saying it's some great thing just by being given life by itself (some cases it is indeed bad such as bringing a baby in to a horrible environment/lots of stress/etc.), but looking at it like some devil-ish horror by wanting to have kids seems equally off the mark -- especially if the kid is being born to a good environment from healthy parents and will have no major stresses/lots of pleasure basically, which is the life we all pretty much want. If that kind of great life was a sure thing, I doubt many would vouch against one having/experiencing it as much as arguing against increasing birth rates with the position of scarcity/suffering/stress which does indeed make a much better argument.

I think if overpopulation -- like many big, people-connected/socially involved tragedies -- would be known by all/most if it was truly a problem. Overcrowding is not the same thing as overpopulated, as one implies too many people and not enough space -- the other just suggests more like not enough means/resources for the people. There are always more and more resources -- that is not the problem as of now at least (so the overpopulation touting is a weak argument or stance probably).

Yeah, I think so too.

It's funny how all the propaganda outlets tell us how bad it is to have children and that to save the climate we must have fewer children etc. while at the same time telling us that we are despicable racists if we don't accept replacement migrants, families who have 6 children or more per family, and of course nobody is telling them to have less kids. They also say that to sustain our welfare systems we need to take them in as we stopped having children of our own, despite them being a net cost. It's all just a big scam, every piece of it.

@Rafael Lao Wai One thing that you might be missing is that the population is increasing at a rapid pace in Africa and in parts of Asia.
View attachment 15618

It seems like a strategy to make people hate each other. Of course, accepting strangers into your house is stressful and disturbing, and having to pay for their needs sounds disturbing as well. The government destroys countries and then force their population to support the people who leave the destroyed country. That's how I see it, anyways.

Thanks for the graph. It's from the UN as well, right? Not saying it's wrong, I just would like to see independent sources for those kinds of data, although I don't know of any.

I guess you have never been in China or India, Indonesia or Vietnam. Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan too. Choose your favorite overpopulated destination to travel.

And don't forget to check environment destruction rates in these countries.

But have you actually seen the Billions of people there? Sv- three- rige, I mean, Sv3rige said that it may just be that people see thousands of people all at once and it shocks them into thinking that everywhere else is like this.

I think environmental destruction may have more to do with the technologies that people have access to. What if they can only afford an old car who produces a ton of smoke all the time while it's on? Also, the industries are big contributors as well.

Ironically I think the more they try to reduce fertility (via PUFA, starch, iron, etc.) the more the population will grow because reduced fertility (high estrogen) increases sexual desire. The two places that are the most hypothyroid (China, India) have the largest populations.

Probably the only way to both reduce fertility and reduce the population is to do things so extreme that you are directly trying to castrate everybody.

But estrogen makes the uterus hypoxic, discouraging the development of the fertilized egg. High estrogen may make people more sexual, but not more fertile. It's progesterone that encourages the correct development of the baby. It's in one of Ray's articles.

Of course there is overpopulation which is the cause of overcrowding.

If so many people wouldn’t live in huge cities there wouldn’t be the space available to produce the food for these city- and slum-dwellers if they settled on fertile lands all of a sudden. And there wouldn’t be huge private properties. Don’t forget that. Land is owned by people, rich people.

What’s so great about humans? Many are stupid or ugly or lazy or violent. Does it seem that 40 years ago the billions less people in the world felt lonely? I don’t thing they felt that way.

@postman
Yup. It’s madness here. You surely have seen the coverage these days where they state that overpopulation isn’t an issue because it will peak at 11 billion and then go backwards. These climate-safer-fanatics are beyond rationality already.

Your argument is compelling. All you need to do is put "of course" before a statement and it becomes true.

Lol it seems we have found a human- hating human, everyone.

If more people lived in farms, there would be no need to have such big spaces for food production without people.

Yeah, I hate those climate- safer- fanatics. Greta Thumberg, on the other hand, is a quite balanced and reasonable person.

Our perception defines what constitutes overpopulation. Me, I like that the rhino's and lions and tigers and wolves can roam freely without human settlements and cities encroaching on their turf. Not only that, that the demand for rhino horns or elephants tusks are so miniscule that there won't be so many poachers making rhinos extinct and needing protection.

Why is poaching even a livelihood? Probably because the poacher has to feed his family, and between saving his family and making rhinos extinct, he chooses the former. If he has another livelihood, he may not be a poacher. In an overpopulated world, having a good livelihood gets scarce.

Seems like humans can't stop themselves from polluting. More humans, more harm to the environment. It's never going to change. Is there any question that the more populated earth is with humans, the more unliveable it gets for all God's creatures?

Look at all the seashore beside major cities. Try swimming in the Baltic, for example. Go to major rivers where civilization flourishes. How fares the water quality. The more sparse the population, the cleaner water gets. You can enjoy paddling down a river or stream and see the flora and fauna it supports.

Why are we even living in pigeon-holes called condos? Why aren't people waking up to birds chirping or cicadas humming?

Why do people make life on earth so devoid of bliss that they long for an eternal life in paradise? Why can't earth be paradise? Isn't it time reconsider the exhortation of Jesus to go forth and multiply? I mean, you don't have to multiply like rabbits anymore. Perhaps when we go back to an agrarian age, we could.

I admit I hate seeing my city go from my childhood to a traffic-congested sprawling metro where the commute robs people of the full expression of community. This is where you have more time to be with family and friends, and still have time left over for yourself - to read, to tinker, to explore, to learn, to meditate. Without quality time, we easily become creatures of programming - from mass media.

We as humans think too highly of ourselves. Many would use the Bible to interpret humans as having dominion over other creatures as a license to crowd them out instead of acting as stewards to protect them. Overpopulation forces us to choose between helping humans on the brink of starvation over other creatures as we encroach on their natural habitat.

While we argue over what's right and what's wrong, we keep growing--out of bounds. But the earth has its own ways to re-establish balance. Or we can simply push ourselves to mutual attrition, as our collective mood will bring about the equivalent of species apoptosis.

I think you're confusing humans with the government/ system we live under. Industries polluting rivers, for example, is very serious, and it happens, and it's obviously terrible, but just because some humans are mentally ill and act recklessly, it doesnt mean all or even most are like that.

Also, what happened to your city isn't caused by more people in the world, it's caused by overcrowding, as well as a distancing from a more natural way of life. This distancing is intentional, and veganism is one of the ways that the government is causing this distancing. People are starving because the those at the top want them to starve. It's just another way to control the population by using their empathy.

Population of Syria:

1950 - 3.4 Million

1975 - 7.5

2010 - 20.7

2012 - Civil war.

Similar figures apply to virtually all areas of the world where civil war, political upheaval or emigration occurred in the last few years.
Too many people.

People kill elephants in Africa because people now live across traditional tracks and pathes of Elephants, hundreds of years old tracks. Now people kill them because they intrude their (the humans) areas? With what legitimation? Why do mothers in some African states give birth to 5-7 children when they can’t provide for them without supply from outside and without them having much of a future perspective? I can’t see any argument in favor of that apart from a fanatic humanocentrism.

How do you know those numbers are correct?

People are animals too. We have the right to kill other animals. If people are living in the middle of the tracks of elephants, then that's too bad for those elephants. That's how nature works. At some point, the house where a person lives was a track for ants, or for small rodents, or whatever. Do you care more about elephants than about people trying to live and thrive? With what legitimization can Europeans colonize other regions where other people already live? So people fighting and killing each other is fine, but killing some elephants is wrong?

I can see what you saying about having children in a bad place. Having children when the conditions are bad isn't good for them. I agree. But having children is a natural desire of living creatures. What they can do is either have children anyway in that place or move to another city/ country and do it there, but then it will increase the number of migrators, which may contribute to crowding.

 

[MetabolicTrash]

I'll also add that I think the overcrowding bit is more of a structural issue.

People in some areas live so close together in many ways that it can be what appears as overcrowding or even overpopulation. If everything/everyone feels scrunched up more, the natural tendency is likely that there "isn't enough space" or such. Also, location availably matters too. Some only perceive the living, residential or housing areas as a metric in how much space and resources we have.

What about all of that other space that is either abandoned or unused or used by businesses or government or etc.? What about forests, mountains, deserts; seemingly endless fields, grasslands, deadlines, marshes? If you asked someone who lived in a mountain or mountain range about overpopulation or crowding, what do you think they'll say?

Limits are more down to structure or method of implementation than actual inevitability.

When you really analyze it all you realize that there is no real concerns for "running out of space" or such. The real things to focus on and improve would be the economy, environment, technology, EMF/radiation, pollutions, chemical poisons, modified weather, heavy metals, contaminations, automation, and access to more items of necessity than over regulating and restricting certain things that can benefit everyone better. Clean energy, better diet/health, better environments, better means (financially) and less excess modification and/or restriction of some things would be great changes that further accommodate more and more people if necessary.

By the time we truly do see overpopulating as a soon to be coming thing it likely wouldn't be an issue by that point.

 

[LeeLemonoil]

@Rafael Lao Wai

I know these numbers are correct because I do the required research. Those are official figures from different state-agencies for statistics.
And you might reconsider you defamatory tone when addressing my comments. I don’t hate humans as a species, but there are a lot of despicable individuals, imo at least. Thing is, I still respect their individual rights set by the state and society I live in fully. Quite to the contrary what so many self-styled world-savers do when they face political or ideological opposition. Take your Greta as example.

And yes, I think killing Elephants in 2019 is not justified when the cause is population-surplus of failed african states.
Your arguments come full circle and you don’t see it. If you say it’s peoples right to have as much children as they like because it’s a natural desire, you can justify virtually anything by that and you already do justify killing big mammals other than Homo sapiens by it. Humans are animals too, as you said. Do killing one animal is fine, killing the other isn’t? I find that disgusting.

I‘ve not defended the killings of European colonialism with a single word here, but pervert crimes from the past don’t mitigate the responsibility not to do similar things today.

 

[DaveFoster]

@Rafael Lao Wai

I know these numbers are correct because I do the required research. Those are official figures from different state-agencies for statistics.
And you might reconsider you defamatory tone when addressing my comments. I don’t hate humans as a species, but there are a lot of despicable individuals, imo at least. Thing is, I still respect their individual rights set by the state and society I live in fully. Quite to the contrary what so many self-styled world-savers do when they face political or ideological opposition. Take your Greta as example.

And yes, I think killing Elephants in 2019 is not justified when the cause is population-surplus of failed african states.
Your arguments come full circle and you don’t see it. If you say it’s peoples right to have as much children as they like because it’s a natural desire, you can justify virtually anything by that and you already do justify killing big mammals other than Homo sapiens by it. Humans are animals too, as you said. Do killing one animal is fine, killing the other isn’t? I find that disgusting.

I‘ve not defended the killings of European colonialism with a single word here, but pervert crimes from the past don’t mitigate the responsibility not to do similar things today.

More like a lack of conscientiousness among native Africans to preserve their ecological biodiversity, which in turn benefits their economy in the long-run.

 

[Waynish]

And population numbers are exaggerated...

 

[nwo2012]

And population numbers are exaggerated...

Yes, very.

 

[Vesi]

It is about ecology (populations, space and resources) and sustainability (ecology through time).

In order to have understand subject, one needs to have vocabulary for it. In my opinion, best resource for vocabulary on this subject (overpopulation and overshoot), is Overshoot by William Catton. Pdf below. Please read it.
Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change by William R. Catton Jr.
https://monoskop.org/images/9/92/Ca..._Ecological_Basis_of_Revolutionary_Change.pdf

 

[LUH 3417]

Those people don’t know what they’re missing. There is not much more pleasing in the world than than your own garden, piece of land or forest.
Curiously, these Appartement-dwellers or suburban sterile-garden owners are very concerned about climate-change and the environment. It’s a lifestyle.

Lol. In New York they also wear Carharrt and Patagonia clothing to imbue a life of hard physical labor and outdoorsmenship even though many are white collar workers. Interesting to see outerwear brand sales skyrocket with the concern for environmentalism and mass consumption of material goods.