"The humanists are so inhuman!"

I get it, now.

Particularly the ones who follow Malthus like a prophet...that would be anyone who claims that a) the problems of this planet are summed up as one single factor, the simple fact of human overpopulation, and that b) that it's already too late; the only solution is to "reduce human population by 50% over the next 50 years."

The poster "maotsetung" can always be relied on for this sort of facile pessimism, for instance. Maybe he has a shrine to Pol Pot in his bedroom.

Do the math, and tell me how it's possible to remove 2-5 billion humans from the planet in the next 50 years without actively promulgating mass genocidal conflicts, nurturing global pandemics of lethal diseases, and consigning entire geographic areas of the world to massive die-offs. (Gee, I wonder which ones...)

Because contraception alone won't do it. ZPG won't do it. Only "death control" will accomplish what the Malthusians are after.

My view? The real problems are about greed, waste, stupidity, inefficiency- and the denial of the consequences of those flaws, which leads to escapism and paralyzing inaction. Primarily in the developed world, which still has plenty of latitude to- notwithstanding the words of Dick Cheney- negotiate and adjust it's consumption habits more responsibly to keep the most important parts while forgoing the frivolities that get clutched as "the American lifestyle", like a vulture clutches a dead rat.

How many of you would do without electricity six hours a day in the summertime? How many of you would cut your gasoline consumption by 50%, voluntarily, or your food calorie consumption by 30%? If your answer is no- is it because it's a matter of life and death- or just because you don't wannoo?

Even if there's some sort of light at the end of the tunnel? Even if policies like that- admittedly drastic- were to be taken with the idea that they were to be done in alternating years cycling through different regions of the country over the next ten years, as a way to provide an energy surplus to construct new and better technologies and a modernized infrastructure by diverting consumption from optional consumer desires?

Now I suppose it's time to cue the right-wing don't wannoos, screaming hysterically about "totalitarianism"...what would be far, far preferable- and arguably the only way that a project that ambitious could be accomplished successfully- would be if this could be accomplished by a voluntary consensus of mature adults making the decision to stop acting like spoiled 2-year olds.

But, well, I suppose genocide and ecological catastrophe is is inevitable...after all, we humans* are nothing but cancerous vermin...go on, reach for the remote, turn the channel.

*(present company excepted! of course!)

The measures I just proposed are just examples, the first ideas that came to my mind. I don't necessarily endorse them as the best way to deal with the challenges that humans as a species face in terms of returning the planet to a semblance of ecological health and equilibrium. But I think they represent examples of voluntary sacrifice that would have a positive effect on the resources and energy fund of the planet. Possibly, there are other conservation measures out there that would work with similar effectiveness, but more subtly. But I think the societies of the developed world- and the rapidly developing world (China and India)- need to get some serious forethought into play on these matters.

I'm also wary of dogmatic fanatics warning of economic catastrophe if material and energy consumption somehow find a brake pedal, instead of pledging eternal allegiance to the suicidal model of Unlimited Growth Forever. Given the risk of dire economic consequences vs. dire ecological consequences, I'll take the former- especially since you haven't seen an economic nightmare until you've seen resource exhaustion.

I realize that all of this entails some acknowledging that human consciousness is actually capable of evolving in the direction of responsibility, as opposed to the dumb-ass materialist sociobiological model in vogue among so many people these days - especially among the privileged Westerners that I encounter- that posits humans as wind-up toys of drives and desires, only capable of modifying their behavior when they hit the walls of forcibly imposed limits.

The essence of problem solving is a two step process:

1) characterize the problem

2) try various solutions

Iterate until the problem goes away. Neither of these steps relies on either a left-wing or right-wing ideology. Ideologies are about constraining the process by a priori assumptions about either the nature of the problem or about the range of acceptable solutions. The real world will decide the argument in the end.

All of humanity's problems scale at least a fast as the population. Compound interest applied to any positive rate of population growth shows that we must - sooner, not later - face our demons. At the current rate of growth, the mass of human flesh will equal the mass of all life on Earth in under a thousand years. Obviously this won't happen. The only question is whether the solution implemented will be of our own choosing.

Ideologies need not be layered on static antediluvian world views. Rather, a truly Conservative point of view requires prudence. Prudence in problem solving means accommodating the worst case scenario even if you can't imagine it occurring. A truly Liberal point of view requires pragmatism. It isn't enough to be right about the problems, you also have to pursue successful solutions.

"In poor countries, there was a lot of corruption going on," explains Mora. "In rich countries, there were more political and economic pressures on the policy making. The end result of that is that in both cases, science is not converted into proper regulation."

Can someone explain to me why the "political and economic pressures" aren't described as corruption?

Whether a fisherman bribes a catch inspector to look the other way, or a corporation supplies a campaign contribution to a sympathetic politician, the only thing that changes is the size of the payment.

Food, in general, has gotten way too cheap.

Recently a group I hang out with online was discussing pirates. One said many really weren't as blood-thirsty as they are portrayed and often only stole shipments of food. Someone had to point out that stealing food shipments often meant starvation for the people who didn't receive the food. The Whatever Colony couldn't just go to another grocery store or eat something else when all their flour disappeared.

Societally, we are hugely out of touch with how our food is produced. We know nothing about the work involved in raising and killing animals or hunting or fishising or raising produce. And even the people who do these things anymore are doing so in a far more mechanized way than fifty or a hundred years ago. For the first time in human history, food is something that just appears before us ready to consume and in whatever quantity (or larger!) desired. It's really weird.

Food is cheap in every sense of the word -- it doesn't cost us much money. It doesn't cost us much effort. Its shoddily made. Its readily discarded if it isn't perfect or if we have too much or if we just didn't like it. Or if a bug took a bite while it was growing. We have so much of it that we turn a huge percentage of it (as opposed to an occasional treat) into "food" that we don't even NEED FOR NOURISHMENT and eat just for fun.

Do we want to go back to the era when a village starved if a shipment was lost? Of course not. But we need to make some decisions and soon. Salmon being cheap isn't good for salmon -- not the salmon stocks, not the quality of the meat, not the environment they're living in, not the individual salmon themselves. You can say the same about pretty much any mass produced food.