|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 14, 2024 19:03:42 GMT
Our planet will only remain able to provide even the most basic standard of living for everyone in the future if economic systems and technologies are dramatically transformed and critical resources are more fairly used, managed and shared, a new report shows. The report is co-authored by over sixty leading natural and social scientists from the Earth Commission, led by the UvA's Joyeeta Gupta, as well as Prof. Xuemei Bai and Prof. Diana Liverman. The report was published today in The Lancet Planetary Health. The new research builds on the 'Safe and Just Earth System Boundaries' published in Nature last year, which found that most of the vital limits within which people and the planet can thrive have been surpassed. The new paper identifies the 'Safe and Just Space' -- within which harm to humans and nature can be minimised while ensuring everyone can be provided for -- and sets out the paths to reach and stay in such a space. But future projections to 2050 show that this space will shrink over time, driven by inequality, unless urgent transformations take place. The only way to provide for everyone and ensure societies, businesses and economies thrive without destabilising the planet is to reduce inequalities in how critical Earth system resources, such as freshwater and nutrients, are accessed and used -- alongside economic and technological transformation. The new work found that inequalities and overconsumption of finite resources by a minority are key drivers of this shrinking. Providing minimum resources for those who don't currently have enough would add much less pressure on the Earth system than that currently caused by the minority who use far greater resources. See rest here www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/09/240912142355.htm |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2024 19:46:42 GMT
Which really boils down to forget global warming there are too many people on the planet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 14, 2024 20:10:09 GMT
Which really boils down to forget global warming there are too many people on the planet. No it boils down too better share out what we have. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Sept 14, 2024 20:18:02 GMT
You can have big inequalities and you can have highly interconnected societies but put the two together and it's a recipe for destruction.
People can accept being much poorer than some provided their noses aren't rubbed in it every day. Do that too often and many will decide to take matters into their own hands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2024 20:18:31 GMT
Which really boils down to forget global warming there are too many people on the planet. No it boils down too better share out what we have. So you don’t think there are too many people on this planet. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2024 20:21:38 GMT
If there are too many people on the planet, mass natural disasters/world wars etc will make sure to cut it down to size as it has done many times before.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 14, 2024 21:17:30 GMT
No it boils down too better share out what we have. So you don’t think there are too many people on this planet. Don't be silly. I said this article is about inequality. Inequality could still exist were the population less. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 14, 2024 21:21:08 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2024 21:21:14 GMT
So you don’t think there are too many people on this planet. Don't be silly. I said this article is about inequality. Inequality could still exist were the population less. Of course it could because life ain’t fair but inequality won’t kill off the human race if there were less of us. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 14, 2024 21:24:42 GMT
Don't be silly. I said this article is about inequality. Inequality could still exist were the population less. Of course it could because life ain’t fair but inequality won’t kill off the human race if there were less of us. Or if the earth was bigger, but nether is true. And who says the issue is lack of resource rather than destruction of environment to meet greed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2024 19:46:04 GMT
Don't be silly. I said this article is about inequality. Inequality could still exist were the population less. Of course it could because life ain’t fair but inequality won’t kill off the human race if there were less of us. The fact that "life aint fair" is surely a massive part of the problem, and not a reason to do nothing about it, as you seem to be implying. I agree there are too many of us on this planet but numbers can only very slowly be reduced, otherwise we will create massive problems with societies excessively top heavy with too many older people. Because short of euthanising some of the elderly which is utterly unacceptable the only way to reduce our numbers that does not involve some other form of murder or mass death is to reduce our birth rate so it is lower than our death rate. The more effectively we do that the more unaffordably top heavy our societies will be because of too many older people and not enough younger ones. Which is why it can only be done very slowly, and also why as many older people as possible should remain as productivee as possible for as long as possible. But saying that we must address our numbers instead of addressing inequality so that inequality no longer matters is highly wrong headed. Inequality matters no matter how few of us there are. And if anything inequality ought to be the easier of the two to address anyway, since it merely needs the political will. Reducing inequality in the short term would be much less difficult than reducing numbers in the short term. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Sept 15, 2024 20:14:55 GMT
Of course it could because life ain’t fair but inequality won’t kill off the human race if there were less of us. The fact that "life aint fair" is surely a massive part of the problem, and not a reason to do nothing about it, as you seem to be implying. I agree there are too many of us on this planet but numbers can only very slowly be reduced, otherwise we will create massive problems with societies excessively top heavy with too many older people. Because short of euthanising some of the elderly which is utterly unacceptable the only way to reduce our numbers that does not involve some other form of murder or mass death is to reduce our birth rate so it is lower than our death rate. The more effectively we do that the more unaffordably top heavy our societies will be because of too many older people and not enough younger ones. Which is why it can only be done very slowly, and also why as many older people as possible should remain as productivee as possible for as long as possible. But saying that we must address our numbers instead of addressing inequality so that inequality no longer matters is highly wrong headed. Inequality matters no matter how few of us there are. And if anything inequality ought to be the easier of the two to address anyway, since it merely needs the political will. Reducing inequality in the short term would be much less difficult than reducing numbers in the short term. Well said  |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Sept 15, 2024 21:42:07 GMT
Don't be silly. I said this article is about inequality. Inequality could still exist were the population less. Of course it could because life ain’t fair but inequality won’t kill off the human race if there were less of us. So if Carlos wants his crew to move the super yacht from the Virgin Islands to Monaco ready for his next holiday, how many people do we need to cull to offset the carbon footprint. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2024 22:09:33 GMT
Of course it could because life ain’t fair but inequality won’t kill off the human race if there were less of us. So if Carlos wants his crew to move the super yacht from the Virgin Islands to Monaco ready for his next holiday, how many people do we need to cull to offset the carbon footprint. What are you asking me for I’m not Carlos,saying life ain’t fair is merely an observation of how life is. Why instead of targeting Carlos don’t you address the Chinese India and all the other coal burners? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2024 22:12:42 GMT
So you don’t think there are too many people on this planet. Don't be silly. I said this article is about inequality. Inequality could still exist were the population less. Inequality could still exist if co2 emissions were nil |
|
