The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Eco-Logical is a group for anyone who cares about clean air, drinkable water, a sustainable economy, and environmental justice.
Location: The Irreplaceable Earth
Latest Activity: on Sunday
Note: Sylvain Duford, the group's creator, has left A|N. I am acting as moderator of the group in his place. Please contact me if you have any questions. - Dallas the Phallus.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Denise Deiloh on Sunday.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on Sunday.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on Thursday.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Aug 26.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Aug 14.
Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Aug 14.
Started by Joan Denoo. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Aug 11.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 16.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 15.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jul 10.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Jun 16.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Gerald Payne Jun 12.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Jun 9.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Plinius Jun 4.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Apr 21.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Plinius Apr 20.
Started by Grinning Cat. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Apr 15.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Mar 25.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Plinius Mar 24.
Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Mar 23.
"Climate Instability: Who's in Control and Why Does it Matter?"
"Harvard Thinks Green 2"
What Climate Change Just Might Ruin
Thanks to Ruth Anthony-Gardner
"According to a 2011 U.S. Interior Department report, "annual flows in three prominent river basins - the Colorado, Rio Grande and San Joaquin - could decline by as much [as] 8 percent to 14 percent over the next four decades," reported the Associated Press. Expected changes in temperature and precipitation are likely to alter river flows 'with increased flooding possible in the winter due to early snowmelt and water shortages in the summer due to reductions in spring and summer runoffs.'
As our technology increases, so goes our "carrying capacity", which is why the word sustainable is no longer useful... carrying capacity is entirely dependent on economics and technology. It's why so many people are going vegetarian... the argument being... we'll need to feed more people so we need to become vegetarian! (along with a few other arguments of course). Spaniards are building vertical gardens, also increasing the Iberian peninsula's "carrying capacity". It is a value which is impossible to pinpoint. I come back to the number of humans must be in proportion to the numbers of large animals... any other standard is movable, flexible, cheatable.
TNT666, when I use the word "sustainable" I mean human beings living within the carrying capacity of our planet. No particular economic theory implied. I do agree with your sentiment that thinking breeding is a "right" is as ridiculous as the "right" to own slaves".
IMO the rational biological approach is best. Discounting large animal populations past their tipping point such as lions/tigers/rhinos/polar bears who's numbers are too small, we can still look at other large animal populations, certain whales, moose, deer. Looking at those other lifeforms populations truly puts our own ridiculous population into perspective.
1-Our governments/corporations subside population growth through baby programs and marriage incentives. Eliminating those two would put a good starting dent.
2-The next hurdle is harder to overcome: getting away from religious morals, which look onto breeding as the morally righteous thing to do. Most atheists on these sites are recent deconverts and still pursue religious values, even though they don't believe in gods. If convincing atheists of this is a challenge, it's 10-fold harder going after faithers.3- items 1 and 2 can only I reckon accomplish less than 30% of the breeding changes the planet needs. Whence enough people understand that us outnumbering all other large animals is ridiculous, then we need to enshrine it into culture, to make breeding extremely unpopular, and to have the sense that breeding is a "right" is simply ridiculous, as ridiculous as the "right" to own slaves. Once the "morality" of breeding has reached a tipping point, then we can legislate that away completely, and ensure that healthcare providers are freely doling out sterilisation, and encouraging it at all age groups. I wish for a day when only a very small percentage of the population partake of breeding, hopefully under some sort of lottery system that would ensure an reasonable level of fairness.
Ning's AN kills me. It's sooooo slowwww! I would probably have to wait about an hour before the editor boxes appear.
I understand your point about "sustainability" being hijacked by economists. Anthropologists should decide which groups have fewer children for immigration policy that reduces population.
@ TNT666 the word "sustainable" IS an incorrect word for what we need to do. You wrote "sustainable" no longer belongs to biology."
What would state that which we need? Living in balance with nature, perhaps? Or human numbers in balance with other large mammals on the planet?
Now we get into the question, how do we decide the proper numbers of humans the Earth will support, and how do get populations down to that number? Pandemic? Wars? Enforced sterilization? We are kind of like rats, are we not? And just as voracious.
TNT666, thanks for alerting me that I had posted the same material twice. Correction made.
Chris, in the past couple of decades, the word "sustainable" has come to mean very little. It's not a biological concept but an economic one, it is usually loaded growth dogma bias. My opinion goes with the rest of true environmentalists on this one, "sustainable" no longer belongs to biology. It is for this reason I hope that environmentalists everywhere can work on a number which depends not on sustainability but which places all the emphasis on the population sizes of other large mammals on the planet, a strictly biological perspective. This is what I bring to the table when I meet with other environmentalists locally... but there's still a lot of anthropocentrism (sorry for the "morphism" misspell in my previous comment :) in the environmental movement, it's the largest challenge I find out in the field.
Illusions of Prosperity
"In January of 2000 there were 281 million people in America. Now there are 309 million. We have 10% more people but roughly the same overall net worth. Therefore, the average American is 10% poorer than they were 10 years ago."
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Nexus on Social Media:
© 2015 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.