Forum Post: Seven billion people - one planet.
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 9, 2011, 8:24 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverA
(610)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We need a game plan !
If we could start with a clean slate what economic political system would we develop that would provide everyone with an equal opportunity to attain and maintain a healthy lifestyle.
I've posted this in another thread. Let me repeat it here.
Recent studies show that the rate of global population growth has begun to slow. It is estimated that by 2050 it will have stabilized at 9 bn people.(http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/world-population) Other projections indicate that the planet could produce, at least, enough food for this population. Even if we accept this optimistic picture there is something very worrying in it. Statistics says that in stabilized or decreasing populations the birth rate of males tends to be larger than that of women. This in turn increases the slowdown of the general birth rate. Then: more males. This is already happening in China where recently the quantity of males surpassed that of women. A higher proportion of males in the future will produce social changes that I do not dare to predict. More availability of slave labor? More availability of soldiers?
The rate of global population has slowed except Africa but it has severe consequences for the global economy. By 2050 all of the most populated regions will have an elderly population living that exceeds the workforce age group and this puts tremendous strain for economics. China has more males because they kill the females.
Certainly the increasing age of the population is another consequence of the slowdown in the growth rate. It is also true that this will further complicate the economy. The solution adopted by European countries to delay retirement to age of 65 (or more) is, in my opinion, a terrible mistake for several reasons. It delays the entry of young people to work, to consumption and to the capability of borrowing money. The type of consumption of the elderly is not a stimulating factor for the economy. All this will make the European consumer mood highly negative which will hinder its economy recovery.
I have not had the opportunity to access information relating to killing of women in China. What I read is that in humans, statistically, there is a slight tendency for the firstborn is a boy. As we know, in China the number of children is limited to one per family, which explains the increase of males in the population. If families could have more than one child, the birth rate of females would be recovered. Also I read that one of the solutions being studied to correct this trend, is that only the families with consolidated incomes will be allowed to have children (several). Anyway, a frightening future.
There are parts of China that now have a two children limit while other parts still is a one child rule. Couples preferred a male child so terminated pregnancy if it was a girl or they abandoned the female child in the streets to die. I know it sounds horrible but true. A American doctor was visited China and witnessed this himself of a child been abandoned left to die in the streets and no one cared or picked up the child.
Communication is necessary to inform the people of 3rd world nations about technologies available. This can be accomplished by allocating satellite orbits and electronic devices with internet capabilities to these regions.
E.g. Africa is the largest growing mobile market. Expect their overall standard of living to increase over the next decade as information becomes more readily available to them
But this can only be accomplished if the locals already understand our language. Interpreters and educators are needed to bridge the communication divide in person. Then we can begin showing them projects such as open source ecology, permaculture, and the like.
In addition, we can stop demanding already highly agricultural nations such as India to export most of their food away from their country. We can also lift the restrictions on food production (artificially keeping food prices high). We can alter our diet to maximize food production. A single hamburger for example uses many tons of water, requires the use of many edible crops to harvest the cow, and isn't even that healthy. Then there also exist vertical farming methods which can utilize hydroponics, aeroponics, and other methods to make use of vertical space for different varieties of food cultivation.
Then of course we can replace America's number one land crop, lawn turf.... with edible crops. The same applies to inedible shrubbery. No herbicides and pesticides are necessary if certain insects/animals are used properly.
Investments in alternative energy projects such as wind, tidal, solar, geothermal, etc. would also alleviate other restrictions and allow us to then obtain freshwater through other methods that require large amounts of energy. If people believe we don't have enough good ideas. That gives plenty of opportunity for R&D jobs.
And before people begin shipping overseas we need major economic reforms here otherwise people will complain about job loss in agricultural and food distribution sectors. In otherwords, greed will be placed against ethics as always. And unless money is removed from the decision making process nothing will get done.
In the meantime supporting green sustainability projects will get the ball rolling in that direction. If we can mobilize resources without a second thought about money for war, we can and must now do the same for peace.
lets try Iceland 1999
Unfortunately, in California the referendums have demanded things that cost money, and have prevented having the money raised to pay for them. Since they won't admit what they are doing, they blame the employees who are providing services.
Ah, that's a shame. I really like the idea of the referendum you have there. But I guess I am not too surprised. It makes sense people will vote for what they like, and vote to not pay for it. How would you improve the system?
I do like the ability to recall. A few politicians have lost recall elections recently. A few laws have been recalled. For politicians, there usually is a requirement that they've been in office a year before petitions can start being signed to set up a recall election. There is a law in one state that makes it much more difficult for people to vote, and it is on hold because the recall petition has enough signatures, and it will get voted on late in 2012.
That is very cool.. They should make it so that if a referendum comes up for something that costs money, the way to pay for it has to be included. So if you vote for one, you vote for both. :)
That's a reasonable idea, but I cynical enough to think it would produce a lot of SOD laws. Some Other Dude should pay for what I want. I'm just distrustful of referendums. They've been used to reduce the legal rights of some groups of citizens, for example.
That's terrible. I would think that we would want the majority number to be pretty big. I would not want to have to vote on every little thing that comes up. But if around 80% of the nation thinks we ought to be doing something, and congress doesn't address it, we should have some recourse.
Actually, OWS has the potential to be a true movement. A lot of the progress that has occurred in the U.S. has been through (pardon the cliche) ideas whose time has come. The movements, with all their messiness and confusion and false starts, develop and create change, even though their member despair at times.
I've just been reading on abolition and on women's right to vote and to own property, and the movement were anything but tidy. As a result, small groups eventually pushed big change.
That is a different model from the overwhelming majority having recourse as you are describing, but it has been the way things have been changed.
And what about the disenfranchised such as the 1.6 billion I've mentioned below who live without electricity and communications? How do they participate? This would be just what we already have but on a world wide scale: the haves making all the decisions for the have nots.
this is meant for ithink
they participate at step 2, since I just added electricity.
That should be step one. Basic equality.
Yes, starting from a blank slate - you are right that should be first. However, if we were starting from where we are today we would need a way to wrestle some power from our economic and political systems in order to get to step 2.
Don't burn your food , ie gasohol !
Eat it and share with the whole world for humanities survival !
YES!
http://occupytogether.com/forum/discussion/comment/6629#Comment_6629
Here is the plan. Follow that link to a forum. In the first comment ytou will find a pdf, that is a book....Enjoy!
So far looks like no one has a game plan. Just as I suspected. OWS is not really concerned with equality and fairness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-3hZsXrxaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQqjTxI3vc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
Give everyone access to lots of good manure so we can all have our own gardens! If you have excess, give to your neighbors and the local food shelf. Their is a church in my community that plants 40 acres of highly nutritious foods and donates the fresh stuff to the local food shelf. My mothers church in the twin cities does the same thing, although they plant only potatoes, which are highly nutritious too. Grow and give. Grow and share in your local communities!
That will feed 7 billion people? What about those living in famines?
We support children in Haiti. But we are only one family helping a few. If everyone with means did just a little bit, think how that could change everything.
Yes , it could, but unfortunately these situations around the world are being passed over by the media for stories of lesser importance. For example, many people are unaware of the dire situation in Somalia right now. People have also lost interest in the situation in Haiti, even though it is just as bad as it was right after the earthquake.
To depend on the media for news is like, I don't know, a waste of time. BBC does a much better job than any news outlet in the u.s. But, yes, I agree, many situations are dire. I would encourage you, pinker, to do what you can to help the situation that you can. It makes a huge difference, even if it is only a family or two, or... From time to time we invite people over to present the Haiti situation, and encourage people to help, if they can. The cost of a decent case of beer can educate and help feed someone there. I dunno, it seems like a no brained to us.
I contribute monthly to doctors without borders. the major news outlets are where most people get their news from. hip or not, if they are covering other less important events than these true world tragedies, most people are not seeing what is happening in Somalia, Haiti or other devastated places.
The Red Cross has received far less donations for Somalia than any other tragedy in the recent past. Not because of the economy, but because people are unaware. Americans historically are the most giving nation, but for this they have been distracted by other things that are not nearly as significant in the grand scheme of things.
That's cool. We have a group of eye surgeons that we support, that do lots of cataract surgery, among other procedures too. These guys are pretty cool, using a major chunk of vacation time to work 14 hour days for 2 weeks a year. Wish I wasn't such a junkie back in my formative years and would have gained a skill so directly helpful to humanity. Anyway, I lament, but am grateful for those who focused energy on such worthy endeavor.
I'd also like to point out a piece on NPR that was followed by a piece on the SFPD removing tents from OSF. Here is the transcript. NPR consistently tells the stories of serious world issues.
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143269442/a-brutal-detention-and-a-defiant-syrian-activist
and the police in SF: http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143274586/dozens-arrested-as-police-clear-occupy-s-f-camp
Free market capitalism.
Lol
Over population is a problem. I have no good answers.
Everyone? All 7 billion?
NOT counting you, trollpuss! :)
Okay. Take the same question minus me. Won't be allowed to live in this paradise you are proposing.
Oh you and your little troll buddies would be so much happier in a TROLLDOM!
BON VOYAGE!!! Pitter-patter-pitter-patter-pitter-patter-pitter-patter. HAPPY LANDINGS!
NOTE : To understand WHAT MAKES A TROLL TICK - AND have a chuckle while you're at it - go to:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-trolls-think-trollosophy-exposed/
Everyone? All 7 billion?
Well, 1.6 billion of those people live without electricity. How about you start with the people who are really suffering and work your way up?
I've lived without electricity
Yeah, me too. But these people have never had electricity. They do not have access to the communication age. And see safe stove projects and stats from WHO showing how many die per year from cooking in huts with no electricity - 1.5 million. And that's just for starters on the hardships they endure.