Its oh so quiet Shh Shh

[ConcinusMan]

You can trace an awful lot of environmental problems to mans' overpopulation.

I think you have it backwards. There would be no "overpopulation" if it were not for the exploitation and consumption of resources (and I'm mainly talking about petroleum) that resulted in most of the environmental problems. The rapid increase in population over the last hundred years is not merely coincident with the rapid increase in oil production. It is the latter that has actually allowed (the word ’caused’ might be too strong) the former.

You get the politicians talking about carbon, and "environmental groups" highlighting the symptoms, but they don't have the balls to discuss the root cause.

I've seen plenty of lectures and discussions about the population problem. They are not referring to it as the root cause of our environmental problems because it isn't.

[Stefan-A]

I think you have it backwards. There would be no "overpopulation" if it were not for the exploitation and consumption of resources (and I'm mainly talking about petroleum) that resulted in most of the environmental problems.

And you can't have a population without exploitation and consumption of resources. I ignore petroleum, it's just one type of resource and if it weren't for carbon emissions and the occasional spill, it would be of little significance. The real problem related to overpopulation and resources, is land and water use. If you double the amount of people (like in the last 70 years or so), you double the area of land you need to house them and to grow crops and you double the need for fresh water for consumption and irrigation. Add technological advancement, increased standard of living and increased meat eating, and you've gone far, far beyond doubling the amount of land and water you're using.

The rapid increase in population over the last hundred years is not merely coincident with the rapid increase in oil production.

Actually, it is somewhat incidental. You're going to have to look to other factors, such as major advancements in medicine and agriculture (of which mechanization merely plays a part). Sure, oil production has also had a significant impact on trade and through that, population growth, but it's not as big a factor as some make it out to be.

It is the latter that has actually allowed (the word ’caused’ might be too strong) the former.

Contributed to it, not "allowed". There was never a glass ceiling caused by a lack of oil, there was only a bottleneck.

I've seen plenty of lectures and discussions about the population problem. They are not referring to it as the root cause of our environmental problems because it isn't.

They're not referring to it as the root cause, because they're not focusing on root causes. For example, Hans Rosling, whose lectures I bet you've seen, focuses mainly on trends in population growth, not on the consumption of resources that follows and the problems that follow. His specialty is statistics, not natural resource management, ecology or nature conservation. It is the root cause of our environmental problems, because populations always consume, regardless of their size.

[EasternGirl]

I think I'm dying...I got three hours of sleep last night and I'm so exhausted that I can barely hold my head up. I think I finally look my age and feel twice that.

[chris-uk]

I think you have it backwards. There would be no "overpopulation" if it were not for the exploitation and consumption of resources (and I'm mainly talking about petroleum) that resulted in most of the environmental problems.

Stefan has already voiced my thoughts in a far more eloquent way than I would have. I'm pretty sure that we don't have it backwards, oil isn't the limiting factor in population growth that's down to food/water supply and space. Humans have grown extremely effective at expanding both our food supply and the land we occupy. Of course one thing that has allowed us to do this so well is our use of fossil fuels as an energy source, but the use of oil has merely assisted the population boom.
Medicine and other advances that increase life-expectancy have the most to answer for, we're all living longer and lowering infant-mortality is heralded as a great thing, but when cultural change lags behind the advancements in medicine we see an increased population - often in regions where the environment could just about support the population with a high mortality rate.

increased meat eating

I believe it was a BBC documentary last year where they gave the land use figures for beef as it requiring something around eight times the land area to support a beef diet as opposed to a vegetarian diet. It's not enough to turn me veggie, but I eat less meat than most and I try to buy Scottish beef rather than cheap beef from places like Brazil (where the cattle farms are responsible for the loss of huge swathes of the Amazon), but if I was going to turn veggie this would be one of the main reasons.

[chris-uk]

I think I'm dying...I got three hours of sleep last night and I'm so exhausted that I can barely hold my head up. I think I finally look my age and feel twice that.

Hang in there Marnie. It's no worse than having a young child, and at least with your course there is light at the end of the tunnel - it won't last forever. You can sleep in the summer!

[Steveo]

I believe it was a BBC documentary last year where they gave the land use figures for beef as it requiring something around eight times the land area to support a beef diet as opposed to a vegetarian diet. It's not enough to turn me veggie, but I eat less meat than most and I try to buy Scottish beef rather than cheap beef from places like Brazil (where the cattle farms are responsible for the loss of huge swathes of the Amazon), but if I was going to turn veggie this would be one of the main reasons.

That sounds about right. Most of the endotherms raised for food turn grain into meat with about 10% efficiency (the rest goes to nonconsumable parts and heat generation). There's no questioning the nutritional value of meat, but a family of 5 on a meat-centric diet can indirectly consume enough grain to feed 100 people.

Fish is better, but top-level predators like salmon are still not very good because even when farmed, smaller fish must be caught and fed to them.

Years ago in my applied ecology course a case was made for eating reptiles, specifically iguana, because they're a much more efficient means of meat production. I know it's done in Central and South America, but I don't think anyone has tried to farm them yet. I'd be willing to try it if I could find some.

[-MARWOLAETH-]

Probably inverts would be the way to go

[Stefan-A]

Probably inverts would be the way to go

Indeed it would. There's also the option of growing muscle tissue on a large scale.

[Steveo]

Indeed it would. There's also the option of growing muscle tissue on a large scale.

If we could get out poultry on an invert diet, that would help. In late summer I could swing a a net as I walk and catch thousands of grasshoppers per day. If chickens would eat them frozen/thawed(?), I could harvest hoppers a couple days a year and never have to buy chicken at the grocery store again.

(The reason I want to do falconry with a Kestrel is similar - even if we have a streak of bad luck, I could still feed her all the grasshoppers she could ever want, along with trapped house sparrows and starlings, and never have to risk giving her farm-raised feeder animals).

[Stefan-A]

If we could get out poultry on an invert diet, that would help. In late summer I could swing a a net as I walk and catch thousands of grasshoppers per day. If chickens would eat them frozen/thawed(?), I could harvest hoppers a couple days a year and never have to buy chicken at the grocery store again.

Well, it certainly can't be done full scale. The only thing that may withstand that level of harvesting would be plankton.