8/27/11
As per the Population Reference Bureau, the global population passed the 7,000,000,000 mark earlier this morning. It took only four days to add the final million.
Other population clocks around the world are running their own numbers, as expected. Even with current mathematical and technical tools used to "count" living individuals, it is still difficult to agree on a target date. Demography is ticklish.
Nevertheless, we're there…another billion since 1999.
Showing posts with label population. Show all posts
Showing posts with label population. Show all posts
Do You Scratch and Claw to Stay Tuned to the World?
Are we really, though, getting the stories that matter to the future of 4th graders??
We are sort of on the cusp of seeing mainstream media reporting on uncomfortable issues of our future - beyond the economy. (Choose an economy; how about Greece...) In general, the themes of water, peak oil, climate change, cultural conflicts (read wars) and the needs of citizens in coming decades are neglected miserably.
Many blogsites compile pertinent daily articles and send them out as a bundle to subscribers. (Sometimes there is a small subscription fee.) Articles are culled from many sources and cover everything from breaking news to opinion.
Such as:
Speaking Truth to Power Daily News Digest from Carolyn Baker
Common Dreams
Energy Bulletin
Here are some examples of articles brought to light on subscription bundles in only the past two weeks or so (of many more!). Take a glance at the variety of content, which is generally neglected in reports from other media. I have highlighted key words. Scan the variety of articles. Get a feel for how this may impact your own perceptions.
6/3/11 Wangari Maathai: Spiritual Environmentalism—Healing Ourselves by Replenishing the Earth
6/13/11 Oil company's lawsuit against Greenpeace backfires
6/2/11 Why Our Most Urgent Climate Struggles May Be Winnable by Bill McKibben
6/1/11 Population Footprints: Rights and Responsibilities — Behind the Numbers: The PRB blog on population, health, and the environment
6/1/11 Chris Hedges: The Sky Really Is Falling - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig
6/15/11 Lawn Care Goes to the Sheep in a Pennsylvania School District - Planet Green
5/29/11 The Reality of Global Climate Change is Upon Us - Newsweek
6/3/11 Shortages of Fresh Water Seen as Emerging Threat - ABC News
6/13/11 USGS: Global Warming Drives Rockies Snowpack Loss Unrivaled in 800 Years, Threatens Western Water Supply
6/16/11 Summer Reading Suggestions | Center for Ecoliteracy
6/14/11 The Truth About The Economy In 2 Minutes | MoveOn.Org
6/16/11 Small farms may be better for food security and biodiversity | Science Matters | David Suzuki Foundation
5/2/11 In U.S., Optimism About Future for Youth Reaches All-Time Low
6/17/11 Humane Connection: 7 Resources for Finding Out About the Secret Lives of Your Stuff
6/14/11 Children Pay Ultimate Price of Iraq's Poisonous Wartime Legacy | Common Dreams
6/5/11 Josh Golin: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Commerce... and Other Scholastic Satires
6/1/11 The New Geopolitics of Food - By Lester R. Brown | Foreign Policy
6/10/11 Humanitarian crisis as world's largest refugee camp declared full | World news | guardian.co.uk
6/1/11 An End to Growth: The Environment’s Impact on our Economic Decline | Oil Price.com
2/16/11 Two seminal Nature papers join growing body of evidence that human emissions fuel extreme weather, flooding that harm humans and the environment | ThinkProgress
6/7/11 BBC News - Tropical forests 'better managed'
6/17/11 Will Alternative Energy Save Us From Peak Oil | Oil Price.com
6/13/11 Oil-giant Venezuela tries to limit energy use - Yahoo! News
6/3/11 Video: 15 Years of Saying YES!
5/26/11 The geology of the planet: Welcome to the Anthropocene | The Economist
6/15/11 Ten Charts That Embody Everything That's Wrong With The U.S. Economy
6/12/11 Field Notes from the Future- Children and Nature.Org
6/1/11 The Oil Drum | Oil prices and recession
6/7/11 Yemen Facing Humanitarian Catastrophe: UNICEF | Common Dreams
6/1/11 In The World After Abundance | Energy Bulletin
6/15/11 Sewing and Clothing Repair | Preparedness Advice Blog
6/16/11 Nebraska Nuclear Reactor Flooded
We do sifting and winnowing in class each day. I hope this creates resources for sifting the challenges of resilience to come.
Population Announcement! (The Onion :-)
A look in our collective snarky mirror? What is the future of civility and tact and respect when the speed bumps become more severe? (No, really.)
(ORIGINAL ARTICLE - THE ONION)
Nation Down To Last Hundred Grown-Ups
'Mature Adults Could Be Gone Within 50 Years,' Experts Say
SUITLAND, MD—According to alarming new figures released Monday by the U.S. Census Bureau, the nation's population of mature adults has been pushed to the brink of extinction, with only 104 grown-ups remaining in the country today.
According to recent data, the grown-up population has plummeted dramatically since 1950, when a Census count found that more than 24 million Americans could both admit when they were wrong and respect a viewpoint other than their own. Today, only one in three million citizens can provide thoughtful advice to a fellow human being instead of immediately shifting the topic to their own personal issues or what they had for lunch.
Experts confirmed the mass extinction of grown-ups has coincided with the rapid expansion of other demographic groups, including people who seek medication for every problem they encounter, 33-year-olds who participate in organized kickball leagues, personal injury litigants, and parents who try to become friends with their own children.
The endangered demographic, which is projected to die out completely by 2060, is reportedly distinguished from other groups by numerous unique traits, including foresight, rationality, understanding of how to obtain and pay for a mortgage, personal responsibility, and the ability to enter a store without immediately purchasing whatever items they see and desire. "Our grown-ups are disappearing at a much faster rate than we previously believed," said Census Bureau chief Robert M. Groves, who believes the decline in responsible adults may now be irreversible. "Unfortunately, we've only recently noticed this terrible trend, perhaps because of this group's unusual capacity to endure hardships with quiet dignity instead of whining loudly to draw attention to themselves."
"If nothing is done, these wondrous individuals, with their special ability to consider the long-term consequences of their own behavior and act accordingly, will be wiped-out completely," Groves added.
"Grown-ups are as fascinating as they are rare," said anthropologist Arthur Ambler, who has lived among level-headed adult populations and documented their lifestyle. "It may seem odd to the rest of us, but for mature adults, occasionally putting the greater good ahead of their own interests or remaining calm when something doesn't go their way is commonplace."
"Imagine confronting a problem directly instead of pointing a finger, cowering in fear, or pretending it just isn't happening," Ambler added. "This is how these people actually live, if you can believe that."
Many social scientists, including Ambler, have called for a complete record to be made of the declining population's customs, worrying that knowledge of how to dress for a job interview or when to rotate one's tires could soon be lost to civilization forever. Future generations, they soberly note, will likely go their whole lives never knowing a grown-up person.
When contacted for comment, Colorado resident Ray Vogel, a grown-up, told reporters he was resigned to his group's fate. "We recognize that our time has come and gone, and we're prepared to let nature run its course," said the 54-year-old, who has a well-funded 401(k) and has never taken out a high-interest loan to purchase a Jet Ski. "I'm just grateful my two children didn't turn out patient and considerate like me. They'd never be able to get anywhere in today's world."
According to Vogel, the nation's remaining grown-ups have drafted a letter to be read by the rest of us when they are gone that implores us to make "good decisions" in their absence and explains how to reignite the pilot light on the hot-water heater should it go out. The note is also said to include some money that we are firmly instructed to use only in case of a real emergency.
What Exactly Is Seven Billion?
The rate of growth has, indeed, slowed somewhat in past decades. But the immense numbers are unevenly distributed geographically and in terms of wealth and resource use. This further stresses the sheer number of individuals to be supported by Mother Earth. (see other thoughts in blog)
National Geographic will be helping everyone understand the magnitude of this challenge. Their new quick-clip video is sobering and feels somewhat sensationalistic. But it's necessary. (Yes, it could be construed to be an advertisement for their mag, but I place them higher than that on the credibility ladder.)
Which Is It? Sustainability Or Resiliency?
I'm having a semantics conflict.
Is “sustainability” going down the same path as “green” and “eco-friendly?”
On the one hand, cultural buzzwords come and go. They start as enlightened concepts, become overused, then tedious, then meaningless. If product marketing gets ahold of them, they become twisted and their meanings gutted. Even George Zens, publisher of the Sustainability Times in the Madison area, brought this up recently in an article under his Sustainability 101. Regarding sustainability:
Is “sustainability” going down the same path as “green” and “eco-friendly?”
On the one hand, cultural buzzwords come and go. They start as enlightened concepts, become overused, then tedious, then meaningless. If product marketing gets ahold of them, they become twisted and their meanings gutted. Even George Zens, publisher of the Sustainability Times in the Madison area, brought this up recently in an article under his Sustainability 101. Regarding sustainability:
“...there is a real danger that its significance is in the process of being diluted to the point where it is nothing more than an empty shell...”
Technically, sustainability is defined by phrases like: to hold up, to endure, to keep it going, to keep from giving way, to bear up from below. To be sure, it is a most positive sentiment of strength. But I am not sure it's the best definition for the future dynamics of life on Earth.
A level of maintained stability is not possible for world cultures in the coming decades. This is especially so for our country and our “developed” buddies. You know the culprits: population overshoot, peak oil, climate changes, economic crises, political conflicts over resources, etc. Collectively, there is no rational way we can overcome these global elephants in the room without simplifying and living with much less.
So, then, at which level do we strive to sustain? Is it the business-as-usual level per our present year? Do we, then, have the option to reset the stability dial backward during 2020, if necessary? When the cultural lifestyle levels of 2020 cannot be maintained, do we recalibrate? Stepping down the rungs of a cultural contraction ladder is not sustainability. Sustainability implies staying at the same rung from...well, now. Today. And, that can’t happen. Can one recalibrate sustainability?
[This term will really, really, really be the best one!]
As Americans acculturate to the requirements of less carbon emissions, less oil and tighter community dependence they will need a positive sense of retooling as the life standards change. We can’t dig in our heels and refuse to relinquish. We may not be able to sustain, but we will be able to adjust, rebound, and recover: Resiliency.
The resilience component does not imply that we don’t work hard nor work together for the best and fairest of living situations. It is certainly not a weakness. It does imply a feel of flow, a buoyancy. It is meeting the stability level of the moment in a fluid manner. Riding the surface of events, not simply “treading water.” It is a positive preparedness; a fishing bobber.
Resiliency in our lives gives us the permission to adjust to realities and to work with others to do the same. The Transition Culture movement, begun in the UK, is a leading citizen-based proponent of resiliency. It focuses on one’s immediate community, the lessening of transportation needs, use of local food, and reskilling. It underscores positive and flexible behavior habits of change: Resiliency.
Planet Population: A Check-In Six Months Later
Exactly six months ago today I mentioned that the global population was well on its way to a 2011 total of seven billion. Current numbers are always registering on the Population Institute counter, which reflects net population.
The dynamic digits, at this moment, stand at six billion, eight hundred twenty-nine million, seven hundred twenty-nine thousand, four hundred forty-six.
So, our six month global population increase is 30,823,331.
Now, here comes the obligatory comparison. How much is thirty million individuals in terms of another political entity on Earth? Well, it's Uganda. Uganda is currently ranked as the 39th most populous nation. That's also close to 38th ranked Afghanistan.
Of course population increase scatters itself globally and so, in a sense, it's silly to compare the number to one geographic unit. But even to allow for a global sprinkling of 30.8 million additional souls since January 26th...it's a critical consideration.
Planet finiteness...
The dynamic digits, at this moment, stand at six billion, eight hundred twenty-nine million, seven hundred twenty-nine thousand, four hundred forty-six.
In 4th grade expanded notation, that's:
6,000,000,000 + 800,000,000 + 20,000,000 + 9,000,000
+ 700,000 + 20,000 + 9,000 + 400 + 40 + 6
So, our six month global population increase is 30,823,331.
Now, here comes the obligatory comparison. How much is thirty million individuals in terms of another political entity on Earth? Well, it's Uganda. Uganda is currently ranked as the 39th most populous nation. That's also close to 38th ranked Afghanistan.
Of course population increase scatters itself globally and so, in a sense, it's silly to compare the number to one geographic unit. But even to allow for a global sprinkling of 30.8 million additional souls since January 26th...it's a critical consideration.
Planet finiteness...
Thinking Back to the 1999 Head Count
Think back to what you were doing in the fall of 1999 (besides getting ready for the millenium disaster...). At that time, Earth hit the 6,000,000,000 mark: Net population. The zeros of this number were scribbled out on thousands of chalkboards that day.
We are headed for the finish line of an additional billion people in 2011; a mere 12 years to add a billion. The PopClock I just checked is running at 2+ more souls per second. Approximate total population through today:
6,798,906,115
Unless you are into demography, there is no reason to keep tabs on this number on a regular basis. The continual increase, though, is something to keep in the back of the mind, along with "finiteness."
We are headed for the finish line of an additional billion people in 2011; a mere 12 years to add a billion. The PopClock I just checked is running at 2+ more souls per second. Approximate total population through today:
6,798,906,115
Unless you are into demography, there is no reason to keep tabs on this number on a regular basis. The continual increase, though, is something to keep in the back of the mind, along with "finiteness."
Thoughts On Population Carrying Capacity
Our current era seems to be filled with either too little or too much. We have too much CO2. We have too little potable water. Our planet has a need for far more natural balances. But imbalance seems to be the name of the game.
The crux of this era’s complex puzzle may lie with people. The number of people. Too many. Too many consumers. Consumers of space, of food, of transportation, of heating and cooling, of water, of any product we need or think we need.
Carrying capacity was generally used to assess the amount of land necessary to graze livestock. Given X number of acres with X amount of grass, you can graze X number of animals in a sustained way. Adding animals to this area would result in imbalance: grass would not get a chance to regerminate, trails and tracks would become rutted, erosion would carry away soil, stressed animals would compete and for ever more meager nourishment. This is not a sustainable situation required for farming. The farmer would need to either cut back on the herd or supplement feed and rotate animals from field to barn. Costs in dollars and time would rise.
All biological systems strive for a balanced carrying capacity: sustainability. It’s not surprising, therefore, that humans must be included in this model. We’ve all seen the charts and heard the dire warnings about population numbers. Scientist Thomas Malthus became concerned about the carrying capacity of humans on Earth way back in the 18th century. Demographers since then have been wary of the growing numbers of our species and its ability to be sustained.
Malthus couldn't have conceived how the timeline for population "overshoot" might extend itself. He could not have envisioned the extent of developing industrialization. The 19th and 20th century would encourage cultures to assume the carrying capacity of Earth could be expanded. And it was expanded, artificially, with the help of oil. Oil-run industry was able to promote a limitless sense of a modern lifestyle. It promoted growth. "Growth was good." Those of Earth’s cultures who were able, jumped on the evolving growth bandwagon.
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell,” maintained the blunt Edward Abbey. In the 1960’s he was speaking as a defender of the natural environment that was being swallowed by development. More people were taking more land or degrading natural landscapes at alarming rates. Precious resources, such as fresh water, were becoming even more scarce.
Environmentalist cries like Abbey’s were often taken with a grain of salt back then. Societies were accustomed to the feel of growth and the confidence that technology and fossil fuels would handle all comers. Fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other petro-chemicals were providing increased food production. Interstate highways were built and cars with single passengers commuted from new suburbs.
How did we get onto the treadmill of growth for growth’s sake? What exactly is a sustainable population? How do the numbers crunch? Are we back to the concept of finiteness?
Thoughts without graphs...
The crux of this era’s complex puzzle may lie with people. The number of people. Too many. Too many consumers. Consumers of space, of food, of transportation, of heating and cooling, of water, of any product we need or think we need.
Carrying capacity was generally used to assess the amount of land necessary to graze livestock. Given X number of acres with X amount of grass, you can graze X number of animals in a sustained way. Adding animals to this area would result in imbalance: grass would not get a chance to regerminate, trails and tracks would become rutted, erosion would carry away soil, stressed animals would compete and for ever more meager nourishment. This is not a sustainable situation required for farming. The farmer would need to either cut back on the herd or supplement feed and rotate animals from field to barn. Costs in dollars and time would rise.
All biological systems strive for a balanced carrying capacity: sustainability. It’s not surprising, therefore, that humans must be included in this model. We’ve all seen the charts and heard the dire warnings about population numbers. Scientist Thomas Malthus became concerned about the carrying capacity of humans on Earth way back in the 18th century. Demographers since then have been wary of the growing numbers of our species and its ability to be sustained.
Malthus couldn't have conceived how the timeline for population "overshoot" might extend itself. He could not have envisioned the extent of developing industrialization. The 19th and 20th century would encourage cultures to assume the carrying capacity of Earth could be expanded. And it was expanded, artificially, with the help of oil. Oil-run industry was able to promote a limitless sense of a modern lifestyle. It promoted growth. "Growth was good." Those of Earth’s cultures who were able, jumped on the evolving growth bandwagon.
“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell,” maintained the blunt Edward Abbey. In the 1960’s he was speaking as a defender of the natural environment that was being swallowed by development. More people were taking more land or degrading natural landscapes at alarming rates. Precious resources, such as fresh water, were becoming even more scarce.
Environmentalist cries like Abbey’s were often taken with a grain of salt back then. Societies were accustomed to the feel of growth and the confidence that technology and fossil fuels would handle all comers. Fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other petro-chemicals were providing increased food production. Interstate highways were built and cars with single passengers commuted from new suburbs.
How did we get onto the treadmill of growth for growth’s sake? What exactly is a sustainable population? How do the numbers crunch? Are we back to the concept of finiteness?
Thoughts without graphs...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)