Your thoughts on Human Ecological Overshoot (a poll)

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If the species wants to save themselves, then yes, it's one of the most pressing issues. Looking at the early votes, that doesn't appear to be the case for 40% of the voters.

View attachment 82711

Update:

I agree with you to a degree. For me, this is the most pressing problem facing humanity, but I don't see humanity being proactive enough to avert widespread catastrophe and consider it a foregone conclusion, so in that sense, nothing to worry about. Humankind's response will be reactive, and not until enough people have been harmed that that they are forced to react. Nature will then generate a major correction to the human condition, and the remnant will have a chance to do better in their future.

 

[icehorse]

I agree with you to a degree. For me, this is the most pressing problem facing humanity, but I don't see humanity being proactive enough to avert widespread catastrophe and consider it a foregone conclusion, so in that sense, nothing to worry about. Humankind's response will be reactive, and not until enough people have been harmed that that they are forced to react. Nature will then generate a major correction to the human condition, and the remnant will have a chance to do better in their future.

Well the smart money agrees with you. But it's not in my constitution to just throw in the towel.

I just skimmed through a book called "Bright Green Lies". The gist is that the "solutions" we hear about are mostly fake. E.g., EVs don't really help, and might actually be worse. But they do have a list of solutions that I've summarized here:

Bright Green Lies – Solutions
1 – Face the reality
2 – Stop destroying
3 – Stop deforestation
4 – Protect marshes
5 – Protect grasslands
6 – Protect / restore (peat) bogs
7 – Restore rivers and streams
==
8 – Get scientists to agree and proclaim
9 – Eliminate subsidies
10 – Stop extraction
11 – Stop harvesting trees
12 – Stop destroying topsoil
13 – Stop draining aquifers
14 – Stop monoculture
15 – Save species
16 – Stop large infrastructure projects
17 – Stop economic growth
18 – Liberate and Educate women
19 – Punish eco-crimes
20 – Reduce “defense” spending by 80% - in steps

 

[Heyo]

11 – Stop harvesting trees

That is actually a carbon capturing method.
Trees, in their natural cycle, take up carbon from the atmosphere and release it when they rot. Taking wood out of the natural process binds the carbon for longer than nature would. This assumes not over harvesting. I.e. as long as the bio mass over all is not diminished, it results in capturing carbon. Deforestation otoh is destroying a future carbon sink (or buffer). And the wood has to be used in long living products. Simply burning it is also counter productive.

 

[icehorse]

That is actually a carbon capturing method.
Trees, in their natural cycle, take up carbon from the atmosphere and release it when they rot. Taking wood out of the natural process binds the carbon for longer than nature would. This assumes not over harvesting. I.e. as long as the bio mass over all is not diminished, it results in capturing carbon. Deforestation otoh is destroying a future carbon sink (or buffer). And the wood has to be used in long living products. Simply burning it is also counter productive.

Yeah, this is tricky stuff. But if we zoom out and see climate change as a symptom of the larger problem of overshoot then that "probably" adds a lot of other positive values that trees have

 

[sayak83]

Ecological Overshoot is the idea that as a species, humans are consuming the finite resources of the planet in ways that are not sustainable long term. From this perspective, climate change is just a symptom of the larger problem of overshoot.

It's a more pressing problem than global warming in many ways because the threat is greater (as previous mass extinction events show) and the triggers are not well understood nor how to properly assess the extent of future risks. For example in the global warming problem the simulation models are robust and have good track record of predicting various scenarios as they unfold. So we know what to do and how to prevent and mitigate. But we do not have any models predicting ecological vulnerability or collapse probability. We do not know what markers will be signposts to look for in future etc. For example are the so called high visibility species like koala, polar bear, lions, elephants...do their numbers the most important marker or should we be looking at the population of some non-descript mushroom growing in the undergrowth? Or maybe some beetle? We do not know when an ecosystem crosses a threshold when it starts to disintegrate irreversible. That we do not know this and are Still stressing all the ecosystems of the world while knowing that they have collapsed irreversibly numerous times in the past.....We are drunk and speeding on a rickety bridge over an ocean in the dark. Thats our status.

 

[Quintessence]

It's not bad, but I think with a little tweaking it could communicate the realities a little better. But we're mostly of a mind here.

FYI I didn't create the I=PAT equation - it's an articulation developed by environmental philosophy a few decades ago. There's more thorough explanations of it than the short summary I presented and like all things in philosophy it has its critics. I mostly find it useful because it emphasizes the multiplicative or compounding nature of the issue - one cannot just address population, or just address misuse of technology, or just address excess consumerism to reduce human impacts. All three have to be done and while the P part of the equation has become more in-fashion to talk about, the A and T components certainly haven't been. Simple living and appropriate technology goes too counter to the inherently exploitative nature of consumer-driven capitalism for them to be discussed, it seems.

 

[icehorse]

FYI I didn't create the I=PAT equation - it's an articulation developed by environmental philosophy a few decades ago. There's more thorough explanations of it than the short summary I presented and like all things in philosophy it has its critics. I mostly find it useful because it emphasizes the multiplicative or compounding nature of the issue - one cannot just address population, or just address misuse of technology, or just address excess consumerism to reduce human impacts. All three have to be done and while the P part of the equation has become more in-fashion to talk about, the A and T components certainly haven't been. Simple living and appropriate technology goes too counter to the inherently exploitative nature of consumer-driven capitalism for them to be discussed, it seems.

We're up against an enormously well funded, powerful, juggernaut of propaganda. So I'm not criticizing the accuracy of the formula. But we need "the masses" to understand what's going on here, so we have to fight back with our own, easily grokked, powerful messages.