Human Population Crisis

There are numerous problems with the environment today. Problems that are in dire need of attention. However, what needs to be acknowledged is that the vast majority of these problems cannot be corrected in the long run without first dealing with the problem of overpopulation.

When people think of population, they're most likely to think of swarms of people. Overpopulation is not population density, but rather the number of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities. Even more important than the number of people are the resources consumed by each person, and the damage done by technologies used to supply them.

As the population of the United States recently surpassed 300,000,000, many people are still incapable of sensing the problem of overpopulation. They point to the fact that there is enough wide open space available to hold numerous times the present population. But what they don't realize is that most of the open space that they are talking about is not inhabitable.

Sure there are other countries that have many more people per square mile than the United States. But these countries are either third world countries that use just a small percentage of the natural resources that we do, or else they rely on other countries to supply them with natural resources. Overpopulation is when the number of people can not be permanently maintained without depleting resources and without degrading the environment and the people's standard of living. Because we are rapidly using up resources around the world, virtually all nations are overpopulated.

Earth in a Pressure Cooker - The Global Warming Controversy, Part Two

The Evils of Burning Down our Forests

What would become of the Earth's oxygen supply if all our forests were destroyed?

One report states that 30% of CO2 levels rising higher each year are due to deforestation, particularly due to slash-and-burn operations, perpetrated by greedy, selfish cultivators, who are ruthlessly raping our rainforests, such as in South America and Africa. However, the brutality of deforestation has been conducted in Brazil, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and even the United States. In fact, slash-and-burn methods are conducted by more than two-hundred million people across the planet, particularly in the nations listed above. Not only does the burning of these forests create pollution and higher CO2 levels, but the lack of these forestlands robs the planet of the necessary oxygen-producing trees that we need for life-support.

Another report states that a large portion of rainforest in South America, particularly Brazil, had been burned down and replaced by soybean farms. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, the soybean crops failed. Why? Because the soil was naturally geared toward growing rainforests, not soybeans! And if those rainforests have been there for thousands of years, do you think you can easily grow soybeans overnight? Obviously you need a certain kind of soil for soybeans, and then a certain kind of soil for rainforests. Ma Nature seems to know how to do this because she's the Master Gardener. Perhaps we can learn from her. Intelligent environmentalists maintain the view that the rainforests are the lungs of the world, as if our precious planet is a huge organism. Stop and think about that for several moments.

If most of or all of our rainforests are destroyed, particularly in South America and Africa, you have an organism that can't breathe very easily, and there will be extreme oxygen depletion in our atmosphere. That is probably far more scarier than you can imagine. But the soybean farmers would rather have money in their pockets from selling soybeans than having good old-fashioned air to breathe. I hate to bring up this next analogy, because there are a lot of smokers out there. Alright, you could liken the burning of rainforests to the burning up lungs of a heavy smoker, because it's much harder for a smoker to breathe then a non-smoker. Incidentally, I'm an ex-smoker, so I stopped before it was too late, so I know what it's like.

Another fact is that our forests remove carbon dioxide and pollutants from the atmosphere, and emits large quantities of oxygen back into it, which helps stabilize life on the planet. It's also a fact that all plants, especially trees, deliver the appropriate amount of revitalized oxygen in order to support life on our planet. And yet another fact is that the rainforests produce about 40% of all the oxygen on the Earth. But if these precious forests begin to disappear, so will our precious oxygen. There will be less air to breathe for our inhabitants, 6.6 billion of us (not counting other life-forms), but since global warming will begin killing people off, maybe things will balance out in the end. (Yeah right!)

Another report states that between 1960 and 1990 one-fifth of the planet's rainforests were destroyed. If these kinds of deforesting procedures continue, it is estimated that all tropical forests could disappear by the year 2090. That would definitely devastate the whole planet and its inhabitants -- to put it mildly

Deforestation, particularly caused by slash-and-burning, wildfires, the occasional arsonist, and other tragic methods as well, leads to higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, so these heinous activities must be stopped, because our precious plant-life is extremely important, especially our major forests. If all the forests were ruthlessly destroyed, there would be nearly 40% less oxygen on the planet, which means the CO2 levels would increase much higher, so this would inevitably annihilate the inhabitants here. With CO2 levels increasing and oxygen decreasing, that equals death to life on Earth. We would literally choke to death!

Although "reforestation" is practiced in some areas, that is, the replanting of new trees, I don't think it's being done fast enough to replace all of our vital forests we have already lost.

More Bad News We Just Don't Want To Hear

Another side effect of global warming has been "bad weather" anomalies, which means there will be increased intensity and frequency of various weather patterns involving hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and even droughts, and there will be major heat waves as well. There are also reports that estimate the possibility of the extinction of certain species. In fact, I recently heard in the news that several species of birds are already dying off and possibly becoming endangered. Another report states that there will be an increase of diseases. In fact, thirty new diseases have arrived on the scene, just in the last quarter-century. Naturally, the skeptical experts will deny this particular connection to the climate problem, saying the Chicken-Little environmentalists are just trying to throw anything and everything into the global warming stewpot. You have to realize that on this planet everything is interconnected. Everything! This one big living organism, our beloved Emerald Planet, needs our help. I don't think Ma Nature can do it alone. We've got to stop attacking her and start working with her. Or we could be heading toward mass-annihilation. Who wants that on their conscience?

You may have heard the theory that there once was life on Mars, perhaps several thousands of years ago, of which there is some evidence. Did the Martians destroy themselves -- just like we are about to do?

Gas Guzzlers Beware!

Yes it's true! Fuel emissions are on the rise! Since the world's population is approximately 6.6 billion (and it's still growing!), does that mean there are approximately six-billion gas-spewing vehicles on this planet as well? Alright, there are a few backward countries where the people either don't have automobiles or they're too poor to own them, which means they probably use their feet or pedal bicycles to get around -- or the occasional rickshaw. So even if we guesstimated approximately five-billion automobiles and various other forms of transportation that are used on the planet, we're talking about a massive amount of polluted air. Plus, let's throw in some miscellaneous factories that chug out plumes of nasty smoke as well. Yes, we can see filthy brown clouds over large cities, but a lot of this dirty air, due to continual winds, is spread throughout our atmosphere. That sounds like a good thing, right? Nope! Those blowing winds are not going to solve the problem, as if making the pollution magically disappear; they're just redistributing pollutants throughout the atmosphere. You could say the wind currents are playing a global shell game with pollutants.

One report states that the net carbon-emission rate of the planet will have to be decreased by roughly 60%, and on the outside by 80%. Yikes! That sounds like a tall order! Not only that, but we would have to accomplish this by the year 2050 to even begin to reach a place where we are marginally close to almost being safe! Does that mean all of us have to stop driving cars and flying airplanes, and close down our oil refineries and factories, or even stop smoking? Holy moly! Now, how many billions of people are laughing about how absurd this sounds? Go ahead and have your laugh. Alright, if we sit back and idly do nothing about it, except gradually die off, how absurd does that sound?

How many billions of people really care about our precious planet? In today's modern society we have become vehicularly-dependent, hence we are auto-addicts. Perhaps there needs to be a new AA therapy program for these miserable people -- all six-billion of them! I mean – us! Yeah, I admit it, I'm one too. Perhaps we should start Auto-addicts Anonymous!

The Boiling Frog Syndrome

Too many people are non-responsive because the global warming problem appears to be too gradual. It seems there's nothing to really notice, that is, if you're not paying attention or conveniently putting your head in a hole in the ground. You could say it's an illusion that the climate crisis seems to be occurring slowly, but it's actually happening much faster than you think. Within the last couple of decades there have been radical changes come to pass, as we have discussed already. Let's not forget those vanishing islands, or big chunks breaking away from the ice caps.

The problem is that we humans also are stricken with the Boiling Frog Syndrome. You've probably heard it by other names. Al Gore refers to this analogy in his documentary, An Inconvenient Truths. We all know that if you put a frog in a saucepan of boiling water, it will immediately jump out. So you have to trick the little critter, put it in a pan of pleasantly cool water, and it will just sit there. If you turn the burner on, and let the water very gradually warm up, keeping the burner on low, this particular frog, not being very bright, will just sit there and eventually be boiled to death, or so the theory goes. Personally, if I was the frog, and the water was starting to get too hot, I would be urged to jump out.

Unfortunately, there are too many frogs in the world that just don't care, and they're letting themselves be boiled to death. We need to have a lot of smart frogs that are willing to jump out of the water before it boils. In other words, we the people have to become vigilant participants and activists and crank the heat down. Which means we must do whatever it takes, even if that means making a lot of sacrifices to our personal lifestyles.

Now the question is, how many frogs boiling in a saucepan does it take before there's too many? And will they get smart enough to jump out in time?

* * *

Goddard Institute Issues a Warning on Global Warming

Sometimes the fact of global warming gets a short shrift due to the more politically-charged discussion on whether it is caused naturally by, for example, an unusual cycle of sun flares, or human activity.

I think the latter question will never be settled to the satisfaction of all parties involved because it has political undertones and repercussions for people who do not share the same political views.

However we should keep the causality question separate from the more urgent one of whether there is indeed a global warming or not. And on that note, the evidence keeps piling on a daily basis from sources whose credentials are in general beyond reproach.

Take the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at Columbia University, for example. The Institute represents as intense a concentration of scientific minds as any.

Dr. James Hansen, the President of the Institute, said during a presentation of Al Gore's Oscar-winning movie "An Inconvenient Truth" in Dennison, Iowa, that global warming has reached a "crisis" state and its full impact might be felt within as short as ten years.

Hansen also dealt with the "former question" that I've underlined above, namely, "who" causes all this warming. He said the quality of the scientific evidence which pointed at "human activity" and "burning fossil fuels" as the culprit was beyond discussion.

Hansen, leaving diplomacy aside, has also dashed the hopes that his fellow Iowans invested in corn-produced ethanol for reducing the impact of the green house gases.

"There is a lot of potential in biofuels," he said. "[But] corn-based ethanol, in the long-term, is not very helpful… it still puts a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere."

Can Nuclear Energy Save You From Global Warming?

Just imagine a world with abundant energy, enabling you to live the good life forever... Isn't that what most of us crave? Nuclear energy is magic isn't it?

Nuclear energy has no greenhouse gas emissions. The latest technology has made it safe and we can bury nuclear waste without worrying about radiation. Business as usual without doing any harm.

Perfect!

Well, is it?

Nuclear energy is magical thing. It's hard to understand how it works and it's easy to get bamboozled by claims made by the nuclear magicians – scientists – as well as by opponents.

Take veteran environmentalist Dr James Lovelock, of GAIA fame who says only nuclear energy can save us from global warming. Or Dr Helen Caldicott who says it's too dangerous and we do not need it.

And governments ... Well, depends on who you talk to.

Your life is full already without figuring out what is valid and what's not. Right?

Easier to just leave it to "Them."

But stop!

Find out the facts on nuclear energy and nuclear radiation hazards. Then make up your mind – and next time there is an election you vote with some knowledge under your belt. There is plenty of information out there to help you make up your mind and I'll give you a leg-up.

So, here is an easy framework. Imagine experiencing a certain "knowing"about this important issue on your way to the ballot box, or in talking with your friends.

Given that global warming is a real threat, and global energy demand is ballooning, then the nuclear energy debate is essentially about four Big Issues.

1) Can nuclear energy deliver on a low-emission or even non-emission basis?


2) Is nuclear energy for electrical power purposes safe?


3) Can it be delivered at a reasonable cost?


4) How does it compare with other low-emission alternate energy sources?

Here is an overview only of those issues. But don't just take my word for it. Find out more yourself!

Emissions

• 
  Yes, nuclear energy is emission-free if you just measure the exhausts from a reactor's chimney.
  
• In one study, nuclear energy came close to wind power in low emissions over its lifetime.
  
• There is no air pollution, with big nuclear energy user France having the cleanest air in Europe.
  
• No, it is not emission-free and is a greenhouse gas emitter, when measuring mining of uranium and transporting it, building and decommissioning nuclear power plants.
  

Safe?

• 
  Chernobyl still stands the only disastrous accident with a nuclear power plant, and the antiquated structure and action taken after the "melt-down" bears much blame.
  
• Any safeguards are only as good as the people that manage them, and any further accident will be one too many.
  
• Modern nuclear power plant structures are much safer.
  
• A terrorist attack, using radioactive material in a dirty bomb cannot be excluded.
  
• A terrorist attack using an airplane could be disastrous, even though deactivating a modern nuclear plant can be done in 5 seconds.
  
• A higher-than-normal incidence of childhood leukemia has been reported near power plants in the UK, France and Germany.
  
• So-called Generation IV nuclear reactors, including "fast breeders" are said to be cleaner (low radiation level waste), cheaper and safer but the first will not be ready before 2010, some not until 2030.
  

Cost

• 
  Economics of nuclear energy is a wobbly concept, depending on the assumptions about other energy sources and their end costs.
  
• Nuclear reactors currently have very high start-up and close-down costs compared to other low-emission, and renewable energy sources.
  
• Costs are more than just counting money.
  

Comparison to low-emission energy sources

• 
  You'll find many studies with different results.
  
• One must take into account the urgent threat presented by global warming, that of radioactive energy, and appraise the benefits of energy-wise living and currently available renewable energy sources.
  

The magical attraction of nuclear energy remains: throw enough money at it and all our problems will seem to go away. But the future is most likely one of a diversified use of renewable energy with some nuclear energy. It's a question of where to put the emphasis.

Nuclear energy sources removes people even further from tangible "natural" processes. More of the same kind of thinking that caused our global warming problems in the first place. Why not emphasize responsible energy use, and the use of the Great Big Nuclear Reactor In The Sky to drive wind, tidal and solar energy. And to try and live in harmonious relationship with each other and our environments.

But you just have to make up your own mind. My children's future and yours depend on you. Only your personal attitude – the greatest energy source we know – can help you live with global warming. And we are going to have to live with it for a long, long time.

Elephant Dung May Stop Ivory Poaching

The ivory trade was banned several years ago, but poachers have continued to kill elephants for their prized tusks. These ivory tusks are made into valuable items like figurines and jewelry that are treasured by people all over the world. The unfortunate side effect of these poachers continuing to hunt and kill elephants for their tusks is that the population of African elephants dropped quickly from over 1 million just over one-half million in a short time period. Poaching is the illegal killing of elephants so that their tusks can be harvested and smuggled to other countries so that ivory products can be produced and sold for a great deal of money. Elephant dung may actually be the key to helping to control the number of poachers getting away with this crime in the name of the ivory trade. Knowing how elephant dung can help elephants is sure to pique the interest of anyone who loves elephants and nature.

Using elephant dung and elephant skin samples, scientists have been able to map the DNA of elephants. Because scientists can now use DNA to track where an elephant has been, they are using the technology to track elephant poachers. By using the elephant DNA, scientists can trace ivory shipments back to where the elephants were originally poached. If researchers find that a large number of poachings have occurred in the same area, law enforcement can be strengthened so that these poachers will be caught and prosecuted for their illegal activities. Using this technique to track elephants is almost like a jungle version of Crime Scene Investigation. Instead of using hair samples or skin cells from humans, these scientists are using DNA found in the dung and skin of the elephant to trace where they have been.

The presence of DNA in elephant dung is a great thing for researchers. Instead of having to collect skin samples, which would be a tedious and difficult process, they can take dung samples and use the DNA in those samples to track where elephants have been. Because elephants go to the bathroom up to 16 times per day, scientists involved in this effort have a lot of samples to choose from. It makes it a little easier for them to track the elephants when they keep finding evidence that leads them closer and closer to the scene of the poaching. This method is usually used to work backwards. Law enforcement officials may confiscate a shipment of ivory or arrest someone who is suspected of being involved in the ivory trade. The surrounding area is analyzed and investigators search for DNA. Instead of looking to find the killer where the ivory is, these scientists then backtrack, checking dung samples along the way for any signs of the same DNA. When DNA matching the DNA found at the scene of the ivory confiscation is found, they follow the trail until it loads to where an elephant was poached. This is a very interesting way scientists are using technology to help keep elephants safer.

How Many More People Can This Planet Hold Anyway?

Indeed, growth and development are to be expected and since the human race is breeding like rats the world over it has been estimated and we can expect some 50 Billion people walking the surface of the planet by 2050. Very few of the largest population centers will have the water resources they need.

Systems theory would dictate that we must build and prepare for the future that awaits and remove corruption or the Status Quo barriers which attempt to subdue change, which is a constant. Human populations need to stop breeding so fast and we must pay attention to what is going on, because if we fail to plan, then Mother Nature has another plan and one we most likely will not enjoy.

You see, it is irrelevant to Mother Earth what we choose to do, as there are cycles, patterns and things that just are. Today we have a choice, if we fail to choice that too is a choice. It appears we cannot count on government to fix the problem and the masses are far too demanding to choose. The collective of human consciousness is simply not going to work, we need strength of character and strong individuals to lead the way.

It is the unreasonable man which molds the world to his favor, not the group clinging to the old which is moving out of flavor. All hail the individual and the societies made of strength of character and individuals whose efforts bring change, upgrades to systems.

Defending a Nation Against US First Strike

If one were a betting man, then betting against the United States in war would be a lousy way to play it. There is no doubt that the stakes are very high for the defending nation and any mistake or failure to understand the opposing force and their ability to be "all knowing" in the modern battlespace bubble will result in severe losses and perhaps the most important defense barriers.

One new technology which will change and tilt the scale of favor slightly towards the defending nation are the new materials such as carbon composites and vehicles made out of predominantly nano-tube structure. Some current sensors on strike aircraft might have trouble finding them, however generally the targets, their locations and type are already pre-known prior to the striking aircraft's mission.

The goal in the first series of strikes is to eliminate Surface-to-Air threats and the US Navy and US Air Force are extremely proficient at this. Older hardware such as tanks, mobile missile launchers and vehicles made of steal really will not be able to maintain their concealment in today's battlefield.

Other strategies will also be considered by the defending nation; "If" the military mobile defense systems are made of hard to see materials and well hidden from view and will be to turn off all electronic and allow the engines to cool completely they will render little if any heat signature. Is it therefore possible for them to remain hidden?

Yes and No, if something sits too long it will show up as an anomaly on the Spy Satellite and if it moves too often it will have a heat signature and perhaps a CO2 plume which also shows up under various spectrums of light. What if the vehicles were electric?

Indeed, this makes sense too, but electric motors also get hot and take a little while to cool as well and they will need to power up a motor of some type at sometime to re-charge. Even if they were solar powered, they would still require large solar panels thus giving away their position.

This does somewhat remind us of the saying; "No where to run, no where to hide!" Of course this is the goal of the opposing strike force. When a defending nation is in such a position, it makes their political will and demands somewhat fruitless, as if push comes to shove and political impasse rears its head then there is always hell to pay.