Comments on: Copenhagen Climate Change

By: Agricultural, Livestock

Agricultural, Livestock — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:38:46 +0000

Agricultural, Livestock…

[...]Copenhagen Climate Change « Neuroanthropology[...]…

By: The Wilberforce Award: The population puzzle part 2 « Neuroanthropology

The Wilberforce Award: The population puzzle part 2 « Neuroanthropology — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 08:07:31 +0000

[...] Le Brésil au XIXème et XXIème siècle 150 years since the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859) Copenhagen Climate Change Anything but flat Yann Arthus Bertrand Mental Health and Global Warming A bad case of the humans [...]

By: The Wilberforce Award: The Population Puzzle « Neuroanthropology

The Wilberforce Award: The Population Puzzle « Neuroanthropology — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:01:26 +0000

[...] the end of last year, I posted a discussion about Overpopulation and the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference that I also translated into French. The English post [...]

By: Complete this quote: “From a systems standpoint, what cities are doing is…” « Neuroanthropology

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:16:47 +0000

[...] Do you ever think of human communities in terms of Dunbar’s Number, cognitive health or overpopulation? Okay, before I overwhelm you: Free your mind. Reply below and let us know how you would complete [...]

By: Solastalgia and the ecopsychology of our changing environment « Neuroanthropology

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:42:41 +0000

[...] I can remember learning about pollution, the greenhouse effect, acid rain, global warming, climate change, the destruction of the rainforests, exploitation of marine life, overpopulation and poverty. And [...]

By: 150 years since the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859) « Neuroanthropology

150 years since the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859) « Neuroanthropology — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:44:54 +0000

[...] da Bahia) who were painters on board the Beagle during its famous voyage. Last week I looked at population growth in Brazil as a case-study of urbanisation, pollution and the future of developing countries. This week, I [...]

By: Paul Mason

Paul Mason — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:55:40 +0000

To return to the demographic information about Brazil. During fieldwork I visited Brasilia and spoke with various employees from several government departments all of whom drew my attention to a recent survey of poverty in Brazil. The findings surprised everyone and demonstrated that obesity was a bigger problem than poverty because the diet was not sufficiently varied nor sufficiently healthy. Mass production and distribution of single crop-types leads to various issues the least of which is the impact on biodiversity. Mass farming of poultry and meat is also a key problem in the hibernation of new diseases. In some interesting conversations I had after some sessions on climate change at the Annual meeting of the Australian Anthropological Society, the need for an eco-centric view as opposed to an anthropomorphic view was highlighted and if we can, it is important not to skew the species population charts in any particular direction as we have been doing for ourselves since the Industrial & Agricultural Revolutions.

I have both been informed and enlightened by the responses to the above post. Thank you for your contributions. It is great to see interested people engaging in open discussion about these issues!

By: Janis

Janis — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:42:19 +0000

“Only?” This isn’t a mathematical proof. Several billion people going hungry is by definition more awful than several thousand, and I highly doubt, as your comment seems to imply, that the graph is a linear one. In other words, I strongly suspect that the proportion of people who starve gets larger as the absolute number of people increases.

“Because part of a politics problem is a cynical portrayal of human nature problem.” You say cynical, I say realistic. We need to plan for the fact that in the zillion years since we evolved, politics is always part of us. Not planning for that is irresponsible. Allowing people to suffer through wilfully ignoring is it unforgivable.

By: MTBradley

MTBradley — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:32:42 +0000

Please define ‘politics problem.’ Because if the problem is that only a certain percentage of the population is going to have access to food the only thing controlling the population is going to control is the absolute number of individuals who are hungry, not the existence of hunger itself. “You’re part of the problem if you don’t accept that some people are always going to die horrible, needless deaths,” is basically the logic that says if you’re an American voter who wants progressive political change you have to hold your nose and vote a straight Democratic ticket. Because part of a politics problem is a cynical portrayal of human nature problem.

By: Janis

Janis — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:27:21 +0000

Yes, and we will always have a hunger problem, because what a “hunger problem” is, is actually a politics problem. So we should allow for it and have fewer people. Otherwise, it’s liker refusing to wear a seatbelt because, in an ideal world, you shouldn’t need one.

Yes, in an ideal world, you shouldn’t. We don’t live in an ideal world.