4 hours ago, Luis Carlos Zardo said:

A population is overpopulated when its existence cannot be perpetuated etternaly keeping the same QUALITY of life and PRSERVING the environment that supports it´s existence.

I fail to see how quality of life is important in that regard (especially since the majority of the worlds population could lead a much better life if it wasn't for all the uneven distributions in our current world).

4 hours ago, Luis Carlos Zardo said:

Our life quality, for those of us that are not part of the 1% is obviously declining and our environment is about to collapse, major ecossystems are already destroyed beyond any recovery.

I agree and have basically already stated this. It is the (increasing) imbalance that is hurting us. But if we were to globally try to get that figured out we would be able to. Nobody can tell me that the massive amount goods that, just as an example, my local supermarkets are carrying are necessary for the local community to lead a good life. There is an enormous overproduction in/for places where it is not necessary. However, places which would badly need those resources are never going to get their hands on them. But if you boil it down to what it is, this is just bad organization, not overpopulation (in my opinion anyways).

The answer to why is that humans are very bad at dealing with issues without immediate and easily visible consequences. 

This isn't just a problem with environmental issues.... a lot of people who can afford to save still don't have enough money saved for retirement because we're bad at dealing with things decades out.

If you give people an immediate problem with an obvious solution, they will work to fix it, or spend money to get other people to fix it. 

1 hour ago, 3pic_F4il_FTW said:

especially since the majority of the worlds population could lead a much better life if it wasn't for all the uneven distributions in our current world

if it was as easy to just give resources away, then the problem would have been solved ages ago. However when a country provides too much support for another it happens that production in the second country goes down, while population grows; this adds to the world problem, it doesn't fix things.

Think about it, if you had to give your neighbour all the money you spend on luxuries, because they didn't have a job, why would they ever work again; if they get money for doing nothing?

The whole "relief effort" is the most effective way around this. Wealthy countries support poor countries by providing only the bare minimum and bland resources. This gives the poor country a chance of survival while still motivating them to produce their own resources.

This whole discussion lost its meaning.

It started as "why no one is doing anything about environmental degradation"

People are discussing how we can feed everyone...

Yes, we can feed everyone, as long as we have abundant fossil fuel and absolutely no regards for the environment.

But it´s pointless, the point is, how can we feed everyone WITHOUT trashing our environment.

The short answer is, we can´t, the long answer is, we can´t, because the current population are using almost the entire planet to produce it´s food.

It´s not a matter of distribution, creating an even distribution would destroy this planet immediately, we are actually lucky that so many is in the hands of so few, because otherwise we would need a dozen planets, just imagine the entire Africa, India and China with the same feeding habits as we, in the west enjoy.

But, again, if the discussion is about environmental degradation I´m in, if it´s about food distribution, I really don´t care

8 hours ago, Scouting Ninja said:

if it was as easy to just give resources away, then the problem would have been solved ages ago. However when a country provides too much support for another it happens that production in the second country goes down, while population grows; this adds to the world problem, it doesn't fix things.

Yes, I agree and as you might know, dumping is actually happening a lot. We are essentially refusing to import their products while weakening their local producers. I never said that this would be the solution. I am just saying that in pure numbers it would be possible to feed everyone on this planet and still have an excess production (maybe/probably not with our current economy system though).

In regard to environmental degradation. I guess a lot of people are unwilling to change their habits as long as others refuse to do so. Plus it is much easier to rage about e.g. Trump denying global warming. There are many consumers who are not aware of how they are hurting the environment. If you think about it, smartphones are way underpriced and their lifecycle is way too low. But a lot of people are not aware of that (in order to be they would have to inform themselves) or just block it out (after all, the others are doing it as well, right? Why should I be the only one missing out?).

I guess we also do not really see the problems we are causing as it is easily hidden from us and there is no real 'consumer education' about it (which could also hurt economy and this is a big no-no, right?).

10 hours ago, Luis Carlos Zardo said:

It started as "why no one is doing anything about environmental degradation"

I think the why is obvious. The world would need some very drastic clear indication that pollution is a disaster. The way things have been is that the problems creep up so slowly that people have had some time to adapt.

If something happens like America gets multiple monster hurricanes for two or three years in a row; something like that would be a clear indicator.

The effects of environmental degradation isn't visible to the average consumer.

8 hours ago, Scouting Ninja said:

If something happens like America gets multiple monster hurricanes for two or three years in a row; something like that would be a clear indicator.

Nope. You'd still have climate deniers claiming they were "part of a natural cycle". 

Show me an academic paper or a book that attempts to deny the importance of climate science, and I'll show you an author who is getting funding or grants from big oil. A similar thing started with Frederick Seitz and the tobacco industry earlier on. He himself then migrated to big oil and climate science.

Unfortunately, most are just ignorant of the environment. Some, or even many, are just liars. One should learn about the environment. One should learn the seven services provided by ecosystems. 

One should learn about biodiversity, and why it's really important. And I mean really important.

Regulations matter. Voluntary help is a load of crap. Regulations overcome what ChaosEngine cited as a problem about six posts back. Unfortunately, the current regime doesn't believe in regulations. At all.

Pruitt's a problem. In fact, most all appointed cabinet heads of the current administration are a problem. They know next to nothing about the cabinet in question, and are, in general, actually antithetical to the mission of the department in question. Pruitt is just one example.

I could go on, and on, and on.

16 hours ago, bishop_pass said:

Regulations matter. Voluntary help is a load of crap. Regulations overcome what ChaosEngine cited as a problem about six posts back. 

 

The important thing is that regulations level the playing field.

Let's say we have two businesses competing. One decides it's going to be environmentally responsible. It invests money in recycling, it tries to source materials locally and reduces shipping kilometres, reduces packaging etc. All this costs money and if the business is to remain viable these costs must be passed on to its customers. Even if they're smart and market their product as a premium, ultimately they'll still fail if they're undercut by the competition.

But regulations mean everyone has to play by the same rules. 

16 hours ago, bishop_pass said:

Unfortunately, the current regime doesn't believe in regulations. At all.

Yep, and the morons who voted for them think this is a good thing because humans are fundamentally short-sighted.