Without reducing consumption, it may not be possible to save Planet earth. Right ?

Question

This is concern for preserving the environment, while still not undermining peoples' prosperity. Yet standard of living is a relative term. So there may be found an international consensus to apply brake to the world consumtion.

Answer 1

Demographers say that the Earth can sustain a population at present levels of 20 billion. We are not even close to that amount and already birth rates are falling off. Additionally, most of the population growth of Earth in the past 30-60 years is a result of declining mortality--that is, people are living longer because of improved hygiene and medical services even in rural areas of the planet. This, too, is now leveling off.

So the Earth is likely to not experience much more population growth and probably will experience a decline within 15-20 years.

As far as natural resources are concerned, that, too, is taking care of itself as science reduces our dependancy on critical materials. Copper deposits, for example, were once worth major wars. No longer, since we have greatly reduced our use of copper.

Oil is the biggie today, but we already have substitutes available. The cost per unit of energy is the driver now. As oil prices increase, the alternatives become more economically viable.

I see no problems in the future. Today is just a matter of dislocations that are in the process of correcting themselves.

Answer 2

We may not have to reduce consumption, if we can find a way to change our consumption.

For example, as the world changes its means of data storage from paper to electronic, fewer trees will be needed. The development of new alloys or synthetic materials will mean less metal in factories, buildings, or automobiles. New energy sources could replace fossil fuels or natural gas.

We could maintain our current level of consumption, or even exceed it, if the form of consumption did not have the same effects on the environment. A lot of these changes may come about on their own, since they'll be cheaper or better than existing forms of consumption.

Again, look at the rise of computers or MP3 players. These technologies reduce the need for paper or plastic, but there didn't have to be any concerted effort to develop them. People started using them because they were better, and they also happened to be good for the environment.

Answer 3

We are presently already outliving the lifespan intended for us on earth. With the presence of modern science and medication, we are actually rivalling Charles Darwin's theory of 'Survival of the fittest'. One of the reasons for eliminating the weak while the strong lives on is to maintain a reasonably-sized population. Even if we were to reduce global consumption right now, the planet will still face an imminent expiry date.

Answer 4

Without reducing consumption, it may not be possible to save life on Earth. I think we will never actually consume the core of the planet.

Answer 5

The environment will survive on its own.
It may kill off humans to do so.

As far as consumption goes we will develop new things to replace what we use up.

The answer probably lies more with population control, limiting every one on the planet to replacing themselves
A couple would be allowed two children ,period.

sperm and eggs taken at 13 or so, person sterilized, have to apply for children,artificial insemination etc.

Answer 6

that will never happen the only way to stop harm to earth is to kill all the vechicles on the road and go back to horse and buggy. that will never happen. I will never see the end of earth but you young folks probably will sad as it is the cars are killing us and the factories. Everyone wants to prosper but at what risk. you young peoples lives. oh well There is no stopping them ever.

Answer 7

Well considering that the planet naturally goes through periods of heating and cooling, we have little effect on what's going to happen.

Answer 8

most of the things that we consume are renewable so I don't give a crap
We will always find ways to live, the world won't come to an end because we run out of "stuff" or room

Answer 9

the Earth will always change, but I think you mean will it be possible to save the human race? In that case, I say no.

Answer 10

those waiting for a conflict cry to "keep the Earth" could locate it humbling that the planet is remarkably resilient and could live on us all. it really is the destruction of the human beings-pleasant surroundings, that skinny bubble of existence on earth's crust, that alarms scientists and thinkers and leaders from for the time of the political and social spectrum. we've brewed up an surroundings better and better adverse to human existence with our commercial chemistry set. the mandatory message isn't new, despite the indisputable fact that the movie backs it up with a wealth of compelling data and arguments (and some doubtful witnesses). directors Nadia Conners and Leila Conners Petersen connect the dots between environmental crises too regularly stated as remoted subject matters and make the modest idea that we give up treating the planet only as sources to be exploited. "The eleventh Hour" has not one of the interest-getting stunts of Michael Moore's exciting and energetic productions, or the nature and palpable pastime of Al Gore in "An Inconvenient fact." The alarming data demands better than a dutiful slide teach to awaken audiences to action, despite the indisputable fact that the wise and provocative assembly of minds is though compelling and aggravating. climate replace is in easy words one symptom of the ailment plaguing the planet. Others contain deforestation, air pollution, soil degradation, pollution contained in the oceans and aquifers, and the quick extinction of species. The planet, equivalent to a ill human with a fever, is heating as a lot as kill the ailment