DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Sober Thinking
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Catastrophic Climate Change
*****************************************************
#Post#: 604--------------------------------------------------
Species Population Biomass effects on the Biosphere
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 17, 2022, 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
AGelbert NOTE: Originally posted at my old forum
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/species-population-biomass-effects-on-the-biosphere/msg3962/#msg3962<br
/>on October 06, 2015. Last Edit was on March 13, 2022.
[center]Human Population Growth: The Truth About How Human
Activity Threatens The Conditio Sine Qua Non For Our Survival
[/center]
What Is the Greatest Number of Children Born to One Woman?
As of 2014, the greatest number of children born to one woman
was 69. Birth records from the 1700s show that the wife of a
Russian peasant named Feodor Vassilyev gave birth 27 times — to
four sets of quadruplets, seven sets of triplets and 16 pairs of
twins. It was reported that 67 of the 69 children survived past
infancy. Vassilyev’s second wife reportedly gave birth to 18
children, which would make him the father of 87 children, with
all but three surviving infancy. It has not been proved that the
records are true, and some people believe that the numbers might
be inaccurate.
More about child birth rates:
Niger is the country with the most births per woman, at an
average of 6.16, with more than half of all Nigerian mothers
giving birth before age 18.
The greatest number of surviving children born to one woman at
one time was eight in 2009 in the United States.
The United Kingdom has the highest rate of childless women older
than 45, at more than 20%.
[center]Why Sterilizing the Poorest 50% of Homo Sap Won't Solve
ANYTHING! [/center]
Brainwashed Propaganda Victims and Fossil Fuelers' REACTION to
the ABOVE: 🤔
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-050422145441-5641222.gif
The "Human Population Must Be Reduced" Propaganda Myth. Why it
is a divide and conquer tactic and why it has absolutely no
basis in scientific fact.
--- Quote ---
>
> "The total biomass of all the ants on Earth is roughly equal
to the total biomass of all the people on Earth.
>
> How can this be?! Ants are so tiny, and we are so big! But
scientists estimate there are at least 1.5 million ants on the
planet for every human being. Over 12,000 species of ants are
known to exist, on every continent except Antarctica. Most live
in tropical regions. A single acre of Amazon rainforest may
house 3.5 million ants."
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://insects.about.com/od/antsbeeswasps/a/10-cool-facts-about-ants.htm
The Human biomass is tiny compared with thousands of species
from insects to spiders to rodents, along with many marine
creatures.
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040422164614-5342345.gif<br
/>
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/1/3-120818180835-1624479.gif
See for yourself 🧐 the Evidence:
I will provide for you a couple of links for you to research but
let me give you a brief introduction to earth's biomass pyramid.
You have different trophic levels (life forms that eat other
life forms to survive).
The lower you are on the pyramid, the more collective mass you
have as a segment of the biosphere. What does that mean?
Here's a quote so you can see where I'm going with this:
--- Quote ---
> "An ecological pyramid is a graphical representation that
shows, for a given ecosystem, the relationship between biomass
or biological productivity and trophic levels.
>
> A biomass pyramid shows the amount of biomass at each trophic
level.
>
> A productivity pyramid shows the production or turn-over in
biomass at each trophic level.
>
> An ecological pyramid provides a snapshot in time of an
ecological community.
>
> The bottom of the pyramid represents the primary producers
(autotrophs). The primary producers take energy from the
environment in the form of sunlight or inorganic chemicals and
use it to create energy-rich molecules such as carbohydrates.
This mechanism is called primary production. The pyramid then
proceeds through the various trophic levels to the apex
predators at the top.
>
> When energy is transferred from one trophic level to the next,
typically only ten percent is used to build new biomass. The
remaining ninety percent goes to metabolic processes or is
dissipated as heat. This energy loss means that productivity
pyramids are never inverted, and generally limits food chains to
about six levels. However, in oceans, biomass pyramids can be
wholly or partially inverted, with more biomass at higher
levels."
>
>
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-171022161253-20811343.png[/center]
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)
Take insects as one example of the Laws of Thermodynamics as
applied to life forms in the Biosphere trophic (food chain)
pyramids.
In order for insects to BE food for spiders as well as many
other creatures, the biomass of insects has to be much, much
greater because of the heat energy losses in transferring energy
from the insect to the spider (about 90% is lost in heat). The
predators (that's what we are, by the way) are at the top of the
pyramid and have the least total biomass of all the life forms.
Lions, tigers, sharks, whales, bears, wolves, etc. have a tiny
planetary biosphere biomass in comparison with ants, earthworms,
rodents, and krill (those tiny shrimp like creatures that whales
eat). And the krill eat tiny nearly microscopic phytoplankton
(that has more biomass than the ubiquitous krill).
Mollusks, as well as ants and several thousand other species
have a larger biomass than humans. I bring up the mollusks
because they have a HUGE biomass. I studied them in depth in
college Zoology.
The phylum Mollusca:
--- Quote ---
> "The phylum Mollusca is the second most diverse phylum after
Arthropoda with over 110,000 described species. Mollusks may be
primitively segmented, but all but the monoplacophorans
characteristically lack segmentation and have bodies that are to
some degree spirally twisted (e.g. torsion).
>
> The Phylum Mollusca consist of 8 classes:
>
> 1. the Monoplacophora discovered in 1977;
> 2. the worm-like Aplacophora or solenogasters of the deep sea;
> 3. the also worm-like Caudofoveata;
> 4. the Polyplacophora, or chitons;
> 5. the Pelecypoda or bivalves;
> 6. the Gastropoda or snails;
> 7. the Scaphopoda, or tusk shells; and
> 8. the Cephalopoda that include among others squid and the
octopus."
>
--- End Quote ---
Agelbert Note: The biomass pyramid in the oceans in regard to
mollusks and fish is NOT inverted. The oceanic "confusion" is
due to the fact that some mollusks are apex predators like giant
squid and the smaller mollusk predators like Octopodes that eat
fish. Most mollusks are small to very small and are food for
fish. They are the ones (bivalves near Fukushima) that
concentrate radionuclides in their tissues that then get in the
fish that eat them. :( :P
The smaller mollusks (most of them are less than a foot long)
are FOOD for fish. That means there HAS TO BE much more of them
than there are fish. And I'm sure you don't believe the human
biomass is greater than that of all the fish species, right? ;D
.
Now for some biomass weights:
Human population = 335,000,000,000 kg.
--- Quote ---
> "Human population = 335,000,000,000 kg. This figure is based
on an average human weight of more than 100lbs, though (50kg, to
be exact). I don't know how accurate this estimate is,
especially considering that about 1/3 of us are children. There
are supposedly around 1.3 billion cattle in the world, and, put
together, they may weigh almost twice as much as our species."
>
> Antarctic krill, [I]Euphausia superba[/I] = 379,000,000,000
kg.
> There are more ants than krill. Also, metabolism plays a role
along with biomass. A "million ruby-throated hummingbirds will
consume much more food than one African Elephant, even though
both have about the same biomass (3,000kg, or 3.3 US tons).
>
> Thus, ants, as a group, may actually consume more resources
per year than antarctic krill, even though both may have roughly
the same biomass, because ants tend to be smaller, and live in
warmer environments. Although there may be about 10-15 times the
biomass of termites than cows in the world, studies have
suggested that termites might produce almost 30,000 times as
much methane per year because of their faster metabolism."
>
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.antweb.org/antblog/2010/10/do-ants-really-have-the-largest-biomass-of-all-species-on-earth-laurie-usa.html
[b]So how come nobody is hollering about reducing the termite
population?[/b]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-090822151052-17321038.png
As the article in the quotes above points out, humans are a huge
problem, not because of our biomass, but because of our carbon
footprint (I.E. the use of fossil fuels!). And guess what
portion of our population does over 80% of the Fossil Fuel
consumption? You guessed it! The upper 20%!
Who Done it?
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-171022161229-20792034.png[/center]
The Global Compact: 20% using 80% of the Resources
HTML http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/other/DTIx0601xPA/docs/en/Module2%20-%20Session1.ppt
To ACTUALLY address, confront and STOP the biosphere damage that
Homo Sap is doing, we must face the scientifically confirmed
REALITY that if you get rid of the bottom 50% of the human
population (the most poor among us) you will, I'm sorry to say,
not even dent the pollution and biosphere destruction.
AS pointed out in the biomass numbers, the amount of people
eating and defecating is not the problem, CARBON FOOTPRINT is
the threat to a viable biosphere. We must attack that problem by
reducing the carbon footprint of the most powerful people on
this planet.
NOTHING ELSE WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM. The solution, in addition
to a 100% transition to Renewable energy, involves eliminating
corporate energy welfare queen subsidies for both fossil fuels
and nuclear poison.
Democracy and a viable biosphere requires it from all of us.
The "let's reduce the human population"
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-120422122257-6592487.png<br
/>baloney is a divide and conquer tactic to avoid billing the
top
🐽 human pigs for the damage they do while attempting to
give the rest of us a totally unwarranted with ZERO empirical
basis ( but VERY clever
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-171022161229-20801741.jpeghttps://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040622153114-13822364.jpeg<br
/>
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-090822151052-17321038.png<br
/>) guilt trip. It's a lie. Don't buy it.
What we need to do is transition to 100% renewable energy as
soon as possible. That will give our future generations a chance
to live in a viable biosphere.
If you agree please pass it on. Thank you.
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-171022161222-20691889.gif[/center]
#Post#: 605--------------------------------------------------
The World’s Population Could Be Cut in Half by the End of the
Century. ~~ Sylvain Saurel
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: October 17, 2022, 3:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, October 16, 2022 by Sylvain Saurel
[center]
4 Billion People by 2100 — The World’s Population Could Be Cut
in Half by the End of the Century. 😱
HTML https://ongoingclassstruggle.blogspot.com/2022/10/4-billion-people-by-2100-worlds.html<br
/>[/center]
AGelbert COMMENTS:
Excellent article. As bad as Catastrophic Climate Change, now
upon us killing more humans, that would otherwise not have died,
EACH YEAR, I regret to say that the US world leadership in the
"Greed is Good" socially destructive idiology is accelerating
the death rate massively. Our history shows that the US will,
beyond some lip service (see below), do less than nothing to
stop this grim reaping.
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-240422194802-8901224.png
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-240422183939.jpeg
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-240422194939-9321925.png
And then there are all the high order vertebrate species, that
we humans depend on for a viable biosphere, experiencing an even
more pressing extinction crisis...
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-140822181215-1935237.pnghttps://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-250922151052.png[/center]
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-041022131622.jpeghttps://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-240422195104-954852.png[/center]
GREED is not simply "Bad"; it is the Grim Reaper's VISIBLE HAND
wielding the dagger of our demise.
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-140822180953-19121132.png
[move]Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to
any people. -- Proverbs 14:34[/move]
Published on Thursday, May 22, 2014 by TomDispatch
[center]The 95% Doctrine: Climate Change as a Weapon of Mass
Destruction Is climate change a crime against humanity? Let's go
with... Yes.[/center]
SNIPPET:
All of it -- everything that brings endless 🦖 fossil
fuels to market, makes those fuels eminently burnable, and helps
suppress the development of non-fossil fuel alternatives -- is
the ☠️ WMD. The CEOs of the planet's giant energy
corporations are the dangerous mullahs, the true
fundamentalists, of planet Earth, since they are promoting a
faith in fossil fuels which is guaranteed to lead us to some
version of End Times.
Full article:
The 95% Doctrine: Climate Change as a Weapon of Mass Destruction
Is climate change a crime against humanity? Let's go with...
Yes.
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/catastrophic-climate-change/future-earth/msg23/#msg23
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-080822134118-1710799.gif
So then, how do you suppose the elite Social Darwinist
greedballs, who CERTAINLY do not want the biosphere to be
hopelessly degraded beyond their ability to "fix it", PLAN TO
LIVE "happily ever" AFTER the world's "disposable 95% of
humanity" (i.e. "useless eaters" that have been efficiently
☠️ done away with by 😈🦖 hydrocarbon
fuels based profit over people and planet) aren't bothering them
anymore with socialist pleas for a life with dignity?
I'm glad you asked 😁. I wrote about this and, yeah, it
will work for a century or so. However, the money worshipping,
altruism rejecting fatal rot in their idiology is the pernicious
poison that will do them in as surely as it is destroying the
social fabric of humanity now. The elite greedballs, when it is
all said and done with their magical thinking about being
"masters of the universe", are really quite stupid.
[center]How to Survive When, NOT IF, Catastrophic Climate Change
Makes Earth's Climate Unsuitable For Humans
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/catastrophic-climate-change/future-earth/msg602/#msg602[/center]
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-161022163553.jpeg[/center]
mike malzahn > AGelbert
how many people do you think should be on the planet?
AGelbert > mike malzahn
For life forms on Earth, the absolute maximum rate any
population can grow is the Natural Logarithmic rate. We know
that because our scientists came up with the natural logarithm
number from measuring bacterial colony growth in ideal (i.e.
food, temperature, pressure, no competitor species, etc.)
conditions. Obviously, that rate of growth is always checked by
the conditions that prevail in our biosphere. Every species
arrives at a population size that will not increase, and can
even decrease to the point of extinction, depending on the
carrying capacity of the surrounding environment.
Mike Malzahn asked, "How many people do you think should be on
the planet?".
Before I answer that, let me explain something about the much
bandied about term, "Carrying Capacity", very popular among
Social Darwinists these days. Your question deals with a maximum
number of humans in relation to the biosphere's "Carrying
Capacity". I place that term in quotes because, scientifically,
it does not apply to a self aware species, though it is
scientifically applicable to all non-sentient life forms on this
planet, from the bacteria in a petri dish that grow at the
natural logarithmic rate until they come to a screeching (SEE:
Surface Growth of a Motile Bacterial Population ...
HTML https://www.weizmann.ac.il/mcb/UriAlon/sites/mcb.UriAlon/files/1-s2.0-s0022283612007401-main_0.pdf)<br
/>halt due to lack of agar nutrient, to high order apex predator
vertebrates whose population growth stops in its tracks, and
often shrinks, when there aren't enough prey animals to sustain
the population. Other factors like environmental conditions,
disease, natural catastrophes and "invasive" species are
involved in dictating non-sentient species population size.
Those who want to equate humans to whales or wolves (or any
other non-sentient species on Earth), with regard to our
biosphere's Carrying Capacity, are making some scientifically
erroneous assumptions.
I have no idea what the maximum population size of our species,
required for we-the-humans to ensure a viable biosphere for
future generations, is. Those who claim to have "figured out"
that max are Social Darwinists using absurdly reductionist
assumptions to reach their "conclusions".
What "absurdly reductionist assumptions" am I talking about?
Well, you don't have several hours to read and you are probably
done reading already, so let me be as laconic as possible:
Humans, BECAUSE WE ARE SELF AWARE, AND ONLY BECAUSE WE ARE SELF
AWARE, are capable of BIOSPHERE CARING CAPACITY. No
non-sentient species (spare me the dolphins, elephants, whales,
chimps, crows, etc. When any of these non-sentient species start
to domesticate prey for food while building safe area shelters
to protect them from whatever it is they want protection from,
then, and not until then, can you use them as examples of
sentience) has this ethics based principle.
Maybe you have embraced the Social Darwinist view that the
ethics based principle of CARING CAPACITY is one of those
'limitations pretending to be virtues' that we Apex Predators
'R' US 'pretend to have so we can feel good' about ourselves. If
that is your view, then from the Darwinian perspective, our
species needs a good CARRYING CAPACITY EXCEEDED ☠️
CULLING so that the 'naturally selected 🦍 superior'
specimens of humanity can survive and thrive in a viable
biosphere.
That sounds quite logical, IF you remove CARING CAPACITY from
the maximum human population size equation. But, in reality, it
is another one of those pseudo-scientific 'truisms' that
egocentric greedballs love to endlessly repeat.
For those who managed to read all the way to here, I want to
conclude with these FACTS:
1. The portion of the human population that rejects CARING
CAPACITY, because of their morally bankrupt, Social Darwinist
idiology, is the real EXCEEDED CARRYING CAPACITY COHORT causing
the massive multi-species extinction degradation of our
biosphere. The biosphere math facts clearly state that less than
17% of the human population, MOSTLY concentrated in wealthy
countries, is DOING over 80% of the damage by consuming over 80%
of the resources.
2. The WORST BIOSPHERE DEGRADING OFFENDERS in the above
mentioned COHORT represent a very, very small percentage of the
human population.
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-171022172539-20852399.jpeg
3. The TOTAL present human POPULATION SIZE is NOT the PROBLEM.
The MAIN PROBLEM is the Social Darwinist 1%. We either
criminalize the behavior of the above mentioned COHORT, or we
will certainly go extinct because a tiny percentage of humanity
EXCEEDED THE BIOSPHERE'S CARRYING CAPACITY for ALL HIGH ORDER
VERTEBRATE SPECIES, not just humans. Have a nice day.
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-171022172538-20841297.jpeg
Collectivist Action
". . .and it must be mentioned that the capitalist system has
spurred an end to widespread famine and has improved nutrition"
Offset, perhaps, even negated by the global machinations of the
ecology-degrading & destroying, U.S.-dominated military
industrial complex and capitalistic agri-business.
A MAJOR, existential, contradiction
AGelbert > Collectivist Action
Well said. A reality based study of the happy talk claim about
"ending widespread famine and improving nutrition" exposes that
'truism' as a masterpiece of cherry picking sophistry.
I don't want to get long winded about the gross lies about the
"Chemical Fertilizer Green Revolution of the 20th Century thanks
to our 😇 loyal servants from the Hydrocarbon 🦖
Products Industry", so I will point out some facts about what
COULD be done if TPTB had reality based survival instincts:
Only about half (or less) of the MILITARY budgets alone of the
wealthy countries could pay for bio-remediating the most
impacted areas, stop the exploitation and care for and educate
the high population growth poor there so they become good
stewards instead of biosphere destroyers.
Since, according to the U.N., the richest 20% of the world's
population uses 80% of the resources, the 'Fragmentation of
Agency' pie chart for the damage done to the biosphere should
look like this:
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-171022172539-20852399.jpeg
The fossil fuel industry, and almost half of the world’s 100
largest companies, want that 'Fragmentation of Agency' pie chart
to look like this:
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-171022172537-20831108.png
The REAL bottom line is that less than 17% of the human
population is an existential threat to ALL of the human
population AND a large part of macroscopic species in the
biosphere.
[center]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-171022172536-20821995.pnghttps://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-171022172538-20841297.jpeg[/center]
Agelbert NOTE: Monsta was a dude I used to debate with
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-040622153109-13691906.gif<br
/>at a forum called the Doomstead Diner.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1