Non-Fiction
Related: About this forumI just bought Naomi Klein's new book "This Changes Everything" to read on the plane tomorrow
I'm actually looking forward to air travel!
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)this morning.
I think I'll have to put it on reserve at my library. Thanks for the heads up.
Skarbrowe
(1,083 posts)I posted on the what are you reading now thread and said that it's a very informative read, but, also, very depressing. I think everyone should read this book. It was depressing to me, because I'm not sure we (humans) can do what she says needs to be done - or that it would matter. If you are someone who doesn't believe global warming is as severe as some scientist think, well, then I want to think like you do! I won't be around for whatever happens, one way or the other. I've had my so-so long life. I'm like Guy McPherson - in mourning for all living things. Hopefully, I am way, way, way overreacting. I've been wrong so many times before.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)the library has is returned. I'm sorry to hear that it's depressing, but somehow I'm not surprised.
It's been my contention for several decades that the essential problem is that there are too many people on this planet, that a truly sustainable level is no more than a billion people, and probably more like 100 million. What it would take to reduce the population isn't very pretty. But if our overall numbers went low enough, quickly enough, there is a distant hope.
Skarbrowe
(1,083 posts)Naomi Klein doesn't address this problem in her book, but I read on Google news just the other day that we could have 2 billion people gone from the earth at this very moment and there would still be over 9 billion or much higher ( don't remember ) by 2100, because we have already passed that exponential number of people so far that it's like a runaway train or another type of positive feedback loop.
These must be worst case scenarios. Ahhh...I hope so.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)The reason we have human mitigated global warming is, in the end, too many people. The reason we have so many wars is too many people. Most diseases require a minimum population density to spread. Some diseases are relatively benign, such as chicken pox or influenza (and really, they are not big killers), but others can be incredibly deadly like bubonic plague or Ebola.
Right now the saving grace about Ebola is that it really is, despite all the hysteria, relatively difficult to contract. But it's quite deadly, especially if you lack good treatment. I have to say, that I'm somewhat surprised that this current outbreak has less than a 50% mortality, pretty astonishing when you know just how terrible it is. Even the worst case scenario won't have it causing significant deaths in this country, but if parts of Africa? If it truly got out of hand an awful lot of people could die. Right now a total of about 5,000 people have died in three countries with a combined population of around 22 million people. So in reality, a very tiny percentage of people have died from this disease. The potential for many millions more to succumb is very real.
From what I've read about diseases and population, it seems as if the Black Death in the 14th century was the only event that actually reduced population significantly. There were places in Europe that more than 400 years later had not recovered, although by then the total number of people in Europe had far exceeded the number before the Plague. Humans are remarkably good at reproducing. For all that certain specific countries have actually reached zero population growth, they don't make a dent in the world total.
I can have ideas and hypotheses about what might happen, but I don't have a crystal ball, and I'm not about to suggest any sort of time line. But the more people there are, the more misery there will be.