HOW TO STRENGHTEN HOMES AND OTHER BUILDINGS
TO WITHSTAND HURRICANES - "BUILT TO LAST":
- www.linktv.org/shows/built-... (51 min, 58 sec)
CREDIT: Built2Last.org: built2last.org/
Other Important Videos:
GLOBAL HUMAN POPULATION:
- www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ym... (1 min, 57 sec)... (Best Viewed Full-Screen)
CREDIT: Executive Productions, Seattle: www.youtube.com/user/epsvid...
- vimeo.com/130468614 (5 min, 46 sec)
CREDIT: Population Education: vimeo.com/user40995978
UNDERSTANDING EXPONENTIAL GROWTH:
- www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5O... (1 min, 54 sec)
CREDIT: GrowthBusters.org: www.growthbusters.org/
WHY LIMITS TO GROWTH ARE NECESSARY -
ARITHMETIC, HUMAN POPULATION & ENERGY:
- www.youtube.com/watch?v=O13... (1 hr, 14 min, 45 sec)
CREDIT: AlBartlett.org: www.albartlett.org/
"Rule of 70" / To Calculate Doubling Time,
Divide 70 by the Growth-Rate Percentage:
70 ÷ 0.00% (0%) growth rate = population REMAINS STABLE
70 ÷ 0.01% (1/100th%) growth rate = population DOUBLES every 7,000 years
70 ÷ 0.02% (2/100th%) growth rate = population DOUBLES every 3,500 years
70 ÷ 0.05% (5/100th%) growth rate = population DOUBLES every 1,400 years
70 ÷ 0.25% (¼%) growth rate = population *DOUBLES* every 280 years
70 ÷ 0.50% (½%) growth rate = population *DOUBLES* every 140 years
70 ÷ 1.00% (1%) growth rate = population *DOUBLES* every 70 years
70 ÷ 2.00% (2%) growth rate = population *DOUBLES* every 35 years
70 ÷ 5.00% (5%) growth rate = population *DOUBLES* every 14 years
Think about what this really means!
Today, we have nearly EIGHT (*8*) BILLION human beings on the planet...
while just 60 years ago, we were at only about THREE (3) billion.
To put this in perspective, please keep in mind that prior to about 1800 A.D.,
it took *ALL* of the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS (or more) of
human existence for us to reach ONE (1) billion human beings on this planet.
But, then, because of the "Industrial Revolution" and certain other changes
in human culture after around 1800, it took us only about 125 years to reach
TWO (2) billion human beings on this planet (around 1925). And, then, after that,
it took us only about 35 years to reach THREE (3) billion (around 1960). At that point,
the human population was expanding at a rate of about 2%, doubling in only 35 years!
If the global human population currently were to increase at a steady rate of
just 1%--(it's actually currently growing at a rate of a little bit more than 1%,
but it's expected to slow to below 1%, just not quickly enough yet to restore
dying ecosystems to health anytime very soon)--then, in only 70 years (just
about a decade or so less than a typical human lifetime), there would be
*16* billion humans on the planet... (or in only 35 years, 12 billion). And then,
in only another 70 years from now, there would be *32* billion of us, and so on.
But we wouldn't actually ever have *that* many of us on the planet...
ecosystems and our civilization would have completely collapsed
long before our numbers could reach anywhere close to that high.
HUMAN BIRTHS CURRENTLY SIGNIFICANTLY CONTINUE TO OUTPACE HUMAN DEATHS:
Overall, while it's true that the growth rate of the global human population
has slowed in recent years, it has not yet slowed nearly enough. The growth
rate still is over 1%. Please see the "doubling" chart above to understand why
even just 1% is a very high rate of growth when it comes to a biological population.
We need to reduce our global rate of population growth, humanely, to under ¼%.
How we can do this is indicated below, as is what else is important to do, too,
since just working toward a stable human population isn't alone enough
to solve the sustainability problems we're facing on this planet.
HUMAN-POPULATION GROWTH & CLIMATE CHANGE:
(NOTE: Unfortunately, "BiologicalDiversity.org" now has a different article posted where they previously were displaying another article, from which I quoted a few lines, one that used to be at the link below through 2022-06-08. I hope they re-post it somewhere, as it was a really great article.) - www.biologicaldiversity.org...
"...People around the world are beginning to address the problem [of climate change]
by reducing their carbon footprint through less consumption and better technology.
But unsustainable human-population growth can overwhelm those efforts...
we not only need smaller footprints, but fewer feet. Portland, Oregon [in the U.S.A.],
for example, decreased its combined per-capita residential-energy and car-driving carbon footprint by 5 percent between 2000 and 2005. During this same period, however, its population grew by 8 percent..." (which, of course, means that despite that each person reduced his/her individual combined residential-energy and car-driving carbon footprint between 2000 and 2005, the entire community's overall combined residential-energy and car-driving carbon footprint INCREASED during those years because of the increase in the community's population).
HUMAN OVERPOPULATION, AN EXPONENTIALLY GROWING CONCERN:
- sites.psu.edu/colecivic/201... (image: sites.psu.edu/colecivic/fil... )*
*We always should be concerned anytime a graph of a population's expansion
results in a J-curve graph like this because that means it's growing exponentially.
In biological populations, exponential growth is unsustainable. Ultimately, that population will collapse, one way or another. We can choose to be part of a
humane solution that eventually would make life on this planet much healthier
and saner, or we can choose to allow inhumane forces to predominate unchecked.
40% OF HUMAN PREGNANCIES WORLDWIDE ARE UNINTENDED:
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO DO TO REDUCE OUR CARBON FOOTPRINT:
Scroll down on the page at the following link to see the *impressive*
graph of circular representations of ways to mitigate climate change,
beneath the "Are You Environmentally Friendly?" caption:
BEST WAY TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE:
It's important still to make all of the other efforts, too, though...
because, collectively, it all adds up to a *MASSIVE* amount of positive impacts.
Multiply your positive efforts by BILLIONS, if others make similar efforts, too.
Everyone's beneficial/positive efforts matter.
11,000 SCIENTISTS IN 153 COUNTRIES AGREE THAT THERE CONTINUE TO BE
TOO MANY HUMAN BIRTHS - MORE HUMAN PREGNANCIES *MUST* BE PREVENTED:
When prevention is attempted but fails, it's important to know the following...
FETUSES *CANNOT* FEEL PAIN BEFORE THE THIRD TRIMESTER:
The third trimester of human pregnancy begins at about 27 weeks.
Before about the 30th week of fetal development, pain is *not* possible to be perceived and felt by a human fetus: "...the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks... Moreover, the nerves' existence isn't enough to produce the experience of pain... anatomical structures must also be functional...
It's not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is 'awake'... these timeframes aren't exact - some fetuses may develop a little earlier, and some fetuses may develop a little later..."
SIDE NOTE: Although the following isn't scientifically proven (yet)...
I'm fairly sure that the fetus (the gestating biological body) is a "vessel"/"vehicle" that a soul has "selected" and "reserved" to incarnate into (or to reincarnate into). I'm fairly sure that the biological body doesn't create the soul; but, rather, it "houses" the soul that has chosen it for a particular biological lifetime (although it's true, of course, that the biological body and the soul do influence one another [and the personality/identity that the soul has chosen to "become"/"express" during a particular lifetime], but I'm fairly sure that the soul already existed and that it does not come into existence because of or as a product of the biological body). And I'm fairly sure that if a fetus dies in utero (whether from a natural miscarriage or an induced abortion), the soul that reserved that biological body will instead "reserve" a different gestating biological body at a later time, either from the same parents or from different parents, according to the soul's choice. I'm fairly sure that the soul is eternal, meaning that it exists before incarnation and it continues to exist after an incarnation. I'm fairly sure that a soul chooses whether to incarnate just once, or more than once, or not at all. I'm fairly sure that a soul that has chosen to incarnate "reserves" a growing biological body (a fetus) but doesn't yet reside "full-time" in that body while that body is gestating, and that it probably does spend some time "inhabiting" it, but not all or most of the time "inhabiting" it, until the moment of live birth (just as the soul doesn't permanently exit the biological body until the death of that body). Think about when a soul's temporary "housing"/"vehicle" (the biological body) is in a coma, that soul sometimes travels outside that body while that body is comatose, and it resumes "full-time" residence in that body if it recovers from whatever illness or injury caused it to become comatose. I'm fairly certain that it's a similar situation for a soul waiting to take up "full-time" residence in the biological body that is being formed inside a womb;
"full-time" residence begins at the time of the live birth of the biological body and ends at the time of the death of the biological body. And if the fetus dies before birth, the soul chooses another fetus at a later time, if the soul still wishes to incarnate at all. Therefore, IMHO, the argument that abortion supposedly "deprives" a soul of any biological life is not a valid argument.
Still, though, it's better for other reasons, of course,
if unintended pregnancies can be prevented in the first place...
THE CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE OF FAMILY PLANNING & CONTRACEPTION:
"...Of course, it is naïve to think any single idea or programme will yield the results we need to address global climate change. Yes, wealthy, industrialised countries must reduce their consumption; yes, nations around the world must reduce dependence on fossil fuels; yes, we must develop more effective, environmentally sustainable technologies, and yes, use energy more efficiently. But it's time to pursue all possibilities and combining efforts. The facts are clear: funding that empowers women to access voluntary family planning is a win-win for women, men, children and climate change..."
(Note: If you ever find that any of "The Guardian" articles don't fully come up for you
to read, and if you don't want to register, you can clear your browser's cache, close your browser, reopen it, and then you should be able to read the article; or, to skip registering, you can simply click on "I'll do it later" and then the full article should appear.)
We have to keep in mind that when certain customs, habits, and traditional aspects of our cultures no longer serve us well, and especially if something now harms or soon will harm the livability of our only home, our planet, for most of us (currently almost anyone bringing any more than one new human being into this world during his/her lifetime, during at least the next eighty years, for example), we can decide to make changes (procreating less, and anyone still wanting to raise more than one child, adopting kids
who already are here; flying and driving a lot less; etc.), which, if adopted by everyone or at least by almost everyone, would significantly improve our global environment and the health of life in general on this planet, especially for future generations, but also even somewhat in the short-term, too.
HOME OFFICES ARE BEST - AIR QUAILITY QUICKLY & SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVES
WHEN MOST OF US FLY & DRIVE MUCH LESS OFTEN:
Pandemic lockdowns improved air quality in 84% of countries worldwide:
The following is a report from the U.K.; and as someone who, since the age of one,
has had severe asthma (meaning there are severe, moderate, or mild asthma symptoms** multiple times every day, despite meds and lifestyle modifications), I also noticed that it was much easier to breathe over here in the U.S.A. during the pandemic lockdowns, too:
**(One major exception, a time when I had no asthma symptoms at all, despite even having been hospitalized for it several times before, was for about two-and-a-half years when, as a teenager, I lived with my family-of-origin on a wooden schooner, on top of bodies of saltwater, out in the open ocean of the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Pacific, and in bays of various countries, islands, and territories. Almost immediately after moving off of the boat, and during our cross-country drive from the U.S. West Coast back home to the East Coast, though, the asthma came back with a vengeance. I learned that saltwater,
at least if you're living directly on top of it, can be hugely beneficial for alleviating all degrees of pulmonary challenges. I haven't at all ever had that same experience in anyone's beach houses, though--quite the opposite--which I suspect is because those are prone to mold. There never was that issue on the boat, however, at least not on our small 40' wooden schooner.)
Anyway, we don't have to be perfect in our efforts, but we do have to make many more efforts, collectively... starting, especially, with the number-one way to reduce our collective carbon footprint... and that is to PROCREATE LESS.
OUR HUMAN CULTURE HAS TO CHANGE...
The lives of all of us depend on it... most especially the lives of those who will be born in future decades, and also very importantly the lives of the other remaining species on this planet that we haven't yet killed off with our irresponsible "stewardship" of this planet...
SIXTH MASS EXTINCTION OF OTHER SPECIES UNDERWAY:
"...Study reveals rate of extinction for species in the 20th century has been up to
100 times higher than would have been normal without human impact...."
WHY BIODIVERSITY IS IMPORTANT:
Voluntarily preventing human pregnancies and births beyond a one-child average,
for at least the next eighty years, is a much more humane way--(than the truly inhumane alternatives that climate catastrophes increasingly will be imposing upon us, such as flooding/drownings/injuries/property destruction, large-scale droughts/famines/
starvation, wars/other murderous acts, etc., which obviously are not okay)--of returning the human population to a sustainable level of a maximum of about 3 billion worldwide (which is where we were around 1960), within only about the equivalent of a typical human lifetime from now (only about eighty years from now), rather than allowing it to continue rapidly to expand (to about 11 billion in that same amount of time), exacerbating the climate-crisis consequences and all of the other negative consequences associated with an EXPONENTIALLY*** increasing population.
***Remember: www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5O... (1 min, 54 sec).
This is MATH & SCIENCE, not politics.
Judging by the ruling that happened here on June 25, 2022, to overturn "Roe v. Wade", five of the currently nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court either apparently are not aware of the mathematical and scientific facts and consequences of the exponential function in biological populations, or apparently they just don't care.
That ruling alone ironically will be devastating enough to life on this planet
(for so many reasons).
However, there also was another June 2022 ruling, imposed by six of the currently nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, to limit the Environmental Protection Agency's (the EPA's) power to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases.
Just imagine the disastrous effects of these new rulings. They're putting us on a course on this planet for environmental catastrophes even worse than where we were headed before.
Education and awareness are even more important now than ever...
RAISING AWARENESS TO SOLVE HUMAN OVERPOPULATION, HUMANELY:
"...We can, and must, voluntarily and dramatically reduce [human] births so that total numbers drift back down to a truly sustainable level... A one-child average would
reduce total [human] population to below 3 billion [by 2100] - cutting our total
human consumption by more than half from its current levels. Around the world,
people are demonstrating a preference for smaller families and are choosing that path. We simply need to accelerate that progress by raising awareness that the world is overpopulated, supporting access to family-planning services, and supporting
the right of women to determine when and if they conceive children..."
And we also probably ought to be thinking about the other end of the spectrum of life, too, meaning that we all probably ought to have a Health-Care Directive (Living Will) in place, so that not only could we leave our current incarnation in a more humane and peaceful manner, rather than leaving a little later but with terrible additional suffering from certain unnecessary types of "heroic" (but futile) medical procedures having been inflicted upon us at the end (this essay was written by a physician: www.zocalopublicsquare.org/... ), but we also would be further helping to ease the global overpopulation/overconsumption crises if millions of us were to allow our current incarnation to end a little sooner each year, thereby helping to narrow the gap a bit more between the large and unsustainable disparity between annual human births and annual human deaths: www.worldometers.info/world...
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO IGNORE THE HUGE PROBLEM OF HUMAN OVERPOPULATION:
Please read all of Dave Gardner's analyses in this article...
and in his articles posted above and below, as well.
He is caring, compassionate, intelligent, logical, rational, and accurate.
DECLARATION OF INTENT... SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT...
TWO THINGS WE HAVE TO DO:
"...the math and science make it clear... The long-term viability... of our species...
and the future of all the children of the world, and their children, require that we all
 work together to shrink our levels of consumption [in other words, each of us has to consume/use fewer of Earth's resources ourselves] AND  reduce the number of consumers [by voluntarily choosing a one-child average]..." (until our global
human population returns to a sustainable level of 3 billion or fewer)
For at least the next decade, we unfortunately can't avoid negative consequences of
the abnormally high carbon-dioxide emissions already in the atmosphere and oceans (because there is a lag of about a decade between the carbon-dioxide emissions at a given time and the negative climate effects resulting from those specific emissions),
but at least we can mitigate future negative consequences (further out beyond a decade from now) by significantly reducing our individual carbon footprints a.s.a.p. and forever, going forward.
THE TIME LAG BETWEEN CARBON-DIOXIDE EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE EFFECTS:
"...Studies have shown that the time between a pulse of greenhouse gas...
[carbon-dioxide, methane, etc.]... and most of its warming is around a decade.
Thus, we will experience the full effect of today’s emissions in [about] 10... years' time..."
That's scary. There are about a *billion* more human beings on the planet today than there were a decade ago (which also means that there now are many more products being produced, many more housing subdivisions being built, etc.).
Think about what all of that means, on many levels, including but not only in terms of our collective carbon footprint...
WHILE MAKING CHANGES TOWARD IMPROVING OUR LONG-TERM FUTURE, WE ALSO HAVE TO PREPARE, IN THE MEANTIME, FOR THE UNAVOIDABLE CLIMATE APOCALYPSE THAT WE ON THIS PLANET ARE FACING:
Don't let some parts of this article discourage you, though, from doing your part to reduce your carbon footprint and from encouraging younger people to do that, too (most especially encouraging limiting human procreation to a one-child average for about the next eighty years, and also encouraging more-responsible stewardship of
this planet in many other ways, as well).
Doing whatever we can do still is better than not doing anything at all.
The author of this article thinks and believes the same, with good reason.
Again, one of the ways we can prepare, and at the same time prevent wasting a lot of the planet's resources, is to retrofit existing structures, and especially when building new structures to build them to withstand hurricanes in the first place, which would significantly reduce the need to rebuild homes and other buildings destroyed by such strong storms. It's a wonder that insurance companies don't require better standards, since the existing building codes currently are woefully inadequate:
- www.linktv.org/shows/built-... / built2last.org/
Other Recommended Reading & Viewing:
LIFE'S OPERATING MANUAL, WITH THE FEAR & TRUTH DIALOGUES:
- www.goodreads.com/book/show... (by Tom Shadyac)
"I AM" documentary film:
CREDIT: Tom Shadyac: www.healyourlife.com/a-new-...
PLANET OF THE HUMANS:
- www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk1... (1 hr, 39 min, 56 sec)
CREDIT: Michael Moore: www.youtube.com/c/mmflint/a...
THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH OF "PLANET OF THE HUMANS":
"...Speaking of overpopulation, or addressing overpopulation,
is not the exclusive domain of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Most overdeveloped countries are overpopulated.
In many cases, even if they weren’t profligate overconsumers,
they might still be out-of-sustainable-balance due to the size of
their population. The fact that an overconsuming nation has
below-replacement fertility does not mean 'overpopulation solved here;
mission accomplished.' Every child born in the overconsuming world
has twenty  to sixty  times the environmental impact,
carbon footprint, etc., of a child born in the 'developing' world.
We owe it to the world to keep choosing smaller and smaller families."
"The mention of overpopulation does not automatically mean you’re
ignoring levels of consumption (or population) in the overdeveloped world.
And it does not automatically mean you’re attempting to dictate family size
specifically among black or brown, impoverished or uneducated, or people
of any particular nation or region... [IN BOTH THE OVERDEVELOPED AND
THE DEVELOPING PARTS OF THE WORLD, WE *ALL* HAVE TO BE CAREFUL
NOT TO CREATE TOO MANY MORE NEW HUMAN BEINGS ON THIS PLANET]...
[and renewable energy] won’t matter if we don’t also get over our love affair
with economic growth and our fear of addressing human overpopulation.
Our scale is creating many more problems beyond climate change..."
(as if climate change weren't enough...)
WHAT IS "EARTH OVERSHOOT DAY"?
CREDIT: Meneer Wiersma: www.youtube.com/channel/UC_...
("Country Overshoot Days": www.overshootday.org/newsro... )
(Scroll down on the "Country Overshoot" page to see the graphic.)
CREDIT: "Quest for Eco": www.youtube.com/c/QuestForE...
"...that date in a year when humanity's demand for ecological resources and services exceeds what Earth can regenerate in a given year... for 2021, the Earth Overshoot Day [fell] on July 29th..."
"Zidisha" is a Swahili word for "growth": www.zidisha.org/faq
Growth & consumption to a certain point are fine...
Growth & consumption beyond a certain point obviously are *not* fine...
ENDING EARTH OVERSHOOT:
CREDIT: GrowthBusters: www.youtube.com/user/Growth...
"We've outgrown the planet. How do we get out of this mess?"
60s, Female, HFA & HSP, Humanitarian, Idealist, Introvert (INFJ-T),
Minimalist (declutterer of too much excess material "stuff");
Not A Parent (child-free by choice; no abortions,
but not opposed to others choosing that option).
One pregnancy, unintended, that resulted in a natural
miscarriage, at five or six weeks along, in October 1979,
at almost age 20, which had occurred within a long-term,
committed relationship that had begun in mid-July 1979
and that didn't end until almost a decade later.
Laparascopic bilateral tubal ligation in June 1981,
reversible ring method: www.oakparkobgyn.com/blog/a...
insisted upon by my surgeon because I was only 21½ and
he thought I might reconsider; but I knew I never would
and didn't, mainly because of my severe asthma** but for
many other reasons, as well. (Disclaimer: The page at the
link above is just to provide a description of various types of
tubal-ligation procedures available. This wasn't my OB/GYN;
I was fortunate to have a family friend who was an OB/GYN
surgeon, who did the surgery for me; I also was fortunate that
another [closer] family friend was an anesthesiologist, one very
familiar with how extremely bad my asthma quickly can get,
and who also had never lost a patient on the operating table,
who was in charge of the general anesthesia for my surgery.)
I love to hold babies as much as most women do. I've met
a few women, though, who don't seem to have maternal instincts
like that, but that definitely doesn't describe me, especially as far as
babies are concerned. I believed, however, that I'd never have the
physical-health resources, and maybe also never would have the
financial resources, either, to be able to raise a child. Even if I
could have been lucky enough to have had the physical-health
resources, I just always thought it would be irresponsible to
bring a child into the world without having enough financial
resources to support him or her well, and I never felt sure that
I would. Apart from the non-health-related, imposed, two-year
leave-of-absence** halfway through high school, which occurred
after completing Grade 10 (age 15½), there were health-related
interruptions and limitations during university. And there also were
health-related challenges and interruptions that made working any
traditional "9-to-5" jobs inconsistent, too; I eventually gave up on that.
(In the 1970s and 1980s, we already were aware of and alarmed by
the exponential*** growth of the human population and the dire
consequences that that eventually would have on life on this planet.
[Hello, especially 2020 and this decade so far, and most especially
beyond this decade.] That also was one of the many other reasons
that I knew I never would change my mind about never having kids,
even if miraculously my severe asthma** somehow ever would
disappear permanently... which, unfortunately, it never has...
I've learned how to control it better, including with diet and other
lifestyle modifications, which have significantly reduced the need
for multiple different medications throughout each day, but I also
know from experience that moderate-to-severe symptoms can happen
fairly rapidly almost anytime I'm not very careful in multiple ways.)
Dietary Lifestyle, most of the time, since 2011:
Minimal or No Extracted Oils and Other Junk,
Minimal or No Highly Processed Foods;
Genetic Chronotype: Night Owl.
The part about organization used to be exceptionally true in most ways; however,
chronic PTSD from multiple sources has seriously affected that in some ways...
have been struggling to recover for over two decades... haven't yet given up, though...
HFA & HSP:
- creativeearth.sg/blog/neuro... (HFA & HSP traits) (many of both apply)
- hsperson.com/test/highly-se... (HSPs tend to score above 14) (my score: 26)
- www.wired.com/2001/12/aqtest/ (HFAs tend to score above 32) (my scores: 39 to 42, usually above 40; I sometimes get a different result because "it depends" applies to a few of the preferences listed)
- www.mbtionline.com/en-US/MB... [MBTI...INFJ...]
- www.16personalities.com/art... [articles...INFJ-T]
- introvertdear.com/news/infj... [INFJ-secrets...]
- introvertdear.com/news/infj... [INFJ-door-slam...]
A few of the descriptions/preferences mentioned for HFAs, HSPs, and INFJ-Ts
don't resonate with me, but the vast majority definitely do.
DISCLAIMER: The above-referenced links and fair-use quotes, and my own comments, are provided for informational and educational purposes only; they do not necessarily constitute any endorsement, in either direction.
NOTE: It's okay to quote any of my own comments that I've posted here, as long as you always include a link to this page, and as long as you always update the comment quoted to include my latest edits. Thank you.
EDITED: Friday, 2022-07-01 @ 1:33 A.M., E.D.T.