Would it be possible for us to focus upon global demography rather than the 13-17 year old demographic for a moment?  It seems to me that "saving the world" requires a global perperspective.

Imagine for a moment that we are looking at an ocean wave, watching it move toward the shore where it crashes finally at our feet. The wave is moving toward us; however, at the same time, there are many molecules in the wave that are moving in the opposite direction, against the tide. If we observe that the propagation of the human species worldwide is like the wave and the reproduction numbers of individuals in certain locales are like the molecules, it may be inaccurate for the latter to be looked at as if it tells us something meaningful about the former.

Abundant research indicates that most countries in Western Europe, among many other countries globally, have recently shown a decline in their rates of human population growth. These geographically localized data need not blind us to the fact that the absolute global human population numbers are skyrocketing. The world’s human population is like the wave; the individual or localized reproduction numbers are like the molecules.

Perhaps a "scope of observation" problem is presented to everyone who wants to adequately understand the dynamics of human population numbers.

Choosing a scope of observation is a forced choice, like choosing to look at either the forest or the trees, at either the propagation numbers of the human species (the wave data) or localized reproduction numbers (the molecular data). Data regarding the propagation of absolute global human population numbers is the former while individual or localized reproduction data are the latter.

From this vantage point, the global challenge before humanity could be a species propagation problem. Take note that global propagation numbers do not vary with the reproduction data. That is to say, global human propagation data and the evidence of reproduction numbers of individuals in many places, appear to be pointing in different directions. The propagation data are represented by the wave; the reproduction data are represented by the molecules moving against the tide.

In the year 1900 world’s human population was approximately 1.2 to 1.6 billion people. With the explosive growth of the global human population over the 20th century in mind (despite two world wars, ubiquitous local conflicts, famine, pestilence, disease, poverty, and other events resulting in great loss of life), what might the world look like in so short a period of time as 41 years from now? How many people will be on the planet at that time? The UN Population has recently made its annual re-determination that the world’s human population will reach 9.2 billion people around 2050, and then somehow level off. No explanation is given for how this leveling-off process is to occur.

We can see that the fully anticipated growth of absolute global human population numbers is about 8 billion people for the 150 year period between 1900 and 2050.

Whatever the number of human beings on Earth at the end of the 21st century, the size of the human population on Earth could have potentially adverse impacts on the number of the world’s surviving species, on the rate of dissipation of Earth’s resources, and on the basic characteristics of global ecosystems.

For too long a time human population growth has been comfortably viewed by politicians, economists and demographers as somehow outside the course of nature. The potential causes of global human population growth have seemed to them so complex, obscure, or numerous that a strategy to address the problems posed by the unbridled growth of the human species has been assumed to be unknowable. Their preternatural, insufficiently scientific grasp of human population dynamics has lead to widely varied forecasts of global population growth. Some forecasting data indicate the end to human population growth soon. Other data suggest the rapid and continuous increase of human numbers through Century XXI and beyond.

Recent scientific evidence appears to indicate that the governing dynamics of absolute global human population numbers are indeed knowable, as a natural phenomenon. According to unchallenged scientific research, the population dynamics of human organisms is essentially common to, not different from, the population dynamics of other organisms.

To suggest, as many politicians, economists and demographers have been doing, that understanding the dynamics of human population numbers does not matter, that the human population problem is not about numbers, or that human population dynamics have so dizzying an array of variables as not to be suitable for scientific investigation, seems not quite right.

If I may continue by introducing an extension of my perspective.

According to the research of Russell Hopfenberg,Ph.D., and David Pimementel, Ph.D., global population growth of the human species is a rapidly cycling positive feedback loop in which food availability drives population growth and this recent, astounding growth in absolute global human numbers gives rise to the misperception or mistaken impression that food production needs to be increased even more.

Data indicate that the world’s human population grows by approximately two percent per year. All segments of it grow by about 2%. Every year there are more people with brown eyes and more people with blue ones; more people who are tall and more short people. It also means that there are more people growing up well fed and more people growing up hungry. The hungry segment of the global population goes up just like the well-fed segment of the population. We may or may not be reducing hunger by increasing food production; however, we are most certainly producing more and more hungry people.

Hopfenberg’s and Pimentel's evidence suggests that the magnificently successful efforts of humankind to increase food production in order to feed a growing population has resulted and continue to result in even greater human population numbers.

The perceived need to increase food production to feed a growing population is a widely shared and consensually validated misperception, a denial both of the physical reality and the space-time dimension. If people are starving at a given moment of time, increasing food production cannot help them. Are these starving people supposed to be waiting for sowing, growing and reaping to be completed? Are they supposed to wait for surpluses to reach them? Without food they would die. In such circumstances, increasing food production for people who are starving is like tossing parachutes to people who have already fallen out of the airplane. The produced food arrives too late; however, this does not mean human starvation is inevitable.

Consider that human population dynamics are not biologically different from the population dynamics of other species. Human organisms, other species and even microorganisms have essentially similar population dynamics. We do not find hoards of starving roaches, birds, squirrels, alligators, or chimpanzees in the absence of food as we do in many "civilized" human communities today because these non-human species are not annually increasing their food production capabilities.

Please take note that among tribal peoples in remote original habitats, we do not find people starving. Like non-human species, “primitive” human beings live within the carrying capacity of their environment. History is replete with examples of early humans and more remote ancestors not increasing their food production annually, but rather living successfully off the land for thousands upon thousands of years as hunters and gatherers of food.

Prior to the agricultural revolution and the production of more food than was needed for immediate survival, human numbers supposedly could not grow beyond their environment’s physical capacity to sustain them because global human population growth or decline is primarily determined by food availability. Looked at from a global population perspective, more food equals more human organisms; less food equals less human organisms; and, in one and all cases, no food equals no humans.

Thank you.

Steven Earl Salmony

AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001

http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176 

So, just to drive home that this isn't yet another Green Myth (rolls eyes), bring back some photos, Mr. Rothschild...

1. “We’re looking at the Plastiki not to vilify the material but to understand it. A big part of this project is to use technology to innovate new plastics, innovate new uses."

Too bad.  Plastic is very environmentally destructive, from its creation to its disposal.  The idea that the only thing wrong with plastic is that instead of reusing it people throw it away is as fallacious as the idea that nuclear power will be good for the Earth because switching to it from coal will reduce greenhouse gas emissions (which, BTW is not even true).  In order to create plastic you have to drill and refine oil, two very destructive processes.  Once created, all plastics constantly "out-gas," polluting the air.

2. What's unusual about this boat is that its hulls are being made of recycled plastic, not that it's being made of plastic.  Boats used to be made of wood, but as of 30-40 years ago they're almost all made of plastic; it's called fiberglass and seems to be very similar to the srPET material that these people are developing, judging by their description.  (There are a few boats made of ferrocement and steel, but they're pretty rare.)

Sailing Issues

1. They're called "hulls," not "pontoons."  You don't want people to think you're a landlubber, do you?

2. If they're going to avoid the hurricane season in the South Pacific, they'd better hurry.  The correct time to leave from SF for Australia would be May or June.  I definitely wouldn't leave any later than early September, and even that's taking a significant chance.

3. Sorry to kill anyone's sailing fantasies, but all modern sailboats have diesel engines, with literally a handful of extremely rare exceptions.  What will provide the auxiliary power for this boat?  A company named Lagoon has been selling hybrid boats for a few years.  They have electric engines instead of diesel ones and a diesel generator for when the batteries need charging.  This is a much less environmentally harmful alternative.

4. Re No. 3, what will be Mr. de Rothschild's and his skipper's commitment to only motoring when absolutely necessary.  Motoring with electric engines uses more electricity than anything else on a boat, which in turn causes the diesel generator to come on, consuming fuel and polluting the air and water.  Many modern so-called sailors motor at least half the time, because they refuse to wait out calms and/or don't want or know how to sail upwind properly.

What a great big load of stinky doodoo!! It is his central bankster family that is fomenting invasions/occupations, killing the world and robbing the people of food, freedom, and resources. So, instead of this fake campaign to save the world, why doesn't he and his bankster crime syndicate family give up all their ill gotten money and power, because that would save us all.

This looks to be nothing more than a great big feel good campaign to make their crimes more palatable, providing another use for their poisonous plastic.

This boat will have two electric motors with 2 hrs running time in their batteries, for low-speed manoevering and harbor entry. Having tried an electric motor (Torqueedo) on my 22-foot sailboat, I agree they use a lot of juice. So they will sailing virtually all the time, just like other hard-core sailors do.

As for the Lagoon cats you mention, rumor has it most of them have had so many problems they are being converted back to regular motors. You can be slmost as efficient by just using one of your two engines in a big cat. See http://www.latitude38.com/letters/200901.html and http://www.latitude38.com/letters/200902.html (search for hybrid in these letters and responses in the Bay Area's sailing mag)

As for nuclear plants generating as much GHGs as coal - show me a reference, I think you are way off on that one too.