I can relate to being slightly similarly uncategorizable through such mechanisms. I sympathize.
I've even tried those sites where you go through a multi-page personality test to try and match people who are compatible, but they just don't have a category for "I'm a borderline-autistic plant-obsessed science-geek and a Christian, who identifies as a wood elf."
There were pretty much zero solutions offered, and population control was alluded to, but there is no direction on how they proposed to achieve that. I've seen a few Eugenics conspiracy things to know that leaving that wide open is pretty dangerous. I won't get into that, but I'll leave you with knowing that I am no fan.
I admit that the movie "Planet of the Humans" seemed to be all about scare-mongering and nothing about simple, positive things we can do to help correct the problem.
I don't think we really have a population problem. A rapidly expanding population is a symptom of an imbalanced and uncertain situation. That is the problem. Given stability, populations stabilize. The unfortunate thing, at this time in history, about that is that most of the areas that have exploding populations are post-colonial messes and are in a cultural phase of third world poverty highlighted by an imminent and pervasive struggle to survive. Compounding that is that many of these people see the consumer culture of the west as something heavenly that they should dream of attaining, as they see, consciously or unconsciously, that first world economics/lifestyle are a place of security and stability (and relative to their situation, it clearly is, so they are not deluding themselves at all). So as their lifestyles stabilize, they want more of this 'dream' lifestyle, and end up becoming part of the problem. If we can get them on the track of permaculture/regenerative ag, then we stop at least some of that in its tracks. The numbers have been crunched and it seems that we can conceivably feed the entire planet on a 1/4 of the land presently being utilized for agriculture if we turned to regenerative agriculture and permaculture, and brought our global and personal meat consumption down to the very reasonable norms that were present a hundred years ago. And then if we regenerate all the land that has degraded, then we are really able to sustain a population. I think, that if our environmental and social situation gets under control then our population will stabilize and even drop (Most first-world economies/nations need immigration to have stable populations0.
Although I'm concerned that there are too many humans on the earth, (mainly because our growth rate is climbing rapidly - I'd be less concerned if world-wide, we'd already plateaued) the Rebuttal video concretely states that the "problem" is not with the places with a higher birth rate, but with "techno" society (Europe and North America in particular, but Asia is striving to catch up)
To top it off, our old phone that lasted 20 years or more had hardly any technology in it, and barely any carbon or resource footprint in comparison to a modern 'phone' which is essentially a handheld computer, with lots of rare metals and both a huge carbon and resource footprints.
our huge waste of power and resources on frivolous, short-lived products. When I was a child, our single telephone lasted 20 years, until "push-button phones" came along. Now a 5-year-old cell phone is considered old and frequently unusable, is just one example.
I'm nearly finished burn and was considering ordering drawdown and the Citizens Guide to Climate Success from the library.
I've read two of the books presented by the rebuttal video - Burn and Drawdown.
I think that a tipping point on that is coming pretty soon. I'm hopeful that the new political situation South of the border with its probable re-engagement with the Paris Accord, will spur the horse, (so to speak) even North of the border as our economics are so closely tied.
we need some of these solutions on *much* larger scale than our backyards, but that will take far more political will than I'm seeing here in Canada, despite the fact that many "green initiatives" forced on companies initially by either public pressure or governmental orders, were quickly discovered to actually save the companies' money.
Yes, killing forests to create energy is hugely stupid, but regenerating a fraction of a huge area devastated by wildfire with a stand of trees destined to be coppiced for the purpose of making biochar (which also would supply heat or electricity or both) to replace coal in concrete and steel manufacturing would do much more good than harm. I believe it could be carbon negative to many degrees. What the wood to biomass to energy thing was doing, was that it was a process of burning the wood, or dried pulverized wood, or wood pellets, to try to substitute for coal, and that was not at all efficient or an equivalent energy supplement. At the same time the biowaste burning was removing forests that were sequestering carbon. On 8-10 year rotation cycles even in B.C., we could create deciduous coppice groves that would provide all our energy needs, on land that is presently not producing much of any potential for carbon sequestration. In addition, the (9/10ths) parts of the coppice system that are annually left to grow would be a biological wonder filled with nesting migratory songbirds which thrive in such forests (and which would aid in the revegetating of the region), particularly if saskatoon and mountain ash (both with flowers and berries) are incorporated in the groves. The living roots of the harvested trees would still largely hold the sequestered carbon in their soil root system, and this would subsequently expand as new top shoot/leaf growth was established.
At least biochar (which Burn focuses on) is something I can do on my own property. I'd like to do it on a larger scale, but as was validly pointed out, chopping down live trees to solve the "energy crisis" does more harm than good! Thus I'm relying on making more effort to find a way to biochar invasive species in my region - the problem is the solution!
We call them widow makers here as well.
I worked back country trail crew in Glacier National Park back in the early 70's and we called those snags "widow makers".
I still haven't seen a wolf on my land yet, but have seen the tracks of every major predator on it or slightly off of it, so I know that they are there, at least occasionally. Seen, black bears, foxes, coyotes, lynx and grizzlies. Seen tracks of cougar, wolverine, martin, wolf... I'll be more concerned if I start to get livestock. I'll likely get a dog or two. We also have a lot of larger herbivore potentially on the land, 2 varieties of deer, moose, elk, and although unlikely mountain goats and mountain sheep do sometimes come down to this elevation. All of the latter can be very unpredictable creatures, though they, like the predators, tend to keep their distance from people (and rifles). Since I live near a good sized dairy operation, rifle training is pretty intense around here.
We have wolves here, but have only seen the tracks this past year. Enough people and dogs around that they do seem to stay back a bit. For now.
I'll be that you have some stories to tell, Dennis. Feel free to write up one or more of your unexpected overnight adventures, and cut-and-paste it into a post in this thread. By sharing our experiences, we may save someone else pain, heartache, or worse.
Having spent a few unexpected nights out in the woods myself, I tip my hat to Roberto!! Very glad that he made it out ok and was able to share his experience with us.