The true #1 issue of our World

[michaelpush]

is the OVERPOPULATION OF HUMANS! Everything else is just sub issues. End result: extinction of life on Earth thru famine, disease, and, annihilation of each other as we fight for survival in an ever shrinking pool of limited resources. Wake up Earth and start finding solutions before its too late!

[cynatnite]

1. I always thought global warming was number one...

least it is in my book.

[anarch]

18. yeah, well, in principle your #1 could easily fix the OP's #1

So hey, there are really no problems in the world! A billion years from now, whatever's left alive can look back and laugh. Ha. Ha.

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. !

:thumbsup:

[Amonester]

35. Or sometimes in between 5 to 10 billion years from now (?)...

the star - in about a hundred billion stars in this galaxy - we spin around will become a supernova and this little planet will no longer be.

Troubles no more: a burning peace will prevail.

[michaelpush]

47. We will be gone long before that

so whats the point? Should we just let everything happen without trying to survive as long as we can? What is our purpose if any? Our purpose is to survive and to propagate our species, just like all the other living organisms on our planet, but, is it our purpose to propagate ourselves out of existence? Or, should we try to address the issue and advance beyond ourselves? Ok, so some day the universe will expand to the point where all matter will break down into its particles, so, what is the point of existing at all? I think the point is existence itself for as long as we can, and, not just ignoring the need and opportunity to extend our own a few more thousand, million, whatever we can achieve.

[anarch]

58. even if there is no purpose to anything

it doesn't make sense to continue behavior that makes life difficult or painful...I mean, even if our only purpose is to be as comfortable as possible during our short stay here on the planet, both overpopulation and global warming need to be dealt with, IMHO.


Unless of course our actual purpose, unbeknownst to us, is to be a pox upon the planet, and drive all kinds of species into extinction...in which case we're doing a great job.

[Bill McBlueState]

70. a note from Mr. Scientist

The sun's not massive enough to go supernova. Instead, a few billion years from now, it will swell up, turn red, and eat Mercury. Not as dramatic, but still bad news for us.

[smirkymonkey]

55. And the OP's #1 probably caused his #1.

Either way, we're all screwed.

[Yupster]

69. I'll agree with OP'er

I remember erading a thing in school about 40 years ago that in 50 years the earth would have 6 billion people, and I scoffed thinking there's just no possible way it could happen.

Well here we are 40 years later with 6 billion people.

[ForFuxakes]

2. Yeah...stop reproducing you breeders!

maybe we should do what China does...forced abortions for female fetuses and 1 child per family...

[DrRang]

5. Wherever women are given access to contraception, birth rates decline

from India to Indiana. Right now the U.S. birthrate is slightly below replacement level, but our population is still increasing because of immigration. Areas with the highest population growth are those where religion forbids contraception, or where more children make sense economically, such as subsistance farming operations where the more kids, the more hands to work and the more people to take care of elders. If we took action now with moderate, voluntary measures, we might avoid forced measures or large die-offs.

[unpossibles]

6. look, I realize you're being sarcastic

but there are plenty of more moderate choices available. The OP didn't say that everyone should stop breeding or that abortions should be mandatory, but they do have a point that a lot (but not all, imo) of current problems arise or will get worse because of population/resource/energy issues.

[ForFuxakes]

11. Yes I was being sarcastic...

But this is not a problem that be even remotley addressed! You can no more stop people from having sex than you can stop them from eating! It is a hard-wired biological need. Rather than focusing on the abstract, why not focus on that which we can truly address.

When people have nothing to live for, how can you take away that which is their only pleasure in life? Yes I know about contraception, but we as a people will never be able to stop the spread of the human population...this is an issue to be addressed by nature in and of itself...

[unpossibles]

21. I don't agree

well, I agree sex is a basic need/desire, but I mean that with proper education I don't see what the problem is. Does anyone really need to have 4+ kids? I think education and availability of contraception could go a long way toward reducing UNWANTED pregnancies, then perhaps discussion could start about voluntarily deciding to have fewer children.

I know this issue upsets a lot of people on both sides, and yes I know that couple X has every right to have 20 kids if they want, but I think it's irresponsible. I think some positive changes could be made if we'd all stop being so goddamn selfish and falsely entitled.

[smirkymonkey]

56. Who said anything about stopping sex - it's about increasing

reproductive freedom and educating populations on birth control. What's the point of bringing a child into the world if it's just going to suffer in poverty and scarcity?

[hogwyld]

23. Well, hell, whay not go a step further...

Why not give all newborns males a vasectomy??

[Selatius]

3. People may not listen

I fear we will continue to explode in size until the planet's resources are depleted. Then, a natural equilibrium will be achieved when people start dying of starvation. The population will collapse to a size that is sustainable once more. Of course, we could still correct ourselves and avoid that fate, but it's up to humankind's collective decision.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

15. Actually, it will collapse to waaaay below sustainable.

When a population crashes due to resource depeletion, it always supercrashes. This has been observed in animal populations. In fact, I have seen it myself. With it will also go modern civilization because it takes lots of people to run all the industries, shipping and such. The survivors will become hunter-gatherers again. Small isolated nomadic bands, just like it was a hundred thousand years ago.

The rest of the world would recover quickly. Humans would divide into separate sub-species, then into separate species.

[zanne]

4. I remember "Zero Population Growth" TV ads in the 1970's...

Back in the day, there were actually ads on television (in prime time) by groups like Zero Population Growth, saying that it was alright NOT to have kids! I remember one ad where a newly married couple were saying goodbye to their guests at the door. Then, the camera zooms in on a baby carriage with a big bow on it that the parents had just given them. The bride and groom look at each other with worried expressions and this script appears on the bottom of the screen; "Remember; you DO have a choice".
That's how much our culture has changed. I couldn't imagine an ad like that running on television today.

[Warpy]

7. You're correct, but you have to consider both the condition

leading to overpopulation and the effect overpopulation has on the earth. The former is the status of women in areas with quickly increasing populations. The latter is deforestation, desertification, and global warming.

Men often think the way to reduce runaway overpopulation is to force birth control. The only value women have in many cultures is as baby machines. Using birth control will improve their health but destroy their status. Only by educating them and giving them hope for something better will you reduce the incentive to pop out an infant every year. That happens quickly, too, as the birth rate has plummeted among women lucky enough to get micro loans to start cottage businesses in the third world.

Controlling overpopulation is essential because we're nearly at the breaking point. We make enough food to feed everybody although we refuse to distribute it to humans and feed it to meat animals instead. That will no longer be the case in a decade or two.

Overpopulation is a serious problem, and it's tied to the status of women. Whether or not we can combat overpopulation without relying on pandemics to do it for us relies solely on the will of men to allow women to hope.

[Totallybushed]

8. There's a way out

for everybody, and it helps Mother Nature. Sorta rough on your loved ones, though.

[dkofos]

9. I guess bush is doing a heck of a job depopulating the earth

[michaelpush]

10. Natural balance is no longer

working, it hasn't for a long time. Humanity has upset the balance and continues to make it more unbalanced evey day. It is in our hands as intelligent beings ( well, at least some of us), to find solutions, otherwise we will be the species with the shortest lifespand on Earth. All our accomplishments will be but a flash in the pan of time, not long enough to hardly notice our existence. It is imperative that we have a negative trend for some time, to balance things again. Without it, all we have done, all we do now, and, all we will do in the short future, will be meaningless. While mankind tries to patch the planet, the planet will die because humanity failed to address the real issue, self destruction thru OVERPOPULATION. The facts show that our existence depends on the natural balance we ourselves are destroying, and, we are the only species that has the ability to change that. Many species are now extinct because they had no way to change it, we do. This should be the #1 issue, but, I see very little being done, which is why I have little hope that mankind will survive itself.

[patrice]

12. There aren't too many Human on Earth.

There are too many Humans *for* *the* *way* *that* *we* *live* on Earth.

There's plenty here for everyone - if we lived differently.

Someone wants us to believe that there isn't enough, so that you'll take everything you can get for yourself (and by extension they get to take everything they can get for themselves) so that you/they can "survive".

"Overpopulation" is propaganda from the Greed is God camp.

[michaelpush]

13. Isn't that a philosophical argument

rather than a practical one? Actually, there are millions of people living with virtually nothing, and, still the problem exists. People live where resources are not available simply because they have no place to go. Reducing the population, and, redistributing of people to where resources are available is part of the answer.

[rman]

14. It is practical

It is distribution of wealth that is the problem, not lack of wealth.
A couple hundred multi-billionaires own 50% of all the wealth.

If only the wealthy nations would stop exploiting poor nations and stop squandering that ill-gotten wealth, poverty could be virtually eradicated.

[michaelpush]

25. If you have a bag of apples

and you have 30 people that need to live on them for 1 year, it doesn't matter how you distribute the apples, you still will not have enough to go around. The fallacy of wealth distribution fails to take into account the resources versus the need....all the money in the world distributed equally would not fix the need for the resources needed to support the #s of people consuming them...

[rman]

26. If a small minority has half of all wealth

And a larger number is at least rather well off - and all of them are squandering it, then i'd think that redistrubution and rethinking the use of resources would make a big difference.

After all, nobody can reasonably claim that they *need* say, a million times as much as the average individual has.

[michaelpush]

27. It would make things better for

those who had nothing, which would reduce the suffering of the many as compared to the luxury of a few...which would be a positive step. It would not however, help with the overall issue of lack of resources to support the overuse. You have to remember, the issue is "balance" of the whole of nature not just humanity. All of nature is interconnected in a very complex way, if the balance is messed up, it affects the whole system. That is why you have to look at the big picture, the whole system as it interacts with other parts of it. It is well known how humanity has unbalanced it to the point of affecting many environmental ecosystems around the world. You have to expand your mind to understand all the interactions taking place and realize that they are directly related to the expansion of humanity (overpopulation).

[rman]

31. Expanding my mind notwithstanding,

got any evidence that there are not enough resources to eradicate poverty by means of redistribution of wealth?

[michaelpush]

32. Eradication of poverty is not the issue

its the affect of overpopulation on the balance of nature, which will eradicate us!

[rman]

38. I'd think that famine, disease etc have a lot to do with poverty.

After all, the wealthy aren't very likely to die of famine and disease, are they?

[oblivious]

63. Eradicating poverty leads to a reduction in birth rate. It is the solution

[The Stranger]

68. Less population = more resources to go around. It is inevitable.

Population can be controlled (see China), while poverty will always be with us (and always has been with us).

[raccoon]

24. Americans and those in some other industrialized nations use

the lion's share of the world's resources.

The average American uses, I'm going to guess, 20 times what the average Third World citizen uses. (If you've got some stats on this, please post.)

To tell people in non-industrialized countries that they're having too many children and then to continue to consume the world's resources at the rate we do is the height of hypocrisy.

I agree the number of people on the Earth and the way we're living is unsustainable for very much longer.

To change this would require a 2-pronged approach: lower the birth rate AND to consume less.

[The Stranger]

36. There ARE too many humans on Earth.

The reason why there are too many is because we live the way we do. One cannot be extricated from the other.

"Overpopulation is propaganda" is propaganda from the religious cults.

[rman]

40. What evidende is there to support the claim that there are to many people

on earth?

[The Stranger]

41. The evidence is in the 8+billion overloading the planet's ability to

support life, destroying ecosystems for housing, crops, energy, food, water, -- holy shit, just look anywhere -- the evidence is everywhere.

[rman]

42. It wasn't that much different say, a century ago

when ecosystems weren't nearly as damaged as they are now. That is to say, the effects of what you assign to destruction of ecosystems due to overpopulation: lack of housing, food etc - also known as poverty.

What was essentially the same then and now is exploitation of the poor by the wealthy. Back then it was called colonialism, these days it's called "free trade" and "spreading democracy".

[michaelpush]

46. I think you are on the wrong track here,

you keep trying to somehow connect poverty/wealth/ which are economic injustice issues and I cant see how that is related to # of humans/resources . As someone pointed out just look around and see the whole picture, it wont take you long to realize the connections. Proof is everywhere, scientific studies are abound on many fronts that connect overpopulation with many serious problems involving ecosystems, habitat, global warming, loss of the protective ozone layer, ect....check out places like the Wilderness Society, the Science channel online, the UN website, ect....its all there.

[rman]

49. It goes like this:

1. there's a limited amount of resources/wealth
2. those resources/that wealth is distributed disproportionately
3. much of it is wasted

result: poverty

[The Stranger]

51. What you are posting is irrelevant to the impact upon our natural world,

the only inhabitable planet we have. The very concept of poverty -- that so many are without wealth -- only proves that you cannot pack billions more onto the planet in the hopes that they will all agree to live low-impact, less-overconsuming lives here.

[rman]

52. impact upon our natural world = wasteful use of resources

I think clean drinking water, unpolluted air and surroundings are primary resources, because they are not just matters of comfort or luxury but primary requirements for life. Polluting those is wasting resources/wealth.

[The Stranger]

66. Too many people = impact upon our natural world.

Even if overconsumption were the problem, there are still too many consumers for the planet to support. You can't get everyone to live extremely low-impact, non-consumption lives when no one wants to live in "poverty," and everyone has visions of Hollywood and riches. The resources available are already polluted or depleted. Wake up.

[smirkymonkey]

61. That is true, but irrelevant just the same. As soon as you re-

distribute that wealth to the impoverished, they will begin consuming as much as their incomes will allow. That's more people driving cars, putting gas in their cars, buying more food (no matter how rich you are, you can only eat so much,) using more water, etc...

As the formerly impoverished start driving, building homes, making increased purchases, consuming more food the problem will only get worse, not better.

[rman]

64. You omit the factor of wasteful use of resources

Fixing that isn't easy, but only fixing that and not fix distribution won't help either.

Continuing with unbalanced distribution and wasting resources while reducing global population will only leave more wealth to those that are already wealthy - why would anyone want to do that?

[The Stranger]

50. In the last century, the planet has been PROFOUNDLY changed by the impact

It wasn't that much different say, a century ago

. . . of TOO MANY HUMAN BEINGS.

To deny this is to attempt to escape reality.

[rman]

53. It wasn't very different wrt to poverty and exploitation

in spite of a less pollution and a smaller global population. That is my point.
Of course there are many other things that changed. But those are not my point.

[michaelpush]

60. sorry but

I give up....I think most of the posters "get it". There is a point where continued discussion yields nothing..that point is here for me on this one....but, hey, thanks for your contribution to my post...

[rman]

65. Yes, many people get it

that overconsumption and distribution of wealth are major problems, more so than population.
Just look at the number of posts disagreeing with the OP, and look at the number of recommendations it got.

[The Stranger]

67. It is a primitive, visceral, rather than a rational, reaction.

Some responses indicate that some seem to think stemming overpopulation may somehow mean people are not allowed to go on living, or that more people in the world is somehow inherently good (which many religions believe), when it is not necessarily a good thing at all (such as in the present circumstances).

[rman]

71. hmm,

I assert that most here understand that overconsumption and distribution of wealth are major problems, more so than population. And you call that a "primitive, visceral reaction".

Then you say that "some" responses indicate that "some" seem to think stemming overpopulation may somehow mean people are not allowed to go on living... etc

How does the latter relate to the former?

[The Stranger]

74. It is easier to cry "poverty" than face facts about our species.

That is why some react at a visceral level. Species connotes survival, poverty is what they hear at church.

[rman]

76. Yet crying "poverty" is rather different than

thinking that "stemming overpopulation may somehow mean people are not allowed to go on living", as you stated in your previous post. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2225857&mesg_id=2242286

So, which is it?

And still, "some" is not most. It confirms my claim that contrary to what the topic starter asserted, most posters in this thread do not agree with the OP.

Poverty is not just what people hear at church, poverty is every day reality for at least half of the global population.

[michaelpush]

79. the word "poverty" is relative

According to the US government I live in "poverty", most likely a poor African in Angola would consider me "rich"...so, I wouldn't even use the word. Its more like "the necessities of life" or, "a World standard of living", that I would use to determine economic equality. I still don't understand how this has anything to do with my post....IMO, overpopulation is not related to the inequality of resource distribution. I tried to explain that in my apple analogy, and, in my building analogy. I could understand the argument that one doesn't believe we have limited resources but plenty to go around no matter what our population is, and, that nature is not unbalanced. At least that would be a counter argument, which, of course I wouldn't agree with. I would agree that there is an inequality of economics and resources, but, thats not what my post is about. Its about how overpopulation effects the balance of nature, which you haven't addressed. Its about how due to this unbalance of nature, humanity will destroy itself. You haven't addressed that either. Issues of poverty and inequality are human issues only, it doesn't address the effect of humanity on the whole of nature.

[rman]

82. I'm not saying overpopulation is related to the inequality of resource dis

I'm saying inequality of resource distribution is related to poverty, related as in causing it.

What do you mean by "unbalance of nature"? It is nonspecific. What are the practical effects for humans? Don't you see poverty as evidence of this "unbalance of nature", evidence as in caused by?

[michaelpush]

83. Did you read my building analogy post?

I think that explains about "unbalance"...No, I don't see poverty as evidence of the "unbalance". Poverty is an issue of economic injustice not "unbalance". The "unbalance" of nature is caused by overpopulation of humanity, which, invades the spaces of other living organisms, thus diminishing their population, which effects our resources in a negative way. You see, humanity needs other organisms to survive and when we "unbalance" the natural process, we essentially slowly destroy ourselves.

[The Stranger]

84. You may be able to post more posts, but that doesn't translate into

some kind of showing that most people disagree with the OP. On the contrary, many of the posts seem to be upset that the issue of overpopulation is so attacked with red herrings.

So, which is it?

Which is what? What kind of false dichotomy are you perceiving here?

. . . poverty is every day reality for at least half of the global population.

Overpopulation is evey day reality for all of the global population, and it is getting worse by the second, as birth rates careen out of control as resources are depleted or polluted.

[michaelpush]

72. does it really matter how many posts

disagree or agree? Does that somehow make your position correct? It only means that there is disagreement and doesn't validate either position. I have tons of scientific study to uphold my position, and, some posters here agree, but, does that make me right? No. I really don't count to see how many are agreeing or dis-agreeing. My post was to generate discussion and for people to think about it and offer their ideas about it. You and I don't agree and thats fine. I just chose not to continue because I think you are off track and I don't think its contributing anymore to the discussion. Thats my choice. I don't really want to get into a debate over how many posts are for or against, that is also getting off track. Continue the discussion with whoever you wish or perhaps others will continue with you, I just chose not to. Nothing personal.

[rman]

73. It means your claim that "most of the posters "get it"" is incorrect.

[michaelpush]

75. Ok so I made an assumption not based

on actual mathematical calculations but on perception. Let me correct that: IMHO there is at least one poster who "doesn't get it". That is, they "don't get" the correlation between overpopulation and the unbalance of nature. Their argument should be under issues of poverty/wealth and the economic injustice of our World. In such case, I believe they would "get it" and I would agree wholeheartedly!

[rman]

78. Most posters here do not agree that poverty in the world today

is caused by overpopulation, rather they are convinced it is caused by the predatory mindset of certain wealthy, influential individuals, who cause disproportionate distribution of wealth - in their favor, at the expense of many.

You however seem to think such a thing can not be a cause of poverty.

It isn't that there are to few resources to sustain this many people, it is that there are to few resources to sustain this many people if and when a unscrupulous few take the larger piece of the pie for themselves.

[michaelpush]

81. huh? Who said that?

Who were you addressing that to? You replied to me.

[pscot]

77. Imagine a petri dish

filled with agar. Bacteria colonize it. At first there's planty of agar to go around, but the bacteria multiply. They can't help themselves. It's what they do. Pretty soon they fill the dish. Then they start to die. It makes a bad smell for a while, then it dries out and the smell goes away. No more bacteria. They weren't done in by propaganda.

[michaelpush]

80. another good analogy...

thanks.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

16. Yes, Everything else is an outgrowth of this problem. NT

[hogwyld]

17. Yeah! Let's nuke the brown people

for making us conserve! :sarcasm: :nuke:

[AngryAmish]

19. Yet here you are

You can make a small contribution to solving this problem today, personally.

[Irreverend IX]

34. Yes you can.

Run a hose from your exhaust pipe into your car and make a small contribution. Or you can turn your car onto a sidewalk, gun the motor and make a somewhat larger contribution. How big a contribution can you make? If you want to rack up a really big score, you could try getting a job as an engineer at a nuclear power plant. The only limit is your ingenuity! Isn't solving the population problem fun?

[Democrats_win]

20. Distribution of wealth is large problem.

[The2ndWheel]

28. It's also overconsumption

It's not just more people, it's more people wanting more stuff. If we make everything more efficient, that will just make more people use more stuff. Women can have more rights around the world(and I'm NOT saying they shouldn't. That was NOT saying they shouldn't. NOT. NOT as in NOT saying they shouldn't), but that doesn't help overall consumption. We could try what China does, and force it, but they have over a billion people(and plenty of economic growth to go along with that), so that doesn't work.

I'm afraid you're too late in waking people up. We're well beyond the point where we'll stop anything voluntarily. It's endless growth or bust from here on out.

[rug]

29. Bush is tackling that problem.

[Jcrowley]

30. Disagree

I would definitely put it in the top ten but there are some difficulties with this assessment. Without question catastrophic climate change, don't like the term 'global warming', is the most dire threat facing us. And does overpopulation contribute to this? Yes, definitely but not nearly as much as excessive consumption and corporate militarism. A statistical analysis shows that approx. 10% of the world's population consume 80% of the world's resources (I've slightly understated the figures). This means that 90% of the population uses 20%. Let's say you eliminate 80% of those poor folks, gotta keep a few servants around, but the 10% remain the same in numbers and continue with their avaricious living habits (Is that called a 'lifestyle'?) well not much has changed we're still heading over the cliff.

So if you're looking to curb population do start at the top for if you eliminated the top 10% of resource users you would have a much greater impact in the goal of a sustainable planet even though the population decrease would not be so significant.

[michaelpush]

33. I think we are still talking distribution

and not the mis-balance. Sure maybe the top 10% use most of the resources. It would definitely help to lessen the suffering in the world to redistribute resources, but, would it fix the problem of unbalancing nature to the point of our own demise? I don't think so. reducing population would allow nature to re-balance, with help from humanity.We may be at the point of no return, I don't know. It may be that just like in two other periods of our planets history, natural disasters on a global scale, one an asteroid, the other a giant volcanic eruption, will reset the balance over time. In lieu of that, its in our hands, which really is scary. Then again maybe humanity IS the 3rd disaster in time.

[rman]

39. The mis-balance is in the distribution of wealth,

and wasteful use of resources - it is what causes poverty, which in turn causes people to die of famine and disease.

[The Stranger]

37. Consumption and corporate militarism are part of overpopulation.

Humans consume (and more humans consume (or overconsume) more), and militaries thrive on the war for diminishing resources.

[Jcrowley]

45. If so

and a case could be made for your argument, but if so then what we are talking about is a possibility that all of these are just subsets of a larger issue. Some of the possibilities of this larger issue, or at least a name we can pin on it, are Industrialism, Capitalism, Civilization Itself or you might have another Big Issue to throw in there. Whatever the root cause is I don't see many serious attempts to even discuss it let alone address it on the ground. Big topic.

[oblivious]

43. Then it is the cause of overpopulation that is the #1 issue.

or causes

[michaelpush]

44. That would be more than one issue

since the causes of overpopulation are many(culture, access to knowledge, access to preventative measures, isolation, to name a few)...I think overpopulation IS the issue, the causes of overpopulation are the identifiable sub-issues that can be addressed by humanity....

[sweetheart]

48. Yes, hence the pressing need to uplift the poor world

Rich nations are not driving this gross overpopulation,
rather poor world nations where birth control is scarce,
education levels are low, and people have children to ensure
their security in poor economies.

If you raise the education levels and the average wage of
a population, the birth rate will fall off, as time becomes
more and more scarce a resource. You're right about the problem,
and we're all progressives to be part of the solution; that is
ending global inequality and avoidable poverty.

[Fox Mulder]

54. That's what a lot of the professors at my old college campus thought too.

[Taxloss]

57. No, there aren't too many humans. There's too much waste.

Our resources, renewable and non-renewable are very badly distributed and used. Attempting to reduce the human population - by whatever means, fair or foul - would have serious demographic consequences that would just fuck us up more severely further down the road. We need fairer, cleaner resource use, not fewer people. And many resources are not finite - sunlight and hydrogen spring to mind.

There's nothing bad about reduced infant mortality and longer lifespans, which are the main drivers behind population growth - it's not a matter of reducing births.

[michaelpush]

62. If we were only talking about humans

that may be true, however, we are talking about the whole world ecosystem here....all species which inter-depend on each other for their survival. We must look at the big picture, not narrow it down to just humans. An analogy:

You have a building with humans in it...the building is the world, the other systems in the building like AC, heating, the walls, skeletal structure, etc are the other species and their ecosystems.

So, humans need more room, they take the AC out...maybe not a big issue...
Then because of ever increasing population humans need to take out a few walls, then maybe heating, ok, a few beams here and there. OOPS! the building is starting to sway...oh well, humans say its really about distribution and wealth and such. So, they move a few things around, start changing the geometrics of the building itself...OOPS! BUILDING FALLS! On its way down humans fight and argue over who's fault it is and why didn't anyone do something about it! THE END!

[burythehatchet]

59. I believe you're only partially correct

The biggest threat to our existance is the combination of population growth AND the abandonment of reason (resurgence of fundamental religion)