Ever since the writing of tỷ lệ cá độ bóng đá in the early 1800s, and especially since
Paul Ehrlich’s publication of “The
Bomb?/a> in 1968, there has been a lot of learned
skull-scratching over what the sustainable human
population of Planet Earth might “really?be over the long
This question is intrinsically tied to the issue of
ecological overshoot so ably described by William
R. Catton Jr. in his 1980
book “Overshoot:The Ecological Basis of
Revolutionary Change? How much have we
already pushed our population and consumption levels
above the long-term carrying capacity of the planet?
This article outlines my current thoughts on
carrying capacity and overshoot, and presents six
estimates for the size of a sustainable human
cá độ bóng đá trên điện thoại_app cá độ bóng đá_tỷ lệ kèo bóng đá hôm nay
>Carrying capacity?is a
well-known ecological term that has an obvious and
fairly intuitive meaning: “The maximum
population size of a species that the environment
can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat,
water and other necessities available in the
Unfortunately that definition becomes more
nebulous and controversial the closer you look at it,
especially when we are talking about the planetary
carrying capacity for human beings. Ecologists
will claim that our numbers have already well
surpassed the planet’s carrying capacity, while others
(notably economists and politicians...) claim we are
nowhere near it yet!
This confusion may arise because we tend to confuse
two very different understandings of the phrase
“carrying capacity? For this discussion I
will call these the “subjective?view and the
“objective?views of carrying capacity.
The subjective view is carrying capacity as seen by
a member of the species in question. Rather than
coming from a rational, analytical assessment of the
overall situation, it is an experiential
judgment. As such it tends to be limited to
the population of one's own species, as well as
having a short time horizon ?the current situation
counts a lot more than some future
possibility. The main thing that matters in
this view is how many of one’s own species will be
able to survive to reproduce. As long as that number
continues to rise, we assume all is well ?that we
have not yet reached the carrying capacity of
From this subjective point of view humanity
has not even reached, let alone surpassed the Earth’s
overall carrying capacity ?after all, our population
is still growing. It's tempting to ascribe this
view mainly to neoclassical economists and
politicians, but truthfully most of us tend to see
things this way. In fact, all species,
including humans, have this orientation, whether it is
conscious or not.
Species tend to keep growing until outside
factors such as disease, predators, food or other
resource scarcity ?or climate change ?
intervene. These factors define the “objective?
carrying capacity of the environment. This
objective view of carrying capacity is the view of an
observer who adopts a position outside the species in
question.It’s the typical viewpoint of an ecologist
looking at the reindeer on St. Matthew Island, or at
the impact of humanity on other species and its own
This is the view that is usually
assumed by ecologists when they use the naked phrase
“carrying capacity? and it is an assessment that can
only be arrived at through analysis and deductive
reasoning. It’s the view I hold, and its
implications for our future are anything but
When a species bumps up against the
limits posed by the environment’s objective carrying
capacity,its population begins to decline. Humanity is
now at the uncomfortable point when objective
observers have detected our overshoot condition, but
the population as a whole has not recognized it yet.
As we push harder against the limits of the planet’s
objective carrying capacity, things are beginning to
go wrong. More and more ordinary people are
recognizing the problem as its symptoms become more
obvious to casual onlookers.The problem is, of course,
that we've already been above the planet’s carrying
capacity for quite a while.
One typical rejoinder to this line of argument is
that humans have “expanded our carrying capacity?
through technological innovation. “Look at the
Green Revolution! Malthus was just plain
wrong. There are no limits to human
ingenuity!?nbsp; When we say things like this, we
are of course speaking from a subjective
viewpoint. From this experiential,
human-centric point of view, we have indeed made it
possible for our environment to support ever more of
us. This is the only view that matters at the
biological, evolutionary level, so it is hardly
surprising that most of our fellow species-members
are content with it.
The problem with that view is that every objective
indicator of overshoot is flashing red. From
the climate change and ocean acidification that
flows from our smokestacks and tailpipes, through
the deforestation and desertification that accompany
our expansion of human agriculture and living space,
to the extinctions of non-human species happening in
the natural world, the planet is urgently signaling
an overload condition.
Humans have an underlying urge towards
growth, an immense intellectual capacity for
innovation, and a biological inability to step outside
our chauvinistic, anthropocentric perspective.
This combination has made it inevitable that we would
land ourselves and the rest of the biosphere in the
current insoluble global ecological predicament.
When a population surpasses its carrying
capacity it enters a condition known as overshoot.
Because the carrying capacity is defined as the
maximum population that an environment can maintain indefinitely,
overshoot must by definition be temporary.
Populations always decline to (or
below) the carrying capacity. How long they stay
in overshoot depends on how many stored resources
there are to support their inflated numbers.
Resources may be food, but they may also be any
resource that helps maintain their numbers. For
humans one of the primary resources is energy, whether
it is tapped as flows (sunlight,
wind, biomass) or stocks (coal, oil,
gas, uranium etc.). A species usually enters
overshoot when it taps a particularly rich but
exhaustible stock of a resource. Like fossil
fuels, for instance...
Population growth in the animal kingdom tends to
follow a logistic curve.
This is an S-shaped curve that starts off low
when the species is first introduced to an
ecosystem, at some later point rises very fast as
the population becomes established, and then finally
levels off as the population saturates its
Humans have been pushing the envelope of our
logistic curve for much of our history. Our
population rose very slowly over the last couple of
hundred thousand years, as we gradually developed
the skills we needed in order to deal with our
varied and changeable environment,particularly
language, writing and arithmetic. As we developed
and disseminated those skills our ability to modify
our environment grew, and so did our growth
If we had not discovered the stored energy stocks of
fossil fuels, our logistic growth curve would
probably have flattened out some time ago, and we
would be well on our way to achieving a balance with
the energy flows in the world around us, much like
all other species do. Our numbers would have
settled down to oscillate around a much lower level
than today, similar to what they probably did with
hunter-gatherer populations tens of thousands of
Unfortunately, our discovery of the energy
potential of coal created what mathematicians and
systems theorists call a “bifurcation point?or what
is better known in some cases as a tipping point. This
is a point at which a system diverges from one path
onto another because of some influence on
events. The unfortunate fact of the matter is
that bifurcation points are generally
irreversible. Once past such a point, the system
can’t go back to a point before it.
Given the impact that fossil fuels had on
the development of world civilization, their discovery
was clearly such a fork in the road. Rather than
flattening out politely as other species' growth
curves tend to do, ours kept on rising. And
rising, and rising.
is a sustainable population level?
Now we come to the heart of the
matter. Okay, we all accept that the human
race is in overshoot. But how deep into
overshoot are we? What is the
carrying capacity of our planet? The answers
to these questions,after all, define a sustainable population.
Not surprisingly, the answers are quite hard
to tease out. Various numbers have been put
forward, each with its set of stated and unstated
assumptions –not the least of which is the assumed
standard of living (or consumption profile) of the
average person. For those familiar with Ehrlich
and Holdren’s I=PAT equation,
?b>I?represents the environmental impact of a
sustainable population, then for any population value
?b>P?there is a corresponding value for ?b>AT?
the level of Activity and Technology that can be
sustained for that population level. In other
words, the higher our standard of living climbs, the
lower our population level must fall in order to be
sustainable. This is discussed further in an earlier
article on Thermodynamic Footprints.
To get some feel for the enormous range of
uncertainty in sustainability estimates we’ll look at
six assessments, each of which leads to a very
different outcome. We’ll start with the most
optimistic one, and work our way down the scale.
Ecological Footprint Assessment
The concept of the tỷ lệ cá độ bóng đáEcological Footprint was
developed in 1992 by William Rees and Mathis
Wackernagel at the University of British Columbia in
The ecological footprint is a measure of
human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. It is a
standardized measure of demand for natural capital
that may be contrasted with the planet's ecological
capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of
biologically productive land and sea area necessary to
supply the resources a human population consumes, and
to assimilate associated waste. As it is usually
published, the value is an estimate of how many planet
Earths it would take to support humanity with everyone
following their current lifestyle.
It has a number of fairly glaring flaws that
cause it to be hyper-optimistic. The "ecological
footprint" is basically for renewable resources only.
It includes a theoretical but underestimated factor
for non-renewable resources. It does not take
into account the unfolding effects of climate change,
ocean acidification or biodiversity loss (i.e. species
extinctions). It is intuitively clear that no
number of “extra planets?would compensate for such
Still, the estimate as of the end of 2012 is
that our overall ecological footprint is about ?.7
planets? In other words, there is at least 1.7
times too much human activity for the long-term health
of this single, lonely planet. To put it yet
another way, we are 70% into overshoot.
It would probably be fair to say that
by this accounting method the sustainable population
would be (7 / 1.7) or about four
at our current average level of affluence. As
you will see, other assessments make this estimate
seem like a happy fantasy.
Fossil Fuel Assessment
The main accelerator of human activity over
the last 150 to 200 years has been our exploitation of
the planet's stocks of fossil fuel. Before 1800
there was very little fossil fuel in general use, with
most energy being derived from the flows represented
by wood, wind, water, animal and human power. The
following graph demonstrates the precipitous rise in
fossil fuel use since then, and especially since 1950.
Graphic by Gail Tverberg
This information was the basis for my
earlier tỷ lệ cá độ bóng đáThermodynamic Footprint analysis.
article investigated the influence of technological
energy (87% of which comes from fossil fuel
stocks) on human planetary impact, in terms of how
much it multiplies the effect of each “naked
ape? The following graph illustrates the
multiplier at different points in history:
Fossil fuels have powered the increase in
all aspects of civilization, including population
growth. The ?a
role="button" style="cursor: pointer;
text-decoration: none;">Green Revolution?in
agriculture that was kicked off by Nobel laureate
Norman Borlaug in the late 1940s was largely a fossil
fuel phenomenon, relying on mechanization,powered
irrigation and synthetic fertilizers derived from
fossil fuels. This enormous increase in food
production supported a swift rise in population
numbers, in a classic ecological feedback loop: more
food (supply) => more people (demand) => more
food => more people etc?/big>
Over the core decades of the Green
Revolution from 1950 to 1980 the world population
almost doubled, from fewer than 2.5 billion to over
4.5 billion. The average population growth over
those three decades was 2% per year. Compare
that to 0.5% from 1800 to 1900; 1.00% from 1900 to
1950; and 1.5% from 1980 until now:
This analysis makes it tempting to
conclude that a sustainable population might look
similar to the situation in 1800, before the Green
Revolution, and before the global adoption of fossil
fuels: about 1
billion people living on about 5% of today’s
global average energy consumption, all of it derived
from renewable energy flows.
It’s tempting (largely because it seems
vaguely achievable), but unfortunately that number may
still be too high. Even in 1800 the signs of
human overshoot were clear, if not well recognized:
there was already widespread deforestation
through Europe and the Middle East; and
desertification had set into the previously lush
agricultural zones of North Africa and the Middle
Not to mention that if we did start over
with “just?one billion people, an annual growth rate
of a mere 0.5% would put the population back over
seven billion in just 400 years. Unless the
growth rate can be kept down very close to zero, such
a situation is decidedly unsustainable.
Population Density Assessment
There is another way to approach the
question. If we assume that the human species was sustainable
at some point in the past, what point might we
choose and what conditions contributed to our
apparent sustainability at that time?
I use a very strict definition of
sustainability. It reads something like
this: "Sustainability is the ability of
a species to survive in
the planetary ecosystem in the process."
This principle applies only to a species' own actions,
rather than uncontrollable external forces like Milankovitch cycles,
asteroid impacts, plate tectonics, etc.
In order to find a population that I was
fairly confident met my definition of sustainability,
I had to look well back in history - in fact back into
Paleolithic times. The sustainability conditions
I chose were: a very low population density and very
low energy use, with both maintained over multiple
thousands of years. I also assumed the populace would
each use about as much energy as a typical
hunter-gatherer: about twice the daily amount of
energy a person obtains from the food they eat.
There are about 150 million square
kilometers, or 60 million square miles of land
on Planet Earth. However, two thirds of that
area is covered by snow, mountains or deserts, or has
little or no topsoil. This leaves about 50
million square kilometers (20 million
square miles) that is habitable by humans without
high levels of technology.
A typical population density for a
non-energy-assisted society of
hunter-forager-gardeners is between 1 person per square mile and
1 person per square kilometer. Because humans living
this way had settled the entire planet by the time
agriculture was invented 10,000 years ago, this number
pegs a reasonable upper boundary for
a sustainable world population in the range of 20 to
50 million people.
I settled on the average of these two
million people. That was because it
matches known hunter-forager population densities, and
because those densities were maintained with virtually
zero population growth (less than 0.01% per
year)during the 67,000 years from the time of the Toba
super-volcano eruption in 75,000 BC until 8,000 BC
(Agriculture Day on Planet Earth).
If we were to spread our current population
of 7 billion evenly over 50 million square kilometers,
we would have an average density of 150 per square
kilometer. Based just on that number, and
without even considering our modern energy-driven
activities, our current population is at least 250
times too big to be sustainable. To put it another
way, we are now 25,000%into overshoot
based on our raw population numbers alone.
As I said above, we also need to take the
population’s standard of living into
account. Our use of technological energy gives
each of us the average planetary impact of about 20
hunter-foragers. What would the sustainable
population be if each person kept their current
lifestyle, which is given as an average current
Thermodynamic Footprint (TF) of 20?
We can find the sustainable world population number
for any level of human activity by
using the I
= PAT equation mentioned above.
- We decided above that the maximum hunter-forager
population we could accept as sustainable would be 35
million people, each with a Thermodynamic Footprint of
- First, we set I (the allowable total
impact for our sustainable population) to 35,
representing those 35 million hunter-foragers.
- Next, we set AT to be the TF representing
the desired average lifestyle for our
population. In this case that number is 20.
- We can now solve the equation for P.
Using simple algebra, we know that I = P x AT is
to P = I / AT. Using that form of the
equation we substitute in our values, and we find that
P = 35 / 20. In this case P = 1.75.
This number tells us that if we want to keep
the average level of per-capita consumption we enjoy
in in today’s world, we would enter an overshoot
situation above a global population of about 1.75
million people. By this measure our current population
of 7 billion is about 4,000 times too big and active
for long-term sustainability. In other words, by this
measure we are we are now 400,000% into
Using the same technique we can calculate that
achieving a sustainable population with an American
lifestyle (TF = 78) would permit a world population
of only 650,000 people ?clearly
not enough to sustain a modern global
For the sake of comparison, it is estimated that the historical world
after the dawn of agriculture in 8,000 BC was about
five million, and in Year 1 was about 200
million. We crossed the upper threshold of
planetary sustainability in about 2000 BC, and have
been in deepening overshoot for the last 4,000
As a species, human beings share much in
common with other large mammals. We breathe,
eat, move around to find food and mates, socialize,
reproduce and die like all other mammalian
species. Our intellect and culture, those
qualities that make us uniquely human, are recent
additions to our essential primate nature, at least in
Consequently it makes sense to compare our
species?performance to that of other, similar species
?species that we know for sure are sustainable.
I was fortunate to find the work of American marine
biologist Dr. Charles W. Fowler, who has a deep
interest in sustainability and the ecological
conundrum posed by human beings. The following
three assessments are drawn from Dr. Fowler’s work.
In 2003, Dr. Fowler and Larry Hobbs
co-wrote a paper titled, ?/i>Is humanity sustainable??
that was published by the Royal
Society. In it, they compared a variety of
ecological measures across 31 species including
humans. The measures included biomass
consumption, energy consumption, CO2 production,
geographical range size, and population size.
It should come as no great surprise that in
most of the comparisons humans had far greater impact
than other species, even to a 99% confidence
level. When it came to population size, Fowler
and Hobbs found that there are over two orders of
magnitude more humans than one would expect based on a
comparison to other species ?190 times more, in
fact. Similarly, our CO2 emissions outdid other
species by a factor of 215.
Based on this research, Dr. Fowler
concluded that there are about 200 times too many
humans on the planet. This brings up an
estimate for a sustainable population of 35
This is the same as the upper bound
established above by examining hunter-gatherer
population densities. The similarity of the
results is not too surprising, since the
hunter-gatherers of 50,000 years ago were about as
close to “naked apes?as humans have been in recent
In 2008, five years after the
publication cited above, Dr. Fowler wrote another
paper entitled ?/i>Maximizing biodiversity,
information and sustainability." In
this paper he examined the sustainability question
from the point of view of maximizing
biodiversity. In other words, what is the
largest human population that would not reduce
This is, of course, a very stringent test,
and one that we probably failed early in our history
by extirpating mega-fauna in the wake of our
migrations across a number of continents.
In this paper, Dr. Fowler compared 96 different
species, and again analyzed them in terms of
population, CO2 emissions and consumption patterns.
This time, when the strict test of
biodiversity retention was applied, the results were
truly shocking, even to me. According to this
measure, humans have overpopulated the Earth by
times. In order to preserve maximum
biodiversity on Earth, the human population may be
no more than 10
million people ?each
with the consumption of a Paleolithic
Addendum: Third assessment
After this article was initially written, Dr. Fowler
forwarded me a copy of an appendix to his 2009 book, "Systemic
Management: Sustainable Human Interactions with
Ecosystems and the Biosphere", published by Oxford
University Press. In it he describes yet one more
technique for comparing humans with other mammalian
species, this time in terms of observed population
densities, total population sizes and ranges.
After carefully comparing us to various species of both
herbivores and carnivores of similar body size, he draws
this devastating conclusion: the human population is
about 1000 times larger than expected. This is in line
with the second assessment above, though about 50% more
pessimistic. It puts a sustainable human
population at about 7 million.
As you can see, the estimates for a
sustainable human population vary widely ?by a factor
of 500 from the highest to the lowest.
really seem intended as a measure of
sustainability. Its main value is to give
people with no exposure to ecology some sense that
we are indeed over-exploiting our planet. (It
also has the psychological advantage of feeling
achievable with just a little work.) As a
measure of sustainability, it is not helpful.
As I said above, the number suggested
by the Thermodynamic
Fossil Fuel analysis isn't very helpful either ?
even a population of one billion people without
fossil fuels had already gone into overshoot.
That leaves us with four estimates: two at
35 million, one of 10 million, and one of 7 million.
The central number of 35
million people is confirmed by two analyses
using different data and assumptions. My
conclusion is that this is probably the absolutely
largest human population that could be considered
sustainable. The realistic but similarly
unachievable number is probably more in line with
the bottom two estimates, somewhere below 10
I think the lowest two estimates (Fowler
2008, and Fowler 2009) are as unrealistically high as
all the others in this case, primarily because human
intelligence and problem-solving ability makes our
destructive impact on biodiversity a foregone
conclusion. After all, we drove other species to
extinction 40,000 years ago, when our total population
was estimated to be under 1 million.
So, what can we do with this
information? It’s obvious that we will not (and
probably cannot) voluntarily reduce our population by
99.5% to 99.9%. Even an involuntary reduction of
this magnitude would involve enormous suffering and a
very uncertain outcome. It’s close enough to
zero that if Mother Nature blinked, we’d be gone.
In fact, the analysis suggests that Homo
sapiens is an inherently unsustainable species.
This outcome seems virtually guaranteed by our
neocortex, by the very intelligence that has enabled
our rise to unprecedented dominance over our planet’s
biosphere. Is intelligence an evolutionary blind
alley? From the singular perspective of our own
species, it quite probably is. If we are to find some
greater meaning or deeper future for intelligence in
the universe, we may be forced to look beyond
ourselves and adopt a cosmic, rather than a human,
we get out of this jam?
How might we get from where we are today to a
sustainable world population of 35 million or
so? We should probably discard the notion of
"managing" such a population decline. If we
can’t even get our population to simply stop
growing, an outright reduction of over 99% is simply
not in the cards. People seem virtually
incapable of taking these kinds of decisions in
large social groups. We can decide to stop
reproducing, but only as individuals or (perhaps)
small groups. Without the essential broad
social support, such personal choices will make
precious little difference to the final
outcome. Politicians will by and large not
even propose an idea like "managed population
decline" - not if they want to gain or remain
in power, at any rate. China's brave
experiment with one-child families notwithstanding,
any global population decline will be purely
A world population decline would (will) be triggered
and fed by our civilization's encounter with
limits. These limits may show up in any area:
accelerating climate change, weather
extremes,shrinking food supplies, fresh water
depletion, shrinking energy supplies,pandemic
diseases, breakdowns in the social fabric due to
excessive complexity,supply chain breakdowns,
electrical grid failures, a breakdown of the
international financial system, international
hostilities - the list of candidates is endless, and
their interactions are far too complex to predict.
In 2007, shortly after I grasped the concept and
implications of Peak Oil, I wrote my first web
article on population decline: Population: The Elephant in
the Room. In it I sketched out the picture
of a monolithic population collapse: a straight-line
decline from today's seven billion people to just one
billion by the end of this century.
As time has passed I've become less confident in
this particular dystopian vision. It now seems
to me that human beings may be just a bit tougher
than that. We would fight like demons to stop
the slide, though we would potentially do a lot more
damage to the environment in the process. We
would try with all our might to cling to
civilization and rebuild our former glory.
Different physical, environmental and social
situations around the world would result in a great
diversity in regional outcomes. To put it
plainly, a simple "slide to oblivion" is not in the
cards for any species that could recover from the
giant Toba volcanic
eruption in just 75,000 years.
Still, there are those
physical limits I mentioned above. They are
looming ever closer, and it seems a foregone
conclusion that we will begin to encounter them for
real within the next decade or two. In order to draw a
slightly more realistic picture of what might happen
at that point, I created the following thought
experiment on involuntary population decline. It's
based on the idea that our population will not simply
crash, but will oscillate (tumble) down a series of
stair-steps: first dropping as we puncture the limits
to growth; then falling below them; then partially
recovering; only to fall again; partially recover;
I started the scenario with a world population of 8
billion people in 2030. I assumed each full cycle of
decline and partial recovery would take six
generations, or 200 years. It would take three
generations (100 years) to complete each decline and
then three more in recovery, for a total cycle time
of 200 years. I assumed each decline would take out
60% of the existing population over its hundred
years, while each subsequent rise would add back
only half of the lost population.
In ten full cycles - 2,000 years - we would be back
to a sustainable population of about 40-50 million.
The biggest drop would be in the first 100 years,
from 2030 to 2130 when we would lose a net 53
million people per year. Even that is only a loss of
0.9% pa, compared to our net growth today of 1.1%,
that's easily within the realm of the
conceivable,and not necessarily catastrophic - at
least to begin with.
As a scenario it seems a lot more likely than a
single monolithic crash from here to under a billion
people. Here's what it looks like:
It's important to remember that this scenario
is not a prediction. It's an
attempt to portray a potential path down the
population hill that seems a bit more probable than
a simple, "Crash!
It's also important to remember that the
decline will probably not happen anything like this,
either. With climate change getting ready to push
humanity down the stairs, and the strong possibility
that the overall global temperature will rise by 5 or
6 degrees Celsius even before the end of that first
decline cycle, our prospects do not look even this
"good" from where I stand.
Rest assured, I'm not trying to present 35
million people as some kind of "population
target". It's just part of my attempt to frame
what we're doing to the planet, in terms of what some
of us see as the planetary ecosphere’s level of
tolerance for our abuse.
The other potential implicit in this analysis is
that if we did drop from 8 to under 1 billion, we
could then enter a population free-fall. As a
result, we might keep falling until we hit the
bottom of Olduvai Gorge again. My numbers are an
attempt to define how many people might stagger away
from such a crash landing. Some people seem to
believe that such an event could be
manageable. I don't share that belief for a
moment. These calculations are my way of
getting that message out.
I figure if I'm going to draw a line in the
sand, I'm going to do it on behalf of all life,
just our way of life.
can we do?
To be absolutely clear, after ten years of
investigating what I affectionately call "The
Global Clusterfuck", I do not think it can be
prevented, mitigated or managed in
any way. If and when it happens, it
will follow its own dynamic, and the force of
events could easily make the Japanese and Andaman
tsunamis seem like pleasant days at the beach.
The most effective preparations that we can
make will all be done by individuals and small
groups. It will be up to each of us to decide
what our skills, resources and motivations call us to
do. It will be different for each of us - even
for people in the same neighborhood, let alone people
on opposite sides of the world.
I've been saying for a couple of years that each of
us will each do whatever we think is appropriate to
the circumstances, in whatever part of the world we
can influence. The outcome of our actions is
ultimately unforeseeable, because it depends on how
the efforts of all 7 billion of us converge,
co-operate and compete. The end result will be
quite different from place to place - climate change
impacts will vary, resources vary, social structures
vary, values and belief systems are different all
over the world.The best we can do is to do our best.
Here is my advice:
- Stay awake to what's happening around us.
- Don't get hung up by other people’s "shoulds
- Occasionally re-examine our personal
values. If they aren't in alignment with what
we think the world needs, change them.
- Stop blaming people. Others are as much victims
of the times as we are - even the CEOs and
- Blame, anger and outrage is pointless. It
wastes precious energy that we will need for more
- Laugh a lot, at everything - including
- Hold all the world's various beliefs and "isms"
lightly, including our own.
- Forgive others. Forgive ourselves. For
- Love everything just as deeply as you can.
That's what I think might be helpful. If we
get all that personal stuff right, then doing the
physical stuff about food, water,
housing,transportation, energy, politics and the rest
of it will come easy ?or at least a bit easier. And
we will have a lot more fun doing it.
I wish you all the best of luck!
tỷ lệ cá độ bóng đá
May 16, 2013