Too many people?

[Jimmy Higgins]

We actually don't even need another planets or moons to colonize if we can build suitable habitats in space. And yes it is possible (we actually set foot on the moon in the 1960's) but it won't ever happen with your "can't do anything" attitude.

OK, so we have two choices: We can either spend billions of dollars to build space platforms that will house say 10% of the population in space, or we can have 10% fewer people.

10% fewer people seems like a better option to me.

Billions to house 10% of the population in space? I'm thinking more along the lines of tens to hundreds of Trillions.

As far 10% fewer, you first. Oh wait... you meant someone else.

 

[bilby]

There are always just the right number of us, and far too many of them.

Someone should do something about that.

Essentially, there are two options: We can either decide that "they" are really just an extension of "us"; or we can embark on a program of genocide.

Personally I lean towards the former.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We need to work on energy sustainability, not complain about problems of which there is no immediate (or even moderate-term) solution even if it were an actual problem!

A: There are too many people on the planet!
B: OIMG! What do we do about it?
A: We need to reduce the population.
B: Like now?
A: Well no.
B: Tomorrow?
A: No.
B: When?
A: There are too many people on the planet!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is that a catastrophic global warming scenario isn't that bad. Humans are extremely adaptible. Yes, the water level is catastrophic. Food production will change. Our living arrangements and living space will be much limitted. But we'll be fine. We've been through a lot worse.

Disagree--the catastrophic scenarios will make much of the world uninhabitable. If it happens fast enough we won't be able to relocate everyone in time.

You've just affirmed my statement. So far nothing we have done has made the world uninhabitable. So why would it this time?

Aren't you just making a modern version of the Cartesian dilemma?

Survivorship bias. Some places have made their little piece of the world unlivable. We don't remember them because they died out. (Most cultures that have disappeared have been assimilated, but some islands had no successor and died.)

And the worst-case predictions for global warming show up in the fossil record--as an absence of fossils. There have been times the Earth was warm enough that most of it was uninhabitable to land animals. We can do that again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The most destructive form of farming is slash and burn farming. The type of cooking that creates the most CO2 is wood firing.

Capitalism is NOT the problem. The free market is our friend here. High CO2 emissions also means less profit. It's a waste both economically and environmentally.

Everybody whining about capitalism really should take a look at all the alternatives humans have ever devised. What's your plan, communism? Because communists have a stellar reputation for environmental work. In capitalism there's a guy who owns the capital. So an identifiable guy we can hold responsible for each problem, and if necessary throw in jail. This is a great tool to protect the environment. The best we've ever come up with so far.

Your problem isn't with capitalism. It's with consumerism. We can have capitalism without consumerism.

Capitalism is a problem when you have a system that doesn't count externalities. Properly charge for them and it works. The slash and burn doesn't pay for the destroyed rainforest.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the mean time, we just need to stabilize so the curve stops growing.

Which is something people have been saying for decades.

And we just added another billion people.

If (hypothetically) we are in severe overshoot, stabilization might not be sufficient.

Your path leads to certain destruction--as you drop the tech level you drop the resources available and you ensure there's no chance of survival through increasing tech. I disagree with Jarhyn in thinking we must reach the Singularity to survive, but I do think the only chance for long term survival is through technology.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Solar is also useful for processes that can readily be turned on/off at the drop of a hat. (Say, cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen. Turn off the power, the production stops but the plant doesn't otherwise mind.)

This is what I’d like to see. Because it can be de-centralized. We could have autonomous fuel production stations in the middle of the desert, on city rooftops or anywhere the sun shines, which would make an energy infrastructure that would be far more robust than centralized generation.

Desert, no. One of the inputs is water. I'd put them near the powerplants to reduce transmission loss. Instead of making your reactors load-follow you run them at 100% and the fuel plants use the extra power to crack water and extract/crack CO2. Once you've cracked them the rest of the process is exothermic and doesn't need a lot of power.

 

[Elixir]

Desert, no. One of the inputs is water.

Water is cheap. There is a lot of hydrogen in a few thousand gallons of water.

 

[Jarhyn]

Solar is also useful for processes that can readily be turned on/off at the drop of a hat. (Say, cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen. Turn off the power, the production stops but the plant doesn't otherwise mind.)

This is what I’d like to see. Because it can be de-centralized. We could have autonomous fuel production stations in the middle of the desert, on city rooftops or anywhere the sun shines, which would make an energy infrastructure that would be far more robust than centralized generation.

Desert, no. One of the inputs is water. I'd put them near the powerplants to reduce transmission loss. Instead of making your reactors load-follow you run them at 100% and the fuel plants use the extra power to crack water and extract/crack CO2. Once you've cracked them the rest of the process is exothermic and doesn't need a lot of power.

I would prefer using overflow to push switchable methods to do hydrocarbon generation rather than cracking water.

What we need to do is run 100% and have a scalable overflow sink, but I disagree on the sink being water cracking.

Desalination, hydrocarbon production, ammonia fixation, etc... Not fuel cells.

Even lifting heavy rocks (kinetic batteries) would be better.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Desert, no. One of the inputs is water.

Water is cheap.

In the desert?

There is a lot of hydrogen in a few thousand gallons of water.

About 1250 kg in 3000 gallons. That is about 75,000 miles for fuel cell car.

 

[Merle]

So either we assume we still can accomplish this in a way that allows people to be as they are and encourage folks in all the ethical ways to attain their dreams of not having children, or we burn the world down in chaos that will be GUARANTEED to wipe us all out along with any life larger than a pinhead.

I vote for the former, and against the latter. The latter is what lies down the path of "deciding who gets to live".

False dichotomy.

Here are the two choices you list:

1. We assume we still can accomplish this in a way that allows people to be as they are and encourage folks in all the ethical ways to attain their dreams of not having children
2. burn the world down in chaos

I think we can all agree that #2 is a bad choice, so lets throw that one off the table.

Now I would like to suggest one that you missed:
3. We go by the data. Based on what we find we decide on a response that best fulfills human needs.

Your #1 is a religious statement: "Let's assume X". No. Let's not just assume X. Let's go by the data, and make the best plan forward based on that data.

 

[Jarhyn]

3. We go by the data. Based on what we find we decide on a response that best fulfills human needs.

The only response that is not "do it ethically" is "pick some folks to die".

"Pick some folks to die" is, NECESSARILY, going to be suggesting a genocide, because nobody wants their in-group to be the ones picked.

It is not a false dichotomy. It is a simple actual dichotomy based on human behavior.

 

[Merle]

We will either die back (and overshoot in the other direction due to war--likely taking out the entire human race) or we will learn how to move the limit. Your approach amounts to prolonging the dying, not avoiding it.

Excuse me, but I am all for "moving the limit", for expanding our capacity to meet human needs, and seeing as much prosperity in the future as possible.

I am a good person, and I want to do everything we can to expand human capacity to meet human needs.

I. am. not. a. monster.

So, please, please, do not post that I am against "moving the limit" where it is possible to do so.

 

[Merle]

The only response that is not "do it ethically" is "pick some folks to die".

I am for "doing it ethically".

I am against "Making something up and assuming it is true".

I am against "picking some folks to die."

 

[Politesse]

I am a good person, and I want to do everything we can to expand human capacity to meet human needs.

I. am. not. a. monster.

Show me a single eugenicist who does not believe, fundamentally and fervently, that they are a good person who only wants the best for everyone.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We will either die back (and overshoot in the other direction due to war--likely taking out the entire human race) or we will learn how to move the limit. Your approach amounts to prolonging the dying, not avoiding it.

Excuse me, but I am all for "moving the limit", for expanding our capacity to meet human needs, and seeing as much prosperity in the future as possible.

I am a good person, and I want to do everything we can to expand human capacity to meet human needs.

I. am. not. a. monster.

So, please, please, do not post that I am against "moving the limit" where it is possible to do so.

You are also not a person that has demonstrated that there is over-population now... or demonstrated a limit at what is clearly an overshoot for the global population. (links aren't proof)

So you probably need to get to that before discussing how we cull the population down over the next 100 years... which will be too late anyway as we would have needed to see to this 75 years ago.

 

[Merle]

Then you haven't understood my position at all.

I'm not proposing solutions to a population problem, because I'm convinced that no such problem exists.

Yes, I understand that is your position. I wasn't trying to say you thought there was a population problem.

Once again, Saier says the way to limit population is that "Anyone considering parenthood should have all the alternative options at their disposal, including (a) abstaining from sex—in marriage and outside of it, an option few couples choose, (b) using truly reliable forms of contraception, or (c) abortion."

I understand that is very close to what you say will successfully prevent population from skyrocketing out of control.

 

[Merle]

Show me a single eugenicist who does not believe, fundamentally and fervently, that they are a good person who only wants the best for everyone.

I. am. not. a. eugenecist.

I have said nothing remotely close to promoting eugenics.

Period.

 

[Merle]

You are also not a person that has demonstrated that there is over-population now... or demonstrated a limit at what is clearly an overshoot for the global population. (links aren't proof)

So you probably need to get to that before discussing how we cull the population down over the next 100 years... which will be too late anyway as we would have needed to see to this 75 years ago.

Read the opening post. I believe I was asking questions, not asserting what the limit is.

Regarding the solution, can you tell me what is wrong with seeing that "Anyone considering parenthood should have all the alternative options at their disposal, including (a) abstaining from sex—in marriage and outside of it, an option few couples choose, (b) using truly reliable forms of contraception, or (c) abortion."

 

[Merle]

Your path leads to certain destruction--as you drop the tech level you drop the resources available and you ensure there's no chance of survival through increasing tech.

Wait, what? Now you think I am for dropping the tech level?

I. am. against. dropping. the. tech. level.

Period.