Too many people?

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Yeah, you don't get to keep repeating there is an overpopulation problem and then pull the 'well in the OP' bull here.

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."

You mean other than being disingenuous?

 

[Merle]

Looking back at the opening post, I can see one paragraph that might be misinterpreted. It says:

We all want humanity, and our collective accomplishments, to endure far more than a few centuries. Saier says this will require a substantial population reduction, but he is not specific on how much. He says our only hope to achieve the required reduction is through overcoming natural human greed, dishonesty, and selfishness. “It is not clear that we humans are capable of such an achievement,” he adds, “but it is our only hope.” And that, my friends, is our predicament.

I should be clear that when Saier talks about overcoming greed and selfishness, he was not talking about killing greedy and selfish people. He was talking about the fact that we, as humans, tend to look out for ourselves. If decisions for what is best for humanity interfere with our personal wants, we might all choose to favor our personal wants over the common good. He was talking about working together for the common good.

 

[Jarhyn]

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."

There are two ways to reduce a population: lower births; increase deaths.

Those are the options.

There is no third option to reduce population.

Forcing some people to not give birth as much genocide as increasing deaths.

The reaction to genocide is war.

Therefore the options are passively decreasing births...

And genocide.

 

[Elixir]

There are two ways to reduce a population: lower births; increase deaths.

How about decreasing life expectancy?
Just another way of saying “increase deaths”? That’s a broad category then.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are two ways to reduce a population: lower births; increase deaths.

How about decreasing life expectancy?
Just another way of saying “increase deaths”? That’s a broad category then.

Any direct action taken with the intent of decreasing someone's life expectancy is expecting people to accept unnecessary and avoidable injury. Nobody will consent to that, on any large scale.

It's either killing people by some mechanism, or letting people do exactly what they want to do, here which is "have fewer babies."

People WANT to have fewer babies RIGHT NOW. People consent to that.

And if you promote and incentive it, people will want that even more.

The furthest we can go in that direction is pulling funding for the explicit action of creating a fetus. That's as close as we can get to it without violating rights of real, living persons.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

Capitalism can count externalities. That's why western Europe has a squeaky clean environment, while USA is riddled with environmental disasters.

West European countries made a rule system that rewards environmentalism. The American system didn't.

Capitalism isn't the problem. It's the rules govorning it that is. Capitalism is an environmental disaster in corrupt countries. Its the corruption that's the problem. Not Capitalism. Corrupt socialist countries have historicaly been the worst environmental violators.

 

[Politesse]

I. am. not. a. eugenecist.

I have said nothing remotely close to promoting eugenics.

Period.

"Combating overpopulation" is always about favoring some groups over others. You're avoiding the obvious by refusing to state in specific terms what should actually be done about the problem you say "we" have.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The slash and burn doesn't pay for the destroyed rainforest.

A "slash and burn" human population is no danger to the rainforest ecosystem unless the human population practicing "slash and burn" is too big for the rainforest.

 

[Elixir]

The slash and burn doesn't pay for the destroyed rainforest.

A "slash and burn" human population is no danger to the rainforest ecosystem unless the human population practicing "slash and burn" is too big for the rainforest.

Leave the rainforest alone for a geological moment and it will back with a vengeance, as long as there’s still any remnant.

 

[Politesse]

The slash and burn doesn't pay for the destroyed rainforest.

A "slash and burn" human population is no danger to the rainforest ecosystem unless the human population practicing "slash and burn" is too big for the rainforest.

Leave the rainforest alone for a geological moment and it will back with a vengeance, as long as there’s still any remnant.

Depends what we've done to:

- the soil
- the overall climate

Rainforests are astounding environments. But more fragile than they appear.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The slash and burn doesn't pay for the destroyed rainforest.

A "slash and burn" human population is no danger to the rainforest ecosystem unless the human population practicing "slash and burn" is too big for the rainforest.

Leave the rainforest alone for a geological moment and it will back with a vengeance, as long as there’s still any remnant.

Depends what we've done to:

- the soil
- the overall climate

Rainforests are astounding environments. But more fragile than they appear.

Fragile my ass. Bout time they grew up and got a job.

 

[Elixir]

The slash and burn doesn't pay for the destroyed rainforest.

A "slash and burn" human population is no danger to the rainforest ecosystem unless the human population practicing "slash and burn" is too big for the rainforest.

Leave the rainforest alone for a geological moment and it will back with a vengeance, as long as there’s still any remnant.

Depends what we've done to:

- the soil
- the overall climate

Rainforests are astounding environments. But more fragile than they appear.

Not saying they'd come back in the same form.

 

[Merle]

There are two ways to reduce a population: lower births; increase deaths.

Those are the options.

There is no third option to reduce population.

Forcing some people to not give birth as much genocide as increasing deaths.

The reaction to genocide is war.

Therefore the options are passively decreasing births...

And genocide.

Passively decreasing births is the only option that has been put on the table here.

Why do you introduce other options that nobody wants, like genocide and forcing people not to have births?

 

[Merle]

How about decreasing life expectancy?
Just another way of saying “increase deaths”? That’s a broad category then.

Thumbs down. Bad idea.

 

[Merle]

"Combating overpopulation" is always about favoring some groups over others.

No it is not.

 

[Elixir]

"Combating overpopulation" is always about favoring some groups over others.

No it is not.

Really? It's hard to imagine any means of "combating overpopulation" that once proven effective, would not be turned by some ethnic or nationalist entity against those who, to put it politely, they'd like to see fewer of. You know - the "Others". (They breed too much anyhow.)

How about decreasing life expectancy?
Just another way of saying “increase deaths”? That’s a broad category then.

Thumbs down. Bad idea.

Sorry. Just my attempt at population control humor.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are two ways to reduce a population: lower births; increase deaths.

Those are the options.

There is no third option to reduce population.

Forcing some people to not give birth as much genocide as increasing deaths.

The reaction to genocide is war.

Therefore the options are passively decreasing births...

And genocide.

Passively decreasing births is the only option that has been put on the table here.

Why do you introduce other options that nobody wants, like genocide and forcing people not to have births? You are the only one that mentions those options.

I mention them because of the dog whistle euphemisms that have repeatedly and throughout history been used to justify or mask efforts towards genocide are common, and not specifically stating "passive birth reduction" is alwaus going to lead one way or another to active measures that are universally genocide.

 

[Elixir]

It's either killing people by some mechanism, or letting people do exactly what they want to do, here which is "have fewer babies."

Or maybe it's letting people do exactly what they really want to do, here which is: "HAVE MORE GUNS."
A more organic, economical form of genocide.
NRA is your friend.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Combating overpopulation" is always about favoring some groups over others.

No it is not.

Yes, it is, unless the people who do it do it exclusively by their active consent and agreement.

 

[bilby]

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.

Back in 2007, the Los Alamos National Laboratory proposed using standard power plant cooling towers to extract carbon dioxide from the air (the cooling water dissolves CO₂ already, and this can therefore be done with only minor modifications to existing plants), which helps with the biggest issue for synthetic hydrocarbon production - getting carbon from the atmosphere.

Ironically, despite there being far too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for climatological purposes, from an industrial chemistry perspective there's far too little to be useful without some technique to actively concentrate it.

Of course, using power plant cooling towers means minimal transmission losses, as the whole process - generating both electricity and synfuels - is contained in a single facility. It's a very elegant design.

https://bioage.typepad.com/greencarcongress/docs/GreenFreedom.pdf