American beliefs in Evolution

[TomC]

The population is still growing.

Not in places where the solution hasn't been successfully obstructed, it's not.

The solution is a contraceptive that can be completely controlled by women, and that doesn't require anyone to do anything in the heat of the moment.

There is no place where oral contraceptives are widely available to women, and primary education is provided to a majority of girls, where birthrates remain above replacement levels.

The first oral contraceptive pill was approved by the FDA in 1960; At that point, population growth ceased to be an inevitability, and became a choice.

The solution exists and has been demonstrated at scale; Choosing not to allow a perfectly good solution is a political (and religious) issue, rather than a practical one.

SO MUCH THIS ^^^^ !

Where I live there are tons of "Pro-life" people, most of whom opposed Planned Parenthood. But they are just merely judgemental about abortion. PP prevents more abortions than all the hellfire sermons ever. PP delivers good advice, solid information, access to birth control, and they did it in spaces where women felt safe and. with little regard for ability to pay.
That's my idea of true abortion prevention, not "purity rings" and keeping girls safe from sex ed.

I get a little hot around the collar concerning this issue.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

If it were science, it would be objective

If it was pseudoscience, it would be posing as science. I don’t see it that way. “Too many” is a subjective characterization on the face of it.

 

[bilby]

If it were science, it would be objective

If it was pseudoscience, it would be posing as science. I don’t see it that way. “Too many” is a subjective characterization on the face of it.

It IS posing as science.

And you are exactly correct that it's a subjective characterization.

I would like people to stop basing policy on wildly subjective characterisations, and to stop calling for policy to be so based.

Then we could start actually doing something useful about the damage that's being inflicted on the environment, and stop encouraging idiots to plan genocides.

 

[Elixir]

It seems obvious the damage and depletions are real.

Bilby, I don’t recall you disagree

I don’t see where Swami relies on Malthusian pseudoscience, to subjectively conclude that 8b is “too many”.

I bolded it for you. Can you see it now?

If it were science, it would be objective.

The very presumption that there is a “population problem” is unscientific. Yet, because of my own conditioning and experience, I believe the quality of life for every living human would be better with fewer people. You don’t.* I think that’s a thing that attracts me to Australia/Aussies. They’re generally more social creatures than Murkins, French people or even Canadians. Maybe when you’re immersed in them. the effect isn’t as great…

* I claim a better subjective opinion than yours because I’m older. You never lived on an earth with <5 billion people.

 

[unapologetic]

Elixir said

You never lived on an earth with <5 billion people.

When I was in school it was said to be 6.5 billion people. Now they are saying 8 billion people.
How can you, Bilby, say the problem is solved? Wait 20 years and eat your words.
Did Covid have any effect?

 

[Elixir]

Did Covid have any effect?

Iirc, it did cause a small dip in the life expectancy in most countries. So yeah, it had an effect. But not one that would have an impact on a “population problem”.

Quotes because I believe there’s a difference in our definitions of “problem”.
Saw an acquaintance today, just back from a dive trip to Bonaire. He was pretty upset about coral bleaching - from his description it was bad and quite distressing. But hey - if the ocean cools off in a timely manner it will probably recover, at least somewhat.
It’s not a problem for most people. Nor is decreasing fish stocks or the decimation of apex predators or disappearance of double digit percentages of flora, avian or insect species. But IMO these things are symptoms of an epic problem, and I don’t think we’re solving it.

 

[bilby]

Quotes because I believe there’s a difference in our definitions of “problem”.
Saw an acquaintance today, just back from a dive trip to Bonaire. He was pretty upset about coral bleaching - from his description it was bad and quite distressing. But hey - if the ocean cools off in a timely manner it will probably recover, at least somewhat.
It’s not a problem for most people. Nor is decreasing fish stocks or the decimation of apex predators or disappearance of double digit percentages of flora, avian or insect species. But IMO these things are symptoms of an epic problem, and I don’t think we’re solving it.

I don't see any of these things as "not a problem", just as "not a population problem".

There are loads of environmental problems, many of them urgent. None can be addressed by worrying about the nonexistent "population problem".

 

[bilby]

How can you, Bilby, say the problem is solved?

Because it is. Population is going to top out in a couple of decades, at a level that need not cause environmental disaster, or sociological disaster for that matter.

Of course, we could do stupid shit like burning coal, and cause an environmental disaster; But we could do that just as well with five, ten, or fifteen billion people.

It might take a touch longer with fewer people, but probably not as much longer as you would imagine.

 

[Elixir]

Quotes because I believe there’s a difference in our definitions of “problem”.
Saw an acquaintance today, just back from a dive trip to Bonaire. He was pretty upset about coral bleaching - from his description it was bad and quite distressing. But hey - if the ocean cools off in a timely manner it will probably recover, at least somewhat.
It’s not a problem for most people. Nor is decreasing fish stocks or the decimation of apex predators or disappearance of double digit percentages of flora, avian or insect species. But IMO these things are symptoms of an epic problem, and I don’t think we’re solving it.

I don't see any of these things as "not a problem", just as "not a population problem".

There are loads of environmental problems, many of them urgent. None can be addressed by worrying about the nonexistent "population problem".

I think those two are inextricably linked, to a point where they are the same problem to a great degree.

 

[bilby]

Quotes because I believe there’s a difference in our definitions of “problem”.
Saw an acquaintance today, just back from a dive trip to Bonaire. He was pretty upset about coral bleaching - from his description it was bad and quite distressing. But hey - if the ocean cools off in a timely manner it will probably recover, at least somewhat.
It’s not a problem for most people. Nor is decreasing fish stocks or the decimation of apex predators or disappearance of double digit percentages of flora, avian or insect species. But IMO these things are symptoms of an epic problem, and I don’t think we’re solving it.

I don't see any of these things as "not a problem", just as "not a population problem".

There are loads of environmental problems, many of them urgent. None can be addressed by worrying about the nonexistent "population problem".

I think those two are inextricably linked, to a point where they are the same problem to a great degree.

Mathematics disagrees with you.

8 Billion people, each with the per capita carbon footprint of the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo, would generate the exact same carbon emissions as 9.8 Million people, each with the per capita carbon footprint of the people of Qatar.

Clearly the absolute population size is not an important or significant factor.

We could reduce world population to 0.1% of it's current size, and still be quite capable of burning enough coal to destroy our ecosystem.

 

[Elixir]

Clearly the absolute population size is not an important or significant factor.

Or if it is, the effective difference between what we’ve got and what we are likely to have in the future, even as far as extremes of individual environmental profiles, is trivial, so why bother with that.

We could reduce world population to 0.1% of it's current size, and still be quite capable of burning enough coal to destroy our ecosystem.

I think we may have already done so, depending on one's own definition of "destroy".
Everything "destroys" itself eventually. Because we define "things" and then, over time, they no longer exist as defined.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We're 8 billion idiots with too much power.

Or too little. Knowledge ultimately is power and we sure ain't got too much of that.

 

[DBT]

I'd say there is problem, both with population numbers and consumption, where we as a species are exceeding the long term carrying capacity of the Planet.


Abstract

There is increasing evidence that humans are not living sustainably. There are three major drivers of the unsustainable approach: population, consumption and the growth economy. There is widespread denial about these issues, but they clearly need to be addressed if we are to achieve any of the possible sustainable futures. The first and second versions of the ‘World Scientists Warning to Humanity’ both highlight the problem of increasing human population, as do the IPCC and IPBES reports. However, all have been largely ignored. The size of an ecologically-sustainable global population is considered, taking into account the implications of increasing per capita consumption. The paper then discusses the reasons why society and academia largely ignore overpopulation. The claim that discussing overpopulation is ‘anti-human’ is refuted. Causal Layered Analysis is used to examine why society ignores data that do not fit with its myths and metaphors, and how such denial is leading society towards collapse. Non-coercive solutions are then considered to reach an ecologically-sustainable human population.

 

[rousseau]

We're 8 billion idiots with too much power.

Or too little. Knowledge ultimately is power and we sure ain't got too much of that.

Knowledge is hard to come by, financially, physically, and also when you don't have an inclination to look for it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

How many super rich high consumers would there be if there weren't all those oodles of little consumers to support their high consumption? The fact is without a huge population that argument that it's only about how much we consume and not how many are doing the consuming is baloney. Show me how that works anywhere in reality. Show me examples. The big kahunas happen because there is a huge population to support them. Otherwise there are no big kahunas.

 

[DBT]

What happens when the living standard of 8 billion or more is raised to the standard of the average westerner, all the mod cons, two cars in every garage, etc?

 

[bilby]

What happens when the living standard of 8 billion or more is raised to the standard of the average westerner, all the mod cons, two cars in every garage, etc?

I imagine that they will mostly be rather more content than they are right now.

I'm considerably more alarmed by the prospect of eight billion people being held down in poverty by lack of access to the energy and consumer goods needed to lift them out of it.

If you're asking how that state can be achieved without causing more problems than it solves, then you should know by now that the answer is nuclear fission, plus a concerted program of recycling of pretty much everything.

Nothing (apart from helium, a trace of other atmospheric gasses, and a tiny number of space probes) has gone away; Everything that was on the Earth a hundred thousand years ago is still here. Indeed, those space probes have likely been outweighed in every element by the arrival of meteors on the planet; There's more here now, than there was before humans first evolved.

We can't run out of anything.

 

[DBT]

Given human nature and behavour to date, that we are still polluting the planet, stressing ecosystems and according to numerous studies, not living sustainably now, I don't see much room for improvement if or when our consumption rate increases by multiples....and add climate change to the equation.

I wish I had your optimism.

 

[bilby]

Given human nature and behavour to date, that we are still polluting the planet, stressing ecosystems and according to numerous studies, not living sustainably now, I don't see much room for improvement if or when our consumption rate increases by multiples....and add climate change to the equation.

I wish I had your optimism.

Look around. We're only polluting the places poor people live; And we basically always have. If everyone were rich, we would have to clean up our act.

 

[DBT]

Given human nature and behavour to date, that we are still polluting the planet, stressing ecosystems and according to numerous studies, not living sustainably now, I don't see much room for improvement if or when our consumption rate increases by multiples....and add climate change to the equation.

I wish I had your optimism.

Look around. We're only polluting the places poor people live; And we basically always have. If everyone were rich, we would have to clean up our act.

Not only pollution, the issue is multifaceted, habitat and ecosystem destruction, loss of biodiversity, converting prime land and habitats into suburbs, roads and shopping malls, and more;


A litany of problems

Every category except urban environments was classified as having deteriorated since the last report was written in 2016, including inland water, coasts, air quality and extreme events.

The majority were classified as in a "poor" state.

"Environmental degradation is now considered a threat to humanity, which could bring about societal collapses with long-lasting and severe consequences," the report said.

• There were now more non-native plant species in Australia than there were native ones
• Of the 450 gigalitres of water for the environment promised under the Murray-Darling Basin plan, only 2 gigalitres have been delivered'
  • The number of species listed as threatened has increased by 8 per cent since 2016
  • Up to 78 per cent of Australia's coastal salt marshes have been lost since European colonisation and they continue to deteriorate
  • Australia has lost more mammal species than any other continent
• The report also documented tragedies bestowed on specific places and species.