We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[Merle]

We can resolve this by attacking each specific problem by either reducing our consumption per person or finding technical solution to live as we do with less impact.

Yes. Yes we can. And we must. Because doing more to reduce population than has already been done is unacceptable.

Why is doing more to reduce population unacceptable?

Ask this guy:

Let me be clear. I am in no sense advocating suicide or genocide. Human life is a marvel. We should not be snuffing it out. That must be off the table.

Neither am I advocating forced birth control. I see no way we could do that in a way that is fair and effective. And we must confine our efforts to things that are fair and effective. First do no harm. Forced birth control is out.

LOL!

Yes, of course I am against advocating forced birth control. So why should I ask myself if I agree with myself?

I am for doing more to reduce population.

I am against forced birth control.

 

[Merle]

We should also consider ways to address the high affluence of the rich;

Why? How, specifically, would this help the environment?

Are you planning to make people wealthier, so that they can more easily afford to pay a carbon tax, or to pay to have their garbage recycled?

Or are you planning to make people poorer, on the assumption that this will lead to less environmental damage? If so, you might want to consider this post, by somebody who strongly disagrees with that assumption:

Answered in detail at https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/#Affluence

 

[Merle]

Since there is nobody that suggests we can measure our impact by simply counting noses,

Then wtf do you mean by "overpopulation"???

I mean that there are too many people to sustainably maintain a comfortable standard of living for people at currently used technology without seriously degrading the planet. Having gotten ourselves into this position, I explore three options: Use technology to make the Earth be able to support us all, limit affluence, and reduce population. You could read what I have to say about each of those options at https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ .

 

[Bomb#20]

So why even bother to state things that you must surely know are false?

Because they follow logically from what you are saying, and I am highlighting the fact that you are wrong.

You will continue to falsely report what other people are posting here. Yes?

No. And your suggestion that I have done so is not only false and insulting, but skirts very close to being a breach of the forum rules.

Highlighting flaws in your logic is NOT false reporting.

"Your honor, I never borrowed his lawnmower, it was already broken when I got it from him, and it wasn't broken when I returned it."

 

[Bomb#20]

So why even bother to state things that you must surely know are false?

Because they follow logically from what you are saying, and I am highlighting the fact that you are wrong.

You know that the necessary conclusions from your claims are false; Why do you fail to conclude the obvious - that your claims themselves must, therefore, be false?

That would be a considerably more reasonable attitude for you to adopt toward your own rhetorical misbehavior if you were to adopt it in the counterfactual scenario where you're actually competent to identify what logically follows from what he is saying. Why do you fail to conclude the obvious - that something being a necessary conclusions from his claims does not logically follow from you imagining it's a necessary conclusion from his claims?

 

[DBT]

Since there is nobody that suggests we can measure our impact by simply counting noses,

Then wtf do you mean by "overpopulation"???

I mean that there are too many people to sustainably maintain a comfortable standard of living for people at currently used technology without seriously degrading the planet. Having gotten ourselves into this position, I explore three options: Use technology to make the Earth be able to support us all, limit affluence, and reduce population. You could read what I have to say about each of those options at https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ .

Our ecosystems are in trouble now with a relatively small percentage of the population living the high life, western style wealth and consumerism. What happens when the rest of the world get to have what we enjoy, as is their right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As a consumer society, aren't we encouraged to spend on goods and services, take holidays, buy new cars, new appliances, phones and gadgets?

Yes.

Aren't we also encouraged to do these things in "environmentally friendly" ways?

Clearly there's a lot of difference between individuals in their environmental impact. It's therefore ridiculous to imply that you can measure the environmental impact of humanity by simply counting noses; Or that you can limit our environmental impact by simply limiting our population.

And it is also ridiculous to suggest that we can measure our environmental impact by how fast we can count to 10.

Since there is nobody that suggests we can measure our impact by simply counting noses, and nobody that suggests that we can measure our environmental impact by how fast we can count to 10, why even bring it up?

Wouldn't it be better to address what people are actually saying?

So why are you counting noses? (Setting a population level.)

 

[Merle]

So why are you counting noses? (Setting a population level.)

Because the detrimental human impact on the planet is equal to the number of noses times the negative impact on the planet per nose.

I discuss in detail reducing our impact per nose by reducing affluence (https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/#Affluence ) or by using technology better ( https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/#Smarter). Both are important, and both could reduce the negative impact per nose. But I also think we need to seriously consider reducing the number of noses (https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/#Population)

 

[DBT]

We should have stabilized at no more than two billlion.

 

[bilby]

the detrimental human impact on the planet is equal to the number of noses times the negative impact on the planet per nose.

So a figure we have little control over, multiplied by a figure we have massive control over.

And you, bizarrely, conclude that we should therefore concentrate on the first of these.

Apparently due to a false belief that the second is somehow immutable.

 

[bilby]

We should have stabilized at no more than two billlion.

How??

Population reached that milestone in the late 1920s. Using only the technologies and geopolitical structures available at that time, how could population have possibly have been "stabilized"?

 

[DBT]

We should have stabilized at no more than two billlion.

How??

Population reached that milestone in the late 1920s. Using only the technologies and geopolitical structures available at that time, how could population have possibly have been "stabilized"?

How? By using our collective brains, education, understanding the issues with overpopulation and overshoot, and voluntarily limiting births to no more than two children per couple on average.

 

[Swammerdami]

Population reached that milestone in the late 1920s. Using only the technologies and geopolitical structures available at that time, how could population have possibly have been "stabilized"?

When a patient has inoperable cancer, do we pretend that there is no cancer?

No. Yet, repeatedly over and over like a broken off-key record we have posts that implicitly complain that there's no way to avoid having the present-day excessive overpopulation of 8 billion and therefore we must pretend there is no overpopulation.

Of course this is just one of MANY fallacies from the No Overpopulation Cult but I will content myself with posting the rebuttals only over and over and over, compared with the No Overpopulation Cult who repeat their misconceptions over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

 

[steve_bank]

Effects on the environment are one thing.

Having a population of billions that is sustainable in terms of food and water is still too many people.

There are social and political issues, we see it playing out on TV 24/7.

We have gowning mental health and substance abuse problems.

We are inherently irrational and emotional. Trump is on his way back to the White House.

 

[bigfield]

Since there is nobody that suggests we can measure our impact by simply counting noses,

Then wtf do you mean by "overpopulation"???

I mean that there are too many people to sustainably maintain a comfortable standard of living for people at currently used technology without seriously degrading the planet. Having gotten ourselves into this position, I explore three options: Use technology to make the Earth be able to support us all, limit affluence, and reduce population. You could read what I have to say about each of those options at https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ .

Our ecosystems are in trouble now with a relatively small percentage of the population living the high life, western style wealth and consumerism. What happens when the rest of the world get to have what we enjoy, as is their right?

1. When is that going to happen? The rest of the world is a long way from catching up to the standard of living of the West.
2. When it eventually happens, if ever, then what makes you think that consumption habits and their environmental impact will still be the same as they are now?

 

[DBT]

Since there is nobody that suggests we can measure our impact by simply counting noses,

Then wtf do you mean by "overpopulation"???

I mean that there are too many people to sustainably maintain a comfortable standard of living for people at currently used technology without seriously degrading the planet. Having gotten ourselves into this position, I explore three options: Use technology to make the Earth be able to support us all, limit affluence, and reduce population. You could read what I have to say about each of those options at https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ .

Our ecosystems are in trouble now with a relatively small percentage of the population living the high life, western style wealth and consumerism. What happens when the rest of the world get to have what we enjoy, as is their right?

1. When is that going to happen? The rest of the world is a long way from catching up to the standard of living of the West.
2. When it eventually happens, if ever, then what makes you think that consumption habits and their environmental impact will still be the same as they are now?

It's most likely too late. We missed that boat, so in the next few decades we are likely to be in for a rough ride.

 

[bigfield]

Since there is nobody that suggests we can measure our impact by simply counting noses,

Then wtf do you mean by "overpopulation"???

I mean that there are too many people to sustainably maintain a comfortable standard of living for people at currently used technology without seriously degrading the planet. Having gotten ourselves into this position, I explore three options: Use technology to make the Earth be able to support us all, limit affluence, and reduce population. You could read what I have to say about each of those options at https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ .

Our ecosystems are in trouble now with a relatively small percentage of the population living the high life, western style wealth and consumerism. What happens when the rest of the world get to have what we enjoy, as is their right?

1. When is that going to happen? The rest of the world is a long way from catching up to the standard of living of the West.
2. When it eventually happens, if ever, then what makes you think that consumption habits and their environmental impact will still be the same as they are now?

It's most likely too late. We missed that boat, so in the next few decades we are likely to be in for a rough ride.

Is this like Jeopardy where I have to guess the question to which your statement is an answer?

 

[DBT]

Since there is nobody that suggests we can measure our impact by simply counting noses,

Then wtf do you mean by "overpopulation"???

I mean that there are too many people to sustainably maintain a comfortable standard of living for people at currently used technology without seriously degrading the planet. Having gotten ourselves into this position, I explore three options: Use technology to make the Earth be able to support us all, limit affluence, and reduce population. You could read what I have to say about each of those options at https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/ .

Our ecosystems are in trouble now with a relatively small percentage of the population living the high life, western style wealth and consumerism. What happens when the rest of the world get to have what we enjoy, as is their right?

1. When is that going to happen? The rest of the world is a long way from catching up to the standard of living of the West.
2. When it eventually happens, if ever, then what makes you think that consumption habits and their environmental impact will still be the same as they are now?

It's most likely too late. We missed that boat, so in the next few decades we are likely to be in for a rough ride.

Is this like Jeopardy where I have to guess the question to which your statement is an answer?

"It's most likely too late" is the answer to your first question.
Too little, too late, with many of those in power denying that there is a problem, still trying to maintain population growth through incentives and immigration.

Question #2 is largely irrelevant in face of the issues we now face, especially in the next few decades, where we are not likely to curb our own consumption habits radically even while more people in the developing world are raising their own living standards, wanting the things we enjoy.

 

[bigfield]

"It's most likely too late" is the answer to your first question.

You mean to say that the scenario you posited ("when the rest of the world get to have what we enjoy") is not going to happen?

 

[DBT]

"It's most likely too late" is the answer to your first question.

You mean to say that the scenario you posited ("when the rest of the world get to have what we enjoy") is not going to happen?

It's only fair that everyone has the opportunity to have their needs and wants fulfilled, to live well. Whether that comes to pass is anyone's guess. All I can say is that, to me, it looks like a hard road ahead for the world in the next few decades. I hope I am wrong.