We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[Merle]

Or many people may die.

EVERYONE is going to die. That’s not “the problem”.

Rees' point is that the population of Earth could be reduced by six billion as a direct result of overshoot.

 

[Merle]

Shaking my head in sorrow

You’re not alone in that.
I don’t have a panacea, but a tiny bit of advice.
It seems to me that you are framing this problem to yourself in a no-win manner. Not that I think there’s some “winning” viewpoint of what is obviously a dire situation in many ways, but thinking of it as a “need to reduce population” is restrictive in its perspective and reduces possible outcomes down to illusory binary options.
There is a whole galaxy of possible outcomes and ways to produce them. If/when possible, I’d try to focus on one possible/attainable outcome that you would consider desirable. Define the mileposts that would get us there, and map out the road to that first milepost.
Looking further than that makes this intractable problem become overwhelming and frankly, impossible.

Again, this is absolutely not what I am doing. I am not focused on one solution, reducing population. What can I say at this point? I keep linking to my paper that discusses the many options ( Path Forward) And what happens when I point to that? People just seem to close their ears and say, "We can't hear you!"

What can I say? My view is out there if anybody wants to read it. But sadly, people refuse to read it and come here and tell me I am saying the exact opposite.

Shaking my head in sorrow.

 

[TSwizzle]

I am not focused on one solution, reducing population. What can I say at this point? I keep linking to my paper that discusses the many options ( Path Forward)

Oh yes you are focused on one final solution. Population reduction.

Your link "path forward" states "tell people that, for each decision not to have another child, that is one less person that needs to be supported on this overfilled lifeboat, Earth. We could actively ask for people to reduce birthrates, especially in rich countries. " Is really the only final solution in the diatribe. That's all you cranks are about, population reduction.

 

[Elixir]

I am not focused on one solution, reducing population.

Right. I think you should be.
Starting by sharing your vision of the “final product” you desire, then identifying the next milepost we will have to reach to get there.
Of course there may be numerous paths to that milepost and you/we will have to pick one to pursue, but it should be a more attainable goal than the “final product”.
Or we can keep outlining different aspects of “the problem” until the cows come home.
You’ll know that the cows are home when either natural events or human activity reduces our numbers and/or our total gross consumption to … what? Half of current levels? Some other “sustainable”level? Is sustainable really the goal? (Stasis is sustainable at absolute zero )
I just see the lack of a first, takeable step toward an as yet undefined goal, as a killer of any effort to address The Problem.
Continuing to draw lines around the problem doesn’t begin to solve it.

My recommendation would be to start by gathering public education resources to dispel the stigma and fear regarding nuclear energy. A few decades hence, perhaps the PTB will bend to the practical realities, if public pressure rises to sufficient levels.

 

[Merle]

That's all you cranks are about.

Can you refrain from name-calling, please?

 

[TSwizzle]

That's all you are about.

Can you refrain from name-calling, please?

There you go.

But that is what you are all about, population reduction.

 

[Merle]

Can you refrain from name-calling, please?

There you go.

But that is what you are all about, population reduction.

Can you refrain from both name calling and false witness, please?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do they not have the low-skill jobs done by people who realistically won't care: those already dying of something reasonably quick?

Because it's not necessary to have anybody at all exposed to radiation levels sufficient to cause health problems.

Why don't we have terminally ill people doing all construction work, so that it doesn't matter if any of them fall to their deaths?

Why don't we get people who are already really ugly to unload molten steel in foundaries, so that if they suffer disfiguring burns, it doesn't affect their lives?

Same reason - its both easier, and less wildly and stupidly unethical to the point of psychopatic insanity, to just improve the safety in workplaces so that anyone can do the job without a significant real risk of injury or death.

1) Some radiation exposure is bound to happen. You do what you can with machinery but that's not everything.

2) Construction work has the possibility of a sudden death, something that would matter even to the terminally ill.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When it comes to commercial/industrial regulations, they are universally good for the majority of citizens.

In general, yes, but in other cases, no.

The extent of regulation is wildly askew in the case of nuclear power generation.

I see the post here that regulation against nuclear is indeed "wildly askew" in Australia. Ok, they aren't going to get nuclear power there unless that changes.

My comment had to do with countries that have nuclear power. People claim that nuclear power would operate much more efficiently if certain regulations were changed. How do they know that? The claim is repeated endlessly, but nobody offers evidence.

We are comparing the places where nuclear power works vs the places it is uneconomic.

Seen any catastrophes out of France?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup--I find the green approach counterproductive. It's betting it all (taking that route will really clobber research as scientific budgets are highly related to the standard of living) on a path we know ends in failure. The greens always put that failure point off the end of their charts but the line is always heading down at the end.

I am still trying to understand why you think my approach will be counterproductive. I recommend we tackle this problem from all angles, including technical solutions, affluence reduction in wealthy countries, gradual non-coercive population reduction, and even a calm acceptance that we are screwed. I think the only part of that plan which disturbs you is the gradual non-coercive population reduction.

Scientific spending is a function of discretionary income. Cut the standard of living, you cut the scientific budget more. Trying to stretch things out as long as possible leaves no room for spending money to discover new things.

You also seem to be arguing that, with half the people, we would have half the scientists and engineers, and we would progress technically at half the speed. Fair enough. But also, we would have half the people. So, if innovation X occurs after Y people-years, it would take twice as long to get that innovation if we had half the population with all other factors being equal. But during that time period, we also have half the births. So the number of people born without the benefit of innovation X is the same, regardless of the size of the population. Perhaps we need a little more patience, but we still see the same innovations.

No, your population math is fine, it's the standard of living that's a problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Suppose we find, in the next century, that Santa can no longer fit down our chimneys, because he has gotten too fat?

Won't happen. It's obvious that Santa works by magical means. He simply needs a line of effect through the chimney.

 

[DBT]

That's all you are about.

Can you refrain from name-calling, please?

There you go.

But that is what you are all about, population reduction.

Population reduction is going to happen regardless.

 

[bilby]

I don't understand why a gradual non-coercive reduction of population by 50% in a century cannot be an option we put on the table

Because it hasn't been off the table since the middle of the twentieth century.

And because by definition if you are puttng an option on the table, it is coercive.

 

[TSwizzle]

That's all you are about.

Can you refrain from name-calling, please?

There you go.

But that is what you are all about, population reduction.

Population reduction is going to happen regardless.

Not nearly quick enough for Merle.

 

[bilby]

Why do they not have the low-skill jobs done by people who realistically won't care: those already dying of something reasonably quick?

Because it's not necessary to have anybody at all exposed to radiation levels sufficient to cause health problems.

Why don't we have terminally ill people doing all construction work, so that it doesn't matter if any of them fall to their deaths?

Why don't we get people who are already really ugly to unload molten steel in foundaries, so that if they suffer disfiguring burns, it doesn't affect their lives?

Same reason - its both easier, and less wildly and stupidly unethical to the point of psychopatic insanity, to just improve the safety in workplaces so that anyone can do the job without a significant real risk of injury or death.

1) Some radiation exposure is bound to happen. You do what you can with machinery but that's not everything.

Radiation exposure is unavoidable for everyone at all times, and you don't need to routinely do anything that exposes anyone to medically significant levels of radiation, in order to generate electricity from fission.

I have zero clue why you imagine that this might be necessary, or even helpful.

Your position is reminiscent of nineteenth century mine owners insisting that child labour is unavoidable, because there are some spaces in coal mines too small for adult miners to get into.

2) Construction work has the possibility of a sudden death, something that would matter even to the terminally ill.

All industrial work has the possibility of a sudden death. Life has the possibility of a sudden death.

 

[Elixir]

Or many people may die.

EVERYONE is going to die. That’s not “the problem”.

Rees' point is that the population of Earth could be reduced by six billion as a direct result of overshoot.

THAT'S as close to guaranteed as any vague statement can be. Are these 'direct result' deaths as opposed to indirect results of overshoot, or are indirect deaths resulting from overshoot added in after the advertised price, like taxes?
In any event, one thing truly IS guaranteed if "overshoot" has that impact. It will mean at least 6 billion fewer people, and probably much more due to indirect results of overshoot.
If it happens soon enough, it will reduce the population to a level where "overshoot" means unnecessarily using up ammunition that is no longer manufactured in a semi-post-technological world. Then, in another thousand years or few, depending upon where it bottoms out, we can do it all over again!

But seriously, Merle, overshoot is an abstraction. It is arguable in the abstract that right now, we should all embrace guns and their indiscriminate use, because.... overshoot. Billions could die from overshoot, and not killing the few tens of thousands who perish every year from guns, would just cause even more overshoot deaths. Think of the chilluns!

As a matter of fact, Merle, I do believe I am going to die of either accident or overshoot.
Not being facetious or sarcastic, either.
Overshoot may not be the proximate cause of death*, but it will almost certainly be a huge contributor to the stress that will almost certainly underlie, accelerate and enable any fatal malady that should befall me. But that would be an indirect result, right? So if there are 6 billion dead as a direct result of overshoot, can we extrapolate the REAL damage? Just so's we don't overshoot in our mitigation efforts...

* If I get the chance on my deathbed** I will certainly ask if they could please, on the death certificate, put "overshoot" as the cause of death! Thanks for that...

** NO, I'm not on any damn deathbed! Or any other bed. Reminds me, I gotta go change the bed.

 

[DBT]

That's all you are about.

Can you refrain from name-calling, please?

There you go.

But that is what you are all about, population reduction.

Population reduction is going to happen regardless.

Not nearly quick enough for Merle.

What about you? Do you assume that there is no limit to population growth and consumption?

 

[bilby]

That's all you are about.

Can you refrain from name-calling, please?

There you go.

But that is what you are all about, population reduction.

Population reduction is going to happen regardless.

Not nearly quick enough for Merle.

What about you? Do you assume that there is no limit to population growth and consumption?

Literally nobody in the thread assumes that there is no limit to population growth.

We differ only in whether that limit will be caused by catastrophe, in the absence of ongoing intervention.

All the evidence says that it will not; That population will stop growing, without any major catastrophe, and without any further action to bring that end about, some time in the next few decades.

Indeed, if we wanted population to continue to grow, significant, immediate, and dramatic intervention would be necessary to achieve that objective.

 

[DBT]

That's all you are about.

Can you refrain from name-calling, please?

There you go.

But that is what you are all about, population reduction.

Population reduction is going to happen regardless.

Not nearly quick enough for Merle.

What about you? Do you assume that there is no limit to population growth and consumption?

Literally nobody in the thread assumes that there is no limit to population growth.

We differ only in whether that limit will be caused by catastrophe, in the absence of ongoing intervention.

All the evidence says that it will not; That population will stop growing, without any major catastrophe, and without any further action to bring that end about, some time in the next few decades.

Indeed, if we wanted population to continue to grow, significant, immediate, and dramatic intervention would be necessary to achieve that objective.

I was hoping for an answer from TSwizzle.

 

[Merle]

I don't understand why a gradual non-coercive reduction of population by 50% in a century cannot be an option we put on the table

Because it hasn't been off the table since the middle of the twentieth century.

And because by definition if you are puttng an option on the table, it is coercive.

If on the table means coercive by definition-- it doesn't--then you are saying population reduction has been coercive since the middle of the twentieth century.