• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

We are overloading the planet: Now What?

bilby said:
Elixir said:
If it happened again would there be any trace of NYC left whatsoever when the ice withdrew?
Click to expand...
I sincerely doubt it. A substantial amount of the bedrock on which the city rests would be gone, nevermind anything that sits on it. Maybe some of the deeper subway tunnels would still be identifiable to distant future archaeologists. Maybe.
Click to expand...
I agree. There are glacial moraines around here. It almost seems like rock becomes liquid if you pile enough ice on it. I am constantly picking up rocks and saying WTF? It sometimes looks like igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic rocks get all folded up together and fused. Buildings would probably look like boulders.
 
bilby said:
I don't often stop before making a decision to think "But what would my great grandfather have wanted me to do?".
Click to expand...
That's because you're not American. I'm getting the impression that an amazing number of Americans think of "What would the land owning class in the late 18th century do?" a valid consideration and never quite get why the rest of us perceive this weird reverence of the "Founding Fathers" as a substitute religion.
 
Bomb#20 said:
bilby said:
Merle said:
So why even bother to state things that you must surely know are false?
Click to expand...
Because they follow logically from what you are saying, and I am highlighting the fact that you are wrong.
Click to expand...

bilby said:
Merle said:
You will continue to falsely report what other people are posting here. Yes?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
"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."
Click to expand...
Said the repair person.
 
bilby said:
Merle said:
Eminent Australian scientist Frank Fenner goes so far as to say, “Humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change”
Click to expand...
Frank Fenner was (he died in 2010 at the age of 95) an eminent virologist.

If you wanted to know about viruses (particularly pox viruses; He was an important contributor to the eradication of smallpox), he was the guy to ask. If you asked him about epidemiology, immunology, or molecular biology, he would likely give you much better answers to your questions than the average 'man in the street'.

His qualifications to opine on "overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change" are less clear; Why should his opinion here be given any special weight or respect?

Again, this is a typical pseudoscientific ploy; Take a genuine expert, promote him as "an eminent scientist", and then provide his opinion on a subject in which he is a non-expert, but in which he happens to agree with you.

This is the same argumentation methodology that leads to Jehovahs Witness publications full of eminent scientists declaring evolution to be nonsense. A close examination shows that the people they cite really are eminent scientists but, crucially, are from fields such as electronics or materials science. They're not biologists, much less evolutionary biologists; Asking for their opinions on evolution is like asking Richard Dawkins to design a suspension bridge - he might have a crack at it, but he would be the first to advise that you get a real civil engineer instead.
Click to expand...
I was not citing Fenner as an expert on environment, nor saying we should believe it because Fenner said so. But yes, your argument above has some merit in that it looks like I am appealing to an authority with no expertise in the relevant field. Fenner's statement doesn't do anything to help my case. I have removed the reference to Fenner from my paper.

Thanks for your help in making my paper better ;) .
 
bilby said:
Merle said:
if population was reduced in half at the same affluence level, lifestyle, and use of technology, then yes, we would have half the CO2 emissions, half the fertilizer runoff, half the plastic bottles adding to the ocean, etc.
Click to expand...
Is your italicized caveat even remotely plausible, though? What mechanism could halve human population, without having massive effects on affluence, lifestyle, and use of technology?

What mechanism could halve human population fast enough that affluence, lifestyle, and use of technology wouldn't change radically during that reduction, even if not as a consequence of the reduction itself?

Any model that assumes these things to be static is in deep trouble, given that we observe that all of these things are currently changing very rapidly.
Click to expand...
You are jumping into a conversation I had with another person, and ignoring the context of that conversation.

In particular, I was responding to the question, "If 100 years from now the human population was cut in half, would you expect a 40-50% reduction in human environmental impact?"

And my answer to that is "Yes, provided there is the same level of affluence, lifestyle and use of technology in the two groups being compared.

If the questioner was asking me about what would happen if the two groups in question had completely different affluence, lifestyle, and use of technology, then nobody can possibly answer the question. There is not enough information to answer the question. I assumed the questioner was asking about two groups with the same affluence, and I stated that assumption in my answer.
 
Merle said:
I was not citing Fenner as an expert on environment, nor saying we should believe it because Fenner said so.
Click to expand...
Yes, you were. What other possible interpretation is there for this sentence:

Eminent Australian scientist Frank Fenner goes so far as to say, “Humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change”
Click to expand...
 
bilby said:
I would prefer 125% of the current population living at 125% of today's standard of living, while causing 40% of todays harm to the environment.
Click to expand...
Of course. We all would prefer living at high standards with less negative impact on the planet.

People here are implying that if they had to choose between reducing affluence in half or reducing population in half in the next century, that they would prefer reducing affluence in half instead of reducing population in half.

You refuse to tell us which you would prefer if you were faced with the two options.

But, if you say that, when faced with the two options, that the choice to reduce population is the wrong answer, then that is the same thing as stating that you prefer reducing affluence if faced with that choice.


I have yet to see anything but arguments from incredulity (and equivocations around wtf "consumption" even means here) as to why this isn't achievable.
Click to expand...
Your failure to see doesn't mean it wasn't presented to you many times-- https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/.

equivocations around wtf "consumption" even means here
Click to expand...

Again, you are jumping into a conversation I was having with another person. We were discussing the paper, Scientists' warning on affluence.

That paper says,
A significant proportionality between consumption and impact exists for a large range of environmental, resource and social indicators. The implications of consumption on scarce energy resources emerged already in the 1970s and was confirmed by many consumption-based analyses on indicators as varied as CO2 emissions, raw materials, air pollution, biodiversity, nitrogen emissions, scarce water use or energy. Many of these studies employed multiple regression or similar techniques, yielding clear evidence for our first finding: that consumption is by far the strongest determinant of global impacts
Click to expand...

So yes, consumption has a meaning in environmental circles, and it is critical.

Consumption is equal to the population times the average consumption-per-capita. These authors choose to concentrate on resolving our predicament by reducing consumption-per-capita, and in the short term, this is certainly easier than trying to reduce population. But over the course of a century, reductions in population can be a much better solution, as many other papers I cite indicate.

bilby said:
Individual environmental issues can each be demonstrated to have been massively mitigated by (ot to be able to be mitigated by) use of technology (eg slashing fossil fuel use through replacement of coal burning by nuclear fission; development of non-ozone depleting alternatives to CFCs; recycling of steel to reduce the amount of mining needed; etc., etc.).
Click to expand...

The paper I cited above also says:

The majority of studies agree that by far the major drivers of global impacts are technological change and per-capita consumption. Whilst the former acts as a more or less strong retardant, the latter is a strong accelerator of global environmental impact. Remarkably, consumption (and to a lesser extent population) growth have mostly outrun any beneficial effects of changes in technology over the past few decades. These results hold for the entire world as well as for numerous individual countries
Click to expand...

So yes, these scientists, and many others, are concerned about the damage that consumption has on the planet. And yes, they acknowledge that technological changes can and does help, but the benefits of technology over the last few decades have been dwarfed by the rise in consumption.
 
Last edited:
bilby said:
Merle said:
I was not citing Fenner as an expert on environment, nor saying we should believe it because Fenner said so.
Click to expand...
Yes, you were. What other possible interpretation is there for this sentence:

Eminent Australian scientist Frank Fenner goes so far as to say, “Humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I cited Fenner in a paragraph discussing the extremes involved. I used Fenner as an example of worst case. But yes, as I have already admitted, that could be interpreted as using Fenner as an authority out of his field to declare an imminent end of the world. I have now removed that cite and the paragraph now reads:

When would this crash happen? Multiple scientists have warned that climate change could possibly be leading to global societal collapse this century (Weyhenmeyer, 2020). Megan Seibert and William Rees argue that, “to achieve sustainability and salvage civilization, society must embark on a planned, cooperative descent from an extreme state of overshoot in just a decade or two” (Seibert, 2021). Other people say we have much longer. We don’t know. Perhaps we should at least pay attention.
Click to expand...
 
Merle said:
You refuse to tell us which you would prefer if you were faced with the two options.

But, if you say that, when faced with the two options, that the choice to reduce population is the wrong answer, then that is the same thing as stating that you prefer reducing affluence if faced with that choice.
Click to expand...
It's a loaded question.

We are not face with that choice, and are never likely to be. I refuse to state a preference, because to do so would imply accepting the hidden premise that such a choice is possible, or even plausible. It's not.

If you had to choose, would you choose to stop beating your wife, or not?

If you say that, when faced with the two options, that the choice to stop beating your wife is the wrong answer, then that is the same thing as stating that you prefer to continue beating her if faced with that choice.

It's also a false dichotomy.


IMG_1059.png
 
Merle said:
bilby said:
I would prefer 125% of the current population living at 125% of today's standard of living, while causing 40% of todays harm to the environment.
Click to expand...
Of course. We all would prefer living at high standards with less negative impact on the planet.

People here are implying that if they had to choose between reducing affluence in half or reducing population in half in the next century, that they would prefer reducing affluence in half instead of reducing population in half.

You refuse to tell us which you would prefer if you were faced with the two options.

But, if you say that, when faced with the two options, that the choice to reduce population is the wrong answer, then that is the same thing as stating that you prefer reducing affluence if faced with that choice.


I have yet to see anything but arguments from incredulity (and equivocations around wtf "consumption" even means here) as to why this isn't achievable.
Click to expand...
Your failure to see doesn't mean it wasn't presented to you many times-- https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/.

equivocations around wtf "consumption" even means here
Click to expand...

Again, you are jumping into a conversation I was having with another person. We were discussing the paper, Scientists' warning on affluence.

That paper says,
A significant proportionality between consumption and impact exists for a large range of environmental, resource and social indicators. The implications of consumption on scarce energy resources emerged already in the 1970s and was confirmed by many consumption-based analyses on indicators as varied as CO2 emissions, raw materials, air pollution, biodiversity, nitrogen emissions, scarce water use or energy. Many of these studies employed multiple regression or similar techniques, yielding clear evidence for our first finding: that consumption is by far the strongest determinant of global impacts
Click to expand...

So yes, consumption has a meaning in environmental circles, and it is critical.

Consumption is equal to the population times the average consumption-per-capita. These authors choose to concentrate on resolving our predicament by reducing consumption-per-capita, and in the short term, this is certainly easier than trying to reduce population. But over the course of a century, reductions in population can be a much better solution, as many other papers I cite indicate.

bilby said:
Individual environmental issues can each be demonstrated to have been massively mitigated by (ot to be able to be mitigated by) use of technology (eg slashing fossil fuel use through replacement of coal burning by nuclear fission; development of non-ozone depleting alternatives to CFCs; recycling of steel to reduce the amount of mining needed; etc., etc.).
Click to expand...

The paper I cited above also says:

The majority of studies agree that by far the major drivers of global impacts are technological change and per-capita consumption. Whilst the former acts as a more or less strong retardant, the latter is a strong accelerator of global environmental impact. Remarkably, consumption (and to a lesser extent population) growth have mostly outrun any beneficial effects of changes in technology over the past few decades. These results hold for the entire world as well as for numerous individual countries
Click to expand...

So yes, these scientists, and many others, are concerned about the damage that consumption has on the planet. And yes, they acknowledge that technological changes can and does help, but the benefits of technology over the last few decades have been dwarfed by the rise in consumption.
Click to expand...
Yet, despite this definition of consumption, you (and the authors you cite) continue to treat "affuence" as synonymous with it.

Which it isn't.

There are a huge number of ways to be equally affluent while maintaining differing levels of consumption; The correlation of affluence with consumption isn't an indication of causation, and the presumption of causation is contradicted by observation.

If a household consumes 0.75kW (or, as idiots like to say, 18kWh/day) of electricity, how much coal does supplying electricity to that household consume in a year?

Their neighbours are more affluent, and consume 1kW of electricity. How much additional coal do they consume in a year?

IMG_1058.png
 
Merle said:
bilby said:
People who have scientific data to present don't talk about "scientists"; They cite individual findings, and are specific about the fields of those individuals whose findings they cite.
Click to expand...
LOl! I cite many individual scientists by name, say what they found and give links to their work. Your refusal to read what I wrote doesn't mean that I didn't write it. See https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/.
Click to expand...
The same response I give to theists , anti evolutionists. and cilmate deniers who post copious links as proof or disproof of a point.


That somebody has scientific credentials by way of a degree does not make anything they publish or day science fact. The net has give rise to a lot of scince claims presented as factual science by those who know no sceince. I hear it all the time om news shows.

From someone who aped basic science for 30 years the Laws Of Thermodynamics are tattooed on my chest.

Form both theory and experience no system biological, mechanical, chemical, or electrical ca have a variable that grows without limit. Mathematically it is called a singularity. As a variable tries to go to infinity in any system it is always limted by available energy or a failure in system.

Human civilization is a system where mass and energy move around and change forms.

In the limit population and economies can not grow without bound.

Aside frpm human social and political issue,nny steady steady state system has to be witnin the bouds of Laws Of Thwerdynamics.

It is not a diffuclt calculation. You can look up how much water a human needs and uses every day. An energy value in Joules per day for each humn can be derved. Lights, cooking, heat,sereage systems and so onn.

Energy per kilogram of food. Humas per squre meter inclusivee of recreation, lving, garculture, manufacturg, nad bussinees can be found.

Wihin an eergy bidget do pe get to have two crsand a mrcsle? Bots? Private airpans? How many video gaes?

Genertal speculation and ideas are one thing. Science reduces to nubers.

If you postulate a steady state system you must provide the math and numbers as to how it all would work.In sufficient detail with a mthodologythat can be peer reviiewd. If you have the numenrs then you have to work out a detailed plan as how to cree it and make it work.

Yu would also have to get global buy in to the pan, good luck with that.

Look at the cosequnces of the relatively benign short term supply chain and economc problems acused by the COVID shutdown.
 
steve_bank said:
In the limit population and economies can not grow without bound.
Click to expand...
Population can't, because its a measure of something physically real. Fortunately, we no longer need to worry about exponential population growth; We know that population will level off in the next few decades.

Economies are denominated in dollars. Dollars are a fiat currency; They have no physical existence. The upper bound on the size pf an economy is the same as the upper bound on the size of an integer.

No matter how large an economy is, you can always add another dollar.
 
DBT said:
Loren Pechtel said:
What you fail to see is that attempting to hinder growth will have an even bigger hindrance on the only hope of avoiding a crash--technology. You're in an unpleasantly fast turn--do you hit the brakes? Only if you want to die!
Click to expand...

I made no mention of "hitting the breaks," but just what Adam Smith, et al, envisioned - transitioning into a steady state economy and population equilibrium, where birth rate equals death rate and we maintain a stable population and economy. We should have worked to achieve this decades ago.
Click to expand...
A steady state economy is no more possible than a steady state universe.
 
DBT said:
bigfield said:
DBT said:

If we can provide for our needs and wants without perpetual growth, aka Adam Smith, et al, how much more and more and more do we want need? Five houses each? Ten cars? Not enough, we need to keep adding more and perpetual growth is the key?
Click to expand...
How about more efficient houses and smarter transit systems inatead of just more of the same old crap?
Click to expand...

A steady state economy doesn't exclude living well, innovation, efficiency or progress in science. It just excludes the notion of perpetual growth in population and exploitation of natural resources, which, given a finite world that we have alreading overburdened, is a Ponzi scheme heading for disaster.
Click to expand...
1) If you have progress in science you do not have a steady state economy.

2) Even if it is stable you're still mining resources. That's not infinite. We aren't going to suddenly run out of something but the effort required to obtain things will increase--and such effort is no longer available for maintaining our standard of living. Eventually a point will be reached where there is negative output.

The Greens have this utterly unrealistic view of small technology that by some magical means has no resource inputs.
 
Swammerdami said:
bilby said:
FFS. Americans seriously think that history started in the 1780s, don't they?
Click to expand...

Calm down, for heaven's sake. Does everything have to turn into an insult?

I browsed through Piketty's List of Illustrations looking for the earliest dates. Piketty has the weird habit of using real and reliable documented data and thus may not have what you want.
Click to expand...
Piketty has the weird habit of assuming the rich are the rich and not recognizing that there is turnover. As the world changes new people come along and become rich from the changes while the old rich tend to wither away. I couldn't stand to finish his book because of this.

Swammerdami said:
The periods of lowest inequality in Europe have been during and soon after very destructive wars. IOW growth didn't cause those periods of low inequality; destruction did! How does that fit with your thesis?
Click to expand...
Fundamentally, time causes inequality because some fare better at growing capital and the advantage is progressive. Change upsets this and favors equality. Periods of change are periods of relative equality. And since the Industrial Revolution got into high gear we have been in a period of change.
 
Merle said:
I will oblige you and add option "c".

Question: If 100 years from now we needed to cut our consumption in half, which would you prefer:
a) 125% of the current population living at an average of 40% of today's consumption or
b) 50% of the current population living at an average of 100% of today's consumption.
c) eliminate the top one or two deciles of consumers.

Now that I added option c, can you answer the question?

If you choose option c, can you explain how your plan would eliminate those who may be reading this that are in the top 20%? Some of us don't want to be "eliminated".
Click to expand...
And have you stopped beating your wife?

You are taking on faith that there is a set level of resource production that can be sustained. Since this is not true everything built upon it falls down.
 
Swammerdami said:
There is one claim I do NOT understand.

Merle said:
Eminent Australian scientist Frank Fenner goes so far as to say, “Humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change” (Edwards, 2010).
Click to expand...
Troublesome results of overpopulation might lead to the collapse of civilization and a massive number of deaths, but is it likely to cause extinction within 100 years? Are there ANY examples of other species where their overpopulation led directly to extinction?

To the contrary, it would seem that deaths from over-population should be self-correcting. Even if 99.9% of humans are killed off by some poison or whatever, that leaves 8 million who should be able to survive in some niche. (Canada perhaps?) What am I missing?
Click to expand...
A 99.9% kill is almost certainly a 100% kill.

Your 8 million do not have the skills to obtain food without technology and they do not have the means to maintain that technology. There's a good chance they don't have the means to operate it for more than a few years at best.

We actually have an example of long-term off-grid survival. A family took to the hills to avoid Stalin, they were living out there for decades. In that time there had been one lean winter in which the wife died by voluntary starvation. The rest of them were lucky to be discovered when they were as they wouldn't have lasted too much longer since their last pot developed a hole.

That's your "steady state" economy.
 
Bomb#20 said:
800px-All_palaeotemps.svg.png

The dinosaurs lived with Cretaceous temperatures; our lemur ancestors survived the Eocene; so I think humans will be able to handle the current interruption in our era's prevailing Pleistocene conditions. Not to say that global warming isn't going to cause us a lot of temporary misery, but it's not going to become an extinction-level problem for hundreds of millions of years.
Click to expand...
Actually, it could be an extinction threat. Those peaks had life that was adapted to the high temperatures and even then much of the world was devoid of fossils. We don't have time to evolve to meet it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom