Climate Change(d)?

[Politesse]

Watched NOVA on the history of climate.

Cold periods are the exceptions. Having ice at both poles at the sane time generally defines a cold period.

There is no such thing as "normal" when it comes to global climate; there have been very long periods of warming or cooling, impacted by various biotic and astronomical events. Our evolution as a species occurred during a significant cooling stage, and most of the ecosystems that surround us are heavily adapted to those conditions. We may well have succeeded in ending the present age of glaciation for good, not the first time a significantly novel organism has permanently changed the biochemical face of the planet. Were it nor for the rise of the cyanobacteria, none of us would be here, for instance. But they killed the vast majority of the other living things around them, as well.

 

[bilby]

Watched NOVA on the history of climate.

Cold periods are the exceptions. Having ice at both poles at the sane time generally defines a cold period.

There is no such thing as "normal" when it comes to global climate; there have been very long periods of warming or cooling, impacted by various biotic and astronomical events. Our evolution as a species occurred during a significant cooling stage, and most of the ecosystems that surround us are heavily adapted to those conditions.

View attachment 39121

Exactly. “Normal” or “typical” conditions are irrelevant; What matters is conditions that can support human life and civilisation.

Saying “the Earth has usually been warmer than it is today, so warming isn’t a problem” is as relevant as saying “most of the Solar System is a vacuum, so losing our atmosphere wouldn’t be a problem” - it’s true, as long as you are unconcerned about life.

Ultimately there are no problems, because the universe is almost entirely uninhabitable for humans, and if we all die, the universe will be essentially unchanged.

However, as a living human being, I take a more parochial perspective, in which I care more about the survival and thriving of my species, than I do about the climate our planet experienced before we even evolved.

 

[Politesse]

Watched NOVA on the history of climate.

Cold periods are the exceptions. Having ice at both poles at the sane time generally defines a cold period.

There is no such thing as "normal" when it comes to global climate; there have been very long periods of warming or cooling, impacted by various biotic and astronomical events. Our evolution as a species occurred during a significant cooling stage, and most of the ecosystems that surround us are heavily adapted to those conditions.

View attachment 39121

Exactly. “Normal” or “typical” conditions are irrelevant; What matters is conditions that can support human life and civilisation.

Saying “the Earth has usually been warmer than it is today, so warming isn’t a problem” is as relevant as saying “most of the Solar System is a vacuum, so losing our atmosphere wouldn’t be a problem” - it’s true, as long as you are unconcerned about life.

Ultimately there are no problems, because the universe is almost entirely uninhabitable for humans, and if we all die, the universe will be essentially unchanged.

However, as a living human being, I take a more parochial perspective, in which I care more about the survival and thriving of my species, than I do about the climate our planet experienced before we even evolved.

Indeed. Though all things considered, handing the planet back to the surviving dinosaurs would have some upsides, at least for most earthly organisms that aren't us. Perhaps we should consider stepping aside?

 

[DBT]

Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.

 

[bilby]

Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.

No, there really isn’t.

 

[DBT]

Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.

No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?

 

[bilby]

Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.

No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?

That’s an excellent question, and one that you really should have asked before concluding that we have exceeded it.

 

[Politesse]

Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.

No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?

An interesting question from someone who claims to know that we are too numerous.

 

[DBT]

Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.

No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?

An interesting question from someone who claims to know that we are too numerous.

I base my view on the impact we are having on the planet, ecosystems, other species, habitats, pollution, consumption, the congestion of our cities, etc. And yes, I am aware of the counter arguments.

 

[DBT]

Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.

No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?

That’s an excellent question, and one that you really should have asked before concluding that we have exceeded it.

I stated my view. You stated yours. I asked what your metric was.

 

[Politesse]

Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.

No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?

An interesting question from someone who claims to know that we are too numerous.

I base my view on the impact we are having on the planet, ecosystems, other species, habitats, pollution, consumption, the congestion of our cities, etc. And yes, I am aware of the counter arguments.

So you have no ideal number, just... feelings?

The number you wish to reduce our population to, then, is also just going to be based on whenever you feel it's been enough to save the whales?

 

[DBT]

Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.

No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?

An interesting question from someone who claims to know that we are too numerous.

I base my view on the impact we are having on the planet, ecosystems, other species, habitats, pollution, consumption, the congestion of our cities, etc. And yes, I am aware of the counter arguments.

So you have no ideal number, just... feelings?

The number you wish to reduce our population to, then, is also just going to be based on whenever you feel it's been enough to save the whales?

Being a matter of both population numbers and consumption rates, it depends on a ratio of both. Including a matter of livability, sheer congestion in excessively large cities.

 

[Politesse]

Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.

No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?

An interesting question from someone who claims to know that we are too numerous.

I base my view on the impact we are having on the planet, ecosystems, other species, habitats, pollution, consumption, the congestion of our cities, etc. And yes, I am aware of the counter arguments.

So you have no ideal number, just... feelings?

The number you wish to reduce our population to, then, is also just going to be based on whenever you feel it's been enough to save the whales?

Being a matter of both population numbers and consumption rates, it depends on a ratio of both. Including a matter of livability, sheer congestion in excessively large cities.

So present your numbers.

 

[DBT]

Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.

No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?

An interesting question from someone who claims to know that we are too numerous.

I base my view on the impact we are having on the planet, ecosystems, other species, habitats, pollution, consumption, the congestion of our cities, etc. And yes, I am aware of the counter arguments.

So you have no ideal number, just... feelings?

The number you wish to reduce our population to, then, is also just going to be based on whenever you feel it's been enough to save the whales?

Being a matter of both population numbers and consumption rates, it depends on a ratio of both. Including a matter of livability, sheer congestion in excessively large cities.

So present your numbers.

I don't have ''ideal numbers'' - just the impact that human activity is having in relation to population and consumption rates in a given region, nation, state, etc.

The USA, for instance;

''The United States is already overpopulated in the sense that we are consuming our national ecological resources at an unsustainable rate. Our growing dependence on foreign energy supplies is a prime example. We now depend on foreign imports for 28.8 percent of our energy consumption: two-thirds of our petroleum products and about one-sixth of our natural gas consumption.1Because of the abundance of our nation's resources, we have long been careless about our level of consumption, but it is the precipitous rise in the U.S. population over the last four decades that has resulted in our outstripping of our national resources. We are living beyond our means and are doing so increasingly as our population expands. This is a serious problem with major implications for future generations.''

''Nations with high consumption levels generally have large ecological footprints, i.e. environmental impact. Add to the equation a large population with a high level of consumption — as is the case with the United States — and the situation becomes unsustainable. Population growth is steadily diluting the U.S. biocapacity, leaving only about 5 hectares [about 12.4 acres] of productive land available per person. Meanwhile, the steady rise in consumption has increased Americans’ per capita ecological footprint — in part because of our growing dependence on imported energy resources — to more than 9.4 hectares [about 23.3 acres].3 In the last four decades, the U.S. has gone from a positive net ecological surplus of 2.1 hectares per capita to a deficit of -4.4 hectares per capita.4 Another aspect of this same trend into unsustainable consumption is that the U.S. per capita ecological footprint has increased gradually — six percent since 1980 — while per capita biocapacity has decreased rapidly — 26 percent — due to a 30 percent increase in the U.S. population.5''

 

[bigfield]

Despite what some may argue, there is just way too many of us.

No, there really isn’t.

How so? Is there an ideal number? One that we have achieved, or are yet to achieve? What is the metric?

An interesting question from someone who claims to know that we are too numerous.

I base my view on the impact we are having on the planet, ecosystems, other species, habitats, pollution, consumption, the congestion of our cities, etc. And yes, I am aware of the counter arguments.

So you have no ideal number, just... feelings?

The number you wish to reduce our population to, then, is also just going to be based on whenever you feel it's been enough to save the whales?

Being a matter of both population numbers and consumption rates, it depends on a ratio of both. Including a matter of livability, sheer congestion in excessively large cities.

So present your numbers.

I don't have ''ideal numbers'' - just the impact that human activity is having in relation to population and consumption rates in a given region, nation, state, etc.

The USA, for instance;

''The United States is already overpopulated in the sense that we are consuming our national ecological resources at an unsustainable rate. Our growing dependence on foreign energy supplies is a prime example. We now depend on foreign imports for 28.8 percent of our energy consumption: two-thirds of our petroleum products and about one-sixth of our natural gas consumption.1Because of the abundance of our nation's resources, we have long been careless about our level of consumption, but it is the precipitous rise in the U.S. population over the last four decades that has resulted in our outstripping of our national resources. We are living beyond our means and are doing so increasingly as our population expands. This is a serious problem with major implications for future generations.''

''Nations with high consumption levels generally have large ecological footprints, i.e. environmental impact. Add to the equation a large population with a high level of consumption — as is the case with the United States — and the situation becomes unsustainable. Population growth is steadily diluting the U.S. biocapacity, leaving only about 5 hectares [about 12.4 acres] of productive land available per person. Meanwhile, the steady rise in consumption has increased Americans’ per capita ecological footprint — in part because of our growing dependence on imported energy resources — to more than 9.4 hectares [about 23.3 acres].3 In the last four decades, the U.S. has gone from a positive net ecological surplus of 2.1 hectares per capita to a deficit of -4.4 hectares per capita.4 Another aspect of this same trend into unsustainable consumption is that the U.S. per capita ecological footprint has increased gradually — six percent since 1980 — while per capita biocapacity has decreased rapidly — 26 percent — due to a 30 percent increase in the U.S. population.5''

Pretty sure you meant to link this article:

The Environmental Impact of Overpopulation

The United States’ rapidly expanding metropolitan areas are already overcrowded and contributing to overpopulation on a national scale.

www.fairus.org

(You can take your pick, really. The whole site's dedicated to closing the USA's borders, so pretty much every article is going to be some variation of, "fuck off we're full.")

I think this was the important part:

National overpopulation simply means the population of the country in excess of the ability of available resources to sustain it without degrading the environment. The theory that underscores this concept is that the population size magnified by both per capita consumption (affluence) and offset by technology determines the environmental impact of that population.

The article seems to claim that the US has exceeded this number, but it doesn't actually say what the number is, nor does it explain how to determine when environmental degradation is happening.

It's an odd metric, because even pre-industrial populations caused environmental damage, and that would seemingly quality as overpopulation. Even early agrarian civilisations degraded their environment, so pretty much any society with cities is, "overpopulated."

It seems to me that, not only do you not have "ideal numbers" but that you cannot produce any numbers with this approach. And if you can't produce any numbers then what business do you have claiming that there are too many people?

 

[steve_bank]

Asking for numbers and sources can often be a way of saying I don't have a good argument against what you say or you don't wnat to acknowledge the obvious reality.

Anyone who thinks the USA is not overpopulated and over consuming is not playing with a full deck and is not living in the real world.

We have a 'consumer economy' as does the industrialized nations. Wn have a huge overcapcity to supply basic necessities. This means a relatively small percent of population is employed providing necesary goods and sevices. The economy grows by finding more things to produce and consume.

It us why when consumer confidence drops the economy drops.

The global consumer economy is what pulled China up out of the misery of Maoism.

 

[DBT]

Asking for numbers and sources can often be a way of saying I don't have a good argument against what you say or you don't wnat to acknowledge the obvious reality.

Anyone who thinks the USA is not overpopulated and over consuming is not playing with a full deck and is not living in the real world.

We have a 'consumer economy' as does the industrialized nations. Wn have a huge overcapcity to supply basic necessities. This means a relatively small percent of population is employed providing necesary goods and sevices. The economy grows by finding more things to produce and consume.

It us why when consumer confidence drops the economy drops.

The global consumer economy is what pulled China up out of the misery of Maoism.

Exactly.

 

[bilby]

Cities are densely populated, but that’s a major benefit to the environment in a number of ways: It isolates large numbers of humans in small areas, leaving the wider countryside less impacted by their presence; It also allows humans to be vastly more efficient in provision of services, and supply of goods.

The idea that a subset of the Earth (whether a nation, county, city, or anything else) might be overpopulated, while the rest of the planet is not, is just stupid. People clump together, because they like to do so more than they like not to, for various reasons (most involving the ability to get resources from other people).

Globally, overpopulation is indeed hard to define. But while resources are so abundant that it remains cheaper to mine new ores than it is to recycle the materials from our waste streams and dumps; And while hunger is continuing to become less and less of a problem, and more people suffer health problems due to too much food than due to too little, it seems that the burden of proof lies with people claiming that overpopulation is a thing.

How can we explain the abundance of food and resources, if overpopulation is a thing?

As to resource use, that’s really not a thing either. The first law of thermodynamics tells us that pretty much everything humans have ever extracted is still here on Earth; And the second law tells us that one we have spread it out, we will need a lot of energy to regather and recycle it.

So resource scarcity isn’t really a thing, it’s just a symptom of energy poverty.

We have access to vast amounts of energy. While that remains true, there’s very little that we could run out of. Some stuff might get pretty expensive, but that’s just a function of how expensive energy is - and we know how to generate electricity very cheaply.

Worrying about population is sensible IF and ONLY IF the population is growing at a rate greater than the possible rate of food production (it’s not, and unless something dramatic changes, it never will); OR energy cannot be obtained inexpensively once all environmental externalities included in the cost (it can).

The difference to any individual between a planet with three billion, six billion, eight billion, or even eleven billion people is utterly negligible. In all of these cases, most people will choose to live in big conurbations, and those who don’t will have plenty of options of remote places to go instead.

We are not running out of anything, except perhaps Helium. Everything else we have ever extracted from the lithosphere is still here, and we can recycle it if we choose to do so.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Asking for numbers and sources can often be a way of saying I don't have a good argument against what you say or you don't wnat to acknowledge the obvious reality.

Anyone who thinks the USA is not overpopulated and over consuming is not playing with a full deck and is not living in the real world.

We have a 'consumer economy' as does the industrialized nations. Wn have a huge overcapcity to supply basic necessities. This means a relatively small percent of population is employed providing necesary goods and sevices. The economy grows by finding more things to produce and consume.

It us why when consumer confidence drops the economy drops.

The global consumer economy is what pulled China up out of the misery of Maoism.

...and why they can't breath the air.

 

[bilby]

Asking for numbers and sources can often be a way of saying I don't have a good argument against what you say or you don't wnat to acknowledge the obvious reality.

Anyone who thinks the USA is not overpopulated and over consuming is not playing with a full deck and is not living in the real world.

We have a 'consumer economy' as does the industrialized nations. Wn have a huge overcapcity to supply basic necessities. This means a relatively small percent of population is employed providing necesary goods and sevices. The economy grows by finding more things to produce and consume.

It us why when consumer confidence drops the economy drops.

The global consumer economy is what pulled China up out of the misery of Maoism.

...and why they can't breath the air.

*Breathe