Global Warming to Climate change to Climate Catastrophe.

[DBT]

So who's advocating an ever growing population?

That was the point of my original remarks....that perpetual growth, population and resource use, is impossible given the finite space and resources of the Planet.

It went on from there

Given the current number of births per year, the population should stabilize at about 9 billion; the projected spike up to 11 billion or more is just a transient. There's no reason 9 billion can't be fed, clothed and watered sustainably. We need to massively switch to nuclear power to solve the CO2 problem and to desalinate our way to safe drinking water for 9 billion, but that will be doable if its opponents just get a bloody reality check, which the world will probably eventually deliver to them, one way or another.

Sure, if it's not already too little, too late. If the world population stabilizes. If that population size is even sustainable in the long term given the real possibility of climate change and ever increasing demand driven by improvement in living standards for the world's poor (higher consumption rates), if the predicted climate changes are conducive to supporting a population of 9 billion plus.

A lot of 'if's' given how high the stakes are.

 

[Politesse]

That was the point of my original remarks....that perpetual growth, population and resource use, is impossible given the finite space and resources of the Planet.

It went on from there.

Doesn't it always?

I realized with alarm the other morning that the trees in my neighborhood had started dropping nuts of some kind. I'm frightened, because perpetual growth of the forests would inevitably lead to the extinction of Man due to a hypoxic atmosphere. So I just started cutting down trees. You can never be too safe, right? If it's possible, it's certain, and if it is certain eventually, it's never too soon to act. Tim-berrr!

 

[GenesisNemesis]

That was the point of my original remarks....that perpetual growth, population and resource use, is impossible given the finite space and resources of the Planet.

It went on from there.

Doesn't it always?

I realized with alarm the other morning that the trees in my neighborhood had started dropping nuts of some kind. I'm frightened, because perpetual growth of the forests would inevitably lead to the extinction of Man due to a hypoxic atmosphere. So I just started cutting down trees. You can never be too safe, right? If it's possible, it's certain, and if it is certain eventually, it's never too soon to act. Tim-berrr!

But on the other hand we need trees to absorb carbon dioxide... so is that really helping? It isn't as though we have an excess number of trees given the amount of deforestation going on.

 

[Jokodo]

So who's advocating an ever growing population?

That was the point of my original remarks....that perpetual growth, population and resource use, is impossible given the finite space and resources of the Planet.

It went on from there

Given the current number of births per year, the population should stabilize at about 9 billion; the projected spike up to 11 billion or more is just a transient. There's no reason 9 billion can't be fed, clothed and watered sustainably. We need to massively switch to nuclear power to solve the CO2 problem and to desalinate our way to safe drinking water for 9 billion, but that will be doable if its opponents just get a bloody reality check, which the world will probably eventually deliver to them, one way or another.

Sure, if it's not already too little, too late. If the world population stabilizes. If that population size is even sustainable in the long term given the real possibility of climate change and ever increasing demand driven by improvement in living standards for the world's poor (higher consumption rates), if the predicted climate changes are conducive to supporting a population of 9 billion plus.

A lot of 'if's' given how high the stakes are.

High stakes don't justify resorting to a cure that's known to be ineffective (restrictive policies to reduce reproduction) for a disease the patient doesn't have.

The "disease" is not overpopulation, it is environmental destruction, and foremost global warming. Slashing the population, even radically, is neither necessary nor sufficient to cure it. Whether or not the other remedies suggested work, even whether we have any way of knowing if they'll work, doesn't make that simple fact go away.

What you're arguing is analogous to prescribing a homeopathic remedy alleged to help against syphilis for a patient suffering cancer, on the argument that the experimental drug the other guy is prescribing is poorly tested.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's simple: Release CO2, get climate change.

The population changes the rate at which the CO2 is released, it doesn't change the effect of the CO2.

Thus, fewer people, it takes longer to cause climate change but that's all. You're pushing the problem into the future, not avoiding the problem.

Are you are saying so long as there are people, climate change is inevitable? Am I understanding you?

No. I'm saying so long as people burn fossil fuels there will be climate change. The only true answer is to get away from fossil fuels.

So it's kind of like trash. We are destined to be buried in our own waste. It's only a matter of time. Yes?

That was the point of my original remarks....that perpetual growth, population and resource use, is impossible given the finite space and resources of the Planet.

It went on from there.

Doesn't it always?

I realized with alarm the other morning that the trees in my neighborhood had started dropping nuts of some kind. I'm frightened, because perpetual growth of the forests would inevitably lead to the extinction of Man due to a hypoxic atmosphere. So I just started cutting down trees. You can never be too safe, right? If it's possible, it's certain, and if it is certain eventually, it's never too soon to act. Tim-berrr!

I think we both understand "the problem." So does DBT btw.

 

[bilby]

No. I'm saying so long as people burn fossil fuels there will be climate change. The only true answer is to get away from fossil fuels.

So it's kind of like trash. We are destined to be buried in our own waste. It's only a matter of time. Yes?

If there were no alternatives to fossil fuels, you would be right.

But there are, so you aren't.

 

[DBT]

That was the point of my original remarks....that perpetual growth, population and resource use, is impossible given the finite space and resources of the Planet.

It went on from there.

Doesn't it always?

I realized with alarm the other morning that the trees in my neighborhood had started dropping nuts of some kind. I'm frightened, because perpetual growth of the forests would inevitably lead to the extinction of Man due to a hypoxic atmosphere. So I just started cutting down trees. You can never be too safe, right? If it's possible, it's certain, and if it is certain eventually, it's never too soon to act. Tim-berrr!

How clever.

 

[Politesse]

That was the point of my original remarks....that perpetual growth, population and resource use, is impossible given the finite space and resources of the Planet.

It went on from there.

Doesn't it always?

I realized with alarm the other morning that the trees in my neighborhood had started dropping nuts of some kind. I'm frightened, because perpetual growth of the forests would inevitably lead to the extinction of Man due to a hypoxic atmosphere. So I just started cutting down trees. You can never be too safe, right? If it's possible, it's certain, and if it is certain eventually, it's never too soon to act. Tim-berrr!

But on the other hand we need trees to absorb carbon dioxide... so is that really helping? It isn't as though we have an excess number of trees given the amount of deforestation going on.

Just as we do not, in fact, have excess humans. My point is that it being mathematically possible to have too many of something is not the same thing as presently having that number, nor does it justify panicking about having that number at some point in the future. But about some things, people will always... go on from there.

 

[DBT]

But on the other hand we need trees to absorb carbon dioxide... so is that really helping? It isn't as though we have an excess number of trees given the amount of deforestation going on.

Just as we do not, in fact, have excess humans. My point is that it being mathematically possible to have too many of something is not the same thing as presently having that number, nor does it justify panicking about having that number at some point in the future. But about some things, people will always... go on from there.

Nobody is panicking. Given the impact that human activity is having on the planet it appears that we are degrading our ecosystems, that we are putting strain on other species to the point of the extinction of some species, the loss of habitat, and considering the sheer number of humans on the planet, and given that as the poor of the world increase their level of consumption, our activity on the planet is likely to become unsustainable, if it already hasn't happened.

So unless we quickly change our ways, our business models of rampant consumerism, growth and profit first, the shit is likely to hit the fan within this century.

 

[Bomb#20]

So who's advocating an ever growing population?

That was the point of my original remarks....that perpetual growth, population and resource use, is impossible given the finite space and resources of the Planet.

But you keep talking as though economic growth, resource use growth, and population growth are all the same thing. They aren't. We can get economic growth without population growth by having people get richer, more productive, and more inclined to practice contraception, which is already happening just from people voluntarily trying to get richer. We can get economic growth without resource use growth with engineering advances, miniaturization, recycling, and fast breeder reactors. And we can even grow resource use, not perpetually but for as long as we'll need to, because the Earth's crust is 20 miles thick and we've barely scratched it. And if the day ever comes when we have to switch from economic growth to a steady-state economy, we might as well set things up so humankind can all be steady-state rich instead of all being steady-state poor when the era of growth finally peters out.

Sure, if it's not already too little, too late. If the world population stabilizes. If that population size is even sustainable in the long term given the real possibility of climate change and ever increasing demand driven by improvement in living standards for the world's poor (higher consumption rates), if the predicted climate changes are conducive to supporting a population of 9 billion plus.

A lot of 'if's' given how high the stakes are.

Well, bilby has already laid out the policy changes that are necessary to make those ifs definite. If we don't adopt them, sure, bad things are likely to happen. What is it you're advocating we do about it? What is the point of your doom and gloom, if not to urge us to do what needs to be done to avert catastrophe? Do you have different policy prescriptions from bilby's? If so, do you have reason to think your policy would be more effective, or more painless, or at least more politically feasible, than his?

 

[ruby sparks]

But I still have no substance to which I can respond.

Yes you do. It was previously explained to you, and not just by me, why you can't just arbitrarily and hypothetically make climate change independent of population. Basically, in reality there are a number of intertwined factors and variables and one of them is population.

 

[PyramidHead]

I wouldn't want to remove the incentives whose function is to help the child that is born, because that would be punishing the child unjustly. But in a hypothetical scenario where we needed to leverage every tool at our disposal, I see a valid place for policies/campaigns that would (a) remind everyone of the impact of having a child, (b) encouraging the adoption of children who are already born and need caregivers, (c) generously reward people who do not have children, and (d) dialing back on the incentives that might cause reluctant couples to be more willing to have a child. All combined with comprehensive education, contraception, and abortion services. Create a culture where having biological children is regarded with the same shake of the head that people who wear mink fur sometimes receive, where it's taboo to just carry a fetus to term without doing due diligence and checking the adoption registry to see if an abortion wouldn't be better for the planet. Get that total back down below 6 billion, or even less, simply by not replacing the ones who naturally die with one or two more. It won't solve our problems, but then again neither will any other measure on its own. And regardless, it will have prevented whatever suffering the people who are not born would have endured, whether by climate-related pressures or otherwise in their lives, while simultaneously making it easier to maintain a comfortable standard of living for everyone else.

Sounds great.

But it's going to have almost no short to medium term impact on climate change. Implement all of that, worldwide, tomorrow, and total world population over the next three decades will be reduced by only a tiny fraction. The impact on climate change would be negligible in that timeframe.

Perhaps, but the number of people who suffer its consequences would be reduced by an amount that is very real for those who would have otherwise been among those in need of aid, shelter, food, and other solaces. I think that's an additional good, above and beyond fewer people contributing to the rise in climate, and one that is not appreciated when you simply look at the impact of population on climate change itself. You have to also look at the impact of climate change on the population, and consider the benefit of sparing billions of people (each of them individuals with no interest in whether they are a "tiny fraction" or not) the hardship that is likely to be coming by simply not placing them in its path.

 

[Politesse]

But on the other hand we need trees to absorb carbon dioxide... so is that really helping? It isn't as though we have an excess number of trees given the amount of deforestation going on.

Just as we do not, in fact, have excess humans. My point is that it being mathematically possible to have too many of something is not the same thing as presently having that number, nor does it justify panicking about having that number at some point in the future. But about some things, people will always... go on from there.

Nobody is panicking. Given the impact that human activity is having on the planet it appears that we are degrading our ecosystems, that we are putting strain on other species to the point of the extinction of some species, the loss of habitat, and considering the sheer number of humans on the planet, and given that as the poor of the world increase their level of consumption, our activity on the planet is likely to become unsustainable, if it already hasn't happened.

So unless we quickly change our ways, our business models of rampant consumerism, growth and profit first, the shit is likely to hit the fan within this century.

Which I entirely agree with, and it's why I think this cult of overpopulation is dangerous; it gives policymakers a scapegoat for environmental destruction that won't hurt their profit margins. "It's not our mines and our farms and our foodless cash crops, there are just too many darn poor people". It is pseudoscience leading to dangerous inaction.

 

[Jokodo]

You know, it's worth pointing out that easing back on incentives for having children and spreading awareness about population levels wouldn't actually be the same thing as genocide.

It's also not the same thing as rapidly and dramatically cutting population.

Indeed, I would very much doubt that it would have much impact at all - the same effort put into providing a good, general, primary education to girls in Africa would likely be far more effective.

I certainly don't have any major objection to removing any government incentives to have children. But I seriously doubt that doing so would have any worthwhile impact on climate change - and certainly not in the next century or so.

I wouldn't want to remove the incentives whose function is to help the child that is born, because that would be punishing the child unjustly. But in a hypothetical scenario where we needed to leverage every tool at our disposal, I see a valid place for policies/campaigns that would (a) remind everyone of the impact of having a child, (b) encouraging the adoption of children who are already born and need caregivers, (c) generously reward people who do not have children, and (d) dialing back on the incentives that might cause reluctant couples to be more willing to have a child. All combined with comprehensive education, contraception, and abortion services. Create a culture where having biological children is regarded with the same shake of the head that people who wear mink fur sometimes receive, where it's taboo to just carry a fetus to term without doing due diligence and checking the adoption registry to see if an abortion wouldn't be better for the planet. Get that total back down below 6 billion, or even less, simply by not replacing the ones who naturally die with one or two more. It won't solve our problems, but then again neither will any other measure on its own. And regardless, it will have prevented whatever suffering the people who are not born would have endured, whether by climate-related pressures or otherwise in their lives, while simultaneously making it easier to maintain a comfortable standard of living for everyone else.

How do you intend to go about implementing this?

People say installing a carbon tax that's high enough to cover the cost of extracting the CO2 released back from the atmosphere (and then some to make up for the misdeeds of the last few generations) is hard, and you want to change the culture (globally, no less, I assume) in a way that people shake their heads at anyone having biological children, where it is seen as a taboo to carry a fetus to term? Something they've learnt to see as the most natural thing on the planet?

I won't go into whether that solution would even be desirable. For the simple reason that it's doomed to fail anyway, it remains pure speculation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I wouldn't want to remove the incentives whose function is to help the child that is born, because that would be punishing the child unjustly. But in a hypothetical scenario where we needed to leverage every tool at our disposal, I see a valid place for policies/campaigns that would (a) remind everyone of the impact of having a child, (b) encouraging the adoption of children who are already born and need caregivers, (c) generously reward people who do not have children, and (d) dialing back on the incentives that might cause reluctant couples to be more willing to have a child. All combined with comprehensive education, contraception, and abortion services. Create a culture where having biological children is regarded with the same shake of the head that people who wear mink fur sometimes receive, where it's taboo to just carry a fetus to term without doing due diligence and checking the adoption registry to see if an abortion wouldn't be better for the planet. Get that total back down below 6 billion, or even less, simply by not replacing the ones who naturally die with one or two more. It won't solve our problems, but then again neither will any other measure on its own. And regardless, it will have prevented whatever suffering the people who are not born would have endured, whether by climate-related pressures or otherwise in their lives, while simultaneously making it easier to maintain a comfortable standard of living for everyone else.

How do you intend to go about implementing this?

People say installing a carbon tax that's high enough to cover the cost of extracting the CO2 released back from the atmosphere (and then some to make up for the misdeeds of the last few generations) is hard, and you want to change the culture (globally, no less, I assume) in a way that people shake their heads at anyone having biological children, where it is seen as a taboo to carry a fetus to term? Something they've learnt to see as the most natural thing on the planet?

I won't go into whether that solution would even be desirable. For the simple reason that it's doomed to fail anyway, it remains pure speculation.

Human overpopulation is certainly the cause of the problem. The more people think about that and come to accept it the better for everyone. That demon is out of the bottle and isn't going to be stuffed back in. We need to have children, just not so many, and we need to reduce human population.

The thing that's interesting about climate change, which gives environmental destruction a harmless sounding moniker, is that it's perceived as being over the horizon but approaching, and not here. But here it is, today.

 

[PyramidHead]

I wouldn't want to remove the incentives whose function is to help the child that is born, because that would be punishing the child unjustly. But in a hypothetical scenario where we needed to leverage every tool at our disposal, I see a valid place for policies/campaigns that would (a) remind everyone of the impact of having a child, (b) encouraging the adoption of children who are already born and need caregivers, (c) generously reward people who do not have children, and (d) dialing back on the incentives that might cause reluctant couples to be more willing to have a child. All combined with comprehensive education, contraception, and abortion services. Create a culture where having biological children is regarded with the same shake of the head that people who wear mink fur sometimes receive, where it's taboo to just carry a fetus to term without doing due diligence and checking the adoption registry to see if an abortion wouldn't be better for the planet. Get that total back down below 6 billion, or even less, simply by not replacing the ones who naturally die with one or two more. It won't solve our problems, but then again neither will any other measure on its own. And regardless, it will have prevented whatever suffering the people who are not born would have endured, whether by climate-related pressures or otherwise in their lives, while simultaneously making it easier to maintain a comfortable standard of living for everyone else.

How do you intend to go about implementing this?

People say installing a carbon tax that's high enough to cover the cost of extracting the CO2 released back from the atmosphere (and then some to make up for the misdeeds of the last few generations) is hard, and you want to change the culture (globally, no less, I assume) in a way that people shake their heads at anyone having biological children, where it is seen as a taboo to carry a fetus to term? Something they've learnt to see as the most natural thing on the planet?

I won't go into whether that solution would even be desirable. For the simple reason that it's doomed to fail anyway, it remains pure speculation.

Human overpopulation is certainly the cause of the problem. The more people think about that and come to accept it the better for everyone. That demon is out of the bottle and isn't going to be stuffed back in. We need to have children, just not so many, and we need to reduce human population.

The thing that's interesting about climate change, which gives environmental destruction a harmless sounding moniker, is that it's perceived as being over the horizon but approaching, and not here. But here it is, today.

To Jokodo: I don't believe it would be feasible either, I was just responding to the assertion that it wouldn't make a difference if we did it or not.

To T.G.G. Moogly: in a very real sense, human population (over- or not) is the cause of all human problems. So no, we don't need to have children, at all, ever, and if we stopped then there would be no more problems. But that's another topic. I don't believe that in this specific instance the number of humans is primarily responsible for climate change, however. Even if there were many fewer humans, the industries that add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than is naturally sequestered would still cause the climate to rise over time, as Loren points out. As long as the end goal is economic growth and the timescale for projecting said growth is no greater than a human lifetime, this problem would have been inevitable.

 

[Elixir]

I don't believe it would be feasible either, I was just responding to the assertion that it wouldn't make a difference if we did it or not.

Part and parcel of the Republican power-grab is to try to ensure that poor, white Americans out-reproduce any other demographic. That's why you see Cheato complaining about how latinos "breed like rabbits". That whole dynamic is the main reason T.G.G.'s proposal will never be considered.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Human overpopulation is certainly the cause of the problem. The more people think about that and come to accept it the better for everyone. That demon is out of the bottle and isn't going to be stuffed back in. We need to have children, just not so many, and we need to reduce human population.

The thing that's interesting about climate change, which gives environmental destruction a harmless sounding moniker, is that it's perceived as being over the horizon but approaching, and not here. But here it is, today.

To Jokodo: I don't believe it would be feasible either, I was just responding to the assertion that it wouldn't make a difference if we did it or not.

To T.G.G. Moogly: in a very real sense, human population (over- or not) is the cause of all human problems. So no, we don't need to have children, at all, ever, and if we stopped then there would be no more problems. But that's another topic. I don't believe that in this specific instance the number of humans is primarily responsible for climate change, however. Even if there were many fewer humans, the industries that add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than is naturally sequestered would still cause the climate to rise over time, as Loren points out. As long as the end goal is economic growth and the timescale for projecting said growth is no greater than a human lifetime, this problem would have been inevitable.

The damage and the cause of the damage is made more difficult to address with a larger population. I think all agree. That is my point. Sure, one small group of humans with sufficient technology could cause the same level of damage as 20 billion, but the problem is easier to address when less people are involved. That's true generally.

Around here we have our share of superfund sites, big problems caused by small groups of people that live on as legacy pollution. To be honest, the more people know about these places the more likely they will be addressed. People don't want to live at these places.

I'll admit to being a tree hugger so when I see climate change it is only one facet of environmental destruction. I happen to think people are okay, and we are far from the carrying capacity of the planet if all we want are more humans. The costs of having that, however, in terms of what is lost to have more humans lessens the value of the planet as a whole. So less people solves a lot of other problems besides climate change.

 

[bilby]

I wouldn't want to remove the incentives whose function is to help the child that is born, because that would be punishing the child unjustly. But in a hypothetical scenario where we needed to leverage every tool at our disposal, I see a valid place for policies/campaigns that would (a) remind everyone of the impact of having a child, (b) encouraging the adoption of children who are already born and need caregivers, (c) generously reward people who do not have children, and (d) dialing back on the incentives that might cause reluctant couples to be more willing to have a child. All combined with comprehensive education, contraception, and abortion services. Create a culture where having biological children is regarded with the same shake of the head that people who wear mink fur sometimes receive, where it's taboo to just carry a fetus to term without doing due diligence and checking the adoption registry to see if an abortion wouldn't be better for the planet. Get that total back down below 6 billion, or even less, simply by not replacing the ones who naturally die with one or two more. It won't solve our problems, but then again neither will any other measure on its own. And regardless, it will have prevented whatever suffering the people who are not born would have endured, whether by climate-related pressures or otherwise in their lives, while simultaneously making it easier to maintain a comfortable standard of living for everyone else.

Sounds great.

But it's going to have almost no short to medium term impact on climate change. Implement all of that, worldwide, tomorrow, and total world population over the next three decades will be reduced by only a tiny fraction. The impact on climate change would be negligible in that timeframe.

Perhaps, but the number of people who suffer its consequences would be reduced by an amount that is very real for those who would have otherwise been among those in need of aid, shelter, food, and other solaces. I think that's an additional good, above and beyond fewer people contributing to the rise in climate, and one that is not appreciated when you simply look at the impact of population on climate change itself. You have to also look at the impact of climate change on the population, and consider the benefit of sparing billions of people (each of them individuals with no interest in whether they are a "tiny fraction" or not) the hardship that is likely to be coming by simply not placing them in its path.

Sure.

But it's a rather drastic and strange approach to take, when we already know how to solve the problem without preventing people who want kids from having them, and without killing anyone.

I mean, if my car is rapidly approaching a busy crosswalk, I could reduce the suffering of those who would otherwise spend months in hospital by having a hitman humanely shoot as many pedestrians as possible through the head; Or I could push my foot firmly down on the brake pedal. While both options limit the total suffering in the future, it doesn't strike me that they are difficult to choose between.

 

[PyramidHead]

Perhaps, but the number of people who suffer its consequences would be reduced by an amount that is very real for those who would have otherwise been among those in need of aid, shelter, food, and other solaces. I think that's an additional good, above and beyond fewer people contributing to the rise in climate, and one that is not appreciated when you simply look at the impact of population on climate change itself. You have to also look at the impact of climate change on the population, and consider the benefit of sparing billions of people (each of them individuals with no interest in whether they are a "tiny fraction" or not) the hardship that is likely to be coming by simply not placing them in its path.

Sure.

But it's a rather drastic and strange approach to take, when we already know how to solve the problem without preventing people who want kids from having them, and without killing anyone.

I mean, if my car is rapidly approaching a busy crosswalk, I could reduce the suffering of those who would otherwise spend months in hospital by having a hitman humanely shoot as many pedestrians as possible through the head; Or I could push my foot firmly down on the brake pedal. While both options limit the total suffering in the future, it doesn't strike me that they are difficult to choose between.

Why do you keep equating not having children with killing people who are already born? People who are here have an interest in staying here, but nobody has an interest in being born. Your example is disingenuous and assumes that the ethical problem of going against people's wish to continue living can be dealt with by 'humanely' shooting them.