Global Warming to Climate change to Climate Catastrophe.

[bilby]

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.

I apologise. Your solution is more like introducing a powerful contraceptive into the town water supply, so that there are no children who need to suffer having parents or neighbours who are horribly injured by my car.

People want to have children. (Not me; But I recognise that I am in the minority).

Reducing population fast enough to have an impact on climate change is impossible by manipulating only the birth rate; And significantly lowering that rate from current levels would require extreme coercive measures, that would make the likes of Mao and Stalin blush.

It's a philosophical hobby horse of yours; But it's in no way a solution to the problem under discussion here.

 

[bilby]

OK, I have been doing some digging, and as far as I can tell, the IPCC estimates that to keep the global temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above that of the late 19th century, global net anthropogenic CO₂ emissions need to drop to about 10 billion tonnes per annum by 2050. The current level of emissions is close to 4 times that - so (if per capita emissions remain the same) we need to reduce population to a quarter of its current level by 2050; That means that our target population is below 2 billion; And as the projected 2050 population is around 10 billion, it implies that approximately 8 billion people need to die between now and 2050, above and beyond the natural death rate, in order for population reduction to be an effective solution to the issue.

Of course, if we halved per capita net emissions in the same time (unlikely), then we would (only) need to kill about six billion people.

The population reductions that could reasonably be achieved by reducing birthrates is tiny - most of the people alive today will still be alive in 2050, so even if we unleashed a virus that caused 100% human sterility within a year, that would make little impact. If we are going to address climate change by population reduction, we need to plan a genocide on a scale unprecedented in history.

Now, if anyone seriously thinks that that's an acceptable solution, please feel free to say so. But if not, please shut the fuck up about (over)population - it's a red herring.

We have the technology to reduce fossil fuel use to a quarter of its current level by 2050 without any population reductions, and without any reductions in total, or in per capita energy consumption. Indeed, we can continue to increase per capita energy consumption as required.

What we don't have is the political will to take the steps needed to make that happen. But surely it should be easier to persuade the world's leaders to tax fossil fuel use, than to persuade them that killing billions of people is a good plan.

The good news is that it seems we don't need to kill everyone - only about 80% of the 2050 population of the world. So that's a relief.

 

[DBT]

But you keep talking as though economic growth, resource use growth, and population growth are all the same thing?

No. I made a distinction between growth and development several times. Growth, by definition, means an increase in whatever it is that is growing. If there is a growth in the housing market, people are building houses, buying and selling at an increasing rate....the housing market is growing and the related economic activity is growing.....when this activity slows down or stops, the related economic activity is no longer growing, it is stagnant. Or it could be in decline. This being the opposite of a growing economy. It is an economy in decline.

Development without ever increasing resource use - growth - may be open ended, research may have no limits, doing things better or smarter may have no limit.

 

[PyramidHead]

OK, I have been doing some digging, and as far as I can tell, the IPCC estimates that to keep the global temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above that of the late 19th century, global net anthropogenic CO₂ emissions need to drop to about 10 billion tonnes per annum by 2050. The current level of emissions is close to 4 times that - so (if per capita emissions remain the same) we need to reduce population to a quarter of its current level by 2050; That means that our target population is below 2 billion; And as the projected 2050 population is around 10 billion, it implies that approximately 8 billion people need to die between now and 2050, above and beyond the natural death rate, in order for population reduction to be an effective solution to the issue.

Of course, if we halved per capita net emissions in the same time (unlikely), then we would (only) need to kill about six billion people.

The population reductions that could reasonably be achieved by reducing birthrates is tiny - most of the people alive today will still be alive in 2050, so even if we unleashed a virus that caused 100% human sterility within a year, that would make little impact. If we are going to address climate change by population reduction, we need to plan a genocide on a scale unprecedented in history.

Now, if anyone seriously thinks that that's an acceptable solution, please feel free to say so. But if not, please shut the fuck up about (over)population - it's a red herring.

I agree: if we are going to address climate change and not also limit the suffering caused by it, and we are going to restrict ourselves only to population control as a means of reducing climate change, then our strategy will fail at its stated goal. However, if that is not the only goal and that is not the only means, then I remain unconvinced that we ought to completely ignore the issue.

It's my hobby horse because it's the most important ethical question that is never asked.

We have the technology to reduce fossil fuel use to a quarter of its current level by 2050 without any population reductions, and without any reductions in total, or in per capita energy consumption. Indeed, we can continue to increase per capita energy consumption as required.

What we don't have is the political will to take the steps needed to make that happen. But surely it should be easier to persuade the world's leaders to tax fossil fuel use, than to persuade them that killing billions of people is a good plan.

I love how when talking about your strategy, it's as simple as taxing fossil fuel use (as if that will magically coerce everyone to adopt nuclear power right away), i.e. the most charitable prediction that can possibly be made, but when considering alternatives (that can happily coexist with changes to our energy sources!) you favor the worst case scenario described in the least charitable possible way. You need to get out of the way of your rhetoric sometimes, bilby. Having the upper hand in an argument on the internet isn't all that important when you consider what we're actually talking about, and what is likely to happen (or fail to happen) in the coming years.

My stance, which I have yet to see refuted, is that the most likely outcome of the next decade will be a failure to prevent a global climate catastrophe from occurring in this century, and the fewer people are born into that world, the better; especially given that reducing birthrates cannot possibly make the climate problem WORSE, and can only help us--in perhaps a small way, but a real way--to maintain a comfortable quality of life when we get around to decreasing our carbon output after it's too late to make a difference.

 

[Jokodo]

...especially given that reducing birthrates cannot possibly make the climate problem WORSE, and can only help us--in perhaps a small way, but a real way--to maintain a comfortable quality of life when we get around to decreasing our carbon output after it's too late to make a difference.

That's not a given.

Old people (disproportionally) vote Trump. Not all, not only, real life is always more complex than four word sentences. But there's a real argument in there: If young people are instinctively less likely to support policies with bad long-term outcomes since they'll be around to experience the consequences (as recent exit polls suggest), than, in a democracy, having at least a minimum share of young voters might act as a safeguard of sorts against those decisions. If we stop having kids tomorrow, we'll stop having young voters in 20 years.

 

[Jokodo]

...especially given that reducing birthrates cannot possibly make the climate problem WORSE, and can only help us--in perhaps a small way, but a real way--to maintain a comfortable quality of life when we get around to decreasing our carbon output after it's too late to make a difference.

That's not a given.

Old people (disproportionally) vote Trump. Not all, not only, real life is always more complex than four word sentences. But there's a real argument in there: If young people are instinctively less likely to support policies with bad long-term outcomes since they'll be around to experience the consequences (as recent exit polls suggest), than, in a democracy, having at least a minimum share of young voters might act as a safeguard of sorts against those decisions. If we stop having kids tomorrow, we'll stop having young voters in 20 years.

In other words, it might very we'll be the case that a population of 6 bn with no reason to worry about the future can do more harm than one of 9, with 3bn who'll live to see the consequences and 4 more who have children and grandchildren who will.

 

[bilby]

OK, I have been doing some digging, and as far as I can tell, the IPCC estimates that to keep the global temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius above that of the late 19th century, global net anthropogenic CO₂ emissions need to drop to about 10 billion tonnes per annum by 2050. The current level of emissions is close to 4 times that - so (if per capita emissions remain the same) we need to reduce population to a quarter of its current level by 2050; That means that our target population is below 2 billion; And as the projected 2050 population is around 10 billion, it implies that approximately 8 billion people need to die between now and 2050, above and beyond the natural death rate, in order for population reduction to be an effective solution to the issue.

Of course, if we halved per capita net emissions in the same time (unlikely), then we would (only) need to kill about six billion people.

The population reductions that could reasonably be achieved by reducing birthrates is tiny - most of the people alive today will still be alive in 2050, so even if we unleashed a virus that caused 100% human sterility within a year, that would make little impact. If we are going to address climate change by population reduction, we need to plan a genocide on a scale unprecedented in history.

Now, if anyone seriously thinks that that's an acceptable solution, please feel free to say so. But if not, please shut the fuck up about (over)population - it's a red herring.

I agree: if we are going to address climate change and not also limit the suffering caused by it, and we are going to restrict ourselves only to population control as a means of reducing climate change, then our strategy will fail at its stated goal. However, if that is not the only goal and that is not the only means, then I remain unconvinced that we ought to completely ignore the issue.

It's my hobby horse because it's the most important ethical question that is never asked.

We have the technology to reduce fossil fuel use to a quarter of its current level by 2050 without any population reductions, and without any reductions in total, or in per capita energy consumption. Indeed, we can continue to increase per capita energy consumption as required.

What we don't have is the political will to take the steps needed to make that happen. But surely it should be easier to persuade the world's leaders to tax fossil fuel use, than to persuade them that killing billions of people is a good plan.

I love how when talking about your strategy, it's as simple as taxing fossil fuel use (as if that will magically coerce everyone to adopt nuclear power right away), i.e. the most charitable prediction that can possibly be made, but when considering alternatives (that can happily coexist with changes to our energy sources!) you favor the worst case scenario described in the least charitable possible way.

But I am not doing that. I assume that if coal, oil, and gas are heavily taxed, fossil fuels will be used far less; But it's unimportant to my argument that they will be - my solution is just as effective if fossil fuels turn out to be so desirable that we keep burning them regardless. Or if some other power generation options become more attractive. My solution allows for the removal from the atmosphere of excess carbon dioxide that is added to it, while simultaneously discouraging adding more. If you can think of a less charitable, but reasonably plausible consequence of my proposal, please do tell.

I have no problem with the continued modest decline in birth rates, nor with eventual significant decline in population; But it's a fact that significant decline in population could only be achieved either by draconian measures, or over several centuries. There is no short term population reduction possible without increasing death rates dramatically. That's not a 'worst case scenario', it's a simple fact.

You need to get out of the way of your rhetoric sometimes, bilby. Having the upper hand in an argument on the internet isn't all that important when you consider what we're actually talking about, and what is likely to happen (or fail to happen) in the coming years.

My stance, which I have yet to see refuted, is that the most likely outcome of the next decade will be a failure to prevent a global climate catastrophe from occurring in this century, and the fewer people are born into that world, the better; especially given that reducing birthrates cannot possibly make the climate problem WORSE, and can only help us--in perhaps a small way, but a real way--to maintain a comfortable quality of life when we get around to decreasing our carbon output after it's too late to make a difference.

Your nihilism is irrefutable. But I don't expect many people to share its basic premises, so it's also irrelevant.

Birth rates are declining and likely will continue to do so; I have no problem with that at all. But they cannot decline fast enough to effect the climate problem, even if extreme coercion were a le to be effectively applied worldwide. So why discuss it at all? If everyone on earth were instantly sterile, population would STILL massively exceed 650 million in 2050.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Not only that, but someday the fossil fuels will run out. At that point we have to shift or go extinct. Thus it really comes down to nothing more than the timing of the shift.

 

[Jokodo]

I agree: if we are going to address climate change and not also limit the suffering caused by it, and we are going to restrict ourselves only to population control as a means of reducing climate change, then our strategy will fail at its stated goal. However, if that is not the only goal and that is not the only means, then I remain unconvinced that we ought to completely ignore the issue.

It's my hobby horse because it's the most important ethical question that is never asked.



I love how when talking about your strategy, it's as simple as taxing fossil fuel use (as if that will magically coerce everyone to adopt nuclear power right away), i.e. the most charitable prediction that can possibly be made, but when considering alternatives (that can happily coexist with changes to our energy sources!) you favor the worst case scenario described in the least charitable possible way.

But I am not doing that. I assume that if coal, oil, and gas are heavily taxed, fossil fuels will be used far less; But it's unimportant to my argument that they will be - my solution is just as effective if fossil fuels turn out to be so desirable that we keep burning them regardless. Or if some other power generation options become more attractive. My solution allows for the removal from the atmosphere of excess carbon dioxide that is added to it, while simultaneously discouraging adding more. If you can think of a less charitable, but reasonably plausible consequence of my proposal, please do tell.

I have no problem with the continued modest decline in birth rates, nor with eventual significant decline in population; But it's a fact that significant decline in population could only be achieved either by draconian measures, or over several centuries. There is no short term population reduction possible without increasing death rates dramatically. That's not a 'worst case scenario', it's a simple fact.

You need to get out of the way of your rhetoric sometimes, bilby. Having the upper hand in an argument on the internet isn't all that important when you consider what we're actually talking about, and what is likely to happen (or fail to happen) in the coming years.

My stance, which I have yet to see refuted, is that the most likely outcome of the next decade will be a failure to prevent a global climate catastrophe from occurring in this century, and the fewer people are born into that world, the better; especially given that reducing birthrates cannot possibly make the climate problem WORSE, and can only help us--in perhaps a small way, but a real way--to maintain a comfortable quality of life when we get around to decreasing our carbon output after it's too late to make a difference.

Your nihilism is irrefutable. But I don't expect many people to share its basic premises, so it's also irrelevant.

Birth rates are declining and likely will continue to do so; I have no problem with that at all. But they cannot decline fast enough to effect the climate problem, even if extreme coercion were a le to be effectively applied worldwide. So why discuss it at all? If everyone on earth were instantly sterile, population would STILL massively exceed 650 million in 2050.

It might very well exceed 6 billion.

In a stable population of 7 billion with a life expectancy of 70 years, we'd expect around 100 million to die each year, which would bring us from 7.6 billion to 4.4 billion in the 32 years hence. But we don't have a stable population, we have a population that's just coming out of a massive burst peaking in the third quarter of the 20th century. There aren't going to die 100 million 70-year olds each year from now to 2050, not because 70-year-olds don't die (they do - globally, the life expectancy is still only 70 for males 74 for females), but because they were never born.

A few specific, and fairly realistic, though made up, figures to illustrate this: In a hypothetical country, let's call it Borogravia for no reason at all, 1 million people were born in 1940, 2 million in 1960, 4 million in 1980, 4 million again in 2000, and 3.5 million will be born this year. The casual observer will notice that the number of birth's is already in decline, but the population is still growing considerably - there simply aren't enough old people dying make up for 3.5 million births - the people dying now are, in a rough approximation, the people born in 1940, of which there never where anywhere close to that number.

 

[skepticalbip]

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

But there are, so you aren't.

Not only that, but someday the fossil fuels will run out. At that point we have to shift or go extinct. Thus it really comes down to nothing more than the timing of the shift.

I don't see any way that fossil fuels will "run out". Like any other limited commodity, as the available supply decreases, price will increase until alternative energy sources are less expensive than fossil fuels and will become the primary energy source.

 

[PyramidHead]

...especially given that reducing birthrates cannot possibly make the climate problem WORSE, and can only help us--in perhaps a small way, but a real way--to maintain a comfortable quality of life when we get around to decreasing our carbon output after it's too late to make a difference.

That's not a given.

Old people (disproportionally) vote Trump. Not all, not only, real life is always more complex than four word sentences. But there's a real argument in there: If young people are instinctively less likely to support policies with bad long-term outcomes since they'll be around to experience the consequences (as recent exit polls suggest), than, in a democracy, having at least a minimum share of young voters might act as a safeguard of sorts against those decisions. If we stop having kids tomorrow, we'll stop having young voters in 20 years.

If we stop having kids tomorrow, there will no longer be a problem posed by climate change, so that's not really a good example scenario. It doesn't make sense to keep generating a population of young voters just so they can preserve the environment for future young voters who must also preserve the environment.

And I don't want to downplay the other aspect of this idea, which is that it's deeply manipulative and cruel. From nothing, we intentionally generate a population of beings who played no hand in the mess they will inherit, and justify it by saying our cohort is simply too old and short-sighted to enact the policies that would have prevented that mess. It treats humans as tools and places them in a Ponzi scheme.

In other words, it might very we'll be the case that a population of 6 bn with no reason to worry about the future can do more harm than one of 9, with 3bn who'll live to see the consequences and 4 more who have children and grandchildren who will.

We can speculate until the cows come home about the relative risks. I just want the presence of future generations who will bear the brunt of climate change to be viewed as an important factor in our decision-making, as something under our control even if it may be hard to control, and not just a variable in the equation of carbon emissions. If we are already thinking up example scenarios where the population is dramatically reduced due to voluntary abstention from reproduction, it's likely that at such a point even the senior citizens would have realized the gravity of the situation.

In summary, if it is unethical to place someone in the path of an oncoming train, it does not become ethical if you intend to use them alongside many other such people as a way of stopping the train.

 

[PyramidHead]

I agree: if we are going to address climate change and not also limit the suffering caused by it, and we are going to restrict ourselves only to population control as a means of reducing climate change, then our strategy will fail at its stated goal. However, if that is not the only goal and that is not the only means, then I remain unconvinced that we ought to completely ignore the issue.

It's my hobby horse because it's the most important ethical question that is never asked.



I love how when talking about your strategy, it's as simple as taxing fossil fuel use (as if that will magically coerce everyone to adopt nuclear power right away), i.e. the most charitable prediction that can possibly be made, but when considering alternatives (that can happily coexist with changes to our energy sources!) you favor the worst case scenario described in the least charitable possible way.

But I am not doing that. I assume that if coal, oil, and gas are heavily taxed, fossil fuels will be used far less; But it's unimportant to my argument that they will be - my solution is just as effective if fossil fuels turn out to be so desirable that we keep burning them regardless. Or if some other power generation options become more attractive. My solution allows for the removal from the atmosphere of excess carbon dioxide that is added to it, while simultaneously discouraging adding more. If you can think of a less charitable, but reasonably plausible consequence of my proposal, please do tell.

I have no idea what your proposal is or what it entails, so I can't say.

Your nihilism is irrefutable. But I don't expect many people to share its basic premises, so it's also irrelevant.

I feel like people have a responsibility to share uncomfortable truths that are not likely to be accepted by others, often incessantly and to the point of being accused of hobby-horsing. I have amassed a bit of experience in that arena over the past few years. Almost without fail, the word "nihilism" appears as a glib label for the diametrically non-nihilistic view I hold that we have a real ethical responsibility towards those we have yet to create, and it hinges crucially on our decision to create them. I advance the position, and will continue to monotonously do so whether it's relevant or not, that future people should be regarded as victims of climate change first, prior to any strategic calculation of how much additional climate change they will cause or prevent with their vehicles or their votes.

 

[Jokodo]

If we stop having kids tomorrow, there will no longer be a problem posed by climate change, so that's not really a good example scenario. It doesn't make sense to keep generating a population of young voters just so they can preserve the environment for future young voters who must also preserve the environment.

And I don't want to downplay the other aspect of this idea, which is that it's deeply manipulative and cruel. From nothing, we intentionally generate a population of beings who played no hand in the mess they will inherit, and justify it by saying our cohort is simply too old and short-sighted to enact the policies that would have prevented that mess. It treats humans as tools and places them in a Ponzi scheme.

In other words, it might very we'll be the case that a population of 6 bn with no reason to worry about the future can do more harm than one of 9, with 3bn who'll live to see the consequences and 4 more who have children and grandchildren who will.

We can speculate until the cows come home about the relative risks. I just want the presence of future generations who will bear the brunt of climate change to be viewed as an important factor in our decision-making, as something under our control even if it may be hard to control, and not just a variable in the equation of carbon emissions. If we are already thinking up example scenarios where the population is dramatically reduced due to voluntary abstention from reproduction, it's likely that at such a point even the senior citizens would have realized the gravity of the situation.

In summary, if it is unethical to place someone in the path of an oncoming train, it does not become ethical if you intend to use them alongside many other such people as a way of stopping the train.

That depends - if there's already a bunch of people on the tracks (as even you admit it's unlikely births will go down to actual zero), and if the train and tracks are equipped with an automatic brakes system triggered by weight, but misadjusted to only set off at a ton or more, adding more people in the train's path so as to trigger the brakes can be most ethical course of action.