Population

[DBT]

It is an unfortunate reality but for people driven by their particular ideology, "keeping people informed" means "make people accept and believe what I believe".

Not necessarily. Not if the issues raised are well supported by evidence; ecosystems, habitat loss, water, etc. Not to mention sheer congestion because people prefer or need to live in a city for work, lifestyle.....

If they were, we wouldn't be having this conversation. At least, not with me. I've yet to see any concrete evidence to support the notion that the past two centuries of various population control mechanisms have actually reduced the most significant ecological stressors in any meaningful way.

Barring fluctuations, population numbers have been going up over that period, not down. Which are now stabilizing in developed nations, with some experiencing decline.

Nor are ecological problems only about population numbers, consumption rate being huge factor. Especially western style consumerism/throw away culture.

 

[DBT]

You just presented a good example of my post.

How so? Is presenting science based information a case of ideology or pushing a belief?

Calling something "science based" does not make it science. And, even if you are talking about some particular scientific finding, science does not make value judgements of "good" or "bad" much less personal preferences. Even at that, I would question the "science" you are claiming support some of items in your list.

Are you saying that there are no scientific studies to support that human activity has stressed ecosystems or destroyed habitat?

 

[Politesse]

Barring fluctuations, population numbers have been going up over that period, not down. Which are now stabilizing in developed nations, with some experiencing decline.

And yet, various institutional attempts to control population have most certainly been enacted. Hundreds. So where is your evidence that they were beneficial?

 

[Politesse]

Nor are ecological problems only about population numbers, consumption rate being huge factor. Especially western style consumerism/throw away culture.

Those aren't the factors I'm challenging the scientific legitimacy of. I happily acknowledge the disastrous role of consumerism, and think that taking substantive measures to curb it would do a lot more to forestall ecological disaster than bleating about there being too many children in rural West Africa or wherever the eugenicist sights are aimed at these days. Interestingly, rampant consumerism is most common and at greatest scale in places that are also characterized by widespread access to family planning services and generally smaller family sizes. Is that what your hypothesis would predict?

 

[skepticalbip]

Calling something "science based" does not make it science. And, even if you are talking about some particular scientific finding, science does not make value judgements of "good" or "bad" much less personal preferences. Even at that, I would question the "science" you are claiming support some of items in your list.

Are you saying that there are no scientific studies to support that human activity has stressed ecosystems or destroyed habitat?

Of course there are such studies. There are also studies that show that such stress and destructions are decreasing... there is more forest acreage in the U.S. now than there was a hundred years ago. There are also studies that show gorilla communities destroy habitat... gorillas were placed on an island off the Georgia coast as a breeding experiment but had to be removed because of the destruction of the habitat. All creatures effect the environment they inhabit.

None of this speaks to if it is "good" or "bad" or "what we 'should' do about it". That "should" comes from ones personal ideology.

 

[DBT]

Calling something "science based" does not make it science. And, even if you are talking about some particular scientific finding, science does not make value judgements of "good" or "bad" much less personal preferences. Even at that, I would question the "science" you are claiming support some of items in your list.

Are you saying that there are no scientific studies to support that human activity has stressed ecosystems or destroyed habitat?

Of course there are such studies. There are also studies that show that such stress and destructions are decreasing... there is more forest acreage in the U.S. now than there was a hundred years ago. There are also studies that show gorilla communities destroy habitat... gorillas were placed on an island off the Georgia coast as a breeding experiment but had to be removed because of the destruction of the habitat.

None of this speaks to if it is "good" or "bad" or what "we 'should' do about it".

'Decreasing' is a far cry from 'all problems solved' - in some regions the environmental problems are increasing.

 

[skepticalbip]

Of course there are such studies. There are also studies that show that such stress and destructions are decreasing... there is more forest acreage in the U.S. now than there was a hundred years ago. There are also studies that show gorilla communities destroy habitat... gorillas were placed on an island off the Georgia coast as a breeding experiment but had to be removed because of the destruction of the habitat.

None of this speaks to if it is "good" or "bad" or what "we 'should' do about it".

'Decreasing' is a far cry from 'all problems solved' - in some regions the environmental problems are increasing.

Again, the idea of "problem" is not a scientific evaluation but a matter of personal preference or ideological position. All species on the planet have impact on the environment they inhabit. Yours seems to be a misanthrope's view where only human's impact matters and is "bad" and all other species' impact is "natural". I guess the question would be, what level of environmental impact from humans would you find acceptable. If the answer is none then that can only be achieved by eliminating humanity entirely.

 

[DBT]

Of course there are such studies. There are also studies that show that such stress and destructions are decreasing... there is more forest acreage in the U.S. now than there was a hundred years ago. There are also studies that show gorilla communities destroy habitat... gorillas were placed on an island off the Georgia coast as a breeding experiment but had to be removed because of the destruction of the habitat.

None of this speaks to if it is "good" or "bad" or what "we 'should' do about it".

'Decreasing' is a far cry from 'all problems solved' - in some regions the environmental problems are increasing.

Again, the idea of "problem" is not a scientific evaluation but a matter of personal preference or ideological position. All species on the planet have impact on the environment they inhabit. Yours seems to be a misanthrope's view where only human's impact matters and is "bad" and all other species' impact is "natural". I guess the question would be, what level of environmental impact from humans would you find acceptable. If the answer is none then that can only be achieved by eliminating humanity entirely.

Isn't the impact of human activity determined by the effect it has on the environment?

For instance:The Anthropocene equation

Abstract
''The dominant external forces influencing the rate of change of the Earth System have been astronomical and geophysical during the planet’s 4.5-billion-year existence. In the last six decades, anthropogenic forcings have driven exceptionally rapid rates of change in the Earth System. This new regime can be represented by an ‘Anthropocene equation’, where other forcings tend to zero, and the rate of change under human influence can be estimated.''

 

[Swammerdami]

... There are also studies that show gorilla communities destroy habitat... gorillas were placed on an island off the Georgia coast as a breeding experiment but had to be removed because of the destruction of the habitat.

So a small population of one particular species of great ape leads to habitat destruction ... and this is an argument FOR the view that concern about over-population is misplaced? There is another species of great ape whose population is many millions times that of gorilla, but because a tiny number of gorillas destroys habitat, the huger number of humans does NOT? What a joke!

And, addressing others who ridicule those concerned about over-population: Many people talk about cosmology's dark matter problem, but few if any have a solution. Does this mean they should not be allowed to discuss the problem? That is what posters here imply, if over-population cannot be discussed without a solution handy.

Many countries with high population growth rates lack easy access to birth control methods. Simply improving such access might help, at least a little. Yet those who worry about over-population are accused here of planning genocide! Please. Give us a break.

The next time someone in this thread accuses me of advocating genocide I will call them a misogynist right-winger who believes life begins at sexual intercourse and thinks women should be imprisoned for ovicide if they permit their lover to wear a condom.

 

[Politesse]

Many countries with high population growth rates lack easy access to birth control methods. Simply improving such access might help, at least a little. Yet those who worry about over-population are accused here of planning genocide! Please. Give us a break.

I've stated repeatedly that I do not oppose access to birth control, or family planning in general.

You're still peddling pseudoscience that has been used to justify genocidal acts, even if you don't personally advocate for genocide. Most people don't admit to approving of genocide, though in truth they are about as vigorous in their efforts to prevent it as they are in preventing ecological collapse, that is, not much beyond the superficial.

 

[Swammerdami]

You're still peddling pseudoscience that has been used to justify genocidal acts, even if you don't personally advocate for genocide.

Pseudoscience? Climate change is fake news? Aquifer depletion is caused by Jewish space lasers? Destruction of coral reefs is a left-wing myth? The plastic debris killing sea-life is actually a new high-quality food source falling like manna from heaven? Got it.

And you didn't answer my question. If mentioning over-population is off-limits in the absence of any obvious solution, are we allowed to mention dark matter in the science threads?

And BTW, WHO exactly is pushing for genocide?

Since you INSIST on linking me to genocide, despite my denial, I herewith declare that you are a misogynist right-winger who believes life begins at sexual intercourse and thinks women should be imprisoned for ovicide if they permit their lover to wear a condom. (Or, to cutely mince words, you are pushing that "pseudoscience" even if not obviously advocating it.)

 

[Politesse]

Pseudoscience? Climate change is fake news? Aquifer depletion is caused by Jewish space lasers? Destruction of coral reefs is a left-wing myth? The plastic debris killing sea-life is actually a new high-quality food source falling like manna from heaven? Got it.

No, the idea that "over-population" is the primary cause of those phenomena, and by connection, that reducing population would solve them.

And you didn't answer my question. If mentioning over-population is off-limits in the absence of any obvious solution, are we allowed to mention dark matter in the science threads?

If you mention dark matter in a science thread, I most certainly hope you would be prepared to discuss the evidence for or against its existence. If for some reason there were serious sociopolitical consequences attached to the belief in dark matter, I would consider those questions fair game also.

 

[Swammerdami]

I read an on-line pdf of the Anthropocene Equation paper DBT cites. We find:

Anthropocene may mark the beginning of a third stage in the evolution of Earth’s biosphere, following the microbial stage from ~3.5 Ga BP and the metazoan from ~650 Ma (Williams et al., 2015).

This looks almost like hyperbole to me! Still I think most of us will agree that human actions are causing climate to worsen.

BTW, a simple Google (or rather DuckDuckGo -- I'm switching!) search turned up a paper critical of Gaffney-Steffen's paper, but it just finds the mathematics non-rigorous, while still agreeing with its conclusions.


How does human over-population relate to climate change? I ask TFTers to answer the following multiple-choice question:

I. If the human population were 1 billion instead of 10 billion, would less CO₂ be emitted into the atmosphere?
. . . A. Yes.
. . . B. No. As someone in the thread has apparently claimed, with a smaller number of people, 90% of hydroelectric plants would be decommissioned in order that carbon fuel burning could continue at a high rate.

 

[bilby]

I read an on-line pdf of the Anthropocene Equation paper DBT cites. We find:

Anthropocene may mark the beginning of a third stage in the evolution of Earth’s biosphere, following the microbial stage from ~3.5 Ga BP and the metazoan from ~650 Ma (Williams et al., 2015).

This looks almost like hyperbole to me! Still I think most of us will agree that human actions are causing climate to worsen.

BTW, a simple Google (or rather DuckDuckGo -- I'm switching!) search turned up a paper critical of Gaffney-Steffen's paper, but it just finds the mathematics non-rigorous, while still agreeing with its conclusions.


How does human over-population relate to climate change? I ask TFTers to answer the following multiple-choice question:

I. If the human population were 1 billion instead of 10 billion, would less CO₂ be emitted into the atmosphere?
. . . A. Yes.
. . . B. No. As someone in the thread has apparently claimed, with a smaller number of people, 90% of hydroelectric plants would be decommissioned in order that carbon fuel burning could continue at a high rate.

We are adding Carbon Dioxide at vastly greater rates than can be removed by the various 'sinks', and would still be exceeding that rate of removal with only 10% of our current emissions. And most of that is added by wealthy people. Removing the poorest 90% of humanity would have almost no impact on carbon emissions.

And if we are facing disaster in 2 decades, how does kicking the can down the road to make that 2 centuries solve anything? We will still need a solution.

The correlation between population and fossil fuel consumption would be very weak in a world of increasing wealth and declining population. Population reductions are simply not an adequate solution to the problem. The climate change problem isn't solvable via population reductions absent genocidal measures.

And it doesn't matter anyway. Population declines automatically if you give girls at least a primary education, and you give women access to safe and effective contraception that is under their control, rather than that of their partners.

The places where population growth remains a reality are places that prohibit or inhibit these two things; And their common thread isn't some innate desire for large families - it's religious interference in the education of girls, and/or the availability of contraception to women who want it.

There's no population problem. There's a Christian and Muslim domination of political power problem.

Where the religious authorities can't deprive women of either education or contraception (or both), even highly devout Catholic and Islamic societies have lower than replacement birth rates.

 

[Politesse]

How does human over-population relate to climate change? I ask TFTers to answer the following multiple-choice question:

So your "evidence" is a hypothetical opinion poll?

I also find it very telling that in your hypothetical example there is such a severe differential between your two projections of the human population. A global population of 1 billion is not something that could be reasonably accomplished by the methods you admit to endorsing, at least not soon enough to combat any of the ecological challenges you describe even if population and carbon usage reliably correlated in the way you imply.

 

[skepticalbip]

Again, the idea of "problem" is not a scientific evaluation but a matter of personal preference or ideological position. All species on the planet have impact on the environment they inhabit. Yours seems to be a misanthrope's view where only human's impact matters and is "bad" and all other species' impact is "natural". I guess the question would be, what level of environmental impact from humans would you find acceptable. If the answer is none then that can only be achieved by eliminating humanity entirely.

Isn't the impact of human activity determined by the effect it has on the environment?

For instance:The Anthropocene equation

Abstract
''The dominant external forces influencing the rate of change of the Earth System have been astronomical and geophysical during the planet’s 4.5-billion-year existence. In the last six decades, anthropogenic forcings have driven exceptionally rapid rates of change in the Earth System. This new regime can be represented by an ‘Anthropocene equation’, where other forcings tend to zero, and the rate of change under human influence can be estimated.''

I'm not able to get to the paper but the abstract strikes me as quite hyperbolic. If you are familiar with reading journal papers, you are aware that it is not uncommon to find two papers in the same journal that contradict each other. It is almost a certainty if you read three journals to find papers that contradict each other. I once joined the American Association of Physics Teachers for the sole purpose of having access to their journal... a big mistake. It turned out that the "peer review" of the journal was, at best, a checking of the spelling, not even a check of the math, and certainly not an evaluation of content.

 

[DBT]

Again, the idea of "problem" is not a scientific evaluation but a matter of personal preference or ideological position. All species on the planet have impact on the environment they inhabit. Yours seems to be a misanthrope's view where only human's impact matters and is "bad" and all other species' impact is "natural". I guess the question would be, what level of environmental impact from humans would you find acceptable. If the answer is none then that can only be achieved by eliminating humanity entirely.

Isn't the impact of human activity determined by the effect it has on the environment?

For instance:The Anthropocene equation

Abstract
''The dominant external forces influencing the rate of change of the Earth System have been astronomical and geophysical during the planet’s 4.5-billion-year existence. In the last six decades, anthropogenic forcings have driven exceptionally rapid rates of change in the Earth System. This new regime can be represented by an ‘Anthropocene equation’, where other forcings tend to zero, and the rate of change under human influence can be estimated.''

I'm not able to get to the paper but the abstract strikes me as quite hyperbolic. If you are familiar with reading journal papers, you are aware that it is not uncommon to find two papers in the same journal that contradict each other. It is almost a certainty if you read three journals to find papers that contradict each other. I once joined the American Association of Physics Teachers for the sole purpose of having access to their journal... a big mistake. It turned out that the "peer review" of the journal was, at best, a checking of the spelling, not even a check of the math, and certainly not an evaluation of content.

There may be an element of hyperbole in the abstract, but that doesn't exclude a foundation research and evidence. The site gives links to numerous studies.

 

[Swammerdami]

I'm not able to get to the paper ...

Which is why I posted a link to the paper. But never mind; I'm used to being ignored. (And my advice is to waste no time reading the paper.)

 

[Swammerdami]

How does human over-population relate to climate change? I ask TFTers to answer the following multiple-choice question:

So your "evidence" is a hypothetical opinion poll?

If you thought the question was intended as "evidence" then you're even more confused than I already thought you were. It was sarcasm directed against an astoundingly preposterous claim earlier in the thread.

I also find it very telling that in your hypothetical example there is such a severe differential between your two projections of the human population.

It was a hypothetical introduced earlier in the thread, cf preposterous.

But at this point I'm afraid I must choose between abandoning this "thread" or just asking for a 30-day suspension!

 

[Politesse]

If you thought the question was intended as "evidence" then you're even more confused than I already thought you were. It was sarcasm directed against an astoundingly preposterous claim earlier in the thread.

I also find it very telling that in your hypothetical example there is such a severe differential between your two projections of the human population.

It was a hypothetical introduced earlier in the thread, cf preposterous.

But at this point I'm afraid I must choose between abandoning this "thread" or just asking for a 30-day suspension!

The measure of pseudoscience is not whether it is popular, or risible, but whether it is consistently supported by empirical observation. You and the others have been repeatedly invited to demonstrate by this standard that your hypothesis holds water. If all you can produce is sarcasm, then it seems to me that bowing out is a tacit admission that there is no such evidence to be found. Yet you are peddling this dangerous ideology anyway. Why?