Fair dinkum thinkum
- Mar 7, 2007
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
That has nothing to do with carbon dioxideI have said that one billion humans will produce as much CO2 ceteris paribus as eight billion, given eight times as long, and that therefore such drastic population reduction would simply kick the climate change can down the road - if the current population faces disaster in 25 years, the lower one would face the same disaster in 200 years, unless they stop burning fossil fuel. And if we can power civilisation without burning fossil fuel, then the population reduction becomes needless.
All arguments for anything can be made to seem ridiculous if you strip away the nuances, to leave only the straw.
But ceteris isn't paribas, is it? Has it really not occurred to you that present dams will deliver (more than) eight times their current power per capita, if the population were eight times smaller?
Still has nothing to do with carbon dioxideAnd do you hate the concept of renewability so much that you think 1/8 the present population will deplete aquifers just as much proportionally as now?
That’s not only my position, it’s also the first law of thermodynamics"Diminishing returns" is another concept you may want to read up on to correct your misconceptions on this topic. Also, I've taken the liberty of reddening one of your sentences. Is it really your opinion that fossil fuels (and helium!) are the ONLY scarce resources in the world?
Only for a bizarre definition of ‘scarce’ that doesn’t account for the existence of fertile isotopes, and presumes that U235 is the only fissile one.(In fact, naturally occurring U235 is also scarce!)
Unfortunately, your desire to ignore an argument isn’t evidence that it’s wrong.Finally, here's a pro-tip. When defending over-population, avoid the meme "Disproved in the 1960's! Ha ha ha." That meme gets filed under Arguments Too Fatuous to Bother Answering and leads people to ignore the rest of your post.
That’s just a stupid(er) version of the argument from popularity.ETA: I like to attack overly glib arguments wherever I see them. If the consensus here were pro-renewable and anti-nuke, I'd be taking the pro-nuke side!
I am not even sure why you are derailing this current discussion to discuss something we already did elsewhere; If you want to continue that conversation, I am happy to refute your strawmen to whatever degree of detail you need in the appropriate place.