We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[bilby]

This reminds me of a comment I made four years ago* to another member here, in a completely different context.

I remain convinced that the proportion of images and video, rather than text, used in an argument, is a strong indicator of the proprtion of emotion, rather than reason, that went into the establishment of the poster's position.

Your repeaded use of often cartoonish images, always designed to invoke an emotional response, further illustrates that you are not reaching your conclusions via rational thought, but rather via allowing your emotions to override your reasoning.

* Clearly my skills in the ancient art of Thai-Po were already well advanced; Obviously that should read "Your repeated..."

 

[Elixir]

This reminds me of a comment I made five years ago to another member here, in a completely different context.

I remain convinced that the proportion of images and video, rather than text, used in an argument, is a strong indicator of the proprtion of emotion, rather than reason, that went into the establishment of the poster's position.

Your repeaded use of often cartoonish images, always designed to invoke an emotional response, further illustrates that you are not reaching your conclusions via rational thought, but rather via allowing your emotions to override your reasoning.

To think - that was before the AI revolution, and now, we have text-to-image. So now your image can show exactly whatever impossible thing you’re trying to convey. And yet, it’s an image, so it must be real on some level of our chimp brains.

We are prob’ly screwed.

 

[DBT]

For a number of reasons, screwed we are.

 

[Merle]

For a number of reasons, screwed we are.

Sadly, yes. Screwed.

 

[steve_bank]

Ask your AI buddy what should be done....

 

[Merle]

This reminds me of a comment I made four years ago* to another member here, in a completely different context.

I remain convinced that the proportion of images and video, rather than text, used in an argument, is a strong indicator of the proprtion of emotion, rather than reason, that went into the establishment of the poster's position.

Your repeaded use of often cartoonish images, always designed to invoke an emotional response, further illustrates that you are not reaching your conclusions via rational thought, but rather via allowing your emotions to override your reasoning.

LOL, the pictures certainly were not intended to substitute emotions for reasoning. As you know, I am pushing for the argument to be based on science and reason.

I do enjoy seeing what ChatGPT draws. I asked it to draw a nuclear reactor construction site being hindered by government regulators, which is the point you keep making. I thought ChatGPT did a great job of illustrating the concept so I shared it here.

In response, I was asked to draw a reactor made of straw. I tried it, and to my surprise, ChatGPT responded with a drawing of a reactor made of straw. If you are upset that I did that, please complain to the person that asked for it.

And the third picture, uh, the devil made me do it. The first two pictures reminded me of your previous comments on nuclear reactor construction, so I asked ChatGPT to draw something based on your comments. It was there strictly for humor. After I posted it, I decided to take it down, for fear people might be offended. But it was too late. If people are offended at my sense of humor, I will ask the forum to remove it.

Either I have a bad sense of humor, or some people here are just humor-challenged.

 

[Merle]

Ask your AI buddy what should be done....

LOL, Should I respond to this, or should I worry that humor-challenged people will complain?

Decisions, decisions.

What the heck, this is what ChatGPT drew when I asked for, "The world of the future in which our energy problems have been solved." It drew:


Apparently it likes wind, solar and sailboats, and some sort of spherical something. Perhaps it is fusion.

For the pessimists, I asked it to draw, "the world of the future in which our energy problems have not been solved." It drew, coal, coal, coal, internal combustion engines, and two-bladed windmills.

 

[Merle]

Great, we agree that we cannot simply say that we want nuclear power to work, therefore it will work

We can't simply say that we want gravity to work, therefore it will work.

We CAN however say, of both nuclear power and gravity, that they DO work.

Provided, of course, we can afford them. https://apnews.com/article/georgia-...-rates-costs-75c7a413cda3935dd551be9115e88a64

 

[Merle]

If you agree that it is possible we will be forced to live at significantly lower consumption levels, can you agree that it is ok to ask what we should do if people in the near future will be faced with that problem?

No, it's not. We will not be FORCED to live at significantly lower consumption levels; We may CHOOSE that path, but to do so would be nuts.

"We have a solution, but don't want to implement it, so what else can we do to solve this already solved problem?" is a question with only one reasonable response - Why the fuck don't we implement the solution we have, instead of fucking about??

OK, so you declare that it is impossible that we will find that nuclear power is insufficient to meet most of our energy needs in the coming centuries. Many people have presented strong arguments that nuclear power will not be sufficient. How is it that you know that you are right and they are wrong?

And if you don't know this with absolute certainty, why is it wrong to ask the question of what we should do if no means of energy is sufficient?

 

[Merle]

But we cannot simply say, "We need nuclear power to save us. We want nuclear power to save us. Therefore nuclear power will save us." That is a religious statement, not a scientific statement.

Then it's a good thing that literally nobody in this thread - except you - has said anything of the sort.

I’ll say it - nuclear power could save us.
From the world that will come without it. Which I opine, will be worse by any metric I’d want to use, than the future world of full utilization of nuclear energy (even at current tech levels).

Yes, we all agree that nuclear power could save us.

In context, there are people here that imply that it is so certain that nuclear power will save us, that the question of what we would do if it doesn't save us is a nonsensical question.

Do you agree with me that it is legitimate to ask what we would do if any power source combination is insufficient to maintain a level of consumption anywhere close to our current consumption 100 years from now?

 

[Merle]

I simply cannot understand how people can attack a well-respected science organization without first taking the time to hear what they say.

What on Earth makes you think that I haven't taken the time to hear what they say?

Because your posts misrepresents the Global Footprint Network. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed it was a mistake. I assumed , that you misrepresented what they said because you hadn't read what they said.

Are you saying I should not have given you the benefit of the doubt?

I am saying that my posts do not misrepresent the Global Footprint Network.

My failure to match your sycophancy towards an organisation who are, at best, well meaning, but who advocate for stupid policy based on a deeply flawed approach to problem solving is NOT evidence that I misunderstand, or that I am unaware of, their message.

I disagree with them. With good reasons. I don't misunderstand them; I understand them, and they are wrong. For the reasons I have already given.

No, you disagree with a false caricature of the Global Footprint Network.

The Global Footprint Network advocates technical solutions to our problems, and also mentions affluence and population solutions. It encourages countries to find technical solutions to lower their overall footprint.

 

[Elixir]

Do you agree with me that it is legitimate to ask what we would do if any power source combination is insufficient to maintain a level of consumption anywhere close to our current consumption 100 years from now?

Legitimate to ask? Why wouldn’t it be legitimate to ask?
What we will do (we’re not going to be able to maintain today’s level of per capita energy consumption for another 100 years) depends largely on the political landscape.

What will “we” do? Maybe “we” will watch the entire 3rd World starve, maybe we’ll get in a big fight and exterminate some first world consumers. Maybe we will move into a more egalitarian mode, obviating the whole problem through modification of our collective behavior.
We should start with the end in mind, then do that which moves us closer to that end. What end do you have in mind?

 

[Merle]

Do you agree with me that it is legitimate to ask what we would do if any power source combination is insufficient to maintain a level of consumption anywhere close to our current consumption 100 years from now?

Legitimate to ask? Why wouldn’t it be legitimate to ask?
What we will do (we’re not going to be able to maintain today’s level of per capita energy consumption for another 100 years) depends largely on the political landscape.

What will “we” do? Maybe “we” will watch the entire 3rd World starve, maybe we’ll get in a big fight and exterminate some first world consumers. Maybe we will move into a more egalitarian mode, obviating the whole problem through modification of our collective behavior.
We should start with the end in mind, then do that which moves us closer to that end. What end do you have in mind?

This is the ongoing argument we have been having here.

I have been saying that energy solutions might not be sufficient that we can maintain anything close to our current level of consumption. That would mean we had two choices: lower our average level of consumption per person, or reduce the number of people. I have been asking which option people think is better.

I have been told repeatedly that this is an illegitimate question, that it is like asking someone if he stopped beating his wife yet.

But you and I agree it is a legitimate question: If limited future energy availability severely limits future total consumption, would it be better to reduce average consumption per capita, or to reduce the number of people?

And no, "reducing average consumption" does not mean whipping people in the streets if they spend too much, and "reducing the number of people" does not mean a forced eugenics program. We could reduce population with a century-long voluntary effort of limited births.

 

[steve_bank]

A power text I read in the 80s stated that at the current level back then of energy usage we have enough uranium for about 700 years.

Consumption increases. sales and marketing professionals are paid to develop new markets for new and existing products.

I doubt there are many places in the world where the Nike brand symbol is not known. Coke and Pepsi. McDonald's. Ford and Toyota.

 

[Merle]

A power text I read in the 80s stated that at the current level back then of energy usage we have enough uranium for about 700 years.

Consumption increases. sales and marketing professionals are paid to develop new markets for new and existing products.

I doubt there are many places in the world where the Nike brand symbol is not known. Coke and Pepsi. McDonald's. Ford and Toyota.

Would it be economical to use that dispersed uranium to make electricity for the masses?

The richest people might be able to afford such energy. Could you and I afford it?

 

[Elixir]

I have been saying that energy solutions might not be sufficient that we can maintain anything close to our current level of consumption.

I agree. They might not be sufficient. IF we were wise about the development and deployment of the nuclear potential, that might not be the case. But it ain't happening.

lower our average level of consumption per person, or reduce the number of people. I have been asking which option people think is better.

Obviously the answer to that is highly dependent on other variables.
HOW are we going to lower per capita energy consumption? By letting people freeze in the winter? By reducing global travel? By building more energy-efficient structures?
HOW are we going to lower population level? War? Plagues? Mandatory birth control? Organic decline in reproduction rates as an outgrowth of rising global consciousness and women's availability of birth control options?

I'll take the last option in both cases - assuming that we actually have those options, which I doubt very much.

 

[Merle]

lower our average level of consumption per person, or reduce the number of people. I have been asking which option people think is better.

Obviously the answer to that is highly dependent on other variables.
HOW are we going to lower per capita energy consumption? By letting people freeze in the winter? By reducing global travel? By building more energy-efficient structures?
HOW are we going to lower population level? War? Plagues? Mandatory birth control? Organic decline in reproduction rates as an outgrowth of rising global consciousness and women's availability of birth control options?

I'll take the last option in both cases - assuming that we actually have those options, which I doubt very much.

 

[Merle]

lower our average level of consumption per person, or reduce the number of people. I have been asking which option people think is better.

Obviously the answer to that is highly dependent on other variables.
HOW are we going to lower per capita energy consumption? By letting people freeze in the winter? By reducing global travel? By building more energy-efficient structures?
HOW are we going to lower population level? War? Plagues? Mandatory birth control? Organic decline in reproduction rates as an outgrowth of rising global consciousness and women's availability of birth control options?

I'll take the last option in both cases - assuming that we actually have those options, which I doubt very much.

If "building more energy-efficient structures" solved our problems, we would all like that option.

Regarding how to go about population reduction, I gave you 12 suggestions.

 

[Elixir]

Regarding how to go about population reduction, I gave you 12 suggestions.

What in the world gave you the impression that I had the concentration span to wade through 12 suggestions - even if I could find them?
How about I go with whichever one is closest to "organic decline in reproduction rates as an outgrowth of rising global consciousness and women's availability of birth control options"?

 

[Merle]

Regarding how to go about population reduction, I gave you 12 suggestions.

What in the world gave you the impression that I had the concentration span to wade through 12 suggestions - even if I could find them?

My original 10 that went up to 11 were at https://iidb.org/threads/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what.27921/page-35#post-1159149 .
You responded to them, so I guess you had time to read them. #12 is "Empower and educate women".

How about I go with whichever one is closest to "organic decline in reproduction rates as an outgrowth of rising global consciousness and women's availability of birth control options"?

OK, let's go with that. Let's rephrase our question:

If we had to reduce our consumption quite significantly a century from now, would it be better to cut our consumption per capita, or to have an "organic decline in reproduction rates as an outgrowth of rising global consciousness and women's availability of birth control options" such that we had a significantly reduced population?