• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

We are overloading the planet: Now What?

Yup--I find the green approach counterproductive. It's betting it all (taking that route will really clobber research as scientific budgets are highly related to the standard of living) on a path we know ends in failure. The greens always put that failure point off the end of their charts but the line is always heading down at the end.
I am still trying to understand why you think my approach will be counterproductive. I recommend we tackle this problem from all angles, including technical solutions, affluence reduction in wealthy countries, gradual non-coercive population reduction, and even a calm acceptance that we are screwed. I think the only part of that plan which disturbs you is the gradual non-coercive population reduction.
Scientific spending is a function of discretionary income. Cut the standard of living, you cut the scientific budget more. Trying to stretch things out as long as possible leaves no room for spending money to discover new things.

If the economy would collapse due to lack of spending on innovation if population was significantly below 8 billion, how is it that the economy and innovation did so well in the 20th century?
 
We should have started building nuclear power stations in Australia decades ago, but given the nature of Politicians and inertia, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.
We can't even begin to consider it, until the Federal Government repeals the laws prohibiting it. And they won't do that, because there are bugger all votes to be gained by doing so, but plenty of votes to be lost. Democracy promotes what is popular, not what is reasonable, sensible, or even vitally important.

s140a of the EPBC Act and s10 of the ARPANS Act make it unlawful to build nuclear power plants, and having passed with little discussion, are now extremely hard to repeal.

More information than any sensible person could possibly want about the regulation of all nuclear technologies, including power generation, mining, nuclear medicine, research, and weapons, can be found in the OECD country legal framework assessment for Australia, as an OECD Nuclear Energy Agency member state.

It's a horrible mess that has been deliberately designed, by small numbers of activists (taking advantage of general apathy towards the issues, and of political horse-trading to get minor party* support in the Senate), to be very difficult indeed to un-pick.

I agree that it was wrong to institute these regulations against having nuclear power in Australia. Australia could benefit from nuclear power.

Perhaps we should put this day on our calendars. On this day, Bilby and Merle agreed on something. ;)

We need nuclear power to at least cushion the blow of the reduction of fossil fuel usage in the coming decades. Perhaps it can even do more. Even if a country is losing money on its current power plants, it still needs nuclear plants in the next 50 years as we phase out fossil fuels. And if we need them in the coming decades, the time to start building them was yesterday.

But none of that proves that nuclear reactors around the world, which are consistent money losers, would suddenly become very profitable if only we changed the regulations in the countries that have them.
 
We should have started building nuclear power stations in Australia decades ago, but given the nature of Politicians and inertia, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.
We can't even begin to consider it, until the Federal Government repeals the laws prohibiting it. And they won't do that, because there are bugger all votes to be gained by doing so, but plenty of votes to be lost. Democracy promotes what is popular, not what is reasonable, sensible, or even vitally important.

s140a of the EPBC Act and s10 of the ARPANS Act make it unlawful to build nuclear power plants, and having passed with little discussion, are now extremely hard to repeal.

More information than any sensible person could possibly want about the regulation of all nuclear technologies, including power generation, mining, nuclear medicine, research, and weapons, can be found in the OECD country legal framework assessment for Australia, as an OECD Nuclear Energy Agency member state.

It's a horrible mess that has been deliberately designed, by small numbers of activists (taking advantage of general apathy towards the issues, and of political horse-trading to get minor party* support in the Senate), to be very difficult indeed to un-pick.

I agree that it was wrong to institute these regulations against having nuclear power in Australia. Australia could benefit from nuclear power.

Perhaps we should put this day on our calendars. On this day, Bilby and Merle agreed on something. ;)

We need nuclear power to at least cushion the blow of the reduction of fossil fuel usage in the coming decades. Perhaps it can even do more. Even if a country is losing money on its current power plants, it still needs nuclear plants in the next 50 years as we phase out fossil fuels. And if we need them in the coming decades, the time to start building them was yesterday.

But none of that proves that nuclear reactors around the world, which are consistent money losers, would suddenly become very profitable if only we changed the regulations in the countries that have them.
We wouldn't even need to change a single nuclear power regulation to make them profitable; We could do that by just imposing the full costs of environmental protection onto ALL electricity generation, rather than ONLY on nuclear, as at present.

When your competitors can dump their harmful wastes into the environment free of charge, it becomes fairly easy for them to undercut your prices (though despite this, nuclear power remains competitive with other generation technologies, and are certainly not "consistent money losers").
 
That's all you are about.

Can you refrain from name-calling, please?

There you go.

But that is what you are all about, population reduction.

Population reduction is going to happen regardless.

Not nearly quick enough for Merle.
Don't worry, I don't think you'll get reduced right away - it's going to take him a while to get to Santa Monica. Relax.
 
I am not focused on one solution, reducing population. What can I say at this point? I keep linking to my paper that discusses the many options ( Path Forward)

Oh yes you are focused on one final solution. Population reduction.

Your link "path forward" states "tell people that, for each decision not to have another child, that is one less person that needs to be supported on this overfilled lifeboat, Earth. We could actively ask for people to reduce birthrates, especially in rich countries. " Is really the only final solution in the diatribe. That's all you cranks are about, population reduction.
You seem to be missing the point. Nature will be the limiting factor ad the probable cause of population reduction.

The failures of Russian and Chinese communism under Stalin and Mao led to large scale famine and deaths.

You only have to look at the flood of people crossing the southern border to see that it is beginning.

The COVID supply chain disruption was a relatively benign event.

Marginalized populations are already facing starvation from climate change. The disruption of kraine wheat by Russia was life or death for some.

Civilizations growing past sustainability is not new. What is new is the global scale.
 
That's all you are about.

Can you refrain from name-calling, please?

There you go.

But that is what you are all about, population reduction.

Population reduction is going to happen regardless.

Not nearly quick enough for Merle.

What about you? Do you assume that there is no limit to population growth and consumption?

No, I do not assume that.
 
I am not focused on one solution, reducing population. What can I say at this point? I keep linking to my paper that discusses the many options ( Path Forward)

Oh yes you are focused on one final solution. ... Is really the only final solution in the diatribe.
Dude. That's a "Poisoning the Well" fallacy. "Final solution" refers to mass murder by the Nazis. Merle isn't advocating mass murder or implying it's desirable; he's advocating that people voluntarily choose to reproduce less. You know it, and he knows it. Therefore labeling his position "final solution" cannot possibly refute him; furthermore, it cannot possibly persuade him that he's wrong. So the only thing your rhetoric can possibly accomplish for you in this debate is to persuade third parties who don't already know Merle is against mass murder. I.e., you're spreading disinformation to them "to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim." That's Poisoning the Well. Don't do that.
 
I am not focused on one solution, reducing population. What can I say at this point? I keep linking to my paper that discusses the many options ( Path Forward)

Oh yes you are focused on one final solution. ... Is really the only final solution in the diatribe.
Dude. That's a "Poisoning the Well" fallacy. "Final solution" refers to mass murder by the Nazis. Merle isn't advocating mass murder or implying it's desirable; he's advocating that people voluntarily choose to reproduce less. You know it, and he knows it. Therefore labeling his position "final solution" cannot possibly refute him; furthermore, it cannot possibly persuade him that he's wrong. So the only thing your rhetoric can possibly accomplish for you in this debate is to persuade third parties who don't already know Merle is against mass murder. I.e., you're spreading disinformation to them "to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim." That's Poisoning the Well. Don't do that.

People like Merle are pretty much the same. They point out the human population is out of control and needs to be reined in. What are we going to do they ask. Round and round in circles they go, "I'm not advocating mass culls or forced abortions or forced sterilization or anything like but what are we going to do?" for a problem where these things are the ONLY solution to reduce the human population by x billion by 2060 or whatever. It's another anti human cult.
 
I am not focused on one solution, reducing population. What can I say at this point? I keep linking to my paper that discusses the many options ( Path Forward)

Oh yes you are focused on one final solution. ... Is really the only final solution in the diatribe.
Dude. That's a "Poisoning the Well" fallacy. "Final solution" refers to mass murder by the Nazis. Merle isn't advocating mass murder or implying it's desirable; he's advocating that people voluntarily choose to reproduce less. You know it, and he knows it. Therefore labeling his position "final solution" cannot possibly refute him; furthermore, it cannot possibly persuade him that he's wrong. So the only thing your rhetoric can possibly accomplish for you in this debate is to persuade third parties who don't already know Merle is against mass murder. I.e., you're spreading disinformation to them "to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim." That's Poisoning the Well. Don't do that.

People like Merle are pretty much the same. They point out the human population is out of control and needs to be reined in. What are we going to do they ask. Round and round in circles they go, "I'm not advocating mass culls or forced abortions or forced sterilization or anything like but what are we going to do?" for a problem where these things are the ONLY solution to reduce the human population by x billion by 2060 or whatever. It's another anti human cult.
Well Fizzle, you live a lot closer to the border than I do.

Why do you think so many people are poring across the border? Could it be there are a lot more people in Central-South America that can be supported?

You keep ignorng the blatant and obvious.
 
I am not focused on one solution, reducing population. What can I say at this point? I keep linking to my paper that discusses the many options ( Path Forward)

Oh yes you are focused on one final solution. ... Is really the only final solution in the diatribe.
Dude. That's a "Poisoning the Well" fallacy. "Final solution" refers to mass murder by the Nazis. Merle isn't advocating mass murder or implying it's desirable; he's advocating that people voluntarily choose to reproduce less. You know it, and he knows it. Therefore labeling his position "final solution" cannot possibly refute him; furthermore, it cannot possibly persuade him that he's wrong. So the only thing your rhetoric can possibly accomplish for you in this debate is to persuade third parties who don't already know Merle is against mass murder. I.e., you're spreading disinformation to them "to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim." That's Poisoning the Well. Don't do that.
Thank you.
 
I am not focused on one solution, reducing population. What can I say at this point? I keep linking to my paper that discusses the many options ( Path Forward)

Oh yes you are focused on one final solution. ... Is really the only final solution in the diatribe.
Dude. That's a "Poisoning the Well" fallacy. "Final solution" refers to mass murder by the Nazis. Merle isn't advocating mass murder or implying it's desirable; he's advocating that people voluntarily choose to reproduce less. You know it, and he knows it. Therefore labeling his position "final solution" cannot possibly refute him; furthermore, it cannot possibly persuade him that he's wrong. So the only thing your rhetoric can possibly accomplish for you in this debate is to persuade third parties who don't already know Merle is against mass murder. I.e., you're spreading disinformation to them "to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim." That's Poisoning the Well. Don't do that.

People like Merle are pretty much the same. They point out the human population is out of control and needs to be reined in. What are we going to do they ask. Round and round in circles they go, "I'm not advocating mass culls or forced abortions or forced sterilization or anything like but what are we going to do?" for a problem where these things are the ONLY solution to reduce the human population by x billion by 2060 or whatever. It's another anti human cult.
That’s an awful lot of words for “I know you are but what am I”.

Plus you’re full of shit. Merle has been asking what other people think we should do about the impact humans are having on the planet (outside of Santa Monica) which is a far cry from your depiction.

If your opinion is that we should ignore that impact and proceed as it there is no such thing, or if there is, it’s something we can safely ignore, JUST SAY SO.

If you’re only in this thread to do your cartoonish impressions of scientifically literate people, you should probably perform elsewhere.
 
Oh yes you are focused on one final solution. ... Is really the only final solution in the diatribe.
... That's Poisoning the Well. Don't do that.
People like Merle are pretty much the same.
That's a tautology -- the people who aren't pretty much the same aren't like Merle. Those you have in mind who want mass culls or forced abortions or forced sterilization aren't pretty much the same as him, and labeling them "people like Merle" misrepresents him.

They point out the human population is out of control and needs to be reined in. What are we going to do they ask. Round and round in circles they go, "I'm not advocating mass culls or forced abortions or forced sterilization or anything like but what are we going to do?"
Well, in the first place, if somebody really were implying forced abortions or forced sterilization is necessary, those things aren't a "final solution". China did the whole forced abortion thing back in the days of the One Child policy, and half the western world did the whole forced sterilization thing. (The U.S. didn't stop until 1981; the Czech Republic kept doing it until 2001.) That didn't make China or the west into Nazi Germanies. So even if these things really were what "people like Merle" advocated, your "final solution" rhetoric would still be misplaced.

for a problem where these things are the ONLY solution to reduce the human population by x billion by 2060 or whatever. It's another anti human cult.
And in the second place,

You say X.
I think X implies Y.
--------------------
Therefore, you're arguing for Y.​

is a fallacy too. It isn't logical to casually mix your premises with somebody else's premises like that. Your opinion that these things are the ONLY solution to reduce the human population by x billion by 2060 or whatever entitles you to tell Merle the moderate approaches he has in mind can't work; it doesn't entitle you to tell him the extreme approaches you think could work automatically have to be what he's focused on.
 
Yup--I find the green approach counterproductive. It's betting it all (taking that route will really clobber research as scientific budgets are highly related to the standard of living) on a path we know ends in failure. The greens always put that failure point off the end of their charts but the line is always heading down at the end.
I am still trying to understand why you think my approach will be counterproductive. I recommend we tackle this problem from all angles, including technical solutions, affluence reduction in wealthy countries, gradual non-coercive population reduction, and even a calm acceptance that we are screwed. I think the only part of that plan which disturbs you is the gradual non-coercive population reduction.
Scientific spending is a function of discretionary income. Cut the standard of living, you cut the scientific budget more. Trying to stretch things out as long as possible leaves no room for spending money to discover new things.

If the economy would collapse due to lack of spending on innovation if population was significantly below 8 billion, how is it that the economy and innovation did so well in the 20th century?
No. A lack of scientific spending will not damage the economy. Rather, a lack of scientific spending will keep us from finding answers that might save us.
 
That's all you are about.

Can you refrain from name-calling, please?

There you go.

But that is what you are all about, population reduction.

Population reduction is going to happen regardless.

Not nearly quick enough for Merle.

What about you? Do you assume that there is no limit to population growth and consumption?

No, I do not assume that.


So what is your position? Have we reached carrying capacity? Have we surpassed it? Or do we still have a way to go?
 
But none of that proves that nuclear reactors around the world, which are consistent money losers, would suddenly become very profitable if only we changed the regulations in the countries that have them.
We wouldn't even need to change a single nuclear power regulation to make them profitable; We could do that by just imposing the full costs of environmental protection onto ALL electricity generation, rather than ONLY on nuclear, as at present.

When your competitors can dump their harmful wastes into the environment free of charge, it becomes fairly easy for them to undercut your prices (though despite this, nuclear power remains competitive with other generation technologies, and are certainly not "consistent money losers").
Ah, so if we had to pay all the costs of getting power sustainably from a nuclear plant, including the cost of cleaning up our mess, it would be expensive.

But, if we had to pay all the costs of power from a coal plant, including the cost of cleaning up the carbon and other pollutants, that might be even more expensive.

Similarly, if we had to pay all the costs of a wind/solar electrical grid with sufficient energy storage, including all the cost of cleaning up the mines and disposing of the eventual waste equipment, it is also expensive. (Michaux, Simon, 2021, Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels.)

And that is just to keep our electric grid running. If we had to run industrial heating and our transportation system sustainably without fossil fuels, that is even more expensive.

Which brings us to the essence of The Problem: Can we afford to power the current human enterprise "sustainably", even if all we are trying to do is keep it running until non-renewables run out? And if we decide to continue to power our civilization unsustainably, and we keep on deteriorating the planet at an accelerating rate, how many people will this trashed planet be able to support a century from now?

Hence, this thread.
 
Overshoot may not be the proximate cause of death*, but it will almost certainly be a huge contributor to the stress that will almost certainly underlie, accelerate and enable any fatal malady that should befall me. But that would be an indirect result, right? So if there are 6 billion dead as a direct result of overshoot, can we extrapolate the REAL damage? Just so's we don't overshoot in our mitigation efforts...

* If I get the chance on my deathbed** I will certainly ask if they could please, on the death certificate, put "overshoot" as the cause of death!

Death by Overshoot. That doesn't strike terror in your heart? ;)

OK, yes, I am a little vague on the details of overshoot. I do discuss it briefly in the introduction of We Are Trashing the Planet. See also Climate-changing human activity may cause 1 billion deaths. You can follow the links there to get deeper into the science. Also, you can click on links at my site, and links on the pages linked to by my site, to get much deeper into the science. Its amazing what is on the Internet. Once you start clicking links from a link from your original source, there is virtually no limit to the information--and misinformation--you can find on this topic.

And yes, the results of overshoot are indirect. Overshoot causes deterioration of the planet which can lead to deaths by starvation, deprivation, natural disasters, breakup of society, resource wars, etc.

If I were to try to fully cover the topics that keep coming up here, including a detailed description of The Problem, and a detailed description of The Solution, I would never be able to fit that into one blog post. My plan was to do a drive-by on the problem of overshoot. After this I am thinking of writing something on the "woman in the mirror" technique of moral decision-making that Cassie Hutchinson used, and a response to a section of Reddit that lit up in response to my writings on life after death ( A little bit of anxiety from a hardcore. ) . After that I might possibly do a writeup on what I learned here.
 
Ah, so if we had to pay all the costs of getting power sustainably from a nuclear plant, including the cost of cleaning up our mess, it would be expensive.
No particularly; We do, and it is sufficiently inexpensive as to be competitive with other generation technologies.

Nuclear plant owners aren't philanthropists running loss-making facilities just to be nice to the environment; Despite what your favourite propagandists claim, nuclear power plants are sound and profitable businesses.

Like any business, changes in market conditions can lead to periods of loss making; And like any business, if these are sustained for too long, the company will shut its doors and fold.

But, if we had to pay all the costs of power from a coal plant, including the cost of cleaning up the carbon and other pollutants, that might be even more expensive.
Only if by "might be even more expensive", you mean "would certainly be VASTLY more expensive.
Similarly, if we had to pay all the costs of a wind/solar electrical grid with sufficient energy storage, including all the cost of cleaning up the mines and disposing of the eventual waste equipment, it is also expensive.
Understatement of the century. The storage alone is insanely expensive, and probably can't get vastly cheaper.

The maximum energy density is constrained by the fact that storage inevitably relies on electron shell interactions; The only way around that is to use gravity, as hydroelectric storage does, but that's also very limited, and is cheap only because water is essentally free of charge - gravity is pathetic, but water is so inexpensive that you can just use VAST quantities of it. Lithium is not similarly inexpensive, and alternatives to lithium are generally more expensive still.

There's likely room for a tenfold reduction in storage costs in the coming century or two; But to be a viable financial slternative to nuclear, those costs need to fall not one, but closer to three orders of magnitude.
 
the results of overshoot are indirect.
That’s what I thought. But your cite was that 6b could die as a “direct result of overshoot”.
It may seem trivial to point that out, but imprecision invites mockery from ignorants in information deserts like Santa Monica.
 
The Problem
There are many problems. Declaring them all to be the same problem, and therefore to have the same solution, is counterproductive to the point of literal insanity.

If your kitchen trash can overflows, do you empty it, or sit around bemoaning the fact that your house is overpopulated? If your sink is full of dirty dishes, is that another facet of overpopulation, or a different problem, whose solution (wash the dishes) is completely independant of the trashcan problem?

Having lots of problems may seem like a worse situation than having just one big problem; But it really, truly, honestly isn't.

How do you eat an elephant?
 
Back
Top Bottom