and more importantly how and when to not populate) responsibly — Lif3r

The first world environmentalists (are there any other kind?) always want the poor to stop making babies and not demand a modern standard of living.

Would you wreck our economy for a nebulous tenth of a percent temperature change that might or might not be just a statistical artifact of your model and not reality?

I'm surprised at this attitude, although it continues to surprise me how little concern there is for climate change in the members of the forum from the US. Is it a partisan stance perhaps, I recollect Trump's insistence that climate change is a Chinese plot, a deception to persuade the west to ruin its economies and competitiveness.

We're not resposible for the planet. The planet takes care of itself.

It was surviving a long time before humans.

We, the human species, have need for a planet. Destruction of habitat is stupidity. We would be wiser to rationalize with our resources.

That doesn't mean we are responsible for the planet - it means we're responsible for our life.

The difference is we're stupid, the Earth's self-sufficency is hindered by us (rather than the Earth needs to be kept).

I'm surprised at this attitude, although it continues to surprise me how little concern there is for climate change in the members of the forum from the US. Is it a partisan stance perhaps, I recollect Trump's insistence that climate change is a Chinese plot, a deception to persuade the west to ruin its economies and competitiveness. — Punshhh

i noted that many environmentalists are for population control of third worlders. Nobody ever asks the third worlders what they think. Some extreme environmentalists are anti-human; and I oppose that type of environmentalism.

I can be for clean air and water without wanting to deprive the third world of their aspirations to a better life.

it's pretty simple... we have many billions of people and the number is growing exponentially at an accelerated and unsustainable rate.

it's pretty simple... we have many billions of people and the number is growing exponentially at an accelerated and unsustainable rate. — Lif3r

A neo-Malthusian.

Malthus was wrong. Human ingenuity wins. We crawled out of caves and built all this. Don't sell humanity short.

Climate change is a hoax designed to destroy our capitalist free market system. I know this because ExxonMobil told me so.

i noted that many environmentalists are for population control of third worlders. Nobody ever asks the third worlders what they think. Some extreme environmentalists are anti-human; and I oppose that type of environmentalism.

They have, certainly in India. For decades the Indian government has tried initiatives to limit population growth with no success. They overtook China a few years back in the size of the population.

I can be for clean air and water without wanting to deprive the third world of their aspirations to a better life.

The problem is the numbers, the carbon emissions would increase vastly if all those people had air conditioners, white goods, cars etc.

But my response was primarily to your second paragraph. Firstly that the changes will wreck western economies and that it is a small increase in temperature.

The problem is the numbers, the carbon emissions would increase vastly if all those people had air conditioners, white goods, cars etc. — Punshhh

Well that's the argument right there. The first world says to the third world: We've got ours. You can't have yours. In fact you should die or not be born.

That is elitist environmentalism in a nutshell. As I say, I support a clean environment AND call out the selfish elitists who jet around telling the third world to stay where they are. You know there are populist movements all over the world right now. This is exactly why.

But my response was primarily to your second paragraph. Firstly that the changes will wreck western economies and that it is a small increase in temperature. — Punshhh

Without going into facts and figures (not my specialty on this issues, I don't follow environmental issues that closely) I stand by my opinions. Some of what I hear from the left these days is that they want to blow up our economic system because we only have 12 years to live because of climate change. A lot of serious people believe that. They're nuts.

Well that's the argument right there. The first world says to the third world: We've got ours. You can't have yours. In fact you should die or not be born.

Yes, I agree that it is an argument against what Lif3r said about population control. For me though, I don't recall anyone who talks about the climate crisis talking about limiting population. I certainly don't, it was only because it was brought up here that I commented. What is more likely is them talking about what calamity, or disease is likely to reduce population.

As we are here though, let's have a look, the current population of India is approx 1.366 billion, and the rate of increase is not showing any sign of slowing down. Most of these people live a very modest lifestyle compared to people in the west. Following the air pollution crisis in New Delhi a few weeks ago, I think they might have had a wake up call. But I doubt they are going to stem the increase significantly, but rather look to generating solar power, they have a good climate for this and have achieved great things in technological innovation and progress. But if their population keeps increasing at the current rate, the technology won't keep up and the poverty crisis they have will only increase. Unfortunately the size of their country doesn't increase alongside the population. India has three times the population of the states and half the land mass. As I said in my last post, if all these people had the decadent lifestyles we have, they would have more than an air pollution crisis on their hands.

So the issue with population is that as so many of the population lives low impact, in terms of carbon emissions, lifestyles and we have an urgent climate crisis on the horizon. Requiring reductions in global carbon emissions beginning in the next few years. There simply isn't the time, or the opportunity for all these people to level up to our level of emissions. The message being given to countries like India, China and Brazil, is that the crisis is upon us and we need to make the changes now and countries like yours will proportionately feel the impact more than the more affluent countries in cooler northern climates. I would also like the message to include, that we have developed the technology and offer it to them so they can transition away from fossil fuels without economic crisis. It does take a long time to turn a super tanker though, especially one loaded with oil.

We're not resposible for the planet. The planet takes care of itself. It was surviving a long time before humans. We, the human species, have need for a planet. Destruction of habitat is stupidity. We would be wiser to rationalize with our resources. — Qwex

Agreed.

It is not the planet itself that is at stake. It is our own habitat. If we destroy it, humanity will be gone, but the planet will recover. It always has. That may take 10,000 or 100,000 years, but who cares? It will not be our problem anyway. The very reason why life emerged on this planet will not be gone, and it managed to successfully emerge in an environment that did not even have oxygen.

Maybe something could be done, but I do not trust the politicians to do it. Everything they do, is messed up:

There is no problem that the government will not make worse.

What they are trying now, is just a feeble political attempt at carrying out a new land grab.

In France, they tried to use their fairy tales to increase taxes on gasoline. That was rapidly followed by the yellow-vest protest, because, just like myself, these people are not buying into the manipulative bullshit.

I cannot be convinced to give one dollar to the politicians or swallow any regulations from them. It is like that by definition, and that is not negotiable.

you fail to recognize several things. I never said that only the poor shouldn't populate. This is absolutely absurd to assume. The majority of pollution is a result of those who are wealthy with fossil fuel money. If anyone needs to depopulate, it's those fuckers. (Us fuckers)
No you dont have to "ruin the economy" when you reduce population, rather it spreads the wealth of resources amongst the population due to abundance, and I CERTAINLY never said anyone has to die in order to see this through. We can become educated to understand what responsibility is required to populate with the rest of the planet and individual access to the necessary resources *to populate responsibly in mind. Knowing when to not have a kid is just as important as having enough kids to keep the population supplied. There is a tipping point in either direction and currently we have exceeded that tipping point given our current consumption rate and it's effect on the ecosystem. In other words... not a good time to have a litter of children.
One woman, one child, half the population in 50-80 years. No one is killed, consumption is halved, constituents have access to more resources, pollution is partially mitigated, Bob's your uncle.
Of course this isn't the end all solution, and it is not what we lean on as government mandate, but education in this regards is vital to curbing environmental issues with urgency in consideration.

And... I agree ingenuity will save us, and in fact I believe technology already is, for without it the ability to know and the ability to share the information are naught.
We need to know the information in order to understand what needs to be done and
We need to share the information in order to implement the solutions.
Take away ingenuity from the scenario, and no one knows a thing and we all die out of nowhere.

Technology isnt the problem here in my opinion. In my opinion the problem is an over reliance on the wrong technology for far too long, and our own sheer willingness to participate and encourage it to line "our" political and industrial pockets.

Those who are willing to risk the sanctity of humanity to line their own pockets aren't "our" people. They are their own people and they are willing to take this risk because they are already supplied to survive. They are not concerned with the future of life on Earth.

Industry has paid policy to enact this process. We are the victims of their greed, and if this process is not stopped it will not be the meek who inherit the Earth because the meek will perish first and unmercifully.

excuse me, I was referring to we - the consumers - who are responsible for the warming of the earth.

And you and many like you are propagating the issue at hand by arguing over this pathetic semantic and failing to recognize that we are the planet. This planet makes shit all over it. Stuff that moves around and thinks and lives and breathes. That's Earth's thing. Saturn has rings, Jupiter is fuckin huge, mars is red and crusty, Pluto (oh my god please spare me, I am aware it isnt a planet) is fuckin cold.

And earth makes shit every single day.

And it's bad ass and we can keep making shit all over the universe if we do it right. Don't fuck that up for us. Thanks.

One woman, one child, half the population in 50-80 years. — Lif3r

I was prepared to apologize for misunderstanding your remark, but now I see that I have to reiterate my objection to your philosophy. The Chinese government had a one child policy for a long time and the result was a disaster.

It can be fairly argued that the biggest demographic problem is not too many people, but too few.

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23722

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/reverse-handmaids-tale-just-horrifying-get-facts-straight-population-growth?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsPG085WU5wIVdR-tBh1v1w7CEAAYAiAAEgJUYvD_BwE

If you didn't call for active murder, then I apologize for imputing that stance to you. But on your overall idea of a one-child policy and halving the world population. you could not be more wrong. My criticisms of radical environmentalism stand. Your "ideal" world of 50 years hence would consist of billions of old people with nobody to support them. Active extermination would be less cruel.

If you didn't call for active murder, then I apologize for imputing that stance to you. But on your overall idea of a one-child policy and halving the world population. you could not be more wrong. My criticisms of radical environmentalism stand. Your "ideal" world of 50 years hence would consist of billions of old people with nobody to support them. Active extermination would be less cruel. — fishfry

Like I was saying elsewhere on this forum, overpopulation and the destruction of natural habitats and the ecosystems that support us is only one seemingly unsolvable problem. There are many others we face, too many to name it seems. Perhaps nature will take care of it for us with a new type of plague. Either that or the world leaders will inevitably and surely come up with some inhumane solution that protects them at the expense of the property-less.

Perhaps nature will take care of it for us with a new type of plague. — Noah Te Stroete

Overpopulation is a myth. I hope you at least glanced at the two links I gave, which make the case that the real problem is underpopulation. You illustrate the problem I have with many environmentalists. You dream of billions of people dying a horrible death. The other poster wants the population halved in fifty years. Environmentalism is literally a death cult.

The Chinese program did work -- fewer children. The problem is that it produces a mushroom-shaped population distribution -- a large cap of elderly people supported on a narrow stem of working-age people,

The Chinese program was deliberate, but other countries have ended up with the same problem without imposing any such imitations.

It's just an unavoidable problem of shrinking populations. As young people become more affluent they have fewer children. That's all it takes.

Adaptations can be made. Many people work in jobs manufacturing superfluous products or providing services people can do without. Providing services to elderly people will have to become a more dominant paid job activity.

As for reducing excess population, nature will provide solutions as human capacity to deal with global crises decreases. Remember: Nature bats last.

Overpopulation is a myth. I hope you at least glanced at the two links I gave, which make the case that the real problem is underpopulation. You illustrate the problem I have with many environmentalists. You dream of billions of people dying a horrible death. Environmentalism is literally a death cult. — fishfry

It would be nice if we could support any size population. We can't. We are up against declining marginal returns on agriculture and fisheries.

Nobody wants to see billions of people dying horrible, or even pleasant deaths. If billions die, it won't be because environmentalists wanted that to happen. It will happen because the carrying capacity of the planet failed to produce enough of what the added billions of people need. It isn't in human hands! We will all be subject to nature's culling operation. It won't be just "those people" it will be "us people".

The Chinese program did work -- fewer children. The problem is that it produces a mushroom-shaped population distribution -- a large cap of elderly people supported on a narrow stem of working-age people, — Bitter Crank

That's exactly what I warned about when a poster suggested how nice it would be if we halved the world population. To do that you either kill the old or prevent the young from being born. If you do the latter, you end up with a planet of impoverished geezers. Since I'm getting old, I prefer not to consider the former.

The Chinese program was deliberate, but other countries have ended up with the same problem without imposing any such imitations. — Bitter Crank

Right. Most Western countries are not reproducing at replacement rate. Instead of staying barefoot and pregnant, women have careers and abortions. The result is an aging population with too few workers to support them.

It's just an unavoidable problem of shrinking populations. As young people become more affluent they have fewer children. That's all it takes. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. So must we make the problem worse by trying to halve the population by discouraging births or, as one poster just suggested, hoping for a plague to kill billions? This is what passes for liberal thought these days? I object.

Adaptations can be made. Many people work in jobs manufacturing superfluous products or providing services people can do without. Providing services to elderly people will have to become a more dominant paid job activity. — Bitter Crank

I'm sure the young of the world will gladly give up their hopes and aspirations to change the bedpans of the elderly. You sure you can get the kids to agree to this plan?

As for reducing excess population, nature will provide solutions as human capacity to deal with global crises decreases. Remember: Nature bats last. — Bitter Crank

Another anti-human. I hope you at least glanced at the two links I gave, and would consider the possibility that perhaps our problem, counterintuitive as it may seem, is actually underpopulation.

I'm so tired of hearing "caring" environmentalists long for mass death.

Overpopulation is a myth. I hope you at least glanced at the two links I gave, which make the case that the real problem is underpopulation. You illustrate the problem I have with many environmentalists. You dream of billions of people dying a horrible death. The other poster wants the population halved in fifty years. Environmentalism is literally a death cult. — fishfry

I think you’re “literally” delusional. This from someone who gets accused of being delusional by many all the time mind you, so take anything I say as you wish.

Nobody wants to see billions of people dying horrible, or even pleasant deaths. — Bitter Crank

At least one poster in the past hour did want exactly that. A plague.

If billions die, it won't be because environmentalists wanted that to happen. It will happen because the carrying capacity of the planet failed to produce enough of what the added billions of people need. It isn't in human hands! We will all be subject to nature's culling operation. It won't be just "those people" it will be "us people". — Bitter Crank

Malthus was wrong. Paul Erlich was wrong. You population pessimists never see that we crawled out of caves and built all this. I'd bet on humanity.

I think you’re “literally” delusional. This from someone who gets accused of being delusional by many all the time mind you, so take anything I say as you wish. — Noah Te Stroete

I'm delusional to argue with environmentalists, you're right about that.

I'm all for clean air and water. I'm not for radical depopulation. I regard that as a sensible stance.

hoping for a plague to kill billions? — fishfry

Did I say I hoped for this? That’s disingenuous if not libel. We are all fucked, and you and I are going down with the ship whether we like it or not. There are no solutions to our problems. Burying your head in the sand, well, “ignorance is bliss” as they say.

Did I say I hoped for this? — Noah Te Stroete

Perhaps nature will take care of it for us with a new type of plague — Noah Te Stroete

I'll quit while I'm behind here but this is what you wrote. You said "nature will take care of it," as if there's an "it" that billions of death would make better. I oppose that kind of radical environmental thinking. If you're not actively hoping for a plague then ok, I'll take you at your word. In my opinion plagues are bad things and never the solution to any problem we have.

It was kind of a sick joke, but a real worry of mine. I’m not at all happy to be environmentally aware. We will soon have fresh water shortages across the globe, over fishing the oceans, factory farming runoff into the waterways, pollution, pollution, pollution, more extreme weather events causing flooding and droughts (it’s already happening and speeding up every year) which will fuck with the food supply, even more famine, and many other problems that I’m sure we’re not even aware of.

No. I’m not looking forward to it.

Another anti-human — fishfry

Stop that!

Nobody is longing for mass deaths. The reason for talking about mass deaths is to impress on policy makers minds that action on climate change is long over due. Under ideal circumstances, we could feed, house, and care for a significantly larger population. BUT, Fishfry, and you know this, the circumstances before us are far from ideal and are steadily deteriorating, The chaos of global warming is cutting the ground out from under us.

If mass death owing to starvation or disease occur, it will be the fault of the capitalist establishment who decided to fuck the world and make as much money as possible in the interim. That part IS in human hands. Once we have wrecked the environment, mass death won't be in our hands any more, and environmentalists sorrow over that hideous prospect.

I view that event as a horrible consequence of corporate and government ostriches sticking their heads up their asses.

If you want to pin the "antihuman" label on someone, hang it on the CEOs of Exxon and other energy companies, the CEOs transportation manufacturers, the oil drillers and coal diggers. Hang it on Donald Trump and his counterparts in many nations who are doing virtually nothing to forestall climate warming.

We can be evil, as long as we moderate ourselves, enough to allow for good.

If we're not to fall into temptation of meat, per se, then meat trees or some other alternative ought to exist. They don't, people will kill animals, and as long as they don't over consume, it's ok.

Yes, we are a part of the planet, but still, if we weren't so evil, the planet would be self-sufficent (including humans).

The planet doesn't need help, it implies we work for the planet's health, rather than just live - we need to moderate ourselves.

Edit: Okay, maybe I'm wrong, we have been very evil. It may need help, but that's an abnormality.

you still fail.
Where did I say to implement policy in this regards?

Education for the masses on when and when not to populate responsibly. Really simple. I'm done explaining common sense.

And call me what you want, but I'm not bringing a kid into this fucked up environmental catastrophe. Seems incredibly irresponsible.