Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[MrFanti]

Overpopulation In The Era Of Climate Change
https://www.magellantv.com/articles/...climate-change

When you combine logic and simple math, PRESTO! The root cause is quite easy to see!

[trish]

Clearly if there were only ever a few hundred thousand people on Earth burning fossil fuels, we’d never gather enough inertia to budge the planetary heat engine that drives its’ atmospheric and oceanic currents. However, there are over seven billion people on the planet and our economy’s immediate energy source is fossil fuel. It’s our use of fossil fuel that is responsible for the climate’s energy imbalance, that is heating the planet and threatening the future of our children. We can either start losing people or we can start changing the way we produce and use energy.

[broncofan]

I agree Trish. I read the article and it states that we should reduce the rate of population growth. Yet it doesn't make the case that with the current population levels and greenhouse gas emission held constant we wouldn't still have a big problem. So if population levels are the variable we're using, then the author is really talking about unrealistic (and ghoulish) things like driving down the population.

I talked to a Republican I know before the start of covid and they told me covid might be a good thing because overpopulation is a problem. They are not volunteering to leave the planet early or to have tight government controls on how many kids they have. They're showing indifference to the lives of people who they think are more likely to die. Or any reproductive limit should be for other people and nations.

Instead of population being the right variable to influence, how about types of energy use, implementation of new technology, some constraints on manufacturing processes? That's inhumane they say!

[MrFanti]

I agree Trish. I read the article and it states that we should reduce the rate of population growth. Yet it doesn't make the case that with the current population levels and greenhouse gas emission held constant we wouldn't still have a big problem. So if population levels are the variable we're using, then the author is really talking about unrealistic (and ghoulish) things like driving down the population.

I talked to a Republican I know before the start of covid and they told me covid might be a good thing because overpopulation is a problem. They are not volunteering to leave the planet early or to have tight government controls on how many kids they have. They're showing indifference to the lives of people who they think are more likely to die. Or any reproductive limit should be for other people and nations.

Instead of population being the right variable to influence, how about types of energy use, implementation of new technology, some constraints on manufacturing processes? That's inhumane they say!

Again, it's simple math and logic - to illustrate.
One person driving a car, no problem.
1 billion, big problem.

Look at all the "green" areas (deforestation) that are now gone because of population growth.

It doesn't take an Einstein to understand this.

[trish]

I’m not disputing (neither do I believe is broncofan) that seven billion people driving cars, heating and cooling their homes, and using products manufactured in factories all powered by fossil fuels is a problem. The immediate problem is a climate that’s already killing people. So what is your proposal: kill even more people before the climate does, or adopt greener energy policies?

[trish]

It doesn’t help that the U.S. just overthrew Roe vs Wade, and many states are on the brink of outlawing contraception. In 2019 the U.S. birthrate was 1.7 births/woman; i.e., below replacement. A woman’s right chose is crucial, not only to her health and well being, but the well being of all.

[MrFanti]

Brazil: Amazon deforestation up 20% last year — report
https://www.dw.com/en/brazil-amazon-...ort/a-62517871

Like I said....simple math of too many people....

[broncofan]

Fanti seriously. You're the only person I've ever encountered who doesn't respond to what people say and just repeats himself.

Everyone agrees that if there were fewer people on Earth there would be less greenhouse gas emissions. If there were no people on Earth humans would not be responsible for any greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere. This is not mysterious and yet most people don't think that the solution to anthropogenic climate change is to drive the extinction of humanity.

What is your plan to reduce the population without killing people or instituting policies that prohibit people from making their own reproductive choices (to have or have not)?

As an alternative, we could implement new technology that reduces such emissions, or use the technology we have more efficiently. Please don't repeat yourself again. It doesn't do anything except irritate.

[trish]

The actual Malthusian argument is that the human population grows geometrically whereas we can only produce food arithmetically. We’ve already demonstrated that humans, by their own choice, can and have achieved birthrates below replacement. So Malthus was wrong. The math was right, but his assumptions were incorrect.

Nevertheless, we agree with you that seven billion people driving fossil-fueled cars is a problem. How does one ameliorate the problem? One obvious way is to eliminate the fossil-fueled cars.


Perhaps you’re proposing we just do nothing and just let the climate wipe out enough people until balance is restored. How many people do you think it will take? Earth’s population is currently 7.75 billion people; at the start of the industrial revolution and the beginning of the current warming period (roughly 1750 AD) was 0.814 billion. Consider the difference. I don’t believe the petroleum industry really wants to the lose that many customers. What will be the state of the climate when this is achieved? I guarantee it won’t be comfortable: not for people, not for nations, not for civilization, not even for capitalists.

[MrFanti]

Fanti seriously. You're the only person I've ever encountered who doesn't respond to what people say and just repeats himself.

If I don't respond, then there's a good chance that I have that person on ignore and can't see the response