Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I think we can save MrFanti’s pov that overpopulation is the ‘root’ problem, but not his view of causality.

First we have to be careful not to confuse population growth with overpopulation.

I agree, if we don’t stabilize the size of our population our continued growth will result in overpopulation and its concomitant problems. But even if we do stabilize our population, if we continue to do stupid things to the environment it can deteriorate to the point where it will no longer sustain a population of our size. In both cases overpopulation is tautologically the ‘root’ cause of the problems concomitant with overpopulation (MrFanti’s position). However, in the first case the cause of overpopulation is population growth (to the point where it exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment) whereas in the second case where population size is stabilized well below the carrying capacity, the cause of overpopulation are behaviors that deteriorate the environment and drop its carrying capacity. In the actual world I suspect both of these things occur together.

---

I understand your point. I read Mr. Fanti's use of "overpopulation" not as specifying that the population is greater than carrying capacity but that the cause of any pending crisis is related to population size alone irrespective of environmental constraints. In other words, if the outcome we want to avoid is a population greater than carrying capacity, the cause of that problem is population size and has nothing to do with how our behavior impacts carrying capacity. Or maybe to modify a little bit, that if our behavior decreases carrying capacity it is the inevitable result of population increases.

I suspect you’re right about MrFanti’s use of ‘overpopulation’. But if he doesn’t adopt the definition above or something similar to it, then it’s unclear what the ‘over’ in ‘overpopulation’ means for him. Population period becomes a problem. Overpopulation becomes redundant. Anyway, I did my best to accommodate and address his views.

Mooted;;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I suspect you’re right about MrFanti’s use of ‘overpopulation’. But if he doesn’t adopt the definition above or something similar to it, then it’s unclear what the ‘over’ in ‘overpopulation’ means for him. Population period becomes a problem. Overpopulation becomes redundant. Anyway, I did my best to accommodate and address his views.

---

I gotcha...I thought you did and explained a lot...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I think MrFanti will agree

---

Thinking and speaking for me now!
I need the popcorn to see what's next!

This is the point in ordinary conversation where you jump in, correct our understanding of your point of view and elaborate. Either that or at least pass the popcorn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

This is the point in ordinary conversation where you jump in, correct our understanding of your point of view and elaborate. Either that or at least pass the popcorn.

---

You appear to know me and want to speak for me.
Like I said, I'm in listening mode now....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Read my responses carefully.....

---

Rather than speaking for you, you'll note I said, "I think we can save MrFanti’s pov that overpopulation is the ‘root’ problem, but not his view of causality." You got nothing to add...that's okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

You got nothing to add...that's okay.

---

I've said my piece.....for now.
You can take it or leave it. No need to endlessly drone on and on.

Perhaps in the future I might add to this - but I have no desire to prove myself "right" or the "winner" here. There's lots of counter science out there that's obviously being ignored here because it doesn't support everyone's beliefs here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

What I will agree with is that warming is due to secondary and tertiary effects of overpopulation - nothing else. In other words high smog is due to over population, not the emissions themselves.

All issues are rooted in over population - anything else is an effect, not a cause....

---

Since the industrial revolution, global consumption of energy from fossil fuels has increased 1300 times. https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels/

Over the same period, the global population has increased only 7 times, which implies that fossil fuel energy use per person has increased about 185 times. According to normal maths and logic, that suggests that each person using more fossil fuels is around 27 times more important than population growth.

This is really just another of your inane 'excuse to do nothing' arguments, like alcohol and gun deaths.