Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

[trish]

I'll go with this.

Excellent. So you agree the current warming is primarily anthropogenic.

And I'll raise you one by saying the root cause is overpopulation.....as everything else is a secondary or tertiary effect of overpopulation

I wasn’t making a bet; just stating the facts as we know them. The demands of 7.6 billion people for energy, food, shelter and a modern life-style will certainly be difficult to meet. Populations tend to grow out to the limits of their ecological boundaries (just like gases expand to fill their containers). They grow exponentially until they approach the carrying capacity of the environment where the mortality rate equals the birth rate and the quality of life is sub-substandard.
Sometimes a new technology can effectively change the ecological balance and raise the carrying capacity. But if the population grows to the point where it nears reaches the new carrying capacity, then either another new technology must be found, or the standard of living (if not the population itself) will crash.
So is the root cause technology or population growth? You say it’s population growth. I’ll go with that.

So what's your game plan for the root cause?

Burning fossil fuels is definitely the wrong way to meet the energy needs of 7.6 billion people, because heating the planet is going to lower the carrying capacity (not raise it) and that will only exasperate the population problem.

I’m not a denier; but neither am I optimistic. War, famine, plague and extinction are the ways in which nature generally deals with overpopulation. I don’t think laws regulating birth rates are very effective; unless the political/economic situation makes it possible for couples who deliberately choose to have small families feel economically secure. If populations of people cannot be educated to cooperate and to maintain their environment as well as their numbers, then there’s no real hope of avoiding the various solutions nature will provide.

[MrFanti]

Excellent. So you agree the current warming is primarily anthropogenic.

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....

[trish]

There are two uses of the term 'primary' that we need to distinguish. When I say that the primary cause of our current warming trend is the release of sequestered greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere, I’m am saying that release is the foremost or proximate cause. When a doctor says the primary cause of death was loss of blood due to the severed artery he's giving the proximate cause. When the detective says the artery was severed because Mr.A fired a bullet into the deceased's chest, he's giving the first (in the temporal sense) cause. When you say “...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...” you’re claiming that overpopulation is the first cause (in a temporal sense) of global warming.


In theory it's possible that a population not change in size, but to act in such a way as to lower the carry capacity of its environment to the point where their numbers exceed the carrying capacity and they go extinct. What then is the first cause of their demise? Overpopulation or the actions that deteriorated their environment? I find the question somewhat academic. It's more helpful to simply understand how the two causes are interrelated.

If a population of people has the capacity to deliberately or accidentally raise or lower the carrying capacity of their environment, then what one would regard as overpopulation depends upon the actions the population takes toward the environment. Overpopulation occurs when the population size approaches or exceeds the carrying capacity. The carrying capacity is determined by how the population interacts with its environment. The two issues are intertwined.

Both the Anasazi Indians and the original inhabitants of Easter Island grew beyond the carrying capacity of their environments. In part the causes of these two extinctions was overpopulation. But the demise of the Anasazi was also due to poor farming practices and soil erosion. On the other hand the Easter Islanders deforested their environment for the purpose of moving and erecting massive blocks of carved stone for apparently religious/political purposes. Both civilizations grew in size, but both also behaved in ways that diminished the carrying capacities of their environments. Many other civilizations elsewhere also grew, but managed to maintain ways of life that raised (or at least did not diminish) the carrying capacity of their environments.

Jared Diamond’s book Collapse examines a number of very interesting examples.

[MrFanti]

I'll rest my case with the shrinking Brazilian rainforest example.
Overpopulation is the root cause - everything else is a secondary or tertiary effect.

[trish]

I do have to laugh at the human need simplify until all interest, understanding and hope are drained away.

Okay, so 'what's your game plan for the root cause' of our current climate shift?

[MrFanti]

Okay, so 'what's your game plan for the root cause' of our current climate shift?

Not my job since I'm not the one crying "wolf" in this thread.

And here's another effect of overpopulation.....OVER FISHING...

[trish]

I'm not the one crying "wolf"

You most certainly have been crying, "Overpopulation," for the last several posts. Having no solution to offer is fine. If one knew how to deal with a wolf, one wouldn't need to cry the alarm.

[MrFanti]

Speaking crying wolf.....
ETHANOL has been shown to be more harmful the environment than fossil fuels!

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...oryId=18784732
http://theweek.com/speedreads/454706...-than-gasoline

[MrFanti]

You most certainly have been crying, "Overpopulation," for the last several posts. Having no solution to offer is fine. If one knew how to deal with a wolf, one wouldn't need to cry the alarm.

Yes I have - But I have NOT said anything about CLIMATE CHANGE meaning the extinction of our species.
Read my responses carefully......

Good attempt at a spin though!

[trish]

Not even the thread's title claims 'climate change' means 'the extinction of our species.' But sea level rise, storms of greater violence, heavier downpours and longer droughts won't be making life any easier. That reminds me, the headline you linked says, "Ethanol from corn waste may be worse for the environment than gasoline." Thanks.