11,000 Scientists

[Kaon]

You sure changed your tune.

Just a couple or so hours ago, you were denying an overpopulation problem,

That, and my intention was not to insinuate in any way a change in my tune; the context was specific in that I completely understand the argument being presented before me.

I don't agree at all, but I don't have to admonish the idea to discuss it, and I can appreciate difference especially in the context of the exchange.

I understand that [argument/what you said/what you are trying to get at] - not I agree with...

 

[Zoii]

It isn't a statistical fact using the sample space of an entire nation to test

Yes it is - all you need to do is google China's age demographics. Objective achieved.

Not sure why you dont get it

time-sensitive question concerning how we alleviate the overpopulation problem

Now that's true - Its a long term objective - national policy and the abolition of harmful religious dogma - in the meantime we have to start listening to those scientists with credentials in climatology and stop sitting on our hands.

 

[Kaon]

Huh? Of course cities produce more waste; they’re bigger. Efficiency isn’t a measure of total output; it’s a measure of output per unit of input. Who cares if cities create more waste that rural areas?

I do, and it is germane to those who argue overpopulation based on the perception of cities - size, demographics, real-estate, natural resources, etc.

Waste management is based on a chosen standard - the same way the FDA allows a certain amount of droppings on your consumer products. Would 0 droppings be best? Of course, but you cant promise sanitation down to the ppb, so you have to make a safety standard - based on what regulators choose as safe. All subjective applications of data.

The issue is whether the create more waste per capita. AFAIK, they don’t. I’d especially love to see those stats on particulate pollution - almost everybody I know who lives in the country has a wood stove and a diesel tractors. Living here in the city, I struggle to conceive of how I would even go about competing with that level of particulate pollution, short of committing arson.

Ok.

 

[Kaon]

Yes it is - all you need to do is google China's age demographics. Objective achieved.

Not sure why you dont get it

I just gave you several sources where China has reneged on their plan because of its severe adverse effects. It is a machination of your faith and hope that the one-child policy works, so that your idea for a solution would be vindicated. I get it, it just doesn't work.

How China’s One-Child Policy Backfired Disastrously

The Effects of China’s One-Child Policy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...22e568-604f-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html

Do you understand the tyranny that would have to be implemented in order for this policy to work in the West?

Now that's true - Its a long term objective - national policy and the abolition of harmful religious dogma - in the meantime we have to start listening to those scientists with credentials in climatology and stop sitting on our hands.

We don't have time to continue "listening" or sit on our hands: 80 years from now scientists project that the States can increase by up to 30 degrees (f), and soil drought would increase to 40%. You keep saying religion is the problem but the problem is here now: if it is being said that overpopulation is the problem, then what needs to be done to reduce the population in a timely fashion, because judging religious dogma (something many people of faith have been doing for centuries) is not going to stop individual delusion or perception of will. Adults will do whatever they want to do, and they will teach their kids to do the same things (consider racism and its prolonged existence even into 2020).


Problem: Overpopulation

Solution: ?

I am asking for a legitimate solution - one that would work within the time we have. Pointing fingers and blame will still get us to 2120 in sweltering heat and no crops - unless there is a legitimate solution? I know of several solutions that are probably being considered by several entities, but they definitely won't be something acceptable by the people of the world this day.

And, as I said this ignores the very large corporate influence on climate change.

 

[Zoii]

Solution Now is for your govt, which is not a signatory of the Paris accord, and my govt which talks but no action, to actually deploy energy programs that are diverse and not continue to co2 emitting energy programs. Wind solar tidal power generation, enhanced battery storage, electric vehicles, reforrestation, carbon capturing, desalination... All are solutions available now but need heavy implementation with govt backing

 

[Jezabella]

Solution Now is for your govt, which is not a signatory of the Paris accord, and my govt which talks but no action, to actually deploy energy programs that are diverse and not continue to co2 emitting energy programs. Wind solar tidal power generation, enhanced battery storage, electric vehicles, reforrestation, carbon capturing, desalination... All are solutions available now but need heavy implementation with govt backing

Instead of harvesting free, clean energy from nature ... we choose costly ways to damage the environment. And it was all to do with making money, i.e. instant gratification instead of long term solutions. Greta has been right on so many fronts. But because she's a teen with Asperger's, we scoff.

 

[Kaon]

Solution Now is for your govt, which is not a signatory of the Paris accord, and my govt which talks but no action, to actually deploy energy programs that are diverse and not continue to co2 emitting energy programs. Wind solar tidal power generation, enhanced battery storage, electric vehicles, reforrestation, carbon capturing, desalination... All are solutions available now but need heavy implementation with govt backing

And, why wouldn't/couldn't they come together to get this done if it is a legitimate concern - in less than two centuries? What do we idealize the world nations would do if an alien invasion happened?

It's too late overall. Governments and corporations have everything they need from us - including legal right to natural resources. Why would they need/want to do anything about a climate crisis when it is welcomed chaos (if it can be controlled)? Projections may not be as bad as thought, and losing a few million people per Western nations would at the very least help the joblessness crisis, right?

We are trying to fix several broken bones and cancer with band-aids.

 

[lordjeff]

Population increase indeed leads to more use of utilities-be it food, the energy grid, etc. But notice that where the spirals are occur in undeveloped continents that are always so poor so it begs the question why do they keep expanding family size if they can't support them? Maybe the birth control thing is valid. Extermination & euthanasia should never be valid. That is a sin. Here we're on a site talking about religion & to get into the art of persuading it is over the top. By the way 11,000 scientists can't agree on anything.

 

[rjs330]

A tragic human suffering in its immensity is coming the likes the world has never see before.

Yes the Bible predicts it.

 

[cow451]

11,000 scientists have finally come out with the underlying motive for climate change... population decrease. Do they think they can instill enough fear to self justify a reversal of population growth by any means necessary? Guess the infirmed and aged boomers better make out those wills.

Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’

Boomers are nearing their expiration dates anyway. You young bunnies are going to have the fun of watching the species wither away.

 

[usexpat97]

I'm sorry, I read the article, but...where exactly does it say that 11,000 scientists support radical depopulation?

I didn't see it.

 

[lordjeff]

I just gave you several sources where China has reneged on their plan because of its severe adverse effects. It is a machination of your faith and hope that the one-child policy works, so that your idea for a solution would be vindicated. I get it, it just doesn't work.

How China’s One-Child Policy Backfired Disastrously

The Effects of China’s One-Child Policy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...22e568-604f-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html

Do you understand the tyranny that would have to be implemented in order for this policy to work in the West?






We don't have time to continue "listening" or sit on our hands: 80 years from now scientists project that the States can increase by up to 30 degrees (f), and soil drought would increase to 40%. You keep saying religion is the problem but the problem is here now: if it is being said that overpopulation is the problem, then what needs to be done to reduce the population in a timely fashion, because judging religious dogma (something many people of faith have been doing for centuries) is not going to stop individual delusion or perception of will. Adults will do whatever they want to do, and they will teach their kids to do the same things (consider racism and its prolonged existence even into 2020).


Problem: Overpopulation

Solution: ?

I am asking for a legitimate solution - one that would work within the time we have. Pointing fingers and blame will still get us to 2120 in sweltering heat and no crops - unless there is a legitimate solution? I know of several solutions that are probably being considered by several entities, but they definitely won't be something acceptable by the people of the world this day.

And, as I said this ignores the very large corporate influence on climate change.

 

[lordjeff]

I'm sorry, I read the article, but...where exactly does it say that 11,000 scientists support radical depopulation?

I didn't see it.

The temp. will not climb tens & tens of degrees whether one believes in co2 warming or not. Co2 increases do not manifest in a doubling of a temp.increase. It's a logarithmic incline. Crowded conditions certainly have an adverse impact. Anyone heard of birth control? The large sinks the globe has are not going anywhere soon (oceans, vegetation). Yes indeed waste of any kind is not only a pollutant problem but also a landfill space problem. You can only recycle so much. However, I see plastics use going down b/c of legislation. This will free up some landfill space & in the long, help water reservoirs. The industry will then have a conservation gain from not using that petroleum. The US is not going to sacrifice its economy to become any more inefficient & bring down the standard of living. What's more it does not buy into Paris because that is a scheme about income redistribution. Greta has a long way to go to underand the complexity of climate as it ties in with the other earth science subjects. Arguably, we should strive reduce physical waste first & you don't need a nanny govt to do that. People must take responsibility. There are some technological inventions in their infancy that will facilitate that. Overall, because the US is a capitalist economy, there will be & are entrepeneurs who will work on problems like energy sourcing, conservation, waste removal & depletion. These are already in the works. They should not need a govt to tell them what to do. I envision a system of all players on the grid, not just ones favored by a congress. You can't get to 100% but I think we can get to 30%. My guess is the one to fall out of favor will be coal.

 

[Kaon]

There is no solution humane for effectively eliminating more than 30% of the world population within 100 years (when catastrophe happens) when humans are still fertile to this day, and the average human lifespan is 75 years.

That would mean getting rid of the entire population of China and India in 100 years - and keeping that number sustained. What possible humane method is there to get rid of the number we allegedly need to in order to delay catastrophe?

Now, there are plenty of non-humane solutions for which usually have no entertainment value for the average person (despite its possibility, probability and action in real time). But, I would love to hear of one humane way of eliminating ~ 2 Billion people (~30%) within 100 years - to delay catastrophe.

One child policy won't do anything for populations whose generations are on the same order of magnitude as our impending doom.

 

[timothyu]

But, I would love to hear of one humane way of eliminating ~ 2 Billion people (~30%) within 100 years - to delay catastrophe.

Binge watching Netflix has proven inefficient as a means of culling the herd. Too many had the foresight to stock up on food and drink beside the couch. But be wary with recent viral events of any communications offering free cruises.

 

[Kaon]

Binge watching Netflix has proven inefficient as a means of culling the herd. Too many had the foresight to stock up on food and drink beside the couch. But be wary with recent viral events of any communications offering free cruises.

Heh. While this is humane, the humans aren't dying quick enough. Some are "Darwin Award" winners, and may expire that way, but nowhere near 2 Billion people.

The virus is a red herring for what is to come, but it wouldn't be humane anyway (in my opinion, and I hope in others).


Any other suggestions as to how we can eliminate 2,000,000,000 people within 100 years in a humane way?

 

[timothyu]

Roughly 61,000,000 die each year globally. You would like to add 20,000,000 to that number to reach your 100 yr goal. Births are roughly 140 million a year (no idea how that works). So to have any effect there would have to be 59 million fewer births a year or 120,000,000 deaths a year, roughly doubling the current amount. Even a pandemic in the next year at best would only take out 200-400 million people. A number at the current rates we would regain in 3-4 years.

What will kill a huge percentage quickly within a month or so at this time, would be no electric power for a month. Roughly 80-90% dependant upon it without backup plans will die in that time frame. That could mean roughly 4 billion people dying of dehydration, starvation or violence. No app for that. Not humane but more effective than even disease. Dependency on technology has become our greatest enemy.

So it looks like we will have to wait for whatever will be, now that we refuse to let the stupid who don't know hot coffee is hot to be cleaned out of the gene pool or those who used to die from a simple paper cut from infection.

 

[Kaon]

Roughly 61,000,000 die each year globally. You would like to add 20,000,000 to that number to reach your 100 yr goal. Births are roughly 140 million a year (no idea how that works). So to have any effect there would have to be 59 million fewer births a year or 120,000,000 deaths a year, roughly doubling the current amount. Even a pandemic in the next year at best would only take out 200-400 million people. A number at the current rates we would regain in 3-4 years.

Go on...

What will kill a huge percentage quickly within a month or so at this time, would be no electric power for a month. Roughly 80-90% dependant upon it without backup plans will die in that time frame. That could mean roughly 4 billion people dying of dehydration, starvation or violence. No app for that. Not humane but more effective than even disease. Dependency on technology has become our greatest enemy.

This isn't a moral way, but it is a way - most certainly. And, it is probable.

So it looks like we will have to wait for whatever will be, now that we refuse to let the stupid who don't know hot coffee is hot to be cleaned out of the gene pool or those who used to die from a simple paper cut from infection.

Heh...

I am just asking for a moral way to get rid of 2.2 billion people in 100 years - and keep it sustained. I am most certainly not saying *someone* hasn't found a way to get to that number at or before 100 years in ways that are less than moral.

But you reiterated a form of my point: in order to adhere to the meat of the problem and possible solution to global warming, we have to look deeper. We are told we need to reduce the population to delay catastrophe; what we are not told is how that will happen. The food? The water? A virus? Civil war through ridiculously hackneyed prejudices? War?

Those are some of the only ways we could escape catastrophe within 100 years via population reduction. It is interesting, when you think about what the paradigm of global warming awareness is actually saying.


11,000 scientists...

 

[timothyu]

Those are some of the only ways we could escape catastrophe within 100 years via population reduction. It is interesting, when you think about what the paradigm of global warming awareness is actually saying.

Perhaps Dan Brown in his book Inferno had the best solution. A lottery like injection/aerial spray/food that would render half of the child bearing population infertile without picking on any specific group. Luck of the the draw.