11,000 Scientists

[Zoii]

Better to euthanize and sterilize?

If they have the attitude similar to yours that we should A) Ignore scientific evidence and B) do nothing about the horrendous climatic events right now, then I sure don't want them on this planet. They are an existential threat.

Population decrease is an obvious and sensible approach. But we need to do even more. I'd argue to stop listening to those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, stop listening to those who have zero credentials and research background in climate science, and start listening to the avalanche of scientific evidence from the credible experts in front of you.

Ditching the sarcasm would help as well, given many in my country have lost their homes or died from raging bushfires, the likes of which have never been seen before.

 

[Kaon]

Let's reduce the population of Africa and Asia?

Stop stacking humans by the millions in cities and strips of land, then complaining about the overconsumption, sewage and projected lack of resources - as well as the ripple effect in remote lands (where people actually grow/hunt most of their food, and do not stack themselves in 10,000s per square mile.

Overpopulation is a perception, because we believe our Babylonian cities are progress, but cannot figure why they are such strains on environment - despite history that gives us plenty of details on this. This plane of existence has enough resources for 100,000,000,000 people.

If we let companies own resources, then you get forced scarcity. People have allowed companies the rights to entire bodies of water (lakes and rivers) because of the promise of jobs and progress - a usual trope of constituency exploitation. We let companies own the ability to genetically modify crops themselves, blow their pollen into organic farms, and then sue (and win) against the organic farms because ,"the company owns the technology" growing out of the ground. We will continue to receive illusions until we think, as humans, we deserve better. Climate change by overpopulation is the newest delusion.

 

[Jezabella]

Population decrease is an obvious and sensible approach.

Too much common sense here.

I seriously do not get the reverence of Jordan Petersen from conservatives. Just two years ago, Petersen was utterly complacent about overpopulation.

Youtube link

 

[Kaon]

Too much common sense here.

I seriously do not get the reverence of Jordan Petersen from conservatives. Just two years ago, Petersen was utterly complacent about overpopulation.

Youtube link

How should we decrease the population in a quick enough way to influence the trajectory of climate change in a significant way?

People aren't dying younger, they are living longer in general - even impoverished and sick people.

 

[Jezabella]

How should we decrease the population in a quick enough way to influence the trajectory of climate change in a significant way?

People aren't dying younger, they are living longer in general - even impoverished and sick people.

Perhaps it's too late to train our narcissistic, self-serving humanity.

It's not just the population in terms of numbers, it's how the ballooning numbers live, the obscene indulgences. The wastefulness.

More than one billion children are severely deprived of at least one of the essential goods and services they require to survive, grow and develop—these include nutrition, water, sanitation facilities, access to basic health-care services, adequate shelter, education and information. As a result almost 9.2 million children under-five die every year. A further 3.3 million babies are stillborn.


Americans throw away 150,000 tons of food every day, finds government report

 

[Zoii]

How should we decrease the population in a quick enough way to influence the trajectory of climate change in a significant way?

People aren't dying younger, they are living longer in general - even impoverished and sick people.

Start the process. Single child families. An abolition of religious dogma advocating large families and forbidding contraception

 

[Kaon]

Perhaps it's too late to train our narcissistic, self-serving humanity.

It's not just the population in terms of numbers, it's how the ballooning numbers live, the obscene indulgences. The wastefulness.

More than one billion children are severely deprived of at least one of the essential goods and services they require to survive, grow and develop—these include nutrition, water, sanitation facilities, access to basic health-care services, adequate shelter, education and information. As a result almost 9.2 million children under-five die every year. A further 3.3 million babies are stillborn.


Americans throw away 150,000 tons of food every day, finds government report

Right. Even if we solve the waste issue we have the baseline consumption of resources issue - as well as the carbon print issue - that comes from the piece-wise influence of billions of humans, their corporations, vehicles and lifestyle. Changing ideology takes time, or trauma; we won't get the world off of over-consumption, overindulgence and overabundance within 100 years if we continue the democratic way.

Are we ready to sacrifice a serious humanity in order to do what we think will save this plane of existence? The long human generations and fertility rates make it unfeasible to chronically attack the problem of overpopulation. What would be the proactive way to decrease the population in a significant enough way such that climate change demise will not befall us within 100 years or sooner?

 

[Kaon]

Start the process. Single child families. An abolition of religious dogma advocating large families and forbidding contraception

1-Child Policy: a very dangerous and dystopian trajectory to take, but sure let's entertain it. It will take at least a decade before a single-child policy would be enacted in Western nations that pride themselves on democracy. The populations would implode through (civil) war, and the economies would collapse before a working government would be able to move in and gain control. Even still, those policies do not work unless you use heavy enforcement that would make a police state look like anarchy.

Religion couldn't be abolished in the last 10,000 years - even with the brutality that has tried to control it (and the blood that has been spilled over it). Fertility goddesses are still being worshiped, and the vast majority of people still consider having children as a good thing - even if not personally birthed. A lot of people would have to "go" in order to stop the stories/histories of religion being passed down to their children, friends and relatives.

What is going to be different than the history that tried to do these things, and what is going to be able to get it done within the 100+ years we have before our demise?

 

[Zoii]

1-Child Policy: a very dangerous and dystopian trajectory to take, but sure let's entertain it. It will take at least a decade before a single-child policy would be enacted in Western nations that pride themselves on democracy. The populations would implode through (civil) war, and the economies would collapse before a working government would be able to move in and gain control. Even still, those policies do not work unless you use heavy enforcement that would make a police state look like anarchy.

Religion couldn't be abolished in the last 10,000 years - even with the brutality that has tried to control it (and the blood that has been spilled over it). Fertility goddesses are still being worshiped, and the vast majority of people still consider having children as a good thing - even if not personally birthed. A lot of people would have to "go" in order to stop the stories/histories of religion being passed down to their children, friends and relatives.

What is going to be different than the history that tried to do these things, and what is going to be able to get it done within the 100+ years we have before our demise?

Focus is needed ed. Your are extrapolating incorrectly.
One child policy works. It's time to put aside lame "we can't do it" views. It can. It works. It's needed.

Religions must be brought to heal. There can be no policies banning contraception and advocating large families. Such religious dogma poses an existential crisis. They must not be tolerated

 

[Jezabella]

1-Child Policy: a very dangerous and dystopian trajectory to take, but sure let's entertain it. It will take at least a decade before a single-child policy would be enacted in Western nations that pride themselves on democracy. The populations would implode through (civil) war, and the economies would collapse before a working government would be able to move in and gain control. Even still, those policies do not work unless you use heavy enforcement that would make a police state look like anarchy.

Religion couldn't be abolished in the last 10,000 years - even with the brutality that has tried to control it (and the blood that has been spilled over it). Fertility goddesses are still being worshiped, and the vast majority of people still consider having children as a good thing - even if not personally birthed. A lot of people would have to "go" in order to stop the stories/histories of religion being passed down to their children, friends and relatives.

What is going to be different than the history that tried to do these things, and what is going to be able to get it done within the 100+ years we have before our demise?

It has to work because people are living longer. The rate of growth CANNOT continue.

During the 20th century, the global population
saw its greatest increase in known history, rising

from about 1.6 billion in 1900
.......to over 6 billion in 2000​

That's just 100 years, guys.​

World Population Growth
We are now inching towards 8 billion.

Click here for the sobering stats, second by second.
World Population Clock: 7.8 Billion People (2019) - Worldometers​

 

[Kaon]

Focus is needed ed. Your are extrapolating incorrectly.

How am I extrapolating incorrectly?

One child policy works. It's time to put aside lame "we can't do it" views. It can. It works. It's needed.

The Effects of China’s One-Child Policy

China ends one-child policy after 35 years

https://www.afr.com/world/asia/chin...ant-shake-the-onechild-policy-20180326-h0xzox

Can China recover from its disastrous one-child policy?

How China’s One-Child Policy Backfired Disastrously

Forgetting about China, it is a myopic POV to believe that limiting adults to one child will actually fight the change in climate in enough time to significantly delay demise. Allegedly, we do not have more than two centuries to get this done; human generations are about 75 years long, so that means you have to hope that well beyond two generations of humans will adhere to the rule in the first place to significantly lower world population. China had to quit in about half a human generation, realizing it was too risky to continue for whatever reason.

Religions must be brought to heal.

That is not nearly the purpose of (all) religion. You are imposing your desire on the function of an institution that has not defined itself in universal agreement of function.

There can be no policies banning contraception and advocating large families. Such religious dogma poses an existential crisis. They must not be tolerated

Now this is starting to sound like a personal manifesto. Who is the arbiter for tolerance? Who makes the decisions on what religious dogma poses an existential crisis if we are all human? Why do you have a problem with one alleged hypocrisy, but ignore the others (like supporting a "super tech" company that steals water and mineral rights for their processing factories)?



But, all of this is not the actual problem: doomorrow is here now, and it is no longer an idle problem (we are being told). Your ideas, while controversial, don't actually get to the time issue of the problem - since what you would want would require regime and cultural change - usually half a generation, a decade at least. At the very least, 10% of the time we have would be spent convincing people. The rest would be implementation, enforcement and maintenance of said policies - of which the fruits of success of failure may not show up for decades.

How will we get rid of enough humans in enough time to significant decrease climate change demise in the next 100+ years?

 

[Nithavela]

How will we get rid of enough humans in enough time to significant decrease climate change demise in the next 100+ years?

I think the answer to this question is in the lyrics of the following song:

 

[iluvatar5150]

Stop stacking humans by the millions in cities and strips of land, then complaining about the overconsumption, sewage and projected lack of resources - as well as the ripple effect in remote lands (where people actually grow/hunt most of their food, and do not stack themselves in 10,000s per square mile.

Huh? Cities tend to be more efficient than suburban and rural areas. Those millions of people have to go somewhere and they use fewer resources per person when they live close together.

 

[Jezabella]

How am I extrapolating incorrectly?



The Effects of China’s One-Child Policy

China ends one-child policy after 35 years

China's failed baby boom: Why Beijing can't shake the one-child policy

Can China recover from its disastrous one-child policy?

How China’s One-Child Policy Backfired Disastrously

Forgetting about China, it is a myopic POV to believe that limiting adults to one child will actually fight the change in climate in enough time to significantly delay demise. Allegedly, we do not have more than two centuries to get this done; human generations are about 75 years long, so that means you have to hope that well beyond two generations of humans will adhere to the rule in the first place to significantly lower world population. China had to quit in about half a human generation, realizing it was too risky to continue for whatever reason.





That is not nearly the purpose of (all) religion. You are imposing your desire on the function of an institution that has not defined itself in universal agreement of function.



Now this is starting to sound like a personal manifesto. Who is the arbiter for tolerance? Who makes the decisions on what religious dogma poses an existential crisis if we are all human? Why do you have a problem with one alleged hypocrisy, but ignore the others (like supporting a "super tech" company that steals water and mineral rights for their processing factories)?



But, all of this is not the actual problem: doomorrow is here now, and it is no longer an idle problem (we are being told). Your ideas, while controversial, don't actually get to the time issue of the problem - since what you would want would require regime and cultural change - usually half a generation, a decade at least. At the very least, 10% of the time we have would be spent convincing people. The rest would be implementation, enforcement and maintenance of said policies - of which the fruits of success of failure may not show up for decades.

How will we get rid of enough humans in enough time to significant decrease climate change demise in the next 100+ years?

Yeah, so we learn from China how not to do it.

China's disaster was because it was a cultural thing to hanker after a son. A son is everything.

SO baby girls were killed and it created all kinds of social problems.

 

[Kaon]

It has to work because people are living longer. The rate of growth CANNOT continue.

During the 20th century, the global population
saw its greatest increase in known history, rising

from about 1.6 billion in 1900
.......to over 6 billion in 2000​

That's just 100 years, guys.​

World Population Growth
We are now inching towards 8 billion.

Click here for the sobering stats, second by second.
World Population Clock: 7.8 Billion People (2019) - Worldometers​

I understand that (honestly),

I want to know how we will get rid of enough humans in 100+ years such that we can significantly delay the effects of climate change?

Climate Change Over the Next 100 Years

The next 100 years will be catastrophic according to the White House. How will we reduce consumption, alleged overpopulation, overabundance and wast in 100 years when our generations are 75+?

 

[Jezabella]

I understand that (honestly),

I want to know how we will get rid of enough humans in 100+ years such that we can significantly delay the effects of climate change?

Climate Change Over the Next 100 Years

The next 100 years will be catastrophic according to the White House. How will we reduce consumption, alleged overpopulation, overabundance and wast in 100 years when our generations are 75+?

One way we can do it is to NOT continue doing what we have been doing.

It may be too late but doing nothing because climate change "is a hoax" is what's brought it to the status quo.

 

[Kaon]

I think the answer to this question is in the lyrics of the following song:

Right. This is one possibility, and we can entertain it and its (im)morality, but this cant be the scientific approach.

 

[Nithavela]

Right. This is one possibility, and we can entertain it and its (im)morality, but this cant be the scientific approach.

Science got us into this hot mess.

 

[Kaon]

Huh? Cities tend to be more efficient than suburban and rural areas. Those millions of people have to go somewhere and they use fewer resources per person when they live close together.

Efficiency is a subjective measurement. Rural waste, pollution due to population density, and crime is orders of magnitude lower than in cities.

I said stop stacking people in cities in the response to the declaration that there is an overpopulation problem. There isn't; there is a perceived overpopulation problem because people are stacked in cities, and what it takes to keep cities "efficient" (e.g corporatism) is a significant drain on world resources. It is our fault that we cannot find water and purify it, grow or hunt our own food, etc. - the resources on this plane of existence are over-abundant, but when we ignore the culture of corporatism and force scarcity that gives the perception of a dire situation, we historically run to foolish, manufactured solutions that send us into more subjugation. The allure of creature comfort has made us ignorant of the abundance around us, and how to properly operate on this plane.

Now, we are running to and fro trying to figure out how to escape our allegedly manufactured demise - for which we ignored in exchange for comfort and flattery.

 

[Jezabella]

Science got us into this hot mess.

There's good debt and there's bad debt.

There's smart science, and there's stupid science.