11,000 Scientists

[Nithavela]

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

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

Yeah, yeah, and there's very fine people on both sides.

Part of our lacking evolutionary toolkit is our inability to see that sometimes the middle road isn't correct.

 

[Kaon]

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.

So you see what happens to Icarus, and you ask Daedalus to make you thicker/shinier/lighter wings and you will make it?


He only makes them out of wax

 

[Kaon]

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.

I am not saying it is a hoax, but I am saying it is too late to start trying to reduce the population to a number that will have significant climatological effect by democratic means.

Science doesn't usually have the moral barriers religion and even society may have, so what would be the way to get the population down to a significant number in the amount of time we have (100+ years) in order to affect the climate in a significant way? The issue is the time we have to do it, not the method.

 

[Kaon]

Science got us into this hot mess.

Right.

So "knowledge" (especially without the boundary of morality and ethics) should be able to come up with a way to eliminate enough humans to significantly affect the climatological demise coming within the next 100+ years.

You can't tell me we would be foolish enough to get ourselves into this position, but we don't have a way to reverse it - and that is if it is what we think it is. [/sarcasm]

 

[Jezabella]

I am not saying it is a hoax, but I am saying it is too late to start trying to reduce the population to a number that will have significant climatological effect by democratic means.

Science doesn't usually have the moral barriers religion and even society may have, so what would be the way to get the population down to a significant number in the amount of time we have (100+ years) in order to affect the climate in a significant way? The issue is the time we have to do it, not the method.

There is no alternative except for mass murder or voluntary suicide.

 

[Nithavela]

Right.

So "knowledge" (especially without the boundary of morality and ethics) should be able to come up with a way to eliminate enough humans to significantly affect the climatological demise coming within the next 100+ years.

You can't tell me we would be foolish enough to get ourselves into this position, but we don't have a way to reverse it - and that is if it is what we think it is. [/sarcasm]

Remember, you can always pump the breaks, even if your car has already fallen off the cliff.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Efficiency is a subjective measurement.

No, it isn’t.

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

Crime, yes. The others I don’t believe without data.

 

[Kaon]

There is no alternative except for mass murder or voluntary suicide.

And, I don't think you want either of those options - but correct me if I am wrong.

But, can you see how even your zeal - which comes from an honest place - can be used to bring about an agenda? How can we possibly eliminate enough humans in order to delay significant climate change in the next 100+ years by conventional, democratic means?

Now, this is the test of "pre-warp" societies, as it were: would we go through this disaster together and reject the alternative(s), or would we assume those who would make the (in)voluntary sacrifices for the rest of us? So far, we only have projections; the faithful among us may say that we will make it through as we always have in the other iterations of ELEs. (This is one reason why religion and art are important - not because of [false] piety, but because of a culture beyond humanity that keeps us going as a unit.)

Do we come up with foolish ways of trying to escape our demise we foolishly brought upon ourselves, or do we choose people to take the overall punishment - like scapegoats?

 

[Zoii]

How am I extrapolating incorrectly?



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.





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?

Glad you mentioned China
What an absolute success story it will be. Right now they are experiencing the pain - an ageing population and a culture that selected males. But when that aged population dies - wow look what they achieved - a drastic reduction in less than 100 years

So glad you mentioned china.

As for religions - how irresponsible for any religion to suggest a large family and to suggest that contraception is improper. How disgraceful. On that principle alone I would outlaw those religions. How disgraceful Catholicism, for example, would not support the use of condoms in Africa as they went through their AIDS crisis.

Religions need to grow up a bit and realise we are in the 21st century.

 

[Larniavc]

What is the 'fantastic world' that Christians live in? Where is it? Are you saying they live in a different world to the one you are living in? What world are you living in?

I think the implication is that religious people live in a demon haunted world.

 

[Kaon]

Remember, you can always pump the breaks, even if your car has already fallen off the cliff.

Indeed, this is the "more faithful" approach I was talking about.

But is the car operable, and how much will it cost to safely get it back to driving order on terra firma?

I am all for smart human practices that benefit the progress of this plane of existence, and of humanity overall. But, this is a step we should have combined with corporate cognizance, and an affirmed and active presence against entities claiming the right to nature. Man is at a crest of foolishness when we truly believed they own pieces of nature. It leads to companies that we protest against owning water and mineral rights to entire states in which we reside, for example.

Culture - the ones that feed the legal ownership of nature and natural resources - is what caused, within a few generations, people to trade their true "knowledge/science" and freedom for comfort and a facade of progress. Now, we are begging for a solution to our problems from a bin of possibility that have been manufactured for us - based on the very things that exploit us. It is an Ouroboros of folly.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

The sheer size of the human population on our planet certainly is a factor in our present crisis. On the other hand, if we do nothing that population will be dramatically reduced with incredible human suffering.

Jesus told us that it
would not be easy down here.

Remember ----- many troubles?

How quickly they forget.
M-Bob

 

[Jezabella]

And, I don't think you want either of those options - but correct me if I am wrong.

But, can you see how even your zeal - which comes from an honest place - can be used to bring about an agenda? How can we possibly eliminate enough humans in order to delay significant climate change in the next 100+ years by conventional, democratic means?

Now, this is the test of "pre-warp" societies, as it were: would we go through this disaster together and reject the alternative(s), or would we assume those who would make the (in)voluntary sacrifices for the rest of us?

So far, we only have projections; the faithful among us may say that we will make it through as we always have in the other iterations of ELEs. (This is one reason why religion and art are important - not because of [false] piety, but because of a culture beyond humanity that keeps us going as a unit.)

Oh please, religion helped to get us into this.

Muslims = 1.8 B
Christians = 2.2 B

That means just 2 Abrahamic religions represent more than half the world's population.

Catholics went against birth control for one specific reason - to empower them in numbers. They didn't care that families couldn't afford to feed their kids.

And why do you think Islam approves of multiple wives, starting at puberty?

 

[Kaon]

No, it isn’t.

Thermodynamic effeciency isn't subjective; it is statistical. But, the efficiency of a city is subjective - based on several subjective factors that, while modeled with math and statistics, is based on subjective indices.

Crime, yes. The others I don’t believe without data.

Your data is in the number of population in rural areas vs urban areas. I am not arguing waste management and waste in these two demographics, I am speaking about the amount of waste produced by a city vs. a rural area. The waste of a city of 1,000,000 people in high population density is orders of magnitude higher than the waste deposited by a town of 1000 people of low population density. This is regardless of how well a city manages the waste - according to their standards.

And, unless you are talking about pollution to natural resources due to outside influences, a rural area does not have the human footprint to be depleted without recovering first; there are systems that account for changes in things on that scale (like higher concentrations of gases, wastes and even invasive species). Again, the pollution in a city of 1,000,000 people will produce more light, particulate, thermal and dynamic specific pollution than a rural town of 1000 people.

 

[Kaon]

Glad you mentioned China
What an absolute success story it will be. Right now they are experiencing the pain - an ageing population and a culture that selected males. But when that aged population dies - wow look what they achieved - a drastic reduction in less than 100 years

You do not know this. You are hoping, and executing faith that things will turn around. An ageing population in a world of entitled youth means we lose a generation of wisdom, so I wouldn't see it as a win either way.

So glad you mentioned china.

As for religions - how irresponsible for any religion to suggest a large family and to suggest that contraception is improper. How disgraceful. On that principle alone I would outlaw those religions. How disgraceful Catholicism, for example, would not support the use of condoms in Africa as they went through their AIDS crisis.

Religions need to grow up a bit and realise we are in the 21st century.

Adults choose to follow whichever religion they please - even to the death. You cannot change an adult's mind to align to your way of thinking unless you pressure that adult somehow. You can threaten their children - or the fate or their progeny. If that doesn't work, you can threaten their life, livelihood, etc. But, a good amount of those humans won't budge no matter what you do or say to them.

Your disdain for religion is pretty clear, but you may be a minority. Even if you are in the majority right now, you will fail in removing religion because it is a historically determined outcome. No amount of torture, murder, threatening or even trinkets will get rid of religion - nothing that hasn't been done in the past eon to get rid of it will do it now. Doom has been a constant thing in human history; that has not killed religion. So, I would suggest forgetting religion; it isn't going anywhere.

You still aren't addressing the issue of time: how will we get rid of enough humans to stop significant climatological changes from happening in 100+ years by conventional/democratic means? Banning religion isn't conventional, or democratic, but it doesn't address the time issue. We have 150, maybe 200 years MAX; humans are living longer.

 

[Kaon]

Oh please, religion helped to get us into this.

Muslims = 1.8 B
Christians = 2.2 B

That means just 2 Abrahamic religions represent more than half the world's population.

Catholics went against birth control for one specific reason - to empower them in numbers. They didn't care that families couldn't afford to feed their kids.

And why do you think Islam approves of multiple wives, starting at puberty?

Ok, all religion is bad. I got it, and I am not dismissing that (we can actually come back to it).

Maligning religion doesn't answer the question of how we get rid of the amount of humans we need to relieve the earth of in order to stop significant climatological changes on this plane of existence. How do we solve the overpopulation problem within 150 years when human generations are 75 years, and there is no affinity toward any UN recognized nation having a limited-child policy - religious or not?

 

[Zoii]

You do not know this. You are hoping, and executing faith

No its a statistical fact. When the current aged cohort dies they will have achieved their objective. Hope has nothing to do with it. Its statistics.

our disdain for religion is pretty clear,

I don't disdain religion - you should be more precise. I disdain religious dogma that extols large families and forbids contraception. I have said this three times and feel I have been very clear on this.

 

[Jezabella]

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.

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+?

You sure changed your tune.

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

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.

We will continue to receive illusions until we think, as humans, we deserve better. Climate change by overpopulation is the newest delusion.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Thermodynamic effeciency isn't subjective; it is statistical. But, the efficiency of a city is subjective - based on several subjective factors that, while modeled with math and statistics, is based on subjective indices.





Your data is in the number of population in rural areas vs urban areas. I am not arguing waste management and waste in these two demographics, I am speaking about the amount of waste produced by a city vs. a rural area. The waste of a city of 1,000,000 people in high population density is orders of magnitude higher than the waste deposited by a town of 1000 people of low population density. This is regardless of how well a city manages the waste - according to their standards.

And, unless you are talking about pollution to natural resources due to outside influences, a rural area does not have the human footprint to be depleted without recovering first; there are systems that account for changes in things on that scale (like higher concentrations of gases, wastes and even invasive species). Again, the pollution in a city of 1,000,000 people will produce more light, particulate, thermal and dynamic specific pollution than a rural town of 1000 people.

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? 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.

 

[Kaon]

No its a statistical fact. When the current aged cohort dies they will have achieved their objective. Hope has nothing to do with it. Its statistics.

It isn't a statistical fact using the sample space of an entire nation to test. Again, you are hoping, and using faith to interpolate an outcome that we don't know will happen. There has been no modern nation for which a regulated child policy has been declared to have worked even by the host nation. China considers their former policy a failure.

I don't disdain religion - you should be more precise. I disdain religious dogma that extols large families and forbids contraception. I have said this three times and feel I have been very clear on this.

Your disdain for religious dogma that extols large families and forbids contraception is not going to answer the time-sensitive question concerning how we alleviate the overpopulation problem within the next 150 years by conventional/democratic means such that we significantly decrease the effects of future climate change. You haven't answered how a judgment on religious dogma will accomplish a significant change in climate within 150 years.