You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What's Your Favorite Climate Change Study?
In the 1700s Thomas Malthus nailed the problem by mentioning overpopulation. Things have only gotten worse and it is now off the agenda for political reasons. Hollywood just introduced usball to Thanos who did something insane to deal with the problem.
It doesn't matter how small our carbon foot print is, if we keep expanding the global population we are done.
I could site the census I guess, but I don't really hear anyone arguing more and nore and more people will solve the problem (well the more people the mpre climate scientists I guess).
The problem is not overpopulation. The biggest part of the pollution on our planet comes from countries with relatively low population grow rates for a long time (Europe and North america).
China and India which pollute a lot mostly do this to produce products which go to these countries as well. And even China and India are not growing as rapidly anymore.
Yes population growth is slowing down. However, it is not happening fast enough.
Do you think the current population and population projections aren't adding to the stress?
Pretty much everyone in the world desires to live by US and European standards hence global migration patterns.
Restrictions against migration and global resource distribution are the only reasons matters aren't already worse.
The chinese and indians dont pollute less and impoet our pollution to export us stuff because they want to. Believe me they want to consume just as much as we do. And they have every right.
So, we have to be the first to show them how great it is to consume decent amounts.
It's not like obesity is a good thing after all.
Population is gonna top out around 9-10 billions anyway, where most additional is just due to the extended live expectancy.
All of us in the north will have to learn how to live with less.
All this plastic stuff, changing phones every year, cars every 5 years. Our economy is based on an ever-growing model.
A German scientist once said it will. There is only one thing that grows consistently in high rates in nature, cancer.
And like I said, this doesn't even have to impact our quality of life, we exchange waste products for reusables, we recycle more, we build products with a longer lifespan, etc.
You mean going back to the days when things like cars 🚘 were built to last not fall apart like the new ones.
Posted using Partiko iOS
The moment our society makes it more "acceptable" to stay with a car for a couple of decades, we can afford a car which is made out of more valuable materials which then will not fall apart like the new ones, yes.
I don't think they will just follow our lead.
We definitely should continue research and strive to waste less. It's just some of the ideas aren't for everyone and environmentalists need to come to terms with this. Meat is a good example.
Population will solve itself. However so will carbon. It's the effects of the cycle I'm concerned about. Humans are fully responsible for human population. This isn't the case for ghg or carbon.
One thing I heavily support is nuclear technology. However it was the environmentalists who said no. Fossils kill many more people a year than nuclear. Deaths from fukushima are 0 (we are uncertain 9f canver but it is also much lower than cancer from fossils), but its all we hear about. Then we get people offering unrealistic solutions like solar and wind. If research into nuclear wasn't thwarted who knows where we would be at?
So, I agree that leaving Nuclear behind was a bit rushed and resulted in a higher usage of fossils, if that had been planned better the result would be much more sustainable too.
But I disagree that they will follow our lead, the entire world follows the lead what the European and northern american cultures dictate them. Starting with music, clothes, lifestyle, etc.
Hey have you seen this?
It's AMAZING. Not sure if it is "fast enough", but it really is interesting and well presented.
I will take a look at this video later. I think I may have seen it.
I thought it looked familiar and I've seen this video, but it has been a couple of years. I'm quite familiar with this topic.
His development theory is correct (for the most part) and just a branch of modernization theory which has been studied and applied since the early 1960s and has its roots in the ideas of Max Weber.
However there are a few problems:
Don't forget those who need to act as if we have huge problems so they can sell us expensive solutions.
Malthusian theory has been shown to lack a basic understanding of economics and demographics. For example, "Human populations, once they reach a certain size and complexity, always develop specialized orders, of priests, doctors, soldiers. To the members of these orders sexual abstinence, either permanent or periodic, or in "business hours" (so to speak), is typically prescribed. Here, then, is [a] fact about our species which is contrary to what one would expect on the principle that population always increases when, and as fast as, the amount of food available permits." (David Stove)
Malthus also failed to take innovation into account; he was applying current agricultural methods against future populations. "Any numbskull can find statistics to show that if the resource base stays the same and population increases then all hell will break loose. This is the Malthusian mirage." (Ben Marks) With population increase you also have an increase in production. Increased production increases wealth (that includes food) and efficiency (that includes carrying capacity or storage space).
Population increases solve themselves via increased production; in fact, a decreasing birth rate often concerns communities and societies because that means a decrease in production, as well.