[flagged]
I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]
291–300 of 884 posts
Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
> are you not saying that it may be better that 10 poor people are not born, than for rich people to do minor changes to their lifestyle? I definitely would say that and would argue it needs to be way more than 10. If you want to solve manmade climate change you need to solve the demand for goods that cause it. You lower demand by increasing the the supply (can't do that because that increases the emissions you try b…
> You lower demand by increasing the the supply Jevon's Paradox[1] states that as efficiency increases (which itself is a form of supply increase), demand increases. My own view is that the paradox makes the idea of population reduction moot, those remaining humans would simply use more energy because supply has gone up and demand (through lack of competition) going down to levels below supply would, again, drive pri…
> Jevon's Paradox
This looks to support my argument as its indeed what is happening and what is causing emissions to go up (less developed nations industrialising) due to technology trickling down. Please correct me if i'm wrong.
> My own view is that the paradox makes the idea of population reduction moot
Lets use math and assume all pollution comes from end users who can afford/drive cars (~20%) and ignore the rest of modern civilisation and set current efficiency of 1x.
8 000 000 000 * 0.2 * 1 = 1 600 000 000
Lets call the 1.6Bil a hard line that we want to sustain aka the perpetual enviormental doomsday in the current year+x.
Over the next 80 years with strict population control and current technology we can make that:
4 000 000 000 * 0.4 * 1 = 1 600 000 000 and bring 20% more people into the top percentile bringing the misery, disease, war and resource shortage down or keep it to its current form.
Or if we wanted to bring same 20% of population to the same mark with efficiency (11.2 bil is expected population by 2100) we would need to achieve efficiency of:
11 200 000 000 * 0.4 * x = 1 600 000 000
x = 1600000000/(11200000000*0.4) = 0.357
Thats an efficiency increase of ~2.8x
So it boils down to you claiming that in the next 80 years we can increase efficiency 2.8 times across the board. This does not only include energy but materials too 2.8x less materials used to build cars, houses, roads etc. And on top of that we will do it with a completely new source of energy since fossil fuels are going dry in the coming decades.
Furthermore you calling population growth moot suggest thinking that this can be repeated again ad infinitum in 2180 and 2260 and so on.
I'll put it mildly - don't think its feasible.
Edit: fixed the last calculation for clarity/typos
Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]
#293There’s a new book from Hannah Ritchie called „Not the end of the world“, that argues for optimism, without denying the reality of the situation. It’s a fantastic book and I highly recommend it.
The whole premise of the book is a multi-layered hail mary, or a hail mary that continually plays out like a jackpot based on vibes and misconstruing the forces that are causing climate change. Not sure why you'd call this "fantastic" other than it's a feel-good book without any evidence to support it. >Carbon emissions per capita are actually down [1] It takes maybe 2 minutes, maybe upwards of 10, to realize why thi…
Unfortunately you’ve done very little to refute the claims yourself.
Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]
#294I no longer worry. I'm extremely pessimistic about the impending climate change. I believe Sabine isn't pessimistic enough about what to anticipate. Consider the tundra methane emissions and the explosive release of methane-hydrates from the oceans, along with water vapor, a potent greenhouse gas. The disaster looming over all ecosystems (a mass extinction event) that will happen in decades and the doom-phase could l…
> We can't colonize Greenland or Antarctica due to the lack of fertile soil Just on this example, you can physically pick soil up and move it. Enough for 9bn people? No. Enough for 100k? Yes.
Or just keep your intestine working actively
If the sea is fertile the soil can be hacked to be fertile. Any seabird could tell us how
But this is not the problem. The sea level will raise
Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]
#295I used to worry about climate (80s), now I dont (20s). Why? 1. Too many lies. In the 80s the water level was rising, but it didn't. Then acid rains would kill all, but did not. Then ... 2. I cannot change it. Using fossils (or other tech with big "environmental" impact) is a great way to scale business. The "economy God" is to important to actually go an fix the problem. That why we see no real solutions being implem…
[flagged]
> Government money printing has created a huge number of bullshit jobs.
I dont know if there is a causal relation, but both are rampant.
For me the worst is how hollow the word "science" has become. I refer to the old law-based science as "natural or hard science" nowadays. And all climate models (on a highly complex open system that is the earth) are not hard science. Also virology side-stepped Koch's postulate on isolation and transmittability.
So according to "science" a treatment is "safe and effective" and in a few months turns out to be neither safe nor effective: but barely anyone can reflect on that because all are too invested in their own story. That's not science (nor hard nor soft), that's a cargo cult.
Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]
#296It's taboo to say this, but people worldwide have had far too many children, and I believe that overpopulation is the root of the sustainability crisis, including climate change and pollution. And that taboo is probably rooted in evolutionary psychology, people have a genetically driven tendency to criticize those who advocate having less children? So could there be an instinctual drive behind it? https://www.flashpa…
i don't think overpopulation is the problem, but maybe it's a symptom. the problem is we've forced our way up to an unrealistically high standard of living which is completely unsustainable, and now we're trapped in an inescapable death spiral because nobody wants to go back. people aren't willing to stop paying for conveniences because they're cheaply available, corporations aren't willing to stop selling them becau…
"Standards of living" are not some kind of homogeneous global state.
The true hard pill to swallow is that YOUR (and a few others') standard of living is unsustainable.
Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]
#297I no longer worry. I'm extremely pessimistic about the impending climate change. I believe Sabine isn't pessimistic enough about what to anticipate. Consider the tundra methane emissions and the explosive release of methane-hydrates from the oceans, along with water vapor, a potent greenhouse gas. The disaster looming over all ecosystems (a mass extinction event) that will happen in decades and the doom-phase could l…
This might just be the same thing as apocalyptic religious predictions, I think? But environmentalism this time?
Religious predictions never come with data to support them. That’s an important difference.
Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's 2 topics that need to be held apart here: 1) Limiting number of children in rich countries. This is what your links talk about I think. Yes, perhaps there is a taboo in place here. Is that relevant to sustainability crisis though? Population is already declining in rich countries, quite naturally. 2) Limiting number of children in poorer countries. Well, as in the article pointed to in a sibling comme…
The issue is the global population. Obviously, that's the metric that matters for global issues like the climate and environment. The global population is still increasing. Furthermore, as poor countries develop this is compounded by increased consumption (both resources and energy) per capita. In that respect, "richest 1% account for more emissions than poorest 66%" should be interpreted as very worrying when the po…
> The issue is the global population. Obviously, that's the metric that matters for global issues like the climate and environment.
Look, what if you could choose between:
Option A: The 50% lowest polluting part of the world's population never existed. Would this make a dent towards global warming? No. Perhaps slow the onset by a few years. The overall magnitude of the problem would be the same.
Option B: Through reduced consumption and technology, reduce emissions of the 50% highest polluters by 80%. This would have a quite massive impact towards global warming AND also help when the 50% poorest increase their living standards.
Given these -- how can you say that "population" overall, without further qualification, is the problem?
Another factor here is that population growth isn't something that will continue as/if people are lifted out of poverty -- when people become richer and more educated, the birth rates invariably drops.
There are many other good comments on this page now about why you are wrong citing statistics and research reports, I encourage you to read them.
Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]
#299Weird. I used to worry about climate change and now I don’t. I guess the world has a way of finding its equilibrium. I do however worry about the accidental introduction of invasive species and diseases, which seems to be accelerating (see: citrus greening disease).
I guess the world has a way of finding its equilibrium.
Which might mean the end of complex life forms like humans.
The world does not equal civilisation.
Re: I used to not worry about climate change. Now I do [video]
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but are they wrong?
Not wrong the science, but on the doomerism, that was my comment. I have a few friends on this extreme-depression-due-to-climate-change and it's not helpful to their health. Think of it like this, death is unpreventable and we still live our lives. So even if the world collapse was totally unpreventable (I think we can still turn it around), it's still better to go down fighting and living life.
When I was a kid, I heard that the sun is going to eventually explode, destroying planet Earth and us all. This was deeply saddening for me on a deep level, I remember crying and all.
My parents tried explaining this will take 5 billion years, and we will all be long dead anyway but this wasn't really helping. Prior to that I had a major shock when I learned about death, and this was kind of a relapse.
Looking at it now, I think doomerism, preppers, apocalyptic religions and the guy that stands on the street shouting "it's the end of the world" are all a basic part of the human experience. It's not a coincidence every cult eventually reaches the narrative of the impending end of the world.
Death is suppressed and finds other avenues to pop out in