The world has probably passed peak pollution

Post by selimthegrim » Fri, May 10, 2024, 7:36 PM UTC

tech_ken wrote: post #194

benatkin wrote: post #89

Many will regret being distracted by the world's problems when they could have been building their lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxYt--CFXK0 > Looking back, my only Berklee classmates that got successful were the ones who were fiercely focused, determined, and undistractable. > While you’re here, presidents will change, the world will change, and the media will try to convince you how important it all is. >…

Kind of repeating myself from another comment, but the person making this comment is basically standing atop one of the most singular vantage points in all of human history. To say this advice is non-generalizable is an understatement, IM personal O. Setting aside that this was the entry point of the ZIRP years (unique even among US history), the United States from 1920-2020 was basically unprecedented in terms of gl…

Post by crznp » Fri, May 10, 2024, 7:47 PM UTC

jackcosgrove wrote: post #224

nostrademons wrote: post #208

It's interesting to revisit the Limits to Growth study [1] in light of these recently-declining exponential curves. Somebody did [2] and found that we're basically on track for the model's bleak predictions. But the way that the model's predictions have come true is different than what's been popularized. Instead of mass die-offs from famine and pollution, we're seeing population collapse because of birth control, de…

The distinction between the two scenarios is the original, theoretical scenario did not foresee the negative feedback loops that actually occurred. It's a pretty glaring miss when you're trying to make predictions. This is why I was always skeptical of dystopias that depend on overpopulation. If life is so miserable why would people continue to have so many children?

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, May 10, 2024, 7:49 PM UTC

NewJazz wrote: post #258

illiac786 wrote: post #120

I find this title highly misleading “peak emission” would be much more accurate. “Peak pollution” sounds like the amount of pollution in the environment will actually _decrease_ going forward. That is simply not true, it will continue to increase, just slightly less fast. Sorry if I don’t feel euphoric right now.

Isn't the concept of pollution highly subjective?

Post by david-gpu » Fri, May 10, 2024, 8:17 PM UTC

gavindean90 wrote: post #211

mycall wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought greenhouse gasses will increase in concentration as the feedback loop of polar region is forcing trapped gasses out of the ground.

I thinks that’s been predicted but not observed thus far.

Post by tlocke » Fri, May 10, 2024, 8:20 PM UTC

shepherdjerred wrote: post #167

skissane wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - Peak baby - 2013. [2] I think your source's claim that "The planet will never see more babies than it has in 2013" is open to question. To just use the US as an example: mainstream Americans have a declining fertility rate, and we have no reason to think that is going to reverse in the foreseeable future. Immigrants have higher fertility, but they tend to converge to the mainstream after a generation or two. So,…

> the miracle of exponential growth means that within 2-3 centuries, they could be the majority of the US population It's so unhelpful to speculate about what the world will be like 100 years from now. Think about what things were like in the 1920's and how unrecognizable the world is by comparison. Then, consider that technology is being developed significantly more quickly than it was in the 1920's.