Does anyone else think that its not the pollutants or their sources, but the growing number of humans generating them?

[tanj]

im not an environmentalist. and im surely not a supporter of population control, but every time I hear about the horrors and panic over climate change, I can't help but think that anything we do to curb pollutants, greenhouse gasses etc, is just a very temporary bandaid effort and that the only thing that will provide effective long term correction to our environment is going to be the use of extremely draconian population control.

pick and environmental problem, then pick a proposed solution to that problem. will it have any effect at all when the population increases sufficiently? band-aid.
"well, just increase efforts to reduce..." more band-aid. each band-aid just buys us a few years before another is required.
even if the entirety of humanity were to go completely vegan and replaced any and all animal products with viable substitutes, eventually the size of the population will outgrow our ability to produce sufficient food.
do we think there is economic inequality now? wait until our lives are directly on the line. who gets to reproduce? who gets to live? who gets to decide?

finite size has finite limits.

the movie "Soylent Green" was set in an alternate world where the US Civil War never occurred. there was severe overcrowding, energy shortages, food shortages. my favorite was the $200 filet mignon in the locked case. frequent riots were stopped by use of dump trucks with scoops on the front to toss dozens of rioters at a scoop into the back. what were the riots over? space. and food. burried in the plot of the movie it is seen that the latest "savior" product being made 'soylent green' was food that was made from the abundance of the ocean. the problem that is revealed is that the oceans had all but died. a running motif in the movie is the sweltering heat.
that movie was about climate change and population control.

more sci fi example: "Logan's Run." the whole movie is about population control and some that are fleeing from it. "Sandmen" "Carousel" "Renewal". on the surface it's a lottery. underneath its just a distraction from socially accepted population control. keep the population fat and happy while we weed out all that are deemed too old.

laugh at the sci-fi examples if you wish, but science fiction has a long and distinguished history of some very intelligent writers looking at possibble distant solutions to real problems, or things that they see will become a real problem.

how much and how severe will be the population control methods that we will still see as acceptable? how will we address it? this line of thought wraps into it the issues of abortion, euthanasia, death penalty as well.
eventually there would have to be a death penalty for having a child without authorization. there will also be popular opposition to these controls. riots, attempts at revolution to wrest control away from those who are making the decisions.

finite size has finite limits.

is colonization of the moon, mars and beyond a possible answer? the moon is HARSH with its wide temperature swings and total lack of atmosphere. Mars is less harsh. it might be turned to growing some food, or to possible terraforming efforts if our technology gets to that point. But off planet, whether in the form of the moon, or mars, or closer space stations etc (the movie: Eylisium), is just a much more distant band-aid.

even with the most sci-fi solutions we can come up with now, we still hit the same wall: finite size has finite limits. controls hold back the problem, technology spreads it out. but only temporarily.
but also sci fi predicts the technology to possibly answer these problems.

what ever shall we do? wherever shall we go?

 

[Phys251]

im not an environmentalist. and im surely not a supporter of population control, but every time I hear about the horrors and panic over climate change, I can't help but think that anything we do to curb pollutants, greenhouse gasses etc, is just a very temporary bandaid effort and that the only thing that will provide effective long term correction to our environment is going to be the use of extremely draconian population control.

pick and environmental problem, then pick a proposed solution to that problem. will it have any effect at all when the population increases sufficiently? band-aid.
"well, just increase efforts to reduce..." more band-aid. each band-aid just buys us a few years before another is required.
even if the entirety of humanity were to go completely vegan and replaced any and all animal products with viable substitutes, eventually the size of the population will outgrow our ability to produce sufficient food.
do we think there is economic inequality now? wait until our lives are directly on the line. who gets to reproduce? who gets to live? who gets to decide?

finite size has finite limits.

the movie "Soylent Green" was set in an alternate world where the US Civil War never occurred. there was severe overcrowding, energy shortages, food shortages. my favorite was the $200 filet mignon in the locked case. frequent riots were stopped by use of dump trucks with scoops on the front to toss dozens of rioters at a scoop into the back. what were the riots over? space. and food. burried in the plot of the movie it is seen that the latest "savior" product being made 'soylent green' was food that was made from the abundance of the ocean. the problem that is revealed is that the oceans had all but died. a running motif in the movie is the sweltering heat.
that movie was about climate change and population control.

more sci fi example: "Logan's Run." the whole movie is about population control and some that are fleeing from it. "Sandmen" "Carousel" "Renewal". on the surface it's a lottery. underneath its just a distraction from socially accepted population control. keep the population fat and happy while we weed out all that are deemed too old.

laugh at the sci-fi examples if you wish, but science fiction has a long and distinguished history of some very intelligent writers looking at possibble distant solutions to real problems, or things that they see will become a real problem.

how much and how severe will be the population control methods that we will still see as acceptable? how will we address it? this line of thought wraps into it the issues of abortion, euthanasia, death penalty as well.
eventually there would have to be a death penalty for having a child without authorization. there will also be popular opposition to these controls. riots, attempts at revolution to wrest control away from those who are making the decisions.

finite size has finite limits.

is colonization of the moon, mars and beyond a possible answer? the moon is HARSH with its wide temperature swings and total lack of atmosphere. Mars is less harsh. it might be turned to growing some food, or to possible terraforming efforts if our technology gets to that point. But off planet, whether in the form of the moon, or mars, or closer space stations etc (the movie: Eylisium), is just a much more distant band-aid.

even with the most sci-fi solutions we can come up with now, we still hit the same wall: finite size has finite limits. controls hold back the problem, technology spreads it out. but only temporarily.
but also sci fi predicts the technology to possibly answer these problems.

what ever shall we do? wherever shall we go?

What you're calling for is literal genocide. Nothing good can come from that.

Go back to the drawing board and come up with something much more humane. Then we can talk.

 

[iguanaman]

im not an environmentalist. and im surely not a supporter of population control, but every time I hear about the horrors and panic over climate change, I can't help but think that anything we do to curb pollutants, greenhouse gasses etc, is just a very temporary bandaid effort and that the only thing that will provide effective long term correction to our environment is going to be the use of extremely draconian population control.

pick and environmental problem, then pick a proposed solution to that problem. will it have any effect at all when the population increases sufficiently? band-aid.
"well, just increase efforts to reduce..." more band-aid. each band-aid just buys us a few years before another is required.
even if the entirety of humanity were to go completely vegan and replaced any and all animal products with viable substitutes, eventually the size of the population will outgrow our ability to produce sufficient food.
do we think there is economic inequality now? wait until our lives are directly on the line. who gets to reproduce? who gets to live? who gets to decide?

finite size has finite limits.

the movie "Soylent Green" was set in an alternate world where the US Civil War never occurred. there was severe overcrowding, energy shortages, food shortages. my favorite was the $200 filet mignon in the locked case. frequent riots were stopped by use of dump trucks with scoops on the front to toss dozens of rioters at a scoop into the back. what were the riots over? space. and food. burried in the plot of the movie it is seen that the latest "savior" product being made 'soylent green' was food that was made from the abundance of the ocean. the problem that is revealed is that the oceans had all but died. a running motif in the movie is the sweltering heat.
that movie was about climate change and population control.

more sci fi example: "Logan's Run." the whole movie is about population control and some that are fleeing from it. "Sandmen" "Carousel" "Renewal". on the surface it's a lottery. underneath its just a distraction from socially accepted population control. keep the population fat and happy while we weed out all that are deemed too old.

laugh at the sci-fi examples if you wish, but science fiction has a long and distinguished history of some very intelligent writers looking at possibble distant solutions to real problems, or things that they see will become a real problem.

how much and how severe will be the population control methods that we will still see as acceptable? how will we address it? this line of thought wraps into it the issues of abortion, euthanasia, death penalty as well.
eventually there would have to be a death penalty for having a child without authorization. there will also be popular opposition to these controls. riots, attempts at revolution to wrest control away from those who are making the decisions.

finite size has finite limits.

is colonization of the moon, mars and beyond a possible answer? the moon is HARSH with its wide temperature swings and total lack of atmosphere. Mars is less harsh. it might be turned to growing some food, or to possible terraforming efforts if our technology gets to that point. But off planet, whether in the form of the moon, or mars, or closer space stations etc (the movie: Eylisium), is just a much more distant band-aid.

even with the most sci-fi solutions we can come up with now, we still hit the same wall: finite size has finite limits. controls hold back the problem, technology spreads it out. but only temporarily.
but also sci fi predicts the technology to possibly answer these problems.

what ever shall we do? wherever shall we go?

Most of the offending countries with high population growth have made great strides in reducing it. We cannot blame the population for our dependence on fossil fuels either. The Earth can support more humans if we use our brains to do so responsibly.

 

[KevinKohler]

What you're calling for is literal genocide. Nothing good can come from that.

Go back to the drawing board and come up with something much more humane. Then we can talk.

Like a global pandemic.

When the curfews and shut downs happened, the effects were evident within a week.

 

[Mr Person]

If it is not the pollutants or sources, then it wouldn't matter how many humans are using said pollutants or sources.

 

[Antiwar]

If it is not the pollutants or sources, then it wouldn't matter how many humans are using said pollutants or sources.

That's a very succinct and good reply.

 

[Hamish Howl]

It's both. This is not a hard equation.

We can grow enough food for 17 billion people, but we can only properly eliminate waste byproducts for 2 billion people. You may have noticed the results of this.

To put it in perspective, if you have one or two people pee in a swimming pool, the effect is negligible. If you have 7,900,000,000 people peeing in the pool, you're going to have a problem.

As for the OP talking about migrating off planet, you'd have to launch 256 people every minute just to break even.

That leaves three solutions:

1. Population reduction. Monstrous, also doesn't work. People literally **** faster than you could kill them.
2. Population control. All you have to do is convince a few billion religious nuts to go on the pill.
3. Do nothing. Everything collapses, civilization gone, species in jeopardy.

Simple.

 

[Individual]

A child tax instead of a child deduction?

 

[tanj]

Most of the offending countries with high population growth have made great strides in reducing it. We cannot blame the population for our dependence on fossil fuels either. The Earth can support more humans if we use our brains to do so responsibly.

even if we were 100% clean renewable energy, the population will continue to grow. fossil fuels are one issue that requires a band-aid. as population grows, food requirements grow proportionately. eventually we run out of room.

serious question: how have they made "great strides in reducing" population growth? what things have they done? how was it accomplished? is it all voluntary, or is it government forced and controlled?

 

[tanj]

What you're calling for is literal genocide. Nothing good can come from that.

Go back to the drawing board and come up with something much more humane. Then we can talk.

don't make that mistake. I am not calling for genocide or draconian population controls. I just think they are going to be inevitable.
understanding that im not advocating for this, can we continue the discussion?
im not happy about the picture that was painted in the OP, but that is where I see things going. I was hoping to find, through discussion, other ways in which that could be avoided.

 

[tanj]

If it is not the pollutants or sources, then it wouldn't matter how many humans are using said pollutants or sources.

not in the long run. but if we were to scale up pollution etc along with population the problem clearly gets worse. to go even further sci-fi, if a population grows enough, then just the heat given off from their living bodies will collectively begin to change the environment. yes, that's far a way and involves huge numbers, but it is still another issue looming on the horizon.

in thinking about this it seemed in my mind a bit like the end scene from "War Games" where the computer finally reached the conclusion that the only winning move was not to play. since "not playing" in this case is not really an option we have to keep looking for answers.

 

[tanj]

A child tax instead of a child deduction?

so what is the penalty for an un-taxed child? a monetary fine? that does nothing to solve the problem and can effectively turn into the rich being able to "buy" their own children while the poor cannot afford the fine.

 

[Phys251]

don't make that mistake. I am not calling for genocide or draconian population controls.

Actually that's exactly what you did in the OP:

im not an environmentalist. and im surely not a supporter of population control, but every time I hear about the horrors and panic over climate change, I can't help but think that anything we do to curb pollutants, greenhouse gasses etc, is just a very temporary bandaid effort and that the only thing that will provide effective long term correction to our environment is going to be the use of extremely draconian population control.

Why do you condone genocide?

 

[tanj]

Actually that's exactly what you did in the OP:



Why do you condone genocide?

where did I say that I did? I just think that this is where things are going to eventually end up.
I don't think its good at all, but im having a hard time finding a lasting solution. that's part of why I posted, to try and get other points of view on the issue.
instead, I have everyone accusing me of calling for genocide. perhaps I was unclear, but I did correct that several times already.

 

[tanj]

just to clarify:

I do not condone nor do I call for genocide.

I just don't see how we will avoid it.

if I talk about the concept of Entropy, its not that I am calling for and supporting the heat death of the universe, I just see that it is inevitable.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

There are an extreme difference between the richest and the poorest in the world then it comes to C02 emissions.

"The richest 10 percent accounted for over half (52 percent) of the emissions added to the atmosphere between 1990 and 2015. The richest one percent were responsible for 15 percent of emissions during this time – more than all the citizens of the EU and more than twice that of the poorest half of humanity (7 percent).

During this time, the richest 10 percent blew one third of our remaining global 1.5C carbon budget, compared to just 4 percent for the poorest half of the population. The carbon budget is the amount of carbon dioxide that can be added to the atmosphere without causing global temperatures to rise above 1.5C – the goal set by governments in the Paris Agreement to avoid the very worst impacts of uncontrolled climate change.

Annual emissions grew by 60 percent between 1990 and 2015. The richest 5 percent were responsible for over a third (37 percent) of this growth. The total increase in emissions of the richest one percent was three times more than that of the poorest 50 percent."

Carbon emissions of richest 1 percent more than double the emissions of the poorest half of humanity | Oxfam International

www.oxfam.org

 

[Individual]

so what is the penalty for an un-taxed child? a monetary fine? that does nothing to solve the problem and can effectively turn into the rich being able to "buy" their own children while the poor cannot afford the fine.

Maybe the poor would have fewer children they can not afford if they saw that government would not subsidize their poor choices.

 

[Phys251]

where did I say that I did? I just think that this is where things are going to eventually end up.
I don't think its good at all, but im having a hard time finding a lasting solution. that's part of why I posted, to try and get other points of view on the issue.
instead, I have everyone accusing me of calling for genocide. perhaps I was unclear, but I did correct that several times already.

just to clarify:

I do not condone nor do I call for genocide.

I just don't see how we will avoid it.

if I talk about the concept of Entropy, its not that I am calling for and supporting the heat death of the universe, I just see that it is inevitable.

You're new around here, so you should understand something before you embarrass yourself even further: Lying will get you nowhere around here except with the trolls.

im not an environmentalist. and im surely not a supporter of population control, but every time I hear about the horrors and panic over climate change, I can't help but think that anything we do to curb pollutants, greenhouse gasses etc, is just a very temporary bandaid effort and that the only thing that will provide effective long term correction to our environment is going to be the use of extremely draconian population control.

You chose to write those words. It is crystal clear what you meant by them.

Now, are you ready to recant your support for genocide, or will you continue your stupid mental gymnastics?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

There are massive difference in land use for food production between countries. That if everyone in the world had the same diet as for example US the land use would be around 140 percent of habitual land. While Japan less than 50 percent of habitual land and for example India less than 25 percent of habitual land. There today 50 percent of habitual land are used for agricultural.

How much of the world’s land would we need in order to feed the global population with the average diet of a given country?

Research and data to make progress against the world’s largest problems

ourworldindata.org

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Birth control, and girls’ education can slow population growth.

How birth control, girls’ education can slow population growth

Education and family planning have long been tied to lower fertility trends. But new research from the University of Washington analyzes those factors to determine, what accelerates a decline in...

www.washington.edu

 

[phoenix2020]

I am not too worried about this, personally. My take is that by the time our technological means to generate resources and eliminate/recycle wastes have both vastly outstripped physics-based limits to doing so (a couple hundred years maybe?) we’ll have achieved consciousness transference and biological engineering such that we can optimize our resource consumption at a scale impossible to imagine today.

 

[tanj]

update:
https://townhall.com/columnists/ste...population-bomb-is-a-population-bust-n2590258

the article mentions a population / fertility decline rather than the predicted gradual increase. in its opening words it states:
"Paul Ehrlich wrote one of the most famous and bestselling books of the 20th century. It was called "The Population Bomb." It was 300 pages of doom and gloom. The planet was being destroyed because human beings were reproducing like Norwegian field mice. It was a Darwinian nightmare leading the species inexorably back to a Neanderthal subsistence level existence."

odds are this is just a temporary fluctuation just as we see with other environmental patterns over long periods of time.

but what if it isn't? the headline seems to imply a certain degree of permanence to the declining numbers. if this decline were to be permanent then wouldn't we see exactly "leading the species inexorably back to a Neanderthal subsistence level existence?" IF that trend were permantent could it not indicate that the direction change back to Neanderthal had already begun?

again probably just a normal fluctuation, but I felt I had to add this new information to the discussion.