5 ms·

The only viable, realistic solution is for people to stop having as many children as they currently do. The population of the planet is beyond carrying capacit

The only viable, realistic solution is for people to stop having as many children as they currently do. The population of the planet is beyond carrying capacity at current levels of consumption.

gaius 10y ago
Making the "save the world for my kids" argument particularly ironic.
- jackmott 10y ago
  save the world for my kid.
- yequalsx 10y ago
  It's not at all ironic since I'm not advocating that there be no children.
  - gaius 10y ago
    The poster above says I have no doubt that climate change is a problem. I have kids Well, duh, that's why.
adrianN 10y ago
That is too slow. We have a little more than twenty years at current production levels to stop producing GHGs [1]. Reducing the population (to 0?) takes a lot longer. [1] http://www.trillionthtonne.org/ http://www.trillionthtonne.org/
- NumberCruncher 10y ago
  >> Reducing the population takes a lot longer. There are also involuntary reduction methods...
  - adrianN 10y ago
    As the saying goes: you first.
    - NumberCruncher 10y ago
      That people are starving to death, die in an epidemic or kill each other is all my fault.
    - pjc50 10y ago
      No, it'll be the refugees first. The problems of the middle east aren't just religious, the region has seen huge population growth in the 20th century beyond the ability of its natural resources to sustain it. This is not hyperbole, Yemen is running out of water. If it's 54C outside in Kuwait, how habitable is that really? What if it's three or four degrees hotter?
CWuestefeld 10y ago
The Malthusian argument is threadbare and false. Humanity has always been on the brink of demise. We've always been barely able to feed our people. This took us from hunter-gatherers to the development of agriculture, on to irrigation, fertilization, terraced farming, crop rotation, selective breeding, genetic manipulation. In terms of energy, as we depleted the forests of wood for burning, we've gone through similar transformations, learning to harness other means of light and heat like wax, whale oil, and so on. It turns out that the greatest resource we have is not vegetable or mineral, it's the human mind. Intentionally shutting off the creation of new minds - the engines that are going to find the means of solving all the other problems - is counterproductive.
- ipsin 10y ago
  This "we've gotten this far!" argument applies to global warming as well, doesn't it? I don't believe the proposition that global warming is not a problem because human ingenuity will fix it. Our land and oceans are already straining under our population load.
  - CWuestefeld 10y ago
    Yes, they're straining. But they've always been, through recorded history. The only difference is that when we look back at them through 21st century glasses, the problems don't even look like problems anymore. I mean, we stopped denuding the forests to get firewood, so a visitor from, say, 3 centuries ago would be astonished at how well wooded the land is near cities. You can canoe down the Delaware River today and feel entirely surrounded by the trees, yet around the time of the Revolution, those hills were bare. We hunted whales almost to the point of extinction. But we came up with better energy sources, and while this was recent enough that the whales haven't quite recovered yet, they're not threatened in this manner anymore. So you'll have to explain to me how this time it's different than the countless other times when our ancestors (look back at Malthus!) claimed that we were on the brink of disaster.
    - yequalsx 10y ago
      We are numerous enough and produce enough toxins and pollution that we are close to the point where no one can escape the effects. That's why this time is different. The scale is much larger now.

The only viable, realistic solution is for people to stop having as many children as they currently do. The population of the planet is beyond carrying capacity at current levels of consumption.

gaius 10y ago

Making the "save the world for my kids" argument particularly ironic.

jackmott 10y ago
save the world for my kid.
yequalsx 10y ago
It's not at all ironic since I'm not advocating that there be no children.
- gaius 10y ago
  The poster above says I have no doubt that climate change is a problem. I have kids Well, duh, that's why.

adrianN 10y ago

That is too slow. We have a little more than twenty years at current production levels to stop producing GHGs [1]. Reducing the population (to 0?) takes a lot longer. [1] http://www.trillionthtonne.org/ http://www.trillionthtonne.org/

NumberCruncher 10y ago
>> Reducing the population takes a lot longer. There are also involuntary reduction methods...
- adrianN 10y ago
  As the saying goes: you first.
  - NumberCruncher 10y ago
    That people are starving to death, die in an epidemic or kill each other is all my fault.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    No, it'll be the refugees first. The problems of the middle east aren't just religious, the region has seen huge population growth in the 20th century beyond the ability of its natural resources to sustain it. This is not hyperbole, Yemen is running out of water. If it's 54C outside in Kuwait, how habitable is that really? What if it's three or four degrees hotter?

CWuestefeld 10y ago

The Malthusian argument is threadbare and false. Humanity has always been on the brink of demise. We've always been barely able to feed our people. This took us from hunter-gatherers to the development of agriculture, on to irrigation, fertilization, terraced farming, crop rotation, selective breeding, genetic manipulation. In terms of energy, as we depleted the forests of wood for burning, we've gone through similar transformations, learning to harness other means of light and heat like wax, whale oil, and so on. It turns out that the greatest resource we have is not vegetable or mineral, it's the human mind. Intentionally shutting off the creation of new minds - the engines that are going to find the means of solving all the other problems - is counterproductive.

ipsin 10y ago
This "we've gotten this far!" argument applies to global warming as well, doesn't it? I don't believe the proposition that global warming is not a problem because human ingenuity will fix it. Our land and oceans are already straining under our population load.
- CWuestefeld 10y ago
  Yes, they're straining. But they've always been, through recorded history. The only difference is that when we look back at them through 21st century glasses, the problems don't even look like problems anymore. I mean, we stopped denuding the forests to get firewood, so a visitor from, say, 3 centuries ago would be astonished at how well wooded the land is near cities. You can canoe down the Delaware River today and feel entirely surrounded by the trees, yet around the time of the Revolution, those hills were bare. We hunted whales almost to the point of extinction. But we came up with better energy sources, and while this was recent enough that the whales haven't quite recovered yet, they're not threatened in this manner anymore. So you'll have to explain to me how this time it's different than the countless other times when our ancestors (look back at Malthus!) claimed that we were on the brink of disaster.
  - yequalsx 10y ago
    We are numerous enough and produce enough toxins and pollution that we are close to the point where no one can escape the effects. That's why this time is different. The scale is much larger now.