4 ms·

I don't see why you called it myth. Just because it sort of works short term does not tell you anything about long term consequences. Earth has changed drastica

I don't see why you called it myth. Just because it sort of works short term does not tell you anything about long term consequences. Earth has changed drastically with all the humans on it. You need a lot of optimism about solutions for global warming and pollution. The linked short "feel good" video asks an extreme question "Will this lead to the end of our civilization?" (pretend the other side made a ridiculous claim to make them look foolish and to easily counter what nobody said), takes an incredibly tiny number of data well selected to support the desired conclusion, and of course lots of colorful animations - I'm supposed to take that seriously? I find the myth that the myth is a myth to be too mythical for my taste.

jpadkins 8y ago
> Earth has changed drastically with all the humans on it. do you have earth scale measures for this? what is your threshold for drastic? on most measures I can think of, earth is pretty much the same as it was 100k years ago. maybe you are suggesting humans have a drastic impact on other species on earth?
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  Geologically it is the same, a stone is a stone, true that. The creatures on it, both plants as well as animals, changed drastically by human intervention. Example: https://mic.com/articles/84681/this-is-exactly-how-much-weight-humans-take-up-on-earth-compared-to-other-animals https://mic.com/articles/84681/this-is-exactly-how-much-weig... (it's for this xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/) Then there's the pollution, for example plastics (tiny particles) everywhere, example: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/plastic-fibres-found-tap-water-around-world-study-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/plastic-... We change(d) the atmosphere, from pollutants to CO2 levels. Land for agriculture: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS -- much of it is to support livestock https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/human-footprint-map-ecological-impact/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/human-footprint-...
  - mr_luc 8y ago
    Also, an up to 80% reduction in the biomass of fish stocks over the course of the past couple of centuries.
amingilani 8y ago
I think you misunderstand, the video isn't a happy colorful animation about an optimistic conclusion to humanity's problems. It discusses one specific problem: over-population. And distills a ton of data collected over the several decades to offer the conclusion. Historical evidence supports that a decrease in mortality rates is followed by a decrease in birth rate. Here, check out the data for yourself[1] The theory of population growth leading to resource depletion is fairly old. Thomas Malthus published this in 1798[2], but guess what: we're all still alive, despite growing over 7 billion in size, and the empirical evidence debunked this theory. There are a fairly large number of theories why this didn't happen, but that's off topic. My point is: - The shortage of resource because of over-population is an old theory, but we've seen no evidence to it yet. - Population growth eventually slows down when the mortality rate decreases. - The population growth rate is expected to begin slowing[3] - Colorful animations help people understand a point, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/Demographic-Transition-Mitchell https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/Demographic-Transition-Mi... [2]:https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/malthusian-theory/ https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/malthusian-theory/ [3]:https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/ https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  > It discusses one specific problem: over-population As I said, they make exactly zero effort to say anything of substance about that issue. Key word is "over". I refer back to my comment. They say something about "population" - but the vital "over-" part is not addressed at all. For good reason, that's a complex topic with mostly unknowns. > Colorful animations help people understand a point, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. If there is no substance and the topic is complex and big than that alone is wrong already.
  - amingilani 8y ago
    There are unknowns, yes, but that doesn't mean we can't build estimations and try to reduce the unknowns. That's how econometrics works. And that's how the UN came up with projected expectations: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/ https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/
fwdpropaganda 8y ago
> You need a lot of optimism about solutions for global warming and pollution. I disagree. Unless you can show me a first-principle calculation for why a specific number should be "too much", then I don't think it's reasonable to assume that we're either above or below such a number. Don't get me wrong: I agree that such a number must exist. But you seem certain that we're above it, which isn't based on anything as far as I can tell.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  It seems clear that, with the same level of technology, more people put more load on the environment than fewer people do. The question then becomes, are we currently putting "too much" load on the environment? I think that's where the dispute lies. And since there is no clear definition of "too much", there is no provably correct answer to the question. One person looks around, sees what's happening to the oceans, the carbon dioxide level, and so on, and says "Of course it's too much!". Another looks around, sees things "pretty much the same as before", and says "clearly not too much".

jpadkins 8y ago

> Earth has changed drastically with all the humans on it. do you have earth scale measures for this? what is your threshold for drastic? on most measures I can think of, earth is pretty much the same as it was 100k years ago. maybe you are suggesting humans have a drastic impact on other species on earth?

ItsMe000001 8y ago
Geologically it is the same, a stone is a stone, true that. The creatures on it, both plants as well as animals, changed drastically by human intervention. Example: https://mic.com/articles/84681/this-is-exactly-how-much-weight-humans-take-up-on-earth-compared-to-other-animals https://mic.com/articles/84681/this-is-exactly-how-much-weig... (it's for this xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/) Then there's the pollution, for example plastics (tiny particles) everywhere, example: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/plastic-fibres-found-tap-water-around-world-study-reveals https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/06/plastic-... We change(d) the atmosphere, from pollutants to CO2 levels. Land for agriculture: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS -- much of it is to support livestock https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/human-footprint-map-ecological-impact/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/08/human-footprint-...
- mr_luc 8y ago
  Also, an up to 80% reduction in the biomass of fish stocks over the course of the past couple of centuries.

amingilani 8y ago

I think you misunderstand, the video isn't a happy colorful animation about an optimistic conclusion to humanity's problems. It discusses one specific problem: over-population. And distills a ton of data collected over the several decades to offer the conclusion. Historical evidence supports that a decrease in mortality rates is followed by a decrease in birth rate. Here, check out the data for yourself[1] The theory of population growth leading to resource depletion is fairly old. Thomas Malthus published this in 1798[2], but guess what: we're all still alive, despite growing over 7 billion in size, and the empirical evidence debunked this theory. There are a fairly large number of theories why this didn't happen, but that's off topic. My point is: - The shortage of resource because of over-population is an old theory, but we've seen no evidence to it yet. - Population growth eventually slows down when the mortality rate decreases. - The population growth rate is expected to begin slowing[3] - Colorful animations help people understand a point, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/Demographic-Transition-Mitchell https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/Demographic-Transition-Mi... [2]:https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/malthusian-theory/ https://www.intelligenteconomist.com/malthusian-theory/ [3]:https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/ https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/

ItsMe000001 8y ago
> It discusses one specific problem: over-population As I said, they make exactly zero effort to say anything of substance about that issue. Key word is "over". I refer back to my comment. They say something about "population" - but the vital "over-" part is not addressed at all. For good reason, that's a complex topic with mostly unknowns. > Colorful animations help people understand a point, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. If there is no substance and the topic is complex and big than that alone is wrong already.
- amingilani 8y ago
  There are unknowns, yes, but that doesn't mean we can't build estimations and try to reduce the unknowns. That's how econometrics works. And that's how the UN came up with projected expectations: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/ https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Graphs/Probabilistic/POP/TOT/

fwdpropaganda 8y ago

> You need a lot of optimism about solutions for global warming and pollution. I disagree. Unless you can show me a first-principle calculation for why a specific number should be "too much", then I don't think it's reasonable to assume that we're either above or below such a number. Don't get me wrong: I agree that such a number must exist. But you seem certain that we're above it, which isn't based on anything as far as I can tell.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
It seems clear that, with the same level of technology, more people put more load on the environment than fewer people do. The question then becomes, are we currently putting "too much" load on the environment? I think that's where the dispute lies. And since there is no clear definition of "too much", there is no provably correct answer to the question. One person looks around, sees what's happening to the oceans, the carbon dioxide level, and so on, and says "Of course it's too much!". Another looks around, sees things "pretty much the same as before", and says "clearly not too much".