4 ms·
Only one is quickly remediable via policy though. Reducing global population may happen, but it would take multiple generations, so is hardly relevant to short
by crispinb 8y ago
Only one is quickly remediable via policy though.
Reducing global population may happen, but it would take multiple generations, so is hardly relevant to short-medium term climate change policy. Reducing emissions however is practicable over the timespans relevant to climate change.
Usually when people say 'overpopulation' they mean the irrational counter-emphasis, ie. "they should stop having babies, so we can keep driving vast CO2-spewing SUVs, eating scads of industrially-produced meat, and generally fouling our rapidly decaying nest".
- craftyguy 8y ago> Usually when people say 'overpopulation' they mean the irrational counter-emphasis, ie. "they should stop having babies, so we can keep driving vast CO2-spewing SUVs, eating scads of industrially-produced meat, and generally fouling our rapidly decaying nest". Not necessarily. Both overpopulation and climate change are problems. Even folks who don't drive CO2-spewing SUVs understand that. (I 'drive' a bicycle while spewing CO2 out my mouth, so there.)
- crispinb 8y agoWell, yes, but that doesn't contradict what I'm saying. "Usually" implies "not necessarily". It's trivially true that population is part of the equation. But it's pragmatically irrelevant to short-medium term policy when we know we are in a state of critical global emergency, with natural systems collapsing apace. Policy needs to address that right now. I doubt the "overpopulation!" expostulators are really proposing a human cull as policy. I'm not sure what else that leaves as their motivation other than misdirection.
- craftyguy 8y agoI see, and agree.
- crispinb 8y agoCool. To clarify: of course we'll need to find some way to keep a check on human population. But it's a generational policy issue which we won't remotely have the global social/political stability to address if we don't substantially curb CO2 emissions in the next few decades.
- starbeast 8y ago>I doubt the "overpopulation!" expostulators are really proposing a human cull as policy. I share a house with two who claim to be. They do shut up about it when I suggest that they go first however.
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoIf we don't start to address it the cull will come "naturally" via starvation, war, migration and so on. No need to propose a human cull. Simply make large families something socially unacceptable and promote via campaigns and the tax system. It could easily change as extensively and rapidly as single earner family with stay at home mothers have. It has to be part of any rational solution.
- mac01021 8y agoHow does the cull come via migration?
- NeedMoreTea 8y agoForced migration will come to affect millions if climate change is not constrained as homelands are lost to sea or become uninhabitable. So there will be large numbers attempting to migrate over land or sea without certain destination. There'll be dying en route, and presumably will eventually be forcibly rebuffed at borders when numbers get large enough. Aid agencies will likely be far beyond ability to cope. We've seen this in far smaller numbers with those attempting to cross the Med etc in unseaworthy overloaded boats, and the associated deaths. Of course there's also likely to be disease and starvation in any ad hoc refugee camps that arise.
- ataturk 8y agoMost of the overloaded boats I saw were brand new rafts supplied by an NGO in order to create a humanitarian crisis across Europe. Crisis leads to political response. It's an age old tactic, just a different riff than the usual hordes of sword-wielding barbarians.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago> Only one is quickly remediable via policy though. And it's not the one you think. Starting a global nuclear war is easier than coordinating the world to fight climate change.
- crispinb 8y agoI think you're confusing policy & politics. Start with policy. Ignoring the human-cull-with-nukes snark, there is no population policy that is relevant to the timescale at which climate breakdown needs to be tackled. Population policy falls at the first hurdle so you never get to the politics. There are plenty of policies that could stem the rise in global emissions, so we move on to the politics. There I agree with you. There isn't a plausible political route to the global policies we need. My view of the future is that ecosystems will collapse, and, probably in the second half of this century, 'civilisation' (huh) will crumble as mutiple successive wars over declining resources and forced population movements sweep the globe.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoFair enough. I read "policy" as encompassing both proposals and implementation. Otherwise, I agree with you. Barring killing people who live now, any attempt now at reducing population will start having meaningful impact decades from now (kids use less energy than adults). We need solutions that deliver impact on much shorter timeframes.
- seszett 8y agoWhat makes you say that? Multiple wars have taken place in the 60 years or so since global nuclear war has become possible. Most of those wars have involved at least one, sometimes several of the great nuclear powers, including as (somewhat indirect) opponents. Nuclear war doesn't seem to break out that easily.
- crispinb 8y agoHe's making the point that the politics of a human cull are feasible (ie. a nation with nukes can decide to unilaterally launch), whereas those of emission reduction are intractable (ie. requiring a serious global agreement).