5 ms·
There is no need to substantiate it, it is plain pure logic. The climate will always change. We can influence it a bit, but definitely a lot less than we having
by meiraleal 7y ago
There is no need to substantiate it, it is plain pure logic. The climate will always change. We can influence it a bit, but definitely a lot less than we having giving ourselves credit for. More than that, we don't have enough data to understand how the climate would change by itself, without human influence. The same way there is night and day, winter and summer, planet Earth might be subject to other climate variations that we don't have a clue.
One thing I know for sure: if the population is growing, the Earth is becoming better for human-life, not worse. I'll be concerned about climate change when the population starts to shrink but we are way far from that.
- glial 7y agoObligatory (for you) xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
- take_a_breath 7y ago== We can influence it a bit, but definitely a lot less than we having giving ourselves credit for. More than that, we don't have enough data to understand how the climate would change by itself, without human influence. == This logic seems completely contradictory. At first you argue that we can’t really influence climate, then you concede that we have no idea of our impact on it. Can you further explain?
- Brometheus 7y agohttps://grist.org/series/skeptics/ https://grist.org/series/skeptics/
- greggman2 7y agoThat's a great page but I didn't see this particular objection covered. Maybe your point was it's "yet another false argument"?
- Supermancho 7y ago> if the population is growing, the Earth is becoming better for human-life That isnt logical, casting doubt on your absolute claims. Population growth in animals is relative to available resources not some mythical quality that can be interpreted as "better environment".
- meiraleal 7y ago> Population growth in animals is relative to available resources You said the same as me, with different words. That's it. When did humans have so much spare time to be discussing imaginary problems online? And getting so offended when someone disagree that these imaginary problems will cause our doom.
- thedaemon 7y agoPopulation growth in animals is not just available resources, climate, location, and many other factors play their parts. Stating that the person to whom you were replying to was equating "mythical" qualities to their brief description is as much of a stretch as your "available resources". What I mean is, in their brevity they were not 100% detailed on what "Earth becoming better" actually is. Just as your "available resources" falls short. What kind of resources are you meaning? We can all pick nit's but lets try to be civil.
- Supermancho 7y agoI disagree. Earth becoming better, would be ludicrously tested by removing all but a small population of humans and comparing survival rates between a given time period and now. The Earth, itself, is not "becoming better" in any human sense. The statement was a fantastic statement, which also meant it was unqualified. > Population growth in animals is not just available resources, climate, location, and many other factors play their parts. Habitable area is a resource, which species compete for. There is a generous interpretation of my statement, but there isn't one of a "Earth is better", that makes sense. The commensurate appeal to logical thought was rightly pointed out as hypocritical. I stand by it.