7 ms·

it would be naive/foolish to expect that the enormous technological progress and overpopulation by humans would not affect the environment. The question is how

it would be naive/foolish to expect that the enormous technological progress and overpopulation by humans would not affect the environment. The question is how fast can people and ecosystems adapt. This is not the first nor the biggest change the earth has seen by far. It's also naive to think that politics is going to reverse that change - it's a technological problem.

kmlx 7y ago
the overpopulation mantra has been debunked so many times already. edit: since i'm getting downvoted for pointing out the obvious, here's links pointing out that overpopulation is a myth, even a racist one in some circumstances: wapo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-worlds-population/2011/10/26/gIQArjSWmM_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the... https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-world-is-facing-a-population-crisis//amp https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/fee.org/articles/the-myth-tha... https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/ https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/ https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2019/mar/9/how-racist-myths-built-population-growth-bogey-man https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2019/mar/9/how-racist-... kurzgesagt: https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348 https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348 the guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/19/overpopulation-cities-environment-developing-world-racist-paul-ehrlich https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/19/overpopulatio... nytimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/25/overpopulation-the-deadly-myth-behind-the-other-modern-myths/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/25/overpopulation-the-de...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  Indeed, if we only think in terms of thermodynamics, the Earth could sustain trillions of people with ample private room (orders of magnitude more than our current average home+office size). And if you trickle down to implementation problems (agriculture, logistics, etc) and take mega-structures of the 25th century out from the equation (so, immediate future, 21st century) you still get a max figure north of 10 times the current pop. The problem is one of contrast: e.g. there's nobody in deserts but people die everyday in overcrowded train stations in India. That's why people perceive "overpopulation" as a problem, but it has more to do with human inefficiency than the physics of our planet. However GP's point about adaptation speed of our civilization to the changing ecosystem stands. I sometimes wonder, between utopia and horror, how many people will have to die in the name of climate catastrophes for a global "survival instinct" to kick in at the highest level — like stability is a thing for the finance world, the military world, because we're so aware of how much these things may destroy or kill when derailed. I'm pretty much convinced it's generational — boomers will never get to it, not enough of them; half of gen Xers might sway; but millenials (born 1982 and on) will enact the tipping point, politically and sociologically. So, that's 2030-2040 mechanically for that gen to become the dominant one (by then aged 50-60). My question is, how many will climate kill or hurt deeply until then? Could the tipping point happen sooner due to catastrophes? I don't know what's a reasonable fair estimate, here. Are we talking millions? tens, hundreds? a billion? How dire is the situation, really?
  - kmlx 7y ago
    i think we've been adapting to our ecosystem since humans first came into the scene. the only difference now is that we finally realised we're living on a planet that's not constant, but actually changing. this realisation is a positive in my book, as an extinction level event is always around the corner. re. how many will die: the plague has been constantly killing humans for almost 1000 years now. and we're still here. yes, i'm an optimist.
    - K0SM0S 7y ago
      I pretty much share all your views, here. My everlasting-optimism is only tempered by a somewhat keen awareness of that Fermi paradox thingy, a Darwinian observation that species just disappear and the world just keeps spinning. I think the greatest invincible filter — one we just couldn't overcome — is the idea of a fatal flaw in our genetic make-up, or relatingly in the evolution of our environment, that we simply couldn't fix in time (it could be hidden, insiduous, e.g. increasingly more 'cancers' until we become born with it in majority). In many instances, species do not entirely die from such evolutionary filters, a few survivors with just the right genes may appear and spread their immunity. But in many instances, species just die at those filters. We still don't really know why Neanderthal disappeared, iirc there are clues pointing at a possible genetic flaw, combined with environmental pressure (sorta contra-variant doom scenario). Which is why I think we should massively spend to solve as much of the "bio" stuff as we can, grab all low-hanging fruits now and buckle up to kick off major projects spanning generations. The value and security to be gained, in terms of ultimate survival and progress, is just too critical to miss or delay. IMHO. And it's likely to take all of tech with it, a poster-child client sector to buy and fund all manners of extravagantly awesome technology. I'd be curious to know how your optimism shapes things in imagination, regarding our past and/or future. :)
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - kmlx 7y ago
        I think the Fermi paradox is BS. we're stuck on this small planet, never having set foot on another planet, nevermind another solar system. we haven't even encountered a single, no matter how small, alien life. and yet we come up with these naive theories. this tells me we're simply not ready for the possibilities that await us out there. maybe in the future. and since you asked about the future, i want my "self" to be moved to a computer, set to sleep mode and then woken up once it reaches alpha centauri or something similarly far away. no body, no problems. right now that's pretty much the only way to discover anything light years away without our Earth-bound energy converter aka human body that comes with a billion dependencies and dramatically tiny life span. but we're really discussing sci fi stuff. i hope that in the meantime the global warming fight will not drag the whole earth back a few hundred years instead of fixing by innovation.
mistermann 7y ago
> It's also naive to think that politics is going to reverse that change - it's a technological problem. The problem itself is technological, but do you believe the solution is (solely) technological? Considering the technical aspect of the problem is well enough understood, if politics "can't" fix this, then what's plan B?
- buboard 7y ago
  > but do you believe the solution is (solely) technological? Largely yes. Technological solutions are definite and verifiable. Political solutions (behavioral coercion) is rarely so, you never know the adverse effects of pushing people to do X. Politics creates too much tension, too much expenditure of energy on things that have little effect, while technology multipliers can be huge. And they lose credibility easily because of the co-opting of environmental issues for political posturing (e.g. the twice-a-month-moving-to Strasbourg European Parliament declaring a climate emergency)
  - mistermann 7y ago
    With China currently bringing more coal fired power plants online, Trump having a decent chance of being reelected, and nothing particularly awesome happening in Europe, I'm not seeing a technological path forward. Whatever the solution ultimately is, it's surely going to need money, and lots of it, so how is this going to happen without public consensus?
arnaudsm 7y ago
Technological progress is not the problem! We have better energy efficiency than ever, overpopulation and especially "modern comfort" are the real culprits. Moreover, bioplastics, fusion and next-gen battery tech could mitigate world pollution if they become cheaper than "dirty" tech.

kmlx 7y ago

the overpopulation mantra has been debunked so many times already. edit: since i'm getting downvoted for pointing out the obvious, here's links pointing out that overpopulation is a myth, even a racist one in some circumstances: wapo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-worlds-population/2011/10/26/gIQArjSWmM_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the... https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-world-is-facing-a-population-crisis//amp https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/fee.org/articles/the-myth-tha... https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/ https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/ https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2019/mar/9/how-racist-myths-built-population-growth-bogey-man https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2019/mar/9/how-racist-... kurzgesagt: https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348 https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348 the guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/19/overpopulation-cities-environment-developing-world-racist-paul-ehrlich https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/19/overpopulatio... nytimes: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is... https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/25/overpopulation-the-deadly-myth-behind-the-other-modern-myths/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/25/overpopulation-the-de...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
K0SM0S 7y ago
Indeed, if we only think in terms of thermodynamics, the Earth could sustain trillions of people with ample private room (orders of magnitude more than our current average home+office size). And if you trickle down to implementation problems (agriculture, logistics, etc) and take mega-structures of the 25th century out from the equation (so, immediate future, 21st century) you still get a max figure north of 10 times the current pop. The problem is one of contrast: e.g. there's nobody in deserts but people die everyday in overcrowded train stations in India. That's why people perceive "overpopulation" as a problem, but it has more to do with human inefficiency than the physics of our planet. However GP's point about adaptation speed of our civilization to the changing ecosystem stands. I sometimes wonder, between utopia and horror, how many people will have to die in the name of climate catastrophes for a global "survival instinct" to kick in at the highest level — like stability is a thing for the finance world, the military world, because we're so aware of how much these things may destroy or kill when derailed. I'm pretty much convinced it's generational — boomers will never get to it, not enough of them; half of gen Xers might sway; but millenials (born 1982 and on) will enact the tipping point, politically and sociologically. So, that's 2030-2040 mechanically for that gen to become the dominant one (by then aged 50-60). My question is, how many will climate kill or hurt deeply until then? Could the tipping point happen sooner due to catastrophes? I don't know what's a reasonable fair estimate, here. Are we talking millions? tens, hundreds? a billion? How dire is the situation, really?
- kmlx 7y ago
  i think we've been adapting to our ecosystem since humans first came into the scene. the only difference now is that we finally realised we're living on a planet that's not constant, but actually changing. this realisation is a positive in my book, as an extinction level event is always around the corner. re. how many will die: the plague has been constantly killing humans for almost 1000 years now. and we're still here. yes, i'm an optimist.
  - K0SM0S 7y ago
    I pretty much share all your views, here. My everlasting-optimism is only tempered by a somewhat keen awareness of that Fermi paradox thingy, a Darwinian observation that species just disappear and the world just keeps spinning. I think the greatest invincible filter — one we just couldn't overcome — is the idea of a fatal flaw in our genetic make-up, or relatingly in the evolution of our environment, that we simply couldn't fix in time (it could be hidden, insiduous, e.g. increasingly more 'cancers' until we become born with it in majority). In many instances, species do not entirely die from such evolutionary filters, a few survivors with just the right genes may appear and spread their immunity. But in many instances, species just die at those filters. We still don't really know why Neanderthal disappeared, iirc there are clues pointing at a possible genetic flaw, combined with environmental pressure (sorta contra-variant doom scenario). Which is why I think we should massively spend to solve as much of the "bio" stuff as we can, grab all low-hanging fruits now and buckle up to kick off major projects spanning generations. The value and security to be gained, in terms of ultimate survival and progress, is just too critical to miss or delay. IMHO. And it's likely to take all of tech with it, a poster-child client sector to buy and fund all manners of extravagantly awesome technology. I'd be curious to know how your optimism shapes things in imagination, regarding our past and/or future. :)
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - kmlx 7y ago
      I think the Fermi paradox is BS. we're stuck on this small planet, never having set foot on another planet, nevermind another solar system. we haven't even encountered a single, no matter how small, alien life. and yet we come up with these naive theories. this tells me we're simply not ready for the possibilities that await us out there. maybe in the future. and since you asked about the future, i want my "self" to be moved to a computer, set to sleep mode and then woken up once it reaches alpha centauri or something similarly far away. no body, no problems. right now that's pretty much the only way to discover anything light years away without our Earth-bound energy converter aka human body that comes with a billion dependencies and dramatically tiny life span. but we're really discussing sci fi stuff. i hope that in the meantime the global warming fight will not drag the whole earth back a few hundred years instead of fixing by innovation.

mistermann 7y ago

> It's also naive to think that politics is going to reverse that change - it's a technological problem. The problem itself is technological, but do you believe the solution is (solely) technological? Considering the technical aspect of the problem is well enough understood, if politics "can't" fix this, then what's plan B?

buboard 7y ago
> but do you believe the solution is (solely) technological? Largely yes. Technological solutions are definite and verifiable. Political solutions (behavioral coercion) is rarely so, you never know the adverse effects of pushing people to do X. Politics creates too much tension, too much expenditure of energy on things that have little effect, while technology multipliers can be huge. And they lose credibility easily because of the co-opting of environmental issues for political posturing (e.g. the twice-a-month-moving-to Strasbourg European Parliament declaring a climate emergency)
- mistermann 7y ago
  With China currently bringing more coal fired power plants online, Trump having a decent chance of being reelected, and nothing particularly awesome happening in Europe, I'm not seeing a technological path forward. Whatever the solution ultimately is, it's surely going to need money, and lots of it, so how is this going to happen without public consensus?

arnaudsm 7y ago

Technological progress is not the problem! We have better energy efficiency than ever, overpopulation and especially "modern comfort" are the real culprits. Moreover, bioplastics, fusion and next-gen battery tech could mitigate world pollution if they become cheaper than "dirty" tech.