3 ms·

> Discussing abstract concepts like limits without showing that we’re near those limits is merely dogmatic belief There are plenty of references on the topic.

> Discussing abstract concepts like limits without showing that we’re near those limits is merely dogmatic belief There are plenty of references on the topic. You can start with "The limits to growth" which is 50 years old and which is revisited from time to time. https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/the-limits-to-growth-at-50-from-scenarios-to-unfolding-reality/ https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/the-limits-to-growth-... Regarding global warming, you can look up "Kaya identity": https://theconversation.com/curb-population-growth-to-tackle-climate-change-now-thats-a-tough-ask-153382 https://theconversation.com/curb-population-growth-to-tackle... It's impossible to give exact prediction and timelines, but it's certain that the perpetual growth model isn't sustainable and most likely, limits will materialise within the next decades.

zmgsabst 5y ago
> It's impossible to give exact prediction and timelines Then arguing we need fewer people now based on that isn’t reasonable. > it's certain that the perpetual growth model isn't sustainable In the same sense that heat death of the universe will eventually happen — but isn’t necessarily relevant to us here and now. > most likely, limits will materialise within the next decades How can you conclude that when you previously said you can’t “ give exact prediction and timelines”? To me, you seem to be repeating the same “the world is ending!” nihilism that has always permeated society.
- yodsanklai 5y ago
  > How can you conclude that when you previously said you can’t “ give exact prediction and timelines”? Because I read "the limits to growth", the IPCC report summary, and various authors on the topic and that's what they say based on actual data. And I'm yet to find quantified arguments that say otherwise. You're the one whose ideas are based on faith, not me. > To me, you seem to be repeating the same “the world is ending!” nihilism that has always permeated society. No, because 1. I don't think the world is ending, just that current growth will stop one way or another, because it's not sustainable and limits are within sight 2. it's not about nihilism but predictions based on numerous data, which are more accurate and comprehensive than what was available in the past
  - zmgsabst 5y ago
    > Because I read "the limits to growth", the IPCC report summary Except both the links you provided and your own comment admits those aren’t terribly accurate predictions and most of them are a ways out — with huge error bars. They also don’t attempt to address factors we know are going to happen, like increased technical prowess that come with a larger population. If you have an actual quantitative source and model with that prediction, then post it. But you haven’t. > I read "the limits to growth", the IPCC report summary, and various authors on the topic and that's what they say based on actual data. Then you should cite that — because you haven’t so far. > 1. I don't think the world is ending, just that current growth will stop one way or another, because it's not sustainable and limits are within sight “The world (as you know it) is ending!” I’d find you more credible if you owned what you were saying.

zmgsabst 5y ago

> It's impossible to give exact prediction and timelines Then arguing we need fewer people now based on that isn’t reasonable. > it's certain that the perpetual growth model isn't sustainable In the same sense that heat death of the universe will eventually happen — but isn’t necessarily relevant to us here and now. > most likely, limits will materialise within the next decades How can you conclude that when you previously said you can’t “ give exact prediction and timelines”? To me, you seem to be repeating the same “the world is ending!” nihilism that has always permeated society.

yodsanklai 5y ago
> How can you conclude that when you previously said you can’t “ give exact prediction and timelines”? Because I read "the limits to growth", the IPCC report summary, and various authors on the topic and that's what they say based on actual data. And I'm yet to find quantified arguments that say otherwise. You're the one whose ideas are based on faith, not me. > To me, you seem to be repeating the same “the world is ending!” nihilism that has always permeated society. No, because 1. I don't think the world is ending, just that current growth will stop one way or another, because it's not sustainable and limits are within sight 2. it's not about nihilism but predictions based on numerous data, which are more accurate and comprehensive than what was available in the past
- zmgsabst 5y ago
  > Because I read "the limits to growth", the IPCC report summary Except both the links you provided and your own comment admits those aren’t terribly accurate predictions and most of them are a ways out — with huge error bars. They also don’t attempt to address factors we know are going to happen, like increased technical prowess that come with a larger population. If you have an actual quantitative source and model with that prediction, then post it. But you haven’t. > I read "the limits to growth", the IPCC report summary, and various authors on the topic and that's what they say based on actual data. Then you should cite that — because you haven’t so far. > 1. I don't think the world is ending, just that current growth will stop one way or another, because it's not sustainable and limits are within sight “The world (as you know it) is ending!” I’d find you more credible if you owned what you were saying.