4 ms·

I hope this is overly pessimistic and under-analyzed. For example, the human population hockey stick graph doesn't show the dramatic drop in birth rates experie

I hope this is overly pessimistic and under-analyzed. For example, the human population hockey stick graph doesn't show the dramatic drop in birth rates experienced by developed countries. We are on track to reach a global population maximum. And is the author too zealous in drawing hockey stick curves over any 2 or 3 data points? Is deforestation still accelerating? Any chance extinctions will decelerate?

sacrosancty 4y ago
Hockey sticks usually end up being S-shaped curves. The author is just doom-screaming because we're currently in the rapid change phases of lots of them but hasn't shown on any of the graphs the point where disaster will occur. What's the critical rate of extinctions that would end global economic growth before most of the world has western quality of life? He has no clue! So his worries are just emotional and based on misleading graphs. One of the graphs (forest cover) is extrapolated into the future and shown to be zero. He could instead have shown in plateauing if he wanted to tell a different story.
- EGreg 4y ago
  I'm not sure how S-shaped curves help when it comes to the collapse of all ecosystems is concerned... are we supposed to innovate our way out of rapidly dwindling biodiversity on the planet? insects and pollinators birds and large game animals forests and rainforests kelp forests dying coral reefs dying overfishing plastic pollution greenhouse gas pollution acidification of oceans 1/3 of all arable land underwent desertification The real question is, why AREN'T we concerned more? Is there some sort of magic hope in innovation, are we just super optimists? No, it's simply that we failed at collective action to such an extent that even thinking about a viable solution is so hopeless that most of us don't even bother. The one place where we were able to curb pollution was CFCs in the Toronto Protocol. That's it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
  - rimliu 4y ago
    your list is missing one crucial component: over sensationalised headlines
  - bckr 4y ago
    For me, it's that it wil balance out in the end. We might have to suffer, but it will balance out. My hope is that most of us won't have to suffer that much before it balances out. Also, I do feel good about the direction we're going in. California, where I live, is banning the sale of new combustion engine cars by 2035. 2035 will probably have some very hot weeks here, but that we're getting laws like this is a good sign. It seems we need to be simultaneously extremely patient and extremely urgent about fixing problems like this. Constant sensationalism isn't the path, unless your work specifically is as a consciousness-raiser, perhaps. Others need to have an awareness of the problem but it does worse than nothing to be constantly panicked.
    - pastage 4y ago
      That is overly optimisic though, the Paris agreement was a minimal effort, California and all other governments are on track to fail miserably at following even that. Which means we are talking about a lot more than a "few hot weeks".
      - dane-pgp 4y ago
        > the Paris agreement was a minimal effort, California and all other governments are on track to fail miserably at following even that. Could you clarify what you mean by "on track"? According to the Guardian[0], "California Governor Jerry Brown [issued] an executive order calling for the entire California economy to become carbon-neutral by 2045" and "In order to stay below the Paris climate threshold of 2°C global warming above pre-industrial temperatures, humanity must become carbon-neutral by around 2060 or 2070." Are you saying that California looks like it will miss its target by 25 years? [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/17/california-plans-to-show-the-world-how-to-meet-the-paris-climate-target https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
jonstewart 4y ago
It looks like he’s been at it for a while, but quick googling didn’t turn up any substantive rebuttal (of him/his blog). In this post he seems to be making a simplistic Malthusian argument—but we know population growth is not Malthusian. The trickier problem seems more to be: what happens when the hockey sticks flatline? When China’s population stops growing, will its economy also stagnate? What happens then? I look forward to reading more of this blog, though, because it does at least appear sincere, and so can sharpen reasoning. And a more general point of his could be abstracted as being that we’re being whipsawed by so many curves, and no doubt several others not discussed, that even if reality isn’t so pessimistic as he lays out, it might still be less than “fun”.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > When China’s population stops growing To put this in context, here's what a recent article[0] from Fortune has to say: > On Thursday, Yang Wenzhuang, the head of population for China’s National Health Commission, told a conference that the country’s population would start to shrink before 2025, according to state-run news outlet Global Times. Earlier forecasts expected the decline to begin in 2027. [0] https://fortune.com/2022/07/25/china-population-decline-collapse-crisis-2025-sooner/ https://fortune.com/2022/07/25/china-population-decline-coll...
sdwr 4y ago
That was my thought too. 2 data points, and 1 is a guess (forest cover near the end). The "good" kind of hockey stick ends eventually (bitcoin!), in all likelihood we're not going to go to 0% forest cover or 0 wild animals. Still, if the biomass number is anywhere near accurate, it's pretty insane. 96% of mammal biomass is humans + domesticated animals? Throws the biodiversity thing into a new light, no wonder animals are going extinct when we're strangler-fig-ing their world.
emmelaich 4y ago
Yep, I've seen a UN projection that has us flattening out at 10billion.

sacrosancty 4y ago

Hockey sticks usually end up being S-shaped curves. The author is just doom-screaming because we're currently in the rapid change phases of lots of them but hasn't shown on any of the graphs the point where disaster will occur. What's the critical rate of extinctions that would end global economic growth before most of the world has western quality of life? He has no clue! So his worries are just emotional and based on misleading graphs. One of the graphs (forest cover) is extrapolated into the future and shown to be zero. He could instead have shown in plateauing if he wanted to tell a different story.

EGreg 4y ago
I'm not sure how S-shaped curves help when it comes to the collapse of all ecosystems is concerned... are we supposed to innovate our way out of rapidly dwindling biodiversity on the planet? insects and pollinators birds and large game animals forests and rainforests kelp forests dying coral reefs dying overfishing plastic pollution greenhouse gas pollution acidification of oceans 1/3 of all arable land underwent desertification The real question is, why AREN'T we concerned more? Is there some sort of magic hope in innovation, are we just super optimists? No, it's simply that we failed at collective action to such an extent that even thinking about a viable solution is so hopeless that most of us don't even bother. The one place where we were able to curb pollution was CFCs in the Toronto Protocol. That's it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
- rimliu 4y ago
  your list is missing one crucial component: over sensationalised headlines
- bckr 4y ago
  For me, it's that it wil balance out in the end. We might have to suffer, but it will balance out. My hope is that most of us won't have to suffer that much before it balances out. Also, I do feel good about the direction we're going in. California, where I live, is banning the sale of new combustion engine cars by 2035. 2035 will probably have some very hot weeks here, but that we're getting laws like this is a good sign. It seems we need to be simultaneously extremely patient and extremely urgent about fixing problems like this. Constant sensationalism isn't the path, unless your work specifically is as a consciousness-raiser, perhaps. Others need to have an awareness of the problem but it does worse than nothing to be constantly panicked.
  - pastage 4y ago
    That is overly optimisic though, the Paris agreement was a minimal effort, California and all other governments are on track to fail miserably at following even that. Which means we are talking about a lot more than a "few hot weeks".
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      > the Paris agreement was a minimal effort, California and all other governments are on track to fail miserably at following even that. Could you clarify what you mean by "on track"? According to the Guardian[0], "California Governor Jerry Brown [issued] an executive order calling for the entire California economy to become carbon-neutral by 2045" and "In order to stay below the Paris climate threshold of 2°C global warming above pre-industrial temperatures, humanity must become carbon-neutral by around 2060 or 2070." Are you saying that California looks like it will miss its target by 25 years? [0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/17/california-plans-to-show-the-world-how-to-meet-the-paris-climate-target https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...

jonstewart 4y ago

It looks like he’s been at it for a while, but quick googling didn’t turn up any substantive rebuttal (of him/his blog). In this post he seems to be making a simplistic Malthusian argument—but we know population growth is not Malthusian. The trickier problem seems more to be: what happens when the hockey sticks flatline? When China’s population stops growing, will its economy also stagnate? What happens then? I look forward to reading more of this blog, though, because it does at least appear sincere, and so can sharpen reasoning. And a more general point of his could be abstracted as being that we’re being whipsawed by so many curves, and no doubt several others not discussed, that even if reality isn’t so pessimistic as he lays out, it might still be less than “fun”.

dane-pgp 4y ago
> When China’s population stops growing To put this in context, here's what a recent article[0] from Fortune has to say: > On Thursday, Yang Wenzhuang, the head of population for China’s National Health Commission, told a conference that the country’s population would start to shrink before 2025, according to state-run news outlet Global Times. Earlier forecasts expected the decline to begin in 2027. [0] https://fortune.com/2022/07/25/china-population-decline-collapse-crisis-2025-sooner/ https://fortune.com/2022/07/25/china-population-decline-coll...

sdwr 4y ago

That was my thought too. 2 data points, and 1 is a guess (forest cover near the end). The "good" kind of hockey stick ends eventually (bitcoin!), in all likelihood we're not going to go to 0% forest cover or 0 wild animals. Still, if the biomass number is anywhere near accurate, it's pretty insane. 96% of mammal biomass is humans + domesticated animals? Throws the biodiversity thing into a new light, no wonder animals are going extinct when we're strangler-fig-ing their world.

emmelaich 4y ago

Yep, I've seen a UN projection that has us flattening out at 10billion.