4 ms·

Your comment would carry more weight if human population wasn't increasing each year. The best counterargument to the population trend argument is that we're i

Your comment would carry more weight if human population wasn't increasing each year. The best counterargument to the population trend argument is that we're in the midst of a Wile E. Coyote period. Along with that though one still needs to account for: - What's different about weapons today versus say 1970s? - Why climate change, despite being a serious (and to be clear: actual risk), isn't amenable to solutions like the Montreal protocol that've succeeded in the past?

account-5 3y ago
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Wylie E Coyote period", can you explain? I did DDG it but couldn't find much. Without that I'm unsure I can properly comment why I need to account for your other points. But sure the Montreal protocol and even the response to COVID 19 shows what can be accomplished should everyone work together. But it wasn't too late in either case then, and they were easier to solve. Today's weapons are definitely scarier than 1970s weapons. Either way, I wasn't attempting a definitive list with my two items and "etc", I'd consider overpopulation as big a threat as climate change, the fact it's increasing each year is part of the problem.
- astrange 3y ago
  > I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Wylie E Coyote period", can you explain? I believe that would be after you've run off a cliff but before gravity has noticed.
- andrewjl 3y ago
  > I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Wylie E Coyote period", can you explain? The sibling reply expressed this as well. Wile E. runs off a cliff, the forward momentum keeps gravity in check but only for a short time. The fact that human population continues to grow isn't by itself sufficient evidence that there are no existing parallel, possibly embryonic, trends developing that'll change that later. The period where both of these are true would be similar to when Wile E. is no longer on solid ground and hasn't yet fallen. It's a temporary and (on a relative basis, which could exceed human lifespan for sufficiently complex or slowly moving trends) brief period. To be clear, I don't think it's an accurate view of where we are today. On the other hand, had the changes we've seen since 1970s not come to pass, it'd be harder to say. (An example that is climate change specific is the exponentially decreasing cost curve for solar energy.) > Either way, I wasn't attempting a definitive list with my two items and "etc" So long as the focus is on the definitive then IMHO there is value in looking hard here. Otherwise, why bother? > Today's weapons are definitely scarier than 1970s weapons. Can you say more?

account-5 3y ago

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Wylie E Coyote period", can you explain? I did DDG it but couldn't find much. Without that I'm unsure I can properly comment why I need to account for your other points. But sure the Montreal protocol and even the response to COVID 19 shows what can be accomplished should everyone work together. But it wasn't too late in either case then, and they were easier to solve. Today's weapons are definitely scarier than 1970s weapons. Either way, I wasn't attempting a definitive list with my two items and "etc", I'd consider overpopulation as big a threat as climate change, the fact it's increasing each year is part of the problem.

astrange 3y ago
> I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Wylie E Coyote period", can you explain? I believe that would be after you've run off a cliff but before gravity has noticed.
andrewjl 3y ago
> I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "Wylie E Coyote period", can you explain? The sibling reply expressed this as well. Wile E. runs off a cliff, the forward momentum keeps gravity in check but only for a short time. The fact that human population continues to grow isn't by itself sufficient evidence that there are no existing parallel, possibly embryonic, trends developing that'll change that later. The period where both of these are true would be similar to when Wile E. is no longer on solid ground and hasn't yet fallen. It's a temporary and (on a relative basis, which could exceed human lifespan for sufficiently complex or slowly moving trends) brief period. To be clear, I don't think it's an accurate view of where we are today. On the other hand, had the changes we've seen since 1970s not come to pass, it'd be harder to say. (An example that is climate change specific is the exponentially decreasing cost curve for solar energy.) > Either way, I wasn't attempting a definitive list with my two items and "etc" So long as the focus is on the definitive then IMHO there is value in looking hard here. Otherwise, why bother? > Today's weapons are definitely scarier than 1970s weapons. Can you say more?