Is forced population control the solution to climate change?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
As someone who made the decision a long time ago to not have kids, thats just not the fix globally. We just need to fix the energy situation. eventually, if we can get far enough, our population will spread into space. We are a virus, embrace it and try not to kill the host.
 
Further said:
As someone who made the decision a long time ago to not have kids, thats just not the fix globally. We just need to fix the energy situation. eventually, if we can get far enough, our population will spread into space. We are a virus, embrace it and try not to kill the host.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the human population growth will outpace innovations in energy production and conservation. The more people there are, the more energy that will be required. Right now, what is out there in alternative energy is inefficient and costly. It could be several decades before what needs to be figured out will be figured out. And then what, 15 billion people on earth?
 
Further said:
As someone who made the decision a long time ago to not have kids, thats just not the fix globally. We just need to fix the energy situation. eventually, if we can get far enough, our population will spread into space. We are a virus, embrace it and try not to kill the host.
Click to expand...
This made me think of that Kilgore Trout story...I think it was Venus on the Half Shell
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
Like I said, the human population growth will outpace innovations in energy production and conversation. The more people there are, the more energy that will be required. Right now, what is out there in alternative energy is inefficient and costly. It could be several decades before what needs to be figured out will be figured out. And then what, 15 billion people on earth?
Click to expand...
I just don't see it the same way. If we put in the effort, on a massive scale, the energy issues should be very achievable. We aren't too far away now in theory, but the investments would be huge. but with time, further research and innovation this is conquerable.

Technology and population might both be on an exponential growth curve, but population will always have its growth potential limited by procreation. Technology faces no such resistance.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
Like I said, the human population growth will outpace innovations in energy production and conservation. The more people there are, the more energy that will be required. Right now, what is out there in alternative energy is inefficient and costly. It could be several decades before what needs to be figured out will be figured out. And then what, 15 billion people on earth?
Click to expand...
I think it should be noted that there are a lot more folks in that 15 billion who probably won't live long lives because humans have figured out how to eat themselves to death at a younger age
 
riverman said:
This made me think of that Kilgore Trout story...I think it was Venus on the Half Shell
Click to expand...
Its been a long time since I read any KV, I need to go back again. Loved it years ago but don't remember much.
 
Further said:
I just don't see it the same way. If we put in the effort, on a massive scale, the energy issues should be very achievable. We aren't too far away now in theory, but the investments would be huge. but with time, further research and innovation this is conquerable.

Technology and population might both be on an exponential growth curve, but population will always have its growth potential limited by procreation. Technology faces no such resistance.
Click to expand...

If you are talking renewables, there are definitely limits since you are harvesting from natural resources.

And the graph of population growth refutes that growth potential is limited.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
If you are talking renewables, there are definitely limits since you are harvesting from natural resources.

And the graph of population growth refutes that growth potential is limited.
Click to expand...
The limit on nuclear power is extraordinary. The limit on solar is only limited by area, but as tech improves those stations could move into space. Battery storage power will continue to improve till storage is moot. Point is, as population grows, so does tech. Tech will (1) discover new energies and (2) require less energy output and (3) find more efficient energy dispersal. This will continue until energy is inconsequential as long as we focus on it. We don't need to solve the energy issue for 20 billion, we need to solve it for now, and keep investing in our future.

And by the way, population growth is slowing down. Some models have it dropping to 1 billion ever 15 years for the next few decades and eventually holding at 10 billion or so. We don't know, but as we bring third world nations into the modern world population rates slow and eventually drop. There are competing population models and I don't have the knowledge to discern which ones are more fitting. I took a population dynamics course in college about a decade ago where we looked into many of the models but 80% of the class was about animal populations, and we really just touched on the human issue. But I trust our minds more than our ability to freeze our loins.
 
Energy production isn't the only environmental concern of a large population. And I'm still not convinced that is the final answer to solve any of this.

It's not just an issue of mindfulness. Much of the world is third world and they still fuck and reproduce like jackrabbits. Shit is never going to change in many of those areas and if they do guess what, they will build and pollute a shit ton.

There will a time in history in which the world will have to control its population. And there will be a time where the world will have to cull the population. Not now, not soon but it will happen, the first before they realize that the second will have to happen. Genocide has been carried out for far less. There will eventually be environmental based genocide.
 
Further said:
as long as we focus on it
Click to expand...

I might be persuaded to lean your way sir, if I saw any evidence of focus on a problem. Worry about too much carbon or the carbon foot print is ridiculous. We are carbon, trees are carbon
We defoliate the earth and quadruple our population in the last century. Trees glean their carbon from the air, we do not. We will not be able to feed the population soon if it grows like this. When the US has to import food, the world is screwed.

This debate is silly, if science is to be enlisted to assist, and that is a good idea, let us not begin with the solution, let us begin with understanding our boundaries and the capacity within those boundaries. I do not know what the capacity of the earth is to support human life, but I do not even want that answer. I want to know, and this should be a consensuses, what the capacity of earth to support human life with the highest quality sustainable and acceptable to us? The dream of expanding to space is pure science fiction. We have zero evidence to support the dream, so it can not be counted on to accept our excess population that can not be supported here. Global climate change is happening, and I am sure humans have not done a damn thing to stabilize it. What is worse, we have not done what must be done to provide the best living through the change we will need to endure. We will lose all water from Glaciers between 035 degrees of latitude North to South. That will drastically affect the ability to produce food in the most populated areas of our planet. Euro-Asia probably the most.

The bottom line is we do not know shit! nor have we begun the beginning of learning what we need to do. This is where science should begin, not where a political party sees profit.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
When you get a virus, you get a fever. That's the human body raising its core temperature to kill the virus. Planet Earth works the same way: Global warming is the fever, mankind is the virus. We're making our planet sick.
Click to expand...


As much as this analogy is coherent it is completely false. The Earth is not raising its own temperature in response to anything. It's not an evolved biological organism. It's basically a rock floating is space. Rocks don't get sick. There is no parallel.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I love how it suddenly goes from, "Global Warming Isn't Real!" to "We need to start killing fuckers!"
Click to expand...
I don't condone killing fuckers but letting them die when it's their time might be something to consider...I've worked with disabled seniors for a long time..in many cases, it's better to let nature take it's course
 
crowTrobot said:
As much as this analogy is coherent it is completely false. The Earth is not raising its own temperature in response to anything. It's not an evolved biological organism. It's basically a rock floating is space. Rocks don't get sick. There is no parallel.
Click to expand...

Ha! This makes me think of tunnel vision. Maybe if you view the Earth as Rocks and the Ecosystem we all live in, it might make a bit more sense. However, I don't necessarly think it is sick
more like at this point in a cycle or cycles. But I am sure it will become sick (not the Rocks). Our ecosystem began, it will end.
 
riverman said:
I don't condone killing fuckers but letting them die when it's their time might be something to consider...I've worked with disabled seniors for a long time..in many cases, it's better to let nature take it's course
Click to expand...

At what point do want to cut me off? Let see, I have been here half the time Oregon has been a State. Have I over stayed my welcome?
 
MarAzul said:
Ha! This makes me think of tunnel vision. Maybe if you view the Earth as Rocks and the Ecosystem we all live in, it might make a bit more sense.
Click to expand...

The implication was the temperature is increasing functionally *in order* to eliminate humans. There is no context in which that makes sense.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
fig7_02.gif


world_population_1050_to_2050.jpg
Click to expand...

Those damn baby boomers...

The solution is simple. We should never have more than 2 kids. One to replace ourselves and another to replace our spouse. If we do this worldwide the results would be exponential. We also need to make sure that women are educated worldwide. When a woman is educated or involved in sports they have children later in life and they choose how many they have.
 
dviss1 said:
Those damn baby boomers...

The solution is simple. We should never have more than 2 kids. One to replace ourselves and another to replace our spouse. If we do this worldwide the results would be exponential. We also need to make sure that women are educated worldwide. When a woman is educated or involved in sports they have children later in life and they choose how many they have.
Click to expand...

I still believe a carbon offset tax on having children would greatly discourage people from reproducing. It goes up after each child.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
I still believe a carbon offset tax on having children would greatly discourage people from reproducing. It goes up after each child.
Click to expand...

Or at least stop giving tax breaks for having kids.

barfo
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aly
Oh yes! Beware when the Pope cites science. Science needs no altars, field work and labs will do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top