Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

The Climate Change debate

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

The Climate Change debate

Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:59
  #7461 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 57
Posts: 25
jcb, I think I get what you mean but I'd rather you elucidate.
rvv500 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 00:24
  #7462 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 351
I noticed that little sleight of hand, and, although I don't remember AnthonyGA being a rabid warmist, it is an argument that has been used by the warmists.
I don't have a side in the climate "debate," other than to note that, while temperatures have been rising, nobody really knows why. It's plausible to think that increasing CO2 might increase temperatures, but we really don't know enough to say anything for sure. And there is the insidious influence of human pride: people like to believe that they are changing the world's climate. It's much less humiliating than believing that perhaps we really don't amount to a hill of beans in the planet's evolution. Not only that, but human beings hate to admit when they don't know something, especially when they are scientists. And this is a case where nobody really knows what is causing global warming.

Anyway, while the causes of global warming are highly debatable, the mathematical relationship between overpopulation and the environment is irrefutable. The higher the population goes, the more resources you use, and the worse off the environment will be. And conversely, if you reduce the population with effective birth control methods (such as contraception, combined with education and equality for women), you can be as profligate as you wish in your use of resources and you'll still never run out.

If the populations of China and India decide to live like Americans do, it will have a very negative impact on the environment, because of the huge populations of these countries. The only viable solution is to maintain a lower standard of living for the Chinese and the Indians—which seems a bit unfair—or to lower the populations of these countries through birth control and natural attrition. There are no other options. If humanity fails to recognize and act upon this mathematical reality, there will be famine, wars, and disease for all.

I honestly don't think that human beings are advanced enough to take the appropriate action. I think that, like all other animals, they will ignore overpopulation until the inevitable wars, famines, and diseases reduce population the hard way.
AnthonyGA is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 01:20
  #7463 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68
AGA

Don`t know about the "as profligate as you wish" bit once (we`re all dreaming here!) the population growth side of things is addressed, but intuitively the rest of your post ought to be a reality check guidance piece for soooo many huggy-fluff hair-shirt wearers.

JCB

I too am looking forward to some elaboration on your little quip, given your usual style of considered and informed opinion.
konstantin is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 01:25
  #7464 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 77
Posts: 4,580
pulse1:
Prince Charles - Climate Deniers Gamble with the Future
...and the AGW carbon-trading police are not gambling?
barit1 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 01:43
  #7465 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
barit1

Though I'm sure he is unaware of his prose, Charles POW is elucidating the other side of the AGW Coin. It is technically called "The Precautionary Principle". It is a device used in concert with lusty applications of Fear by those who would work a ploy, or POV.

Given the fear of Warm, the Goristes apply the closer: "Let's don't take a chance with our future, we'll do x,y, and z, and even if _____ doesn't happen, what's the harm??"

I am fairly certain Charles is doing it for free, he is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Seen it, paid for it........

bear
 
Old 11th Feb 2011, 01:49
  #7466 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,332
AnthonyGA

Well said, but really change your name to Sir Thomas Malthus and rethink your argument to, "I've got mine, to hell with those WOGs who should just get used to poverty."

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 08:22
  #7467 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
...and the AGW carbon-trading police are not gambling?
Oh they are, all right; it's just that they've decided to use our money.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 08:52
  #7468 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Planet Earth, mostly
Posts: 438
galaxyflier, did you miss the part where he suggested population control?
That could and should be applied to every country and would benefit everyone.
etrang is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 09:15
  #7469 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
And how do you propose we "control the population"?

After all, that sort of thing failed miserably in China
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 09:33
  #7470 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edinburgh and 3C
Age: 67
Posts: 195
Agreed, hellsbrink, enforced population control just leads to secret infanticide, not something we wish to encourage.
MagnusP is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 09:36
  #7471 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Land of Beer and Chocolate
Age: 51
Posts: 794
Not only that, Magnus, who makes the decision regarding who has children and under what criteria?

Blonde hair/blue eyes?
Wealth?
Intelligence of parents?
Religion?
hellsbrink is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 10:31
  #7472 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 351
Well said, but really change your name to Sir Thomas Malthus and rethink your argument to, "I've got mine, to hell with those WOGs who should just get used to poverty."
It's perfectly possible for them to have the same standard of living as I do, if they have the same population as my part of the world has. There's an order-of-magnitude differences between the resources consumed by 300 million people and those consumed by 3,000 million people, with the standard of living held constant.

It doesn't really matter what I tell people, or what they believe. It's mathematically inevitable. Eventually the population gets too large, and everyone has not choice but to live in extremely poor conditions. Even then, the population will continue to increase, until the resources run out, then people will go to war to try to take resources from others for themselves. Wars reduce population substantially, but famine and disease will step in to reduce the population further. Then there will be peace for a few decades until the population rises again, and the cycle will repeat.

Malthus simply recognized the same mathematical inevitability that I have described. Many others have recognized it as well, but apparently not enough to have any real influence on the problem of overpopulation.

And how do you propose we "control the population"?

After all, that sort of thing failed miserably in China.
It has not failed miserably in China; were it not for Chinese policies to limit population growth, the country would be in far worse shape today.

The best way to control population—proven by experience—is to educate women and ensure that they are treated with equality as compared to men. Affluence also reduces population. When women are educated and allowed to do something other than produce babies, birth rates fall. When the quality of life rises above mere subsistence, people find other activities to interest them besides reproduction. The only problem is that affluence is not likely to be forthcoming in a population that already outstrips the resources and infrastructure available to support it.

Along with the education and equality of women must also come effective, inexpensive methods of contraception. People will engage in sex with or without contraception, so contraception is essential for population control.

Once the number of births is reduced, natural attrition will stabilize or reduce the population automatically.

In societies where these conditions exist, the birth rate falls, and the population may cease to grow and may even shrink, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, since a smaller population can use more resources without any risk to the environment, and can thus enjoy a higher standard of living.

There's one other, theoretical way to deal with increasing population, and that is by finding a source of unlimited energy. If you have enough energy, you can do anything, including support an enormous population. With enough energy, you can recycle everything, and replace resources that normally would not be renewable. But today we do not have enough energy to go around with the current population, much less enough to allow for an increase in population, so this partial solution remains theoretical.
AnthonyGA is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 10:32
  #7473 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 77
Posts: 3,511
And how do you propose we "control the population"?
Logically the only way is to sterilize all males and females before puberty in a reversible manner. When they can show that as a couple they can behave in a responsible manner and are capable of supporting one ore two children then allow them to have them and then re-sterilize.

The acceptability of the above of course is very debatable as is the criteria that would need to be satisfied before breeding is allowed.
green granite is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 10:36
  #7474 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwixt and between
Posts: 666
I found suprising the fact as visualised by Burt Rutan that all the people in the world would fit into a space 1700' cubed. Not even visable from space.

Over population, AGW, bird flu, tsunamis, mega volvanos, etc. All nonesense in terms of a disaster metric and all part of the conservation of worry

Last edited by Sciolistes; 11th Feb 2011 at 22:52.
Sciolistes is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 11:37
  #7475 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
And how do you propose we "control the population"?
Perhaps a method would be reduced taxation for families with children or less. That way, the family units that use more resources recieve financial constraints on increasing population numbers. though there would need to be some methodolgy to deal with the single parent families, IE mothers with children by different fathers and fathers of children to different mothers.

It would also place the financial contraints on those whom actually create the over population problem, not a unilateral, everyone must pay. why should someone with no children have to be financially responsible for others.

also this would evidently have management problems in the *developing* countries, and would have to be something mandated on a global basis (IE through the UN signatory countries, but then again, what about non UN signatory countries ?)

Funnily enough i read a post recently, it may have been on here or on watts up with that, that showed the child numbers of some of the leading proponants of the AGW theory, many have 3-5 and in one case 7 children. go figure.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 12:11
  #7476 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
It doesn't really matter what I tell people, or what they believe. It's mathematically inevitable. Eventually the population gets too large, and everyone has not choice but to live in extremely poor conditions. Even then, the population will continue to increase, until the resources run out, then people will go to war to try to take resources from others for themselves. Wars reduce population substantially, but famine and disease will step in to reduce the population further. Then there will be peace for a few decades until the population rises again, and the cycle will repeat.

Bubonic Plague...
The first recorded epidemic ravaged the Byzantine Empire
The plague resurfaced in the mid-19th century; like the Black Death, the Third Pandemic began in Central Asia. The disease killed millions in China and India - then a British colony - and then spread worldwide. The outbreak continued into the early 20th century
... in the 14th century and killed an estimated 75 million people, 30-60% of the European population. Because the plague killed so many of the working population, wages rose and some historians have seen this as a turning point in European economic development
* My bold and underline for emphasis

Note: No intent of being a harbinger of doom, but the emphasis of the bold section discussed that after the plague raved Europe, living standards, wages and economic development all increased.

The best way to control population—proven by experience—is to educate women and ensure that they are treated with equality as compared to men. Affluence also reduces population. When women are educated and allowed to do something other than produce babies, birth rates fall. When the quality of life rises above mere subsistence, people find other activities to interest them besides reproduction. The only problem is that affluence is not likely to be forthcoming in a population that already outstrips the resources and infrastructure available to support it.

Interesting point. However, some cultures are predisposed against such actions, and funnily enough, these have very large family units.

There's one other, theoretical way to deal with increasing population, and that is by finding a source of unlimited energy. If you have enough energy, you can do anything, including support an enormous population. With enough energy, you can recycle everything, and replace resources that normally would not be renewable. But today we do not have enough energy to go around with the current population, much less enough to allow for an increase in population, so this partial solution remains theoretical.
Is it a partial solution though ?

Growing populations put more demand on the environment, not only in housing, but also feeding the growing population, which sees expansion and development of towns into rural areas with the loss of agricultural space. Ergo, would cheap energy be a partial solution or would it further exacerbate the problem by allowing further growth of populations, increasing the loss of agricultural space available?

The irony in the pro AGW camp is the support for 'green fuels' which is causing the loss of huge swathes of virgin forest to agricultural space for 'bio'-fuels [sic].

When that little chestnut of falsity falls on it's arse and dies, the agricultural space gained for bio-fuels [sic] will inevitably be turned over to food production, giving lower food costs and allowing for increased population growth. go figure.

I honestly don't think that human beings are advanced enough to take the appropriate action.
Some are, but the yogurt-knitters don't want to face the hard facts and instead prefer to wrap themselves up in fallacies that stunting economic development solves the problem, which goes back to the point made earlier about increasing education and quality of life. Ergo, the AGW/CC/yogurt knitters could in fact be viewed as more anti-economic development, funnily enough, they also voice anti-capitalist views from time to time. Is in fact the AGW/CC/yogurt knitting brigade just anti-capitalism and anarchy in a guise that fits with a cheese and wine party, dinner party conversation about mortgage rates and wanting a house with more bedrooms and bathrooms?

They simply cannot see the wood for the trees. Pun intended.

Either that or it's just rank hypocrisy.

Perhaps the key to increasing education should start with the AGW/CC/yogurt knitting brigade, but that would necessitate the involvement of factual data, not data massaged to show an agenda. Something they simply don't want to accept.

Last edited by stuckgear; 11th Feb 2011 at 16:38.
stuckgear is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 12:48
  #7477 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 67
Posts: 204
Three trillion dollars per year would go some way to provide:

1 Clean water for everyone
2 Adequate sewage disposal for everyone
3 Education for women
4 Effective contraception (free) for women
5 Mosquito nets

It's simple. Reduce premature mortality, remove the need to reproduce in order to provide labour. No need to legislate and enforce targets to stop population growth; educated women with the opportunity control their fertility.
Yamagata ken is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 14:21
  #7478 (permalink)  
bearfoil
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
There is not a faster learning more intelligent creature on Earth than Man, and notice I said learning. Education is for politicians. Those who actually do something to help the human condition may recognize the difference. It is not a bottom up thing, but a Top Down paradigm. Those who have wished to live well in their particular domain virtually always fall victim to those who have an acquisitive nature. No matter the resource, it draws the attention of those with ships, or guns, or Secretaries of "State".

More of everything can be marshalled from the top of the "pyramid" at this point, it has f-all to do with mosquito nets and clean water. The folks at the very bottom will survive, they always do. There are more of them, they have simple needs, no wants, and can hide better than the rest of us.

For the "World" to survive, we need a whole lot fewer people trying to "save" it.

bear
 
Old 11th Feb 2011, 14:38
  #7479 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,306
Eventually the population gets too large, and everyone has not choice but to live in extremely poor conditions. Even then, the population will continue to increase, until the resources run out, then people will go to war to try to take resources from others for themselves. Wars reduce population substantially, but famine and disease will step in to reduce the population further.
And if you need proof of that then just take New Zealand. Fortunately the British arrived and sorted things out. The islands now easily support many more people than the Maoris ever attained.
sisemen is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2011, 16:41
  #7480 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Wayne Manor
Posts: 1,516
For the "World" to survive, we need a whole lot fewer people trying to "save" it.

indeed.

message too short, this bit added to increase post length.
stuckgear is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.