The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Now that the topic of overpopulation has come up it makes one wonder what the agenda is.

Do tell us what the agenda is.

I'm not a Malthusian by any measure. But I do worry about resource competition and what that means for quality of life in the future.

[Build.It]

Resource competition which has yet to turn into a reality.

The world is better fed than ever before. There is less poverty than ever before (minus a slight dip due to COVID pandemic response). There are less weather-related deaths than ever before.

As for my agenda? I just want to be left alone, and stop being lied to, especially considering that me keeping me and family alive isn't hurting anyone.

What's your agenda? You've been caught spreading falsehoods about the threats of Zika and food security. It took exactly 5 minutes to fact check and debunk these claims. Now you are claiming that the real threat is over-population in the developing world. What is it that you are trying to accomplish? Why do you want everyone to be so afraid?

[Truenorth00]

I'd like to live in a world that is stable, safe and prosperous. And not one where Putin and Xi are writing the rules. Why do you want to surrender to dictators?

[Airboy]

And our illustrious Leader has given the go ahead for a coal mine (Thermal ), Federal Gov has not approved the mine though.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Build.It

Now you are claiming that the real threat is over-population in the developing world.

Actually I brought it up.

Apparently it's not obvious that continuing to grow the world's population increases energy use, resource usage, etc. etc.? Suddenly I feel like I'm back in the 1960s, when the world was still considered by many to be an endless resource, provided by the deity of their choice, to us for the taking... and conspicuous consumption was king.

And some still seem to believe that the only way forward is continued growth to infinity, and that all we have to do is produce more stuff from our endless resources, and all will be good... forever apparently.

Surely you can understand that somebody, through the inescapable use of logic, can see that there is an approaching problem that perhaps should be considered, without any agenda present? Unless you consider the continued quality of life, or improved quality of life for the billions of people in the world who have not yet experienced what we enjoy as a given, as an agenda - then there would be an agenda, albeit a positive, constructive one.

We can deny the issue, or we can just pretend that a problem doesn't exist, and that allows us the conscience to continue as is, without any changes, because everything's just fine, isn't it? Meanwhile, if increasing population is actually moving us towards some fixed point where our needs outstrip the ability of our planet (and our technology) to provide, then there's no denying that we are going to hit a point of no return. Or maybe the agenda is to do nothing and let natural selection (along with all the pain, anguish, and suffering that it will bring) take its course. The logical person will probably come to the conclusion that we could never arrive at a consensus to control birthrate, so perhaps your idea is the right one... who knows, but we should be able to discuss without accusations of having an agenda, shouldn't we?

[theman23]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Actually I brought it up.

Apparently it's not obvious that continuing to grow the world's population increases energy use, resource usage, etc. etc.? Suddenly I feel like I'm back in the 1960s, when the world was still considered by many to be an endless resource, provided by the deity of their choice, to us for the taking... and conspicuous consumption was king.

And some still seem to believe that the only way forward is continued growth to infinity, and that all we have to do is produce more stuff from our endless resources, and all will be good... forever apparently.

Surely you can understand that somebody, through the inescapable use of logic, can see that there is an approaching problem that perhaps should be considered, without any agenda present? Unless you consider the continued quality of life, or improved quality of life for the billions of people in the world who have not yet experienced what we enjoy as a given, as an agenda - then there would be an agenda, albeit a positive, constructive one.

We can deny the issue, or we can just pretend that a problem doesn't exist, and that allows us the conscience to continue as is, without any changes, because everything's just fine, isn't it? Meanwhile, if increasing population is actually moving us towards some fixed point where our needs outstrip the ability of our planet (and our technology) to provide, then there's no denying that we are going to hit a point of no return. Or maybe the agenda is to do nothing and let natural selection (along with all the pain, anguish, and suffering that it will bring) take its course. The logical person will probably come to the conclusion that we could never arrive at a consensus to control birthrate, so perhaps your idea is the right one... who knows, but we should be able to discuss without accusations of having an agenda, shouldn't we?

But it doesn't? World population growth is slowing and the current generation of school children (and possibly even some of the younger posters on SSP) may live to see a world with a declining population.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by theman23

But it doesn't? World population growth is slowing and the current generation of school children (and possibly even some of the younger posters on SSP) may live to see a world with a declining population.

To a point yes. Growth is slowing. But peak will probably not be till well after 2050s. And after that the decline will probably not be quick.



https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ne-reason-why/

The question is whether past trends in improvement in quality of life can be maintained going forward for the next few billion. I, for one, don't think we can (or should) tell people to have fewer kids. I do worry that people are extrapolating from the Green Revolution to assume we can simply do the same in the future. I'm not sure that extrapolation holds. And beyond that, simply feeding people is not quality of life. It's subsistence. This is why I do worry about resource competition driving increasing conflict. May not be directly applicable to Canada. But imagine a world where India, China and Pakistan are fighting for dwindling water supplies from the Himalayas.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by theman23

But it doesn't? World population growth is slowing and the current generation of school children (and possibly even some of the younger posters on SSP) may live to see a world with a declining population.

The idea of ever-growing material consumption is complicated too. It's true that the value of consumption has tended to go up in the modern era, Canada's economic problems notwithstanding.

Back in Europe in the 1600's there were areas that were completely deforested so that people could modestly heat their homes. Today we have much larger energy budgets but we didn't do this by growing 10,000x more trees to cut down. Technological improvement is still happening, the old improvements are moving to poorer parts of the world, and that benefit is pretty likely to outweigh the resource demands of now-slowing population growth on average around the world.

[MolsonExport]

The Tragedy of the Commons

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by theman23

But it doesn't? World population growth is slowing and the current generation of school children (and possibly even some of the younger posters on SSP) may live to see a world with a declining population.

That's very true but the devil is in the details.

Most countries in the Americas, Europe, and Asia will begin to see population decline over the next few decades including India in about 60 years. China is enroute to potentially plunge to under 500 million. It currently has between 1.2 to 1.3 billion depending upon the estimates as it's current stated population is wildly overestimated by the majority of demographers. The only exceptions will be countries with large immigrant draws.

The problem is that Africa is growing like wildfire and by the end of the century could be home to a whopping 40% of global population. The issue is not whether we can feed our population, which we most certainly can, it's whether we can produce it at costs that the poorest can afford.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by theman23

But it doesn't? World population growth is slowing and the current generation of school children (and possibly even some of the younger posters on SSP) may live to see a world with a declining population.

Well that’s great news. Nothing to worry about, then.

I’m glad we have that window into the future. Did we eventually solve climate change as well?

[theman23]

There are obviously things to worry about, but unchecked global population growth is not one of them.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I’m glad we have that window into the future. Did we eventually solve climate change as well?

Climate change is completely inconsequential if we go by recent discussion in this thread.

Dealing with people who can't understand non-linearity is always tough. Reminds me of the folks in Feb 2020 who said COVID is nothing to worry about.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The problem is that Africa is growing like wildfire and by the end of the century could be home to a whopping 40% of global population. The issue is not whether we can feed our population, which we most certainly can, it's whether we can produce it at costs that the poorest can afford.

In practice this would be addressed much more efficiently by raising African agricultural output or trying to slow birthrates than by broadly cutting back on the lifestyles of North Americans or Europeans.

[Build.It]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The problem is that Africa is growing like wildfire and by the end of the century could be home to a whopping 40% of global population. The issue is not whether we can feed our population, which we most certainly can, it's whether we can produce it at costs that the poorest can afford.

It really depends how the rate at which African farmers get more efficient compares to the rate at which the population grows.

[ssiguy]

Obviously, agricultural production will increase in Africa due to technological advances and improved farming methods but that takes money which few African countries have. Some of these countries have to increase their food production by 4% a year just to maintain their current amount per citizen.

Africa is at LEAST 80 years away from population stabilization and for many they maybe a century away.

[Build.It]

Most African countries' GDP/capita is growing by a lot faster than 4% per year though. It's definitely possible that food actually gets more affordable there.

Also food in most African countries is already insanely cheap compared to here.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

In practice this would be addressed much more efficiently by raising African agricultural output or trying to slow birthrates than by broadly cutting back on the lifestyles of North Americans or Europeans.

Birth rates don't decline without development (outside authoritarian states). So unless they develop quickly, their birth rate trajectory isn't going to change. Unfortunately, they've got a ton of barriers holding back development. And in the background the actual topic of this thread impacting it all. It's funny how people understand this on investment documents, but don't think of it while predicting major global changes with macroeconomic effects, "Past Performance Is Not Indicative Of Future Results."

The real fun starts when the billions in the developing world start catching up to our lifestyles. They'll want cars, detached houses, and steaks for dinner too.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To a point yes. Growth is slowing. But peak will probably not be till well after 2050s. And after that the decline will probably not be quick.



https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ne-reason-why/

.

The UN population fund’s estimates have been too high for a long time. Other studies such as the lancet study show a much quicker decline.

https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0...677-2/fulltext

And the lancet study did not include the post-COVID drop in birth rates that has happened nearly everywhere.

The world is likely to run out of humans before it runs out of resources.

[theman23]

An here's an economist article from last year discussing the rapidly falling fertility levels in Africa over the last few years:
https://www.economist.com/middle-eas...-than-expected