Thought this might interest some
1 Like
The article closes with:
At the U.N. Climate Change Conference late last month, world leaders reaffirmed the 1.5C goal. But these scenarios show that without dramatic action — action the leaders did not commit to taking — it most likely will not be possible.
Or at least, not without a major overshoot first. That is where the world is currently heading.
Who’s ready to lower expectations?
Who’s ready to recognize that we must lower our expectations?
IMHO this is going to go like COVID-19 did- with very few people listening to the scientists, which means… every living being on the planet is screwed. That said, my expectations are already lowered and you can’t get any lower than that.
The problem is that all solutions require measures that are contrary to what we believe to be good and wholesome.
The Table below shows which measures must take in order to prevent an eventual disaster.
The horrible alternative is that in the absence of human corrective actions, nature itself will provide the solutions.
Note that population growth is a result of the left-hand column, whereas combating population growth requires the application of the right-hand column.
As Dr Bartlett observed, that is the greatest dilemma humans have ever encountered.
1 Like
And, we need to flip this. A stable population is probably already passed. We’ll need to value population decrease that happens with improved health for all.
I don’t have any stats but it seems to me that population reduction is outpacing population increase, albeit sporadically. Witness the Russia-Ukraine war.
Look, the world has a disease, unfettered capitalism. And it ain’t going away anytime soon. So any solution will have to take this into account. The solution has to involve one or more companies making alot of money fast. Bottom line. I’m not familiar with carbon capture, but it sounds like something that could turn a profit, if the carbon captured could say be turned into something sellable. But short of that, any of the “the world comes together to fight it” exists only in movies.
You identified the problem correctly but the solution will cost money, not earn a profit.
The reason is that carbon has no use other than as a dirty source of energy.
The only solution is to scrub the atmosphere and re-sequester the carbon where we got it from to begin with, deep into the earth.
The change-over to green energy is going to cost trillions and if we don’t meet that responsibility, the earth itself is communicating with us what will happen, but no one seems to notice or care.
This is a clear case of “pay me now or pay me double later”. Shall we ignore what the earth is already telling us?
Correct, it won’t earn a profit. And until the solution DOES earn a profit, as I said - because of the disease - it ain’t gonna happen. We can have all the kumbaya discussions and conferences etc. ain’t gonna make a bit of difference. Unfortunately the disease is getting worse not better.
If capitalism is the disease, then how does a profit motive fix it? The show, The Orville The Orville - Google Search finally explained the future with no money. Wealth was directed to ending disease and pollution, and people were rewarded for their reputations instead of their bank account. We have been pretending that money = smart, good, and wise. That’s ending.
Well yes… perhaps that is what natural selection is for. In the end only the best adapted species survive and according to Hellstrom, that species will be the insect.
Birth rates have been dropping nearly everywhere except Africa.
I think we need to flip the first three (put the top three on the left on the right side and the top three on the right to the left) and get rid of the last one. I’m not sure how immigration is a problem though. If we decrease population and have better healthcare, along with peace, law and order, science in general (not just scientific ag), along with clean air, and educate people, things should get better. However, we don’t need disease, war, violence, famine, and other pestulants to decrease population. China, with it’s one child policy, is having issues with a work force and people to care for the elderly. Thus, they decided to go to a two child policy. Two children, no more than three, is more than enough children. I wanted to have three, but had to settle for two or I wouldn’t see them grow up. My mother just had me and her mother only had two and my great grandmother only had 4, so I come from a history of small families. I cringe when I see people with 4, 5, 6, or more kids. My niece-in-law’s husband comes from a family of 18, all the same mother. I’m surprised she survived giving birth to all those kids. She can’t be healthy. Mentally, she’s not, thanks to the religious teachings she believes. Any woman who believes God put her here to be a baby factory is crazy, IMO. People need to learn that pregnancy and giving birth (even being born) is a risk of life, even in the healthiest women.
So just by abstention, contraception/abortion, and small families would be a start. With better health care, clean water and air, better housing, education, plant based foods, good sanitation, and using wind and solar for energy, we would be well on our way to slowing and eventually stopping Climate Change. People just don’t want to do it anymore than they wanted to follow the guidelines to keep from spreading and getting COVID.
That is an encouraging sign, but only when there is zero growth will the population remain stable.
We are currently at ~ 0.84 % growth rate, yet in 2022 the world’s population grew by
65.81 million individuals and if we remain at 0.84 % our world population will double
in 70/0.84 = 83.33 years. Yes, you read correctly, I said “double” of what it is now!!!
(1 lifetime)
Yes, we MUST choose our destiny ourselves. The problem with healthy living is a natural tendency for an increase in population and this planet can only sustain a limited number of every species or they will inevitably compete for living space.
In a dynamic environment “natural selection” will always be in play.
Maybe, but if you factor in those who are already old and dying off (Silent gen and Boomers) that population offsets the rate of growth. So even healthy living, with a limit of the number of children people can have (as I said, 2-3 max) will off set all of that. Let’s also add in the science that will eventually allow terraforming of the moon and Mars. Right now only the rich could afford what is currently a one way trip in which those who go won’t be able to see their families, but the could change. This, however, is only in the development stages and hasn’t gotten off Earth yet, and may take several more years to make reality, but that is a possibility. Zero growth can happen with a limited amount of births with previous generations dying off and are a larger number than X’ers onward. We just need to figure out how to stop delusional religious groups and countries like Africa from have families like Beethoven had. The majority of people in this world have an average of 2.5 kids (don’t ask what the 1/2 or .whatever child is). Boomers and Silent (my mother and mother-in-law were born in 44 and consider part of the Silent gen) are dying and outnumber other generations. We cannot stop people from procreating and everyone is entitled to have 1-3 kids, with no more than 2 preferable. China has shown that this type of population control does work and it works within approximately 4-5 generations, with older generations outnumbering newer ones and dying off, lowering the population. As I said, China doesn’t have enough working adults, due to older generation retiring and dying off. They raised the childbirth limit to 2 per family to make up for the decrease in population that’s happened since they put in the one child policy, which I think was after WW2, but I’m not sure.
All you are looking at is the birth rate, which appears to go up and up, but you’re not factoring in the death rate of generations who have a higher birth rate than other generations. Boomers had a higher birth rate than X’ers. You can’t expect a total and complete 0 birth rate and expect a species to continue. Eventually, the species will go extinct if no births at all. It can decrease though, with a lower birth rate and not go extinct. You also need good health care too for a species to not go extinct too. All of what I said is important for a society to thrive, not necessarily have growth though. IMHO, you are look at it all wrong by refusing to have a good healthcare system.
But just like teaching young children, there are windows of opportunity, if they are squandered, the kid will always be playing catch up.
Or it will be chosen for us, by forces bigger than us.
Forces that don’t really care what we think.
What we actually do in the physical realm is what matters,
and modern society gets a big F on that score.
Unfortunately there is only one single mathematical statistic that counts and that is the exponential function.
ANY steady growth in population translates in a predictable “doubling time”
1 % steady growth creates a doubling in just 70 years.
As I showed above, our current 8 billion world population growth rate is .83 % p/yr and that translates into 16 billion people in just 70/0.83 = 84 years (a single lifetime).
Extrapolation of the numbers does not account for the million other factors that will affect them.
2 Likes
There is only one number that counts and that is percentage of "net" growth. There has never been a year where there was no net growth.
A net popuation growth of 1% p/yr will result in a doubling time of 70 years.
Even a net growth of 0.5% p/yr will result in a doubling time of 140 years.
Population Growth - Our World in Data.
It is true that the growth rate has declined , but fact is that only at 0.0 % growth will the world population remain stable at a fixed number (with fluctuations)