Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
Chris Lloyd, on 13 February 2012 - 19:08, said:
Come on Peter. If you wish to breeze into a thread the least you can do is answer my response. 
Not sure I can do that unless I'm here
The real problem with our planet
#21
Posted 13 February 2012 - 19:22
Not sure I can do that unless I'm here
#22
Posted 13 February 2012 - 20:07
Peter H, on 13 February 2012 - 19:14, said:
Fwiw, I've known for all my life there are too many of us. I'd advocate all the usual approaches to that problem. But, as I've said before, this is a climate forum.
It's always seemed to me that most of those commonly dismissed, around the web, as "warmists" (ie those who think man's activity is likely causing some warming of the planet) don't think the ONLY problem the planet faces is AGW but rather that it's "just" that's one of many. That the effects of CO2 on the climate is what they tend to discuss when posting in the climate section of a weather forum shouldn't really be a surprise IMO
#23
Posted 13 February 2012 - 20:18
PK2, on 13 February 2012 - 20:07, said:
It's always seemed to me that most of those commonly dismissed, around the web, as "warmists" (ie those who think man's activity is likely causing some warming of the planet) don't think the ONLY problem the planet faces is AGW but rather that it's "just" that's one of many. That the effects of CO2 on the climate is what they tend to discuss when posting in the climate section of a weather forum shouldn't really be a surprise IMO
Indeed, and that (at least for me) a interest in weather climate lead to me becoming aware of AGW.
Of course that we're concerned about other problem just confirms we're 'alarmists' as well - doh!
#24
Posted 14 February 2012 - 08:12
PK2, on 13 February 2012 - 20:07, said:
It's always seemed to me that most of those commonly dismissed, around the web, as "warmists" (ie those who think man's activity is likely causing some warming of the planet) don't think the ONLY problem the planet faces is AGW but rather that it's "just" that's one of many. That the effects of CO2 on the climate is what they tend to discuss when posting in the climate section of a weather forum shouldn't really be a surprise IMO
Yes - climate influences weather so it's bound to crop up on any weather forum.
Off-base, AGW is indeed just one facet of a bigger problem which is Mankind's collective refusal to look critically at the natural resources available. This leads to a Cornucopian view of the planet, which is blatantly dangerous for reasons obvious to many. Further to that, one has to add in religion. At Skeptical Science we get a fair few nasty emails and it's not an uncommon thing to see comments along the lines of "God put those resources in the Earth for Mankind alone so don't you dare tell me we need to conserve them"...... (expletives removed)
Cheers - John
#25
Posted 14 February 2012 - 08:33
This is very much related to the topic so I'll post a link:
http://www.guardian....-social-justice
Cheers - John
http://www.guardian....-social-justice
Cheers - John
#26 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:34
PK2, on 13 February 2012 - 20:07, said:
It's always seemed to me that most of those commonly dismissed, around the web, as "warmists" (ie those who think man's activity is likely causing some warming of the planet) don't think the ONLY problem the planet faces is AGW but rather that it's "just" that's one of many. That the effects of CO2 on the climate is what they tend to discuss when posting in the climate section of a weather forum shouldn't really be a surprise IMO
That would be a good argument. Without knowing what other factors people consider I think it would be impossible to guess what their motives are. AGW is also not a separate problem, it is a symptom of over population
I would suggest that there are many people who have a particular mindset that they don't consider the real cause. In fact I would be naiive to expect to find a group of people that talk about all factors on a weather or climate forum.
AGW is a symptom of the state of our planet. Famine would be another, shortage of housing another, financial crisis another, and so on.
Problem is, which forum is going to allow a mix of both. Discussion of AGW on an eco site would be off topic. Discussions of green issues will be off topic on a climate forum.
Back to your original point. Unfortunately, all I see on the tv relates to AGW and not very much else. All the advertising is about our warming planet. Even if people do consider other factors, AGW is what gets pushed down our throats.
It's all wrong. Be nice to see an advert about our population, with a nice little graph showing what it will be in 50 years. That will scare people more than an advert with a little doggy floating in flood water.
#27 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted 14 February 2012 - 09:52
John Mason, on 14 February 2012 - 08:33, said:
This is very much related to the topic so I'll post a link:
http://www.guardian....-social-justice
Cheers - John
http://www.guardian....-social-justice
Cheers - John
A good read
One quote
"The space between these two lines is the "safe and just space for humanity to thrive in". So what happens if everyone below the social justice line rises above it? Does that push us irrevocably over the destruction line? The answer, she shows, is no."
Not sure I agree with this view.
Everyone on this planet is not keen to give up what they already have. To bring everyone above the social justice line would require some kind of offset, migration of wealth, energy, food, resources etc etc. People don't want to give up what they already take for granted.
Even producing more energy or more food will not solve the problem. All it will do is encourage the population of the planet to increase at an even higher rate than it already is.
Population is limited by the circumstances that a family encounters wherever they are in the world. Families in 3rd world countries statisitically have large families because mortality rates are so high.
Conversely, people in the western world cannot afford to get on the property ladder, so to them the thought of starting a family may come down to either practicality or more likely cost.
There is only so much money going into the pot and only so much available housing (we know there is already a shortage of affordable housing).
The reality of me retiring at 65 won't happen. Retirement will be a word of the past in 20 or 30 years time. People will work until the day they die, unless you are extremely rich. You need an income these days to pay the electricity and gas bills. It will only get worse.
More people, less space. Sorry to sound flippant, but who cares about AGW really, other than those that seek to prove it exists. So we prove it; it won't make a jot of difference to the future of our planet.
#28
Posted 14 February 2012 - 10:27
Chris Lloyd, on 14 February 2012 - 09:52, said:
...
More people, less space. Sorry to sound flippant, but who cares about AGW really, other than those that seek to prove it exists. So we prove it; it won't make a jot of difference to the future of our planet.
Chris, I suspect we pretty much agree about population - it is, to quote your thread title, a real problem.
But, back to what also interests me, climate. I think, as with population, that the first requirement for a solution is to recognise there is a problem. As such I wonder why so many people spend so much time trying to prove AGW isn't a real problem? Because, and I know you wont accept this, geologically fast warming above a degree or so IS a real problem. I think solving both over population and AGW need not be impossible. The solutions to both are there - contraception, women's right, less inequality, better health care, education and wrt AGW a less feckless use of non renewable energy and resources, less people, less consumption more emphasis on renewable energy and the rest. These things could be done - I know it because, yes, I know it. So, what stops them happening? That is the real question. Answer? Vested interests? That there is vast money involved in going in the direction we're going? That that money train must run on and on because we all depend upon it for our jobs and lives - even if it destination gets ever closer ever faster? That people like me can easily be branded as [insert frightening description here]? Or simple human inertia and resistance to change?
#29
- Group: Executive
- Posts: 23751
- Joined: 15-October 02
- LocationEvesham, Worcs
Posted 14 February 2012 - 10:59
Chris Lloyd, on 14 February 2012 - 09:52, said:
More people, less space. Sorry to sound flippant, but who cares about AGW really, other than those that seek to prove it exists. So we prove it; it won't make a jot of difference to the future of our planet.
Whilst I know what you mean, surely the same applies to plate tectonics, what killed the dinosaurs, space exploration and indeed a great of scientific endeavour? Understanding how the climate works and how humans - or other things - may be affecting it probably has more bearing on our future that a lot of science does.
And for that matter, who really cares about forecasting the weather? We'll get what we get and there's nothing we can do about it. What a waste of money
#30 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted 14 February 2012 - 13:08
Andy Mayhew, on 14 February 2012 - 10:59, said:
Whilst I know what you mean, surely the same applies to plate tectonics, what killed the dinosaurs, space exploration and indeed a great of scientific endeavour? Understanding how the climate works and how humans - or other things - may be affecting it probably has more bearing on our future that a lot of science does.
And for that matter, who really cares about forecasting the weather? We'll get what we get and there's nothing we can do about it. What a waste of money
And for that matter, who really cares about forecasting the weather? We'll get what we get and there's nothing we can do about it. What a waste of money
Andy, there is nothing wrong with endeavouring to expand our knowledge of our environment.
If it wasn't for the Neutrino experiment at Cern, Einstein's theory of relativity would not be under scrutiny as it perhaps is now.
It is this same endeavour that will allow us to eventually solve our energy needs through fusion processes.
So I am all for this type of research.
Where all these things are productive I find that proving AGW exists isn't productive. It gives us an answer to a question only.
If the answer is yes, it does exist we can do nothing about it because it is a symptom only of over population.
Address the issue of over population and AGW sorts itself out.
Case of chicken or the egg I am afraid. I know which came first in this case. Makes research into AGW all rather pointless when put into context.
#31 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted 14 February 2012 - 13:12
Peter H, on 14 February 2012 - 10:27, said:
Chris, I suspect we pretty much agree about population - it is, to quote your thread title, a real problem.
But, back to what also interests me, climate. I think, as with population, that the first requirement for a solution is to recognise there is a problem. As such I wonder why so many people spend so much time trying to prove AGW isn't a real problem? Because, and I know you wont accept this, geologically fast warming above a degree or so IS a real problem. I think solving both over population and AGW need not be impossible. The solutions to both are there - contraception, women's right, less inequality, better health care, education and wrt AGW a less feckless use of non renewable energy and resources, less people, less consumption more emphasis on renewable energy and the rest. These things could be done - I know it because, yes, I know it. So, what stops them happening? That is the real question. Answer? Vested interests? That there is vast money involved in going in the direction we're going? That that money train must run on and on because we all depend upon it for our jobs and lives - even if it destination gets ever closer ever faster? That people like me can easily be branded as [insert frightening description here]? Or simple human inertia and resistance to change?
But, back to what also interests me, climate. I think, as with population, that the first requirement for a solution is to recognise there is a problem. As such I wonder why so many people spend so much time trying to prove AGW isn't a real problem? Because, and I know you wont accept this, geologically fast warming above a degree or so IS a real problem. I think solving both over population and AGW need not be impossible. The solutions to both are there - contraception, women's right, less inequality, better health care, education and wrt AGW a less feckless use of non renewable energy and resources, less people, less consumption more emphasis on renewable energy and the rest. These things could be done - I know it because, yes, I know it. So, what stops them happening? That is the real question. Answer? Vested interests? That there is vast money involved in going in the direction we're going? That that money train must run on and on because we all depend upon it for our jobs and lives - even if it destination gets ever closer ever faster? That people like me can easily be branded as [insert frightening description here]? Or simple human inertia and resistance to change?
It's not that I don't accept AGW Peter, I think it confuses the picture and gives an incorrect motive for change. Every tv ad has been about our warming planet. Every government directive has been linked to global warming.
Where on earth are the warnings about population?
They don't exist. And this is the massive oversight in all of this debate, whether on here or anywhere else.
#32
Posted 14 February 2012 - 17:09
This discussion continues to be really interesting.
I'll throw one in, a question really.
Is sex something else that has been over-sold as part of the consumerist binge that is causing this train-wreck?
I'll justify the question by pointing out that it is again something our media bombards us with it constantly.
I have nothing against it - I enjoy a good night's hanky-panky with an enthusiastic lass as much as anyone, but like the idiotic (because it is impossible) notion that everyone on the planet can rise to the Western lifestyle of say 2007, has it been over-sold?
Just wondering....
Cheers - John
I'll throw one in, a question really.
Is sex something else that has been over-sold as part of the consumerist binge that is causing this train-wreck?
I'll justify the question by pointing out that it is again something our media bombards us with it constantly.
I have nothing against it - I enjoy a good night's hanky-panky with an enthusiastic lass as much as anyone, but like the idiotic (because it is impossible) notion that everyone on the planet can rise to the Western lifestyle of say 2007, has it been over-sold?
Just wondering....
Cheers - John
#33
- Group: Frouks
- Posts: 929
- Joined: 17-October 06
- LocationWellington , New Zealand
Posted 14 February 2012 - 17:35
John Mason, on 14 February 2012 - 17:09, said:
This discussion continues to be really interesting.
I'll throw one in, a question really.
Is sex something else that has been over-sold as part of the consumerist binge that is causing this train-wreck?
I'll justify the question by pointing out that it is again something our media bombards us with it constantly.
I have nothing against it - I enjoy a good night's hanky-panky with an enthusiastic lass as much as anyone, but like the idiotic (because it is impossible) notion that everyone on the planet can rise to the Western lifestyle of say 2007, has it been over-sold?
Just wondering....
Cheers - John
I'll throw one in, a question really.
Is sex something else that has been over-sold as part of the consumerist binge that is causing this train-wreck?
I'll justify the question by pointing out that it is again something our media bombards us with it constantly.
I have nothing against it - I enjoy a good night's hanky-panky with an enthusiastic lass as much as anyone, but like the idiotic (because it is impossible) notion that everyone on the planet can rise to the Western lifestyle of say 2007, has it been over-sold?
Just wondering....
Cheers - John
Isn't this the age of "expect perfection (without the requirement of much personal effort)"? Too much expected from a typical relationship, and sex has to be consistently at some often unrealisable level of reward/enjoyment.
#34
- Group: Executive
- Posts: 23751
- Joined: 15-October 02
- LocationEvesham, Worcs
Posted 14 February 2012 - 20:17
Chris Lloyd, on 14 February 2012 - 13:08, said:
Address the issue of over population and AGW sorts itself out.
Case of chicken or the egg I am afraid. I know which came first in this case. Makes research into AGW all rather pointless when put into context.
As I'm sure you're aware, I consider overpopulation to be our biggest problem, and you're quite right in that with less population, AGW would be less of an issue and possibly no issue at all.
But I can't see us solving the population issue - the fact is, the sheer number of people on the planet today, and their various asperations, means we are inadvertently affecting the climate (locally, regionally and, IMHO, globally - though maybe not to the extent and/or in the ways some suggest). I can't see any acceptable means of reducing population. Therefore finding how/if we are affecting the climate (and environment in other ways) and finding ways to mitigate it, is IMO important. Though I wish it were not necessary.
How (and why) politicians react to the data, is , of course, a whole different kettle of fish (and rather a smelly one IMHO)
#35
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: 24-July 03
- LocationKnoxville Tennessee USA
Posted 14 February 2012 - 21:49
John Mason, on 14 February 2012 - 17:09, said:
This discussion continues to be really interesting.
I'll throw one in, a question really.
Is sex something else that has been over-sold as part of the consumerist binge that is causing this train-wreck?
I'll justify the question by pointing out that it is again something our media bombards us with it constantly.
I have nothing against it - I enjoy a good night's hanky-panky with an enthusiastic lass as much as anyone, but like the idiotic (because it is impossible) notion that everyone on the planet can rise to the Western lifestyle of say 2007, has it been over-sold?
Just wondering....
Cheers - John
I'll throw one in, a question really.
Is sex something else that has been over-sold as part of the consumerist binge that is causing this train-wreck?
I'll justify the question by pointing out that it is again something our media bombards us with it constantly.
I have nothing against it - I enjoy a good night's hanky-panky with an enthusiastic lass as much as anyone, but like the idiotic (because it is impossible) notion that everyone on the planet can rise to the Western lifestyle of say 2007, has it been over-sold?
Just wondering....
Cheers - John
I don't think your views on sex have anything to do with AGW, and I am not sure why you have brought it up John.
You obviously haven't found true love with that kind of remark.
I guess it depends on what media you are looking at, in order to get bombarded.
I just got a tv, and will probably only use it for weather, PBS,news and watching occasional movies.
Everyone should be themselves, and try to make other people happy, while taking care of their
own happiness and following their dreams.
GW has to be put in context of geologic time.
And yes, we should minimize pollution but btw, CO2 is not a pollutant.
We need it for plants to grow at the very least.
Are there really too many people? I hadn't noticed. I am happy there are people around.
This post has been edited by NileQueen: 14 February 2012 - 21:50
#36
Posted 15 February 2012 - 00:08
Good luck in deciding what the population of the world should be. In 1798 Thomas Malthus predicted problems with over population that would strike a chord today. The population then was estimated at approximately 800 million or less than China or India today on their own.
#37
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 5158
- Joined: 18-July 06
- LocationGraham, NC USA
Posted 15 February 2012 - 01:34
John Mason, on 14 February 2012 - 17:09, said:
This discussion continues to be really interesting.
I'll throw one in, a question really.
Is sex something else that has been over-sold as part of the consumerist binge that is causing this train-wreck?
I'll justify the question by pointing out that it is again something our media bombards us with it constantly.
I have nothing against it - I enjoy a good night's hanky-panky with an enthusiastic lass as much as anyone, but like the idiotic (because it is impossible) notion that everyone on the planet can rise to the Western lifestyle of say 2007, has it been over-sold?
Just wondering....
Cheers - John
I'll throw one in, a question really.
Is sex something else that has been over-sold as part of the consumerist binge that is causing this train-wreck?
I'll justify the question by pointing out that it is again something our media bombards us with it constantly.
I have nothing against it - I enjoy a good night's hanky-panky with an enthusiastic lass as much as anyone, but like the idiotic (because it is impossible) notion that everyone on the planet can rise to the Western lifestyle of say 2007, has it been over-sold?
Just wondering....
Cheers - John
Hey John,
As for a comment from the P-nut gallery, over population is not caused by sex..., in the media... Over population is caused by expectations, every man and woman hope to replicate themselves and their partner in modern western culture. The problem arrises when the couple de-couple and then recouple. Do that three times and now you has six replications where the desire was two. Likewise, if we are honest each family would generally like their offspring to be one gender each. If the gender is uni-sexed many couples will "keep trying". (Kind of reminds me of that old 1970's anthem "In the year 2525").
Then we have other issues, such as in Eastern cultures a man's wealth s measured by the number of boy children he has. In yet other cultures it is the size of the family that defines the wealth of the family. Some, cultures based on physical labor can only survive with large families, rather then merging the resources of multiple families.
#38
Posted 15 February 2012 - 01:57
China has been trying to apply a one child per family across a large section of its population since 1979; it has slowed growth but growth there still has been.
#39
- Group: Registered Climate Users
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: 24-July 03
- LocationKnoxville Tennessee USA
Posted 15 February 2012 - 02:08
Bluenosejohn, on 15 February 2012 - 01:57, said:
China has been trying to apply a one child per family across a large section of its population since 1979; it has slowed growth but growth there still has been.
And now, you have an imbalance. So many males and not enough females for partners. You also have a generation of only-children. Something of an unprecedented social situation.
It may have happened before, but not on this scale.
#40 Guest_Chris Lloyd_*
Posted 15 February 2012 - 09:09
Well, the maths is self explanatory. 2 adults, 1 child = reduction in population.
It might seem a bit Draconian, but what are the other options. I would rather see that happen than our population explode further, making us all extinct eventually.
It might seem a bit Draconian, but what are the other options. I would rather see that happen than our population explode further, making us all extinct eventually.
