Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 75

Thread: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

  1. #1
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    That's right, forget about the global warming thing about how we're all going to die of too much heat in 50 or 100 years.
    Apparently we are now killing other species that are vital to our survival much faster than that.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/...l-insects-gone

    Changes in land use surrounding the reserves are probably playing a role. "We've lost huge amounts of habitat, which has certainly contributed to all these declines," Goulson says. "If we turn all the seminatural habitats to wheat and cornfields, then there will be virtually no life in those fields." As fields expand and hedgerows disappear, the isolated islands of habitat left can support fewer species. Increased fertilizer on remaining grazing lands favors grasses over the diverse wildflowers that many insects prefer. And when development replaces countryside, streets and buildings generate light pollution that leads nocturnal insects astray and interrupts their mating.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...-dead-insects/

    Experts mostly blame intensive agriculture and the use of pesticides over the past 50 years.

    Since 2006, beekeepers in Britain have lost about a third of their managed bee colonies each year largely due to the loss of flower-rich grassland which has declined by 97 per cent from the 1930s, and the increased use of insecticides on crops.
    http://www.dw.com/en/insect-and-bird...any/a-41030897

    A study by the German Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU) concludes that the total number of birds in Germany has been declining dramatically in recent years.
    In the past twelve years an estimated 12.7 million pairs of breeding birds have disappeared. That's roughly 15 percent of the total bird population. The study is based on data provided to the European Union by Germany's federal government in 2013.
    In that light it is always interesting to see people claim the planet can easily feed 11 or more billions of people when our agriculture, economy and behavior are terribly self-destructive at 7 billion already. How are we going to feed 11 billion people with either no biosphere around us or without chemicals and monocultures?

    We need a one-child policy and an economic system that favors decline instead of growth.

    Either way these developments seem quite worrying and could have an enormous impact relatively soon. And most of the solutions cannot be merged with more economic optimization and growth so far.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  2. #2
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Adopting a vegan diet means the land-use for animals can be changed to crops. A lot more land use is needed for animal farming than strange from vegetation. That is how you could feed 11 billion or so population.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  3. #3
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,595

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    Adopting a vegan diet means the land-use for animals can be changed to crops. A lot more land use is needed for animal farming than strange from vegetation. That is how you could feed 11 billion or so population.
    And what will you do when the population growth does not stop there?
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  4. #4
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    Adopting a vegan diet means the land-use for animals can be changed to crops. A lot more land use is needed for animal farming than strange from vegetation. That is how you could feed 11 billion or so population.
    What Kage said and what about the use of pesticides to grow all the veggies in monocultures? You'd still be killing insects left and right, for them it does not seem to matter too much whether you take away the flowers to grow pigs or to grow salad. And swarms of locusts or other insects that may adapt probably can't replace bees either.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  5. #5
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,315

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Kagemusha View Post
    And what will you do when the population growth does not stop there?
    People will start committing suicides en masse if forced to be vegan.

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  6. #6

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    People will start committing suicides en masse if forced to be vegan.
    l o l

    But what if gun control, mental health services, and public safety improve to the point that we're stopping or preventing too many suicides?



    There's one vegan perspective that says, well, vegan outreach and activism in the West has been an almost unmitigated failure over the past generation: full-fledged, long-term veganism is less prevalent than transgenderism, and with vegetarianism it's only marginally better.

    Therefore, instead of taking an exclusionary or maximalist stance that emphatically condemns anyone who consumes a spoonful of yogurt or honey now and then to the same extent as someone who eats 50-lb steaks for breakfast, a more successful strategy might be to nudge people into making small modifications to their diet without having to fully embrace the vegan or vegetarian lifestyle.

    Strangely though, one suggested nudge is to encourage eating products of large livestock rather than of small, the logic being that the suffering of two chickens (2 organisms) is worse than the suffering of one cow (1 organism). Unfortunately, this principled animal utilitarianism fails to account for the fact that chickens are relatively more ecologically sustainable with respect to our food production and the health of the world's ecosystems than cows or other large livestock...

    So optimizing vegan and animal rights priorities is probably going to be tougher than 'more organisms = more suffering'.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  7. #7
    Horse Archer Senior Member Sarmatian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Novi Sad, Serbia
    Posts
    4,315

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Well, first of all, I have to ask - what the heck kind of chickens do you have over there when it is 2 chickens = 1 cow?

    Secondly, wouldn't that discriminate against cows? It' s not their fault they're so big. You try dealing with all those fat jokes.

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  8. #8
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    I still think if people could be happy with just one or two children, many problems would solve themselves.

    The biggest problem in the way of one child however, seem to be poverty, and to a lesser extent emotions and traditions. The wealthy parts of Europe already do shrink without immigration, even though some families still get 5 children. They're just not enough. As far as I am aware, in poorer countries children are often a retirement plan and one that can die away, too. So people have more incentives to get many children. That money is a factor can also be seen in countries where girls may later require payment(s) to the husband and abortions of girls are very high.

    One could assume that if we solve poverty, we may reach the top of a bell curve almost naturally...


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  9. #9
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    I still think if people could be happy with just one or two children, many problems would solve themselves.

    The biggest problem in the way of one child however, seem to be poverty, and to a lesser extent emotions and traditions. The wealthy parts of Europe already do shrink without immigration, even though some families still get 5 children. They're just not enough. As far as I am aware, in poorer countries children are often a retirement plan and one that can die away, too. So people have more incentives to get many children. That money is a factor can also be seen in countries where girls may later require payment(s) to the husband and abortions of girls are very high.

    One could assume that if we solve poverty, we may reach the top of a bell curve almost naturally...
    How do you distribute wealth equitably so as to bring this about? Would you take human rights into account? How about self determination?

  10. #10

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarmatian View Post
    Well, first of all, I have to ask - what the heck kind of chickens do you have over there when it is 2 chickens = 1 cow?

    Secondly, wouldn't that discriminate against cows? It' s not their fault they're so big. You try dealing with all those fat jokes.
    You misunderstand. Here's their figure:

    Further, it takes up to 200 chickens to provide the same number of meals as one steer, and around 40 chickens as compared to one pig.
    But their logical conclusion is that it's better to eat 1 cow than 2 chickens, because then fewer, numerically fewer, animals are suffering.

    Also, yes.


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    I still think if people could be happy with just one or two children, many problems would solve themselves.

    The biggest problem in the way of one child however, seem to be poverty, and to a lesser extent emotions and traditions. The wealthy parts of Europe already do shrink without immigration, even though some families still get 5 children. They're just not enough. As far as I am aware, in poorer countries children are often a retirement plan and one that can die away, too. So people have more incentives to get many children. That money is a factor can also be seen in countries where girls may later require payment(s) to the husband and abortions of girls are very high.

    One could assume that if we solve poverty, we may reach the top of a bell curve almost naturally...
    "Current trends" in birth/death rates and other factors point to a likely global-population peak by the end of the century, and henceforth a decline.

    Assuming trends don't reverse, for whatever reason.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  11. #11
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    4,010

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    The ultimate solution is GM foods.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  12. #12
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    I will be more serious. Overpopulation is not a concern as these things have a way of working themselves out after all. As standards of living increase, people naturally have less children. This is why in the most developed areas of the world, population is stagnant, save for the immigration from the poorer regions. As these poorer regions develop, their population will stagnant too, coming to a natural equilibrium. This is part of the Population Transition.

    The more indepth answer can be found here:
    Last edited by Beskar; 10-21-2017 at 20:47.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  13. #13
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,595

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    I still think if people could be happy with just one or two children, many problems would solve themselves.

    The biggest problem in the way of one child however, seem to be poverty, and to a lesser extent emotions and traditions. The wealthy parts of Europe already do shrink without immigration, even though some families still get 5 children. They're just not enough. As far as I am aware, in poorer countries children are often a retirement plan and one that can die away, too. So people have more incentives to get many children. That money is a factor can also be seen in countries where girls may later require payment(s) to the husband and abortions of girls are very high.


    One could assume that if we solve poverty, we may reach the top of a bell curve almost naturally...
    I would support two children policy. There really is no a argument against it. There are just too many of us period.
    Last edited by Kagemusha; 10-21-2017 at 20:57.
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  14. #14
    master of the pwniverse Member Fragony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    The EUSSR
    Posts
    30,680

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Something new how predictable, didn't bother to read it what's going to kill us now now that global-warming lost it's ooooomph?

  15. #15

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    I will be more serious. Overpopulation is not a concern as these things have a way of working themselves out after all. As standards of living increase, people naturally have less children. This is why in the most developed areas of the world, population is stagnant, save for the immigration from the poorer regions. As these poorer regions develop, their population will stagnant too, coming to a natural equilibrium. This is part of the Population Transition.

    The more indepth answer can be found here:
    One question might be, does the suffering produced by enforcing significant population reductions within the medium-term outweigh the suffering of X billions who can't be satisfactorily governed, secured, and provisioned for, and whose poverty acts as the cushion for the relative comfort of the rest of the world (and we don't expect the "free" market to "take care of it")? It's an academic question to be sure, but so is the exercise of wondering whether or not population out of our control is necessarily a bad thing.

    Overpopulation is not a concern as these things have a way of working themselves out after all.
    As recently as right now these things tend to work themselves out by mass deaths of millions through disease and deprivation. Something which modern humanitarian aid regimes seek to ameliorate. So do we restrict international aid in favor of 'natural' culling, or do we somehow increase aid despite the inefficiency? How do we confront the racialized distribution and apportionment underlying these questions?


    I believe that we should try to take care of people and not exterminate them (or even encourage natural death), but all this life presents serious problems that need serious address, not glib bromides about things working themselves out.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  16. #16
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    One question might be, does the suffering produced by enforcing significant population reductions within the medium-term outweigh the suffering of X billions who can't be satisfactorily governed, secured, and provisioned for, and whose poverty acts as the cushion for the relative comfort of the rest of the world (and we don't expect the "free" market to "take care of it")? It's an academic question to be sure, but so is the exercise of wondering whether or not population out of our control is necessarily a bad thing.

    As recently as right now these things tend to work themselves out by mass deaths of millions through disease and deprivation. Something which modern humanitarian aid regimes seek to ameliorate. So do we restrict international aid in favor of 'natural' culling, or do we somehow increase aid despite the inefficiency? How do we confront the racialized distribution and apportionment underlying these questions?

    I believe that we should try to take care of people and not exterminate them (or even encourage natural death), but all this life presents serious problems that need serious address, not glib bromides about things working themselves out.
    More relevantly, who's going to enforce all this, and on what authority? People who want to talk about prosperity all round also hate colonialism. Without colonialism, who's going to make sure the developing nations develop efficiently? As a triple whammy, people who talk about prosperity all round often also hate globalism, which is the other non-colonialist method of controlling this somewhat.

  17. #17
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I believe that we should try to take care of people and not exterminate them (or even encourage natural death), but all this life presents serious problems that need serious address, not glib bromides about things working themselves out.
    This is why we have the International Development Fund. Make the nations prosper, and thus no overpopulation concerns.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  18. #18
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,450

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Kagemusha View Post
    I would support two children policy. There really is no a argument against it. There are just too many of us period.
    And just how will you get the non-Western and non-techno cultures to adopt this policy? It has, de facto if not de jure, been the policy of most developed Western cultures for nearly half a century.

    The death rate per 1000 in France and the UK is 9, the USA 8, and Italy and Greece 11 and Japan 10. The bigger economy countries are at a rough death rate of 10 per 1000. In contrast, the rate for the Middle East is around a 6 and central and eastern Africa around a 12. Indonesia, China, and India are around a 7.

    Birth rates in the West/Industrials are roughly around 11/1k. The ME varies between 15 and 35, probably around 20 overall. EA and CA average around 33. China is a hint higher than the West at 12, but Indonesia and India average 19/1k.

    In short, the West and Japan already practice a two-child policy. The developing world does not. Short of magically transforming their economies to Western standard of living levels and cultural values, just how do we go about effecting such a policy?
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  19. #19
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    How do you distribute wealth equitably so as to bring this about? Would you take human rights into account? How about self determination?
    Self-determination is a red shrimp. You can either make it look absurd by bringing it down to the individual level or by looking at countries where the population is split almost 50:50 or where there is a tyranny of the majority. Or you could just think about what would happen if we here run out of a lot of the food we eat and the vitamins we need. Either we let our poor die or we use our purchasing power to buy everything from abroad and then people die there not able to afford the food.
    What use is self determination in that case? If they deny us the food, we will either invade or revert to the option of letting our poor die. I would think that when it comes to people literally ying from a lack of nutrition, violence might easily be favoured over any respect for anyone's self-determination. After all we're not just killing our insects, we're also ruining our soils. How does self-determination help if all of Europe and the US can't grow food anymore or not nearly enough to feed even the inhabitants? I'd guess Africa has a bit longer, but we exported our agricultural methods there as well, so...

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    "Current trends" in birth/death rates and other factors point to a likely global-population peak by the end of the century, and henceforth a decline.

    Assuming trends don't reverse, for whatever reason.
    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    I will be more serious. Overpopulation is not a concern as these things have a way of working themselves out after all. As standards of living increase, people naturally have less children. This is why in the most developed areas of the world, population is stagnant, save for the immigration from the poorer regions. As these poorer regions develop, their population will stagnant too, coming to a natural equilibrium. This is part of the Population Transition.
    The question there would be whether the trend fixes itself before the ecosystem is irreparably damaged and people start dying in droves from malnutrition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    The ultimate solution is GM foods.
    You mean let the eco-terrorists kill all the human surplus before anything bad happens?


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  20. #20
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    And just how will you get the non-Western and non-techno cultures to adopt this policy? It has, de facto if not de jure, been the policy of most developed Western cultures for nearly half a century.

    The death rate per 1000 in France and the UK is 9, the USA 8, and Italy and Greece 11 and Japan 10. The bigger economy countries are at a rough death rate of 10 per 1000. In contrast, the rate for the Middle East is around a 6 and central and eastern Africa around a 12. Indonesia, China, and India are around a 7.

    Birth rates in the West/Industrials are roughly around 11/1k. The ME varies between 15 and 35, probably around 20 overall. EA and CA average around 33. China is a hint higher than the West at 12, but Indonesia and India average 19/1k.

    In short, the West and Japan already practice a two-child policy. The developing world does not. Short of magically transforming their economies to Western standard of living levels and cultural values, just how do we go about effecting such a policy?
    And among the non-far eastern developing countries, the first steps of development usually go towards massively enrichening a tiny elite, a la Venezuela (where Chavez's daughter is a multi-billionaire while the rest of the country is collapsing). Extra points if the tiny elite bolster their position with devout religiousness that, thanks to the nature of ancient religions, promotes high birth rates ("Go forth and multiply"). The US of A is a social democracy compared with the extreme elitism of most developing countries.

    Member thankful for this post:



  21. #21
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    Self-determination is a red shrimp. You can either make it look absurd by bringing it down to the individual level or by looking at countries where the population is split almost 50:50 or where there is a tyranny of the majority. Or you could just think about what would happen if we here run out of a lot of the food we eat and the vitamins we need. Either we let our poor die or we use our purchasing power to buy everything from abroad and then people die there not able to afford the food.
    What use is self determination in that case? If they deny us the food, we will either invade or revert to the option of letting our poor die. I would think that when it comes to people literally ying from a lack of nutrition, violence might easily be favoured over any respect for anyone's self-determination. After all we're not just killing our insects, we're also ruining our soils. How does self-determination help if all of Europe and the US can't grow food anymore or not nearly enough to feed even the inhabitants? I'd guess Africa has a bit longer, but we exported our agricultural methods there as well, so...
    How does aid get distributed in developing countries? In what form does the aid take? What right does the west have to determine how these countries develop? Remember the furore over Iraq. Ask the British left what they think of Tony Blair.

    Ironically, Tony Blair might be an important way of resolving a lot of this. The left will never recognise this though, and the full extent of this will subsequently never be realised. Because of Iraq.

  22. #22

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    More relevantly, who's going to enforce all this, and on what authority? People who want to talk about prosperity all round also hate colonialism. Without colonialism, who's going to make sure the developing nations develop efficiently? As a triple whammy, people who talk about prosperity all round often also hate globalism, which is the other non-colonialist method of controlling this somewhat.
    Absolutely. No idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    And just how will you get the non-Western and non-techno cultures to adopt this policy? It has, de facto if not de jure, been the policy of most developed Western cultures for nearly half a century.

    The death rate per 1000 in France and the UK is 9, the USA 8, and Italy and Greece 11 and Japan 10. The bigger economy countries are at a rough death rate of 10 per 1000. In contrast, the rate for the Middle East is around a 6 and central and eastern Africa around a 12. Indonesia, China, and India are around a 7.

    Birth rates in the West/Industrials are roughly around 11/1k. The ME varies between 15 and 35, probably around 20 overall. EA and CA average around 33. China is a hint higher than the West at 12, but Indonesia and India average 19/1k.

    In short, the West and Japan already practice a two-child policy. The developing world does not. Short of magically transforming their economies to Western standard of living levels and cultural values, just how do we go about effecting such a policy?
    Japan and the West practice a two-child policy only in aggregate, and it is not even a policy - much of it is owed to economic insecurity among those of childbearing age. Literal two-child policies would of course (if effective) cut off individuals above the average, thus leading to precipitous declines in birth rates.

    The pendulum swung back and forth on abortion in the Soviet Union. But whether the government was promoting it or outlawing it, abortion remained enormously popular. IIRC one of my grandmothers (2 daughters) had at least 3 abortions.

    One of the best ways to reduce birthrates or accelerate existing trends is to promote knowledge of and access to women's reproductive health services (i.e. contraception and abortion). Unfortunately, most branches of Christianity are prominent in opposing the spread of safe abortion and contraceptives to the developing world.
    Last edited by Montmorency; 10-21-2017 at 21:55.
    Vitiate Man.

    History repeats the old conceits
    The glib replies, the same defeats


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  23. #23
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Absolutely. No idea.

    Japan and the West practice a two-child policy only in aggregate, and it is not even a policy - much of it is owed to economic insecurity among those of childbearing age. Literal two-child policies would of course (if effective) cut off individuals above the average, thus leading to precipitous declines in birth rates.

    The pendulum swung back and forth on abortion in the Soviet Union. But whether the government was promoting it or outlawing it, abortion remained enormously popular. IIRC one of my grandmothers (2 daughters) had at least 3 abortions.

    One of the best ways to reduce birthrates or accelerate existing trends is to promote knowledge of and access to women's reproductive health services (i.e. contraception and abortion). Unfortunately, most branches of Christianity are prominent in opposing the spread of safe abortion and contraceptives to the developing world.
    In west Africa at least, there is a secular belief that does all the things that the progressive left would like to see in the developing world. However, it is anathema to the British left, who will reflexively oppose anything to do with it, and blacken the name of its leader.

  24. #24
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    In west Africa at least, there is a secular belief that does all the things that the progressive left would like to see in the developing world. However, it is anathema to the British left, who will reflexively oppose anything to do with it, and blacken the name of its leader.
    You referencing the leader who brought stability to Iraq again?
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  25. #25
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    You referencing the leader who brought stability to Iraq again?
    There ya go. Exactly what I was talking about. Absolute anathema to the British left. West Africans care more about Sierra Leone and his track record in the region since then. But to the British left, Iraq is all there is.

    If you want to badmouth Blair, at least do not pretend to care about the development of the Third World, where he has a better track record than most.

  26. #26
    Member Member Crandar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Alpine Subtundra
    Posts
    920

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Beskar View Post
    Adopting a vegan diet means the land-use for animals can be changed to crops. A lot more land use is needed for animal farming than strange from vegetation. That is how you could feed 11 billion or so population.
    A vegan diet is extremely unhealthy, especially for minors. If vegetables and fruits consist of more than 50% of your diet then you're basically malnourishing yourself. Not recommended, a vegan diet is as healthy as the anti-vaccination movement and the refusal to wear a condom.

  27. #27
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,617

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    More relevantly, who's going to enforce all this, and on what authority?
    Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh View Post
    And just how will you get the non-Western and non-techno cultures to adopt this policy?
    Two words: Orbital lasers!

    No, seriously, of course that is hard, but there is also another dimension to this. Which is that the West/Developed world consumes most of the resources and does most of the damage anyway. Lowering consumption in countries that hardly consume despite a much bigger population is not going to help a lot. And developing them to our standard of consumption in the hopes of controlling their population through that may just end the planet before the plan gets anywhere.

    Hoping for a magic technological breakthrough, well, we could also decimate the population with mandatory russian roulette if we're going to gamble.

    So no, I don't have a solution ready, just a goal of sorts. And if the ultimate goal is that we and our children survive and don't bash eachother's heads in over rare apples one day, perhaps we can agree on that last one at least.
    I mean it would be nice to have some food in the future, wouldn't it?

    Perhaps the EU and US should end subsidies for farming and let food markets return to actual competition, giving farmers in other countries a real chance to compete again and leading consumers to appreciate their terribly expensive food once more so they reduce food waste?
    Last edited by Husar; 10-22-2017 at 00:05.


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  28. #28
    Headless Senior Member Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    7,978

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    Two words: Orbital lasers!

    No, seriously, of course that is hard, but there is also another dimension to this. Which is that the West/Developed world consumes most of the resources and does most of the damage anyway. Lowering consumption in countries that hardly consume despite a much bigger population is not going to help a lot. And developing them to our standard of consumption in the hopes of controlling their population through that may just end the planet before the plan gets anywhere.

    Hoping for a magic technological breakthrough, well, we could also decimate the population with mandatory russian roulette if we're going to gamble.

    So no, I don't have a solution ready, just a goal of sorts. And if the ultimate goal is that we and our children survive and don't bash eachother's heads in over rare apples one day, perhaps we can agree on that last one at least.
    I mean it would be nice to have some food in the future, wouldn't it?

    Perhaps the EU and US should end subsidies for farming and let food markets return to actual competition, giving farmers in other countries a real chance to compete again and leading consumers to appreciate their terribly expensive food once more so they reduce food waste?
    The moderate way to developing these countries is through green economies that develop traditional agriculture and crafts that don't consume much fossil fuels, alongside education and empowerment of women. Why should these countries do that? If there is tangible evidence that this improves lives. How do these improvements begin, when the first steps towards enrichment usually results in concentration of wealth in a tiny elite?

    That is where Blair has made his mark in Africa. But, as I've said before, and as Beskar has demonstrated above, to the British left, Iraq is all he is. And thus the trail he's blazed in the developing world will never be allowed to go far. Recently, when Blair said his piece on Brexit, British leftists who were pro-Europe said they'd rather he'd keep quiet than make the case for Europe. If the British left would rather lose the argument on Europe than let Blair speak up for it, why the hell would they care about a world further away?

  29. #29
    Mr Self Important Senior Member Beskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Albion
    Posts
    15,930
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    Quote Originally Posted by Crandar View Post
    A vegan diet is extremely unhealthy, especially for minors. If vegetables and fruits consist of more than 50% of your diet then you're basically malnourishing yourself. Not recommended, a vegan diet is as healthy as the anti-vaccination movement and the refusal to wear a condom.
    I am not a vegan, but I know this information is incorrect. You have to manage your diet appropriately, that is true, but vegan malnourishment is a myth (for humans). Arguably, "meat eaters" are worst for micro-nutrient malnourishment. How many do you know eat a full 5-7 a-day?
    Last edited by Beskar; 10-22-2017 at 00:35.
    Days since the Apocalypse began
    "We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
    "Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."

  30. #30

    Default Re: We might be killing ourselves much faster than "climate science" suggests

    I had this in the Climate Thread but it seems appropriate to this discussion:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/pollut...aths-1.4363613

    Pollution. More population=>more pollution.
    This outcome is enhanced by development, but is the natural outcome of increasing population in any case.
    The concentration and distribution of toxins is aided to some extent by development; industry simply adds novel toxins.
    The shift from fossil fuels to renewables closes one window to extinction, many more remain.
    Ja-mata TosaInu

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO