Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

1961Nick wrote: »

And there we have it..."population size & growth" as the root cause. I doubt there are any politicians brave enough to suggest that this is something we should address?

In the end, the planet may have to 'decide' enough is enough, and make the environment so inhospitable that further expansion is not possible....or even reduce the size of the human population.

Yeeeeh... we didn't spend a million years evolving into the apex creatures to lye down and die

Feel free to do that if it floats your boat but the rest of us are going to become masters of the galaxy. When you are long gone the children of men will be what guards this planet and its life from the true existential threat which is nature and chance not burning some carbon :rotfl:

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Till then, it is what it is, and we have to adjust to cope with 11bn. Probably 11bn vegans!

So small minded a world you live in

Humanity will go to trillions or to zero and fossil fuels will play no part in that path

EricMears

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Maybe we’ll have runaway global warming like Venus and end up with a dead planet.

Or of course Earth will survive it (as it has done on several previous occasions) with just a few mass extinctions (inc homo sapiens no doubt).

GreatApe

EricMears wrote: »

Or of course Earth will survive it (as it has done on several previous occasions) with just a few mass extinctions (inc homo sapiens no doubt).

If humans die then so does the rest of life (due to simple nature and chance which will eventually destroy all life on this planet) and it is quite likely humans are the only intelligent life in the galaxy and perhaps the universe

We are the custodians of life for this planet without us the rest are doomed

But dont worry, for every pessimist there is an optimist who will go out there create and conquer. Those posters here huddled up at home awaiting their own demise can continue doing that it wont make a difference, thankfully

GreatApe

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Maybe we’ll have runaway global warming like Venus and end up with a dead planet.

To control the temperature downwards on earth is not beyond our capacity.

I would wager with current technology and with less than 1% of earths GDP over a period of no more than a decade we could put into place system which could reduce the temperature so much as to induce an ice age

We do not try to force the temp down because accepting mildly slowly increasing temperatures as a safeguard against runaway ice age

But probably soon, we will have the ability to maintain any artificial temperature we choose at more or less zero 'cost' We will be able to do full and total geoengineering on this and other planets

Given enough time the earth itself will be converted to a spaceship.
It will look like earth today but it will be a spaceship first to move the orbit away from the expanding sun and ultimately to escape an exploding sun and find a home elsewhere or in deep space

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

That has nothing to do with world population, that's just an issue of global population shifting.

Is it though...there are many areas of the planet that can only just sustain the existing population. Every person that migrates to the West, frees up a place in their homeland. That’s effectively an additional body not a “shifted” one.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Is it though...there are many areas of the planet that can only just sustain the existing population. Every person that migrates to the West, frees up a place in their homeland. That’s effectively an additional body not a “shifted” one.

Nope. It's simply a folly to argue that, and a bit distasteful too. As AGW drives people out of areas, it's because the area can't cope with the pre-existing number of people. A 'space' would only be opened up if that area could cope with the number of people, and following some emigration now had spare capacity.

Any chance we can stop raising excuses, and discuss green and ethical energy issues instead?

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nope. It's simply a folly to argue that, and a bit distasteful too. As AGW drives people out of areas, it's because the area can't cope with the pre-existing number of people. A 'space' would only be opened up if that area could cope with the number of people, and following some emigration now had spare capacity.

Exactly that...as soon as the circumstances that caused the migration subside... famine, war, climate etc, the homeland will 'backfill' until it reaches saturation point again.

Any chance we can stop raising excuses, and discuss green and ethical energy issues instead?

As distasteful as it may be to you, you can't exclude a rising human population from any discussion about AGW. If you want a global solution, you have to address global issues.

pile-o-stone

1961Nick wrote: »

Exactly that...as soon as the circumstances that caused the migration subside... famine, war, climate etc, the homeland will 'backfill' until it reaches saturation point again.

Totally agree. What's worse is where countries like India seem to be exporting their population problem rather than sort it out with education of women, birth control, etc.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The main drivers to control birth rate,

Children surviving. Once they all survive, couples generally only have an average of two.