Enough politics, let's talk about something that really matters, a 6th mass extinction

[bshole]

Believe me, I really do not want whatever it is that you "have."

ROFLMFAO!!!!! Ouch!!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

hold on there brother. I'm as alarmist as the next guy. but i'm pretty sure that in the 19th century, there were parts of the world that weren't even colonized, much less had sufficient habitation to facilitate tracking of organisms at the Genus level in order to maintain an encyclopedia of extinct and endangered animals.

Yeah, we're stupid. Yeah, we should change things. Yeah, we are probably stupider than ever before. Yeah, we are doing more damage than ever before. but lets not pretend this is new.

Yea, fair enough, the world wasn't nearly as overrun with the human population back in the 19th century, and we really haven't improved our relationship with nature since then. We've taken steps, but our missteps far outweigh the good.
But you have a very valid point. well said.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Believe me, I really do not want whatever it is that you "have."

Goddamn son... that's a bazinga... I think

 

[zinfamous]

Fortunately birth rates for progressives are well below replacement rates (1.61 for self-described "extremely liberal" people vs. 2.62 for "extremely conservative"). It's as if they instinctively know their beliefs make them unfit and they shouldn't reproduce. In a few generations we may be blessed not to have any left.

This is a great prediction, by the why. It's interesting how you envy the inevitable, slow, tapering senescence of your so-called "superior" genetic kin due to the nature of isolated, rural populations accumulating a large and unsustainable concentration of lethal alleles due to their alarmingly high inbreeding coefficient. One day, you will wish those "progressives" were still around to fix those problems that you bred yourself into or, well, maybe you would have just wished that you actually listed to them from the beginning.

But no, never. It's way too late for your kin.

 

[Paratus]

There is only really one solution, and it boils down to only one single uncomfortable truth: there are too many people on the planet, and the human population continues to grow exponentially. Without stopping (or significantly slowing) the growth of the human population, we're pretty much inevitably screwed in terms of protecting the natural resources of the planet. It's not a popular position, but I don't think logically anyone could argue otherwise. As the human population continues to explode, it will continue to crowd out other creatures by destruction of habitat and consumption of resources.

Of course the real slowdown (or stopping) of the growth in the human population would have dire consequences for all sorts of things, not the least of which is the world economy.

Bottom line, we're screwed in the long run (barring some extraordinary human catastrophic event). We can only take some steps to postpone the problem.

Yup slowing population growth has to be the end of the economy....

 

[JSt0rm]

humans evolved wrong. We will destroy this planet. I take comfort in knowing there are many many planets out there and hopefully some sentient species gets it/ got it right. Everything is fleeting. The greatest tragedy will be no lifeform able to experience the heat death of the universe.

Look at glenn. He takes pride in the ignorant taking over. To these people gods rapture will come down from the heavens and sweep them up, destroying the earth in the process. They dont care about life because they don't think its the actual end.

 

[HumblePie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeSMPESpxdA

 

[Paratus]

I don't think it matters much to the planet one way or other what happens on its surface. Long term it is going to get eaten by the Sun.

Man's extinction would certainly be beneficial for many animal/plant species BUT.... it would be devastating for most of the domesticated animal/plant species. The earth would certainly be more picturesque when humanity goes extinct but there would be no species alive that would give a shit.

Given the amount of suffering that humans go through in a lifetime, I think it might be a net gain in total human happiness if we went extinct. Sentient life seems like a cruel joke...

Quite frankly the only way any living thing of this planet survives in the long, (long long) run is via our intelligence.

So while that may seem like a losing proposition it's the only reason the chance is greater than 0.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Nothing on that list sounds delicious or something that would be in a Guy Fieri cookbook. Only when cheeseburgers land on the list will Americans feel compelled to act.

 

[repoman0]

Quite frankly the only way any living thing of this planet survives in the long, (long long) run is via our intelligence.

So while that may seem like a losing proposition it's the only reason the chance is greater than 0.

Say homo sapiens shits the bed and wipes itself out sometime in the next billion years, before we can colonize planets. Well, we evolved from chimpanzees over a minuscule period of five million years and chimpanzees themselves are not that old of a species. What are the chances of another highly intelligent life form evolving again? Either straight from chimpanzees or if homo sapiens messes up so bad that we wipe them out too, from the beginning of the evolutionary chain all over again. Maybe they'll be generally less shitty and better at working together.

The chances of that are greater than zero!

 

[Paratus]

Say homo sapiens shits the bed and wipes itself out sometime in the next billion years, before we can colonize planets. Well, we evolved from chimpanzees over a minuscule period of five million years and chimpanzees themselves are not that old of a species. What are the chances of another highly intelligent life form evolving again? Either straight from chimpanzees or if homo sapiens messes up so bad that we wipe them out too, from the beginning of the evolutionary chain all over again. Maybe they'll be generally less shitty and better at working together.

The chances of that are greater than zero!

Future intelligence evolving to our level and beyond after another mass extinction on a somewhat used planet is orders of magnitude less likely than our chance of improving.

 

[zinfamous]

Say homo sapiens shits the bed and wipes itself out sometime in the next billion years, before we can colonize planets. Well, we evolved from chimpanzees over a minuscule period of five million years and chimpanzees themselves are not that old of a species. What are the chances of another highly intelligent life form evolving again? Either straight from chimpanzees or if homo sapiens messes up so bad that we wipe them out too, from the beginning of the evolutionary chain all over again. Maybe they'll be generally less shitty and better at working together.

The chances of that are greater than zero!

no, no we did not

 

[repoman0]

Future intelligence evolving to our level and beyond after another mass extinction on a somewhat used planet is orders of magnitude less likely than our chance of improving.

It was more a joke and I understand that, but the chances aren't zero regardless

no, no we did not

Common ancestor, misspoke

 

[ivwshane]

Fortunately birth rates for progressives are well below replacement rates (1.61 for self-described "extremely liberal" people vs. 2.62 for "extremely conservative"). It's as if they instinctively know their beliefs make them unfit and they shouldn't reproduce. In a few generations we may be blessed not to have any left.

See! The left really does believe in a collective action solutions!

Unfortunately for you, as has already been pointed out, your type is a dying breed but you go ahead and tell yourself that after you die the world will be ruled by people like you, grumpy, old, white, male, idiots.

 

[Paratus]

It was more a joke and I understand that, but the chances aren't zero regardless



Common ancestor, misspoke

I know.

 

[Sunburn74]

Want to solve ecological issues as rapidly as possible? Pass worldwide laws that restrict the number of babies people are allowed to have. The carbon impact of not having that 2nd or 3rd kid will be something like 50x the carbon impact of going completely vegan, driving an electric car, recycling everything, and going totally solar per kid.

Most of the ecological problems we face are rooted in overpopulation as a lot of the injurious processes to the planet are about trying to sustain population growth and quality of life at a level that is just not sustainable with our current level of technology. Granted most of the overpopulation is happening in non-westernized countries, nonetheless the effects are trickling down because these countries do have market effects that drive processes that lead to profound ecological injury.

 

[bshole]

humans evolved wrong. We will destroy this planet. I take comfort in knowing there are many many planets out there and hopefully some sentient species gets it/ got it right. Everything is fleeting. The greatest tragedy will be no lifeform able to experience the heat death of the universe.

Look at glenn. He takes pride in the ignorant taking over. To these people gods rapture will come down from the heavens and sweep them up, destroying the earth in the process. They dont care about life because they don't think its the actual end.

Don't you wish you could believe it? Contemplation of one's mortality with no second bite of the apple is very depressing, especially when the only bite you got contained nothing but worms and seeds.

 

[Paratus]

Want to solve ecological issues as rapidly as possible? Pass worldwide laws that restrict the number of babies people are allowed to have. The carbon impact of not having that 2nd or 3rd kid will be something like 50x the carbon impact of going completely vegan, driving an electric car, recycling everything, and going totally solar per kid.

Most of the ecological problems we face are rooted in overpopulation as a lot of the injurious processes to the planet are about trying to sustain population growth and quality of life at a level that is just not sustainable with our current level of technology. Granted most of the overpopulation is happening in non-westernized countries, nonetheless the effects are trickling down because these countries do have market effects that drive processes that lead to profound ecological injury.

That's the wrong way to go about it.

The moral/ethical way to reduce population is by raising the third world to first world standards of living.

Many first world countries already have negative replacement rates because people choose to have fewer kids. The trick is to take what we've already learned and apply it to third world countries. So avoid coal and instead use solar, wind, and nukes.

The faster we do this the more likely we are to hit peak population this century and start contracting. If the impact from the rate of population decrease is slower than the rise in worker efficiency world GDP continue to increase.

As population presssure reduces so will habitat destruction. An 80% increase in the worlds rainforests equals the equivalent weight of a reduction of 50PPM of atmospheric carbon for example.

 

[Franz316]

The next 50 years of humanity are probably going to make or break the long-term viability of human civilization. Many issues are going to converge this century such as unsustainable inequality, climate change, habitat destruction, air/water pollution, and debt(however abstract it may be). It's like a slow motion train wreck and the people that set it in motion are all going to be dead by the time it crashes.

I agree with Paratus that top down population control is a band-aid instead of going after the cause. People in more developed societies choose to have less children because they're more educated, have active lifestyles, work modern jobs and are less religious. They also tend to have the ability to see the impact that having six kids has on the world. I think the Earth can support 7 billion at a decent standard of living but the amount of waste and inefficiencies has to drastically drop. Unfortunately, our economy thrives on both those things in the name of "growth." The definition of economic success needs to be redefined on a holistic level.

We either adapt to this reality or not, it's that simple.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Unfortunately most environmental movements are plagued by racist and selfish ideologies. It's basically a way to keep developing nations down, because hey we helped kill the environment too but that was DECADES ago. We know better now and you poor non-white people can just go die of malaria because the eggs of endangered birds are more important than you. And my GOD, that poor tiger or lion or whatever it was killed by that American dentist in Africa, THERE'S the real problem in that part of the world. If Westerners had any sense of honesty, they'd impose a massive consumption tax across the board and curtail the market economy. Make an iPad something you hold onto for a decade rather than upgrade every year.

Want to solve ecological issues as rapidly as possible? Pass worldwide laws that restrict the number of babies people are allowed to have. The carbon impact of not having that 2nd or 3rd kid will be something like 50x the carbon impact of going completely vegan, driving an electric car, recycling everything, and going totally solar per kid.

Most of the ecological problems we face are rooted in overpopulation as a lot of the injurious processes to the planet are about trying to sustain population growth and quality of life at a level that is just not sustainable with our current level of technology. Granted most of the overpopulation is happening in non-westernized countries, nonetheless the effects are trickling down because these countries do have market effects that drive processes that lead to profound ecological injury.

That's the wrong way to go about it.

The moral/ethical way to reduce population is by raising the third world to first world standards of living.

Many first world countries already have negative replacement rates because people choose to have fewer kids. The trick is to take what we've already learned and apply it to third world countries. So avoid coal and instead use solar, wind, and nukes.

The faster we do this the more likely we are to hit peak population this century and start contracting. If the impact from the rate of population decrease is slower than the rise in worker efficiency world GDP continue to increase.

As population presssure reduces so will habitat destruction. An 80% increase in the worlds rainforests equals the equivalent weight of a reduction of 50PPM of atmospheric carbon for example.

You're both horribly wrong.

Modernity causes over-consumption of our natural resources far more than population alone. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric are nice and all, but incredibly far away from supporting the first-world's economy. For the third-world nations where population is booming, yes solar is more capable, but population booms in undeveloped countries don't really matter on a global scale. There is no way to raise the third-world to our standard without raising their consumption to our standard; our living is primarily based on a consumption-heavy market economy, which agrarian societies can never enjoy by the nature of their operation.

 

[agent00f]

You do realize that conservatism is not a genetic thing don't you? The replacement rate for conservatives is not determined by parentage, although it may be influenced by it. Progressives are not your enemy. The wealthy oligarchy that have poisoned your mind and sold you a lie are your enemy as well as mine. You took the wrong pill my friend....

I'm pretty sure backwardness caused by stupidity is roughly genetic.

 

[Paratus]

Unfortunately most environmental movements are plagued by racist and selfish ideologies. It's basically a way to keep developing nations down, because hey we helped kill the environment too but that was DECADES ago. We know better now and you poor non-white people can just go die of malaria because the eggs of endangered birds are more important than you. And my GOD, that poor tiger or lion or whatever it was killed by that American dentist in Africa, THERE'S the real problem in that part of the world. If Westerners had any sense of honesty, they'd impose a massive consumption tax across the board and curtail the market economy. Make an iPad something you hold onto for a decade rather than upgrade every year.





You're both horribly wrong.

Modernity causes over-consumption of our natural resources far more than population alone. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric are nice and all, but incredibly far away from supporting the first-world's economy. For the third-world nations where population is booming, yes solar is more capable, but population booms in undeveloped countries don't really matter on a global scale. There is no way to raise the third-world to our standard without raising their consumption to our standard; our living is primarily based on a consumption-heavy market economy, which agrarian societies can never enjoy by the nature of their operation.

While I get what your saying you are missing the fact that every first world country does. It consume at the same rate.

Electric power consumption per capita makes a reasonable proxy for relative consumption.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC

While the US was using 13,000 kWh per capita in 2013 other first world countries like Italy and the U.K. were using only 5,000 - 5,500 kWh per capita. (Italy has a neagtive replacement rate.) Your chart actually shows how much less some of Europe consumes.

Assume conservatively 20% efficiency increases over the next century and we only need an increase of 3,000-3,500kWh over the 500-1,000kwh average use of the third world currently.

By doing this we push population growth towards the lower estimates:

Which further reduces the total amount of new power required by 2100.

I did a rough calculation of the required power in another thread a year or so ago. Which I could find.

At any rate the third world doesn't need to follow directly in our footsteps. We already know how to build solar, wind and nukes. We know how make drought and disease resistant GMO crops so the environmental impact doesn't have to look like the 20th century all over again.

So I think you are being overly doom and gloom.

 

[PokerGuy]

Which further reduces the total amount of new power required by 2100.

I did a rough calculation of the required power in another thread a year or so ago. Which I could find.

At any rate the third world doesn't need to follow directly in our footsteps. We already know how to build solar, wind and nukes. We know how make drought and disease resistant GMO crops so the environmental impact doesn't have to look like the 20th century all over again.

So I think you are being overly doom and gloom.

Energy and food are just two issues. The exploding human population causes numerous other ones, problems for which there simply isn't a solution. You need clean water for each person. There's no getting around that. People need space and other resources to live and thrive. Yes, humans can use less resources than we do in the first world, but the exploding population inevitably must compete with nature for limited resources (including habitat). I imagine loss of habitat is by far the number one threat to most species, and no matter what we do (even if the growth rate slows), as long as the population continues to grow, available habitat for other species will be negatively impacted. It's just a matter time -- "when", not "if".

 

[bshole]

While I get what your saying you are missing the fact that every first world country does. It consume at the same rate.

Electric power consumption per capita makes a reasonable proxy for relative consumption.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC

While the US was using 13,000 kWh per capita in 2013 other first world countries like Italy and the U.K. were using only 5,000 - 5,500 kWh per capita. (Italy has a neagtive replacement rate.) Your chart actually shows how much less some of Europe consumes.

Assume conservatively 20% efficiency increases over the next century and we only need an increase of 3,000-3,500kWh over the 500-1,000kwh average use of the third world currently.

By doing this we push population growth towards the lower estimates:

Which further reduces the total amount of new power required by 2100.

I did a rough calculation of the required power in another thread a year or so ago. Which I could find.

At any rate the third world doesn't need to follow directly in our footsteps. We already know how to build solar, wind and nukes. We know how make drought and disease resistant GMO crops so the environmental impact doesn't have to look like the 20th century all over again.

So I think you are being overly doom and gloom.

I think he is being realistic and honest. We do plenty of business in China. They are catastrophically raping their environment as they ramp up their standard of living. We have several engineers that have spent months over there and they noted the filthy air, water and environment.

We had an application engineer quit rather than go back to China. He was particularly upset about the smog. This is the reality of civilization industrializing. They will get to environmental awareness once their standard of living approaches first world nations. In the meantime, it is environmental rape city.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I think he is being realistic and honest. We do plenty of business in China. They are catastrophically raping their environment as they ramp up their standard of living. We have several engineers that have spent months over there and they noted the filthy air, water and environment.

We had an application engineer quit rather than go back to China. He was particularly upset about the smog. This is the reality of civilization industrializing. They will get to environmental awareness once their standard of living approaches first world nations. In the meantime, it is environmental rape city.

Looks like NYC in the 70's before the evil EPA started getting that clean air act going.