Solutions for climate change

[Eamonnca1]

Elephant in the room. Stop the population explosion. Everything else is window dressing

Nail on the head.

Unfortunately no one wants to address this issue. Less people will use less resources.

Global population growth is expected to level off sometime around 2100. As people become more affluent they have fewer children. China's leveling off already.

[omaghjoe]

Elephant in the room. Stop the population explosion. Everything else is window dressing

Nail on the head.

Unfortunately no one wants to address this issue. Less people will use less resources.

Global population growth is expected to level off sometime around 2100. As people become more affluent they have fewer children. China's leveling off already.

Affluence is exactly the problem not population.
And an aging population is economically unsustainable it will quickly lead to societal collapse.
China is leveling off because of it's one child policy and they can now see the probs with that. How China fares in the next 30 years will tell a story of how other countries will deal with the same problem tho they may be at an advantage to Western countries they still have some of the population to become industrialised

[omaghjoe]

Elephant in the room. Stop the population explosion. Everything else is window dressing

How though?

Never fear these guys have it all sorted...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

[smelmoth]

Elephant in the room. Stop the population explosion. Everything else is window dressing

Nail on the head.

Unfortunately no one wants to address this issue. Less people will use less resources.

Global population growth is expected to level off sometime around 2100. As people become more affluent they have fewer children. China's leveling off already.

Affluence is exactly the problem not population.
And an aging population is economically unsustainable it will quickly lead to societal collapse.
China is leveling off because of it's one child policy and they can now see the probs with that. How China fares in the next 30 years will tell a story of how other countries will deal with the same problem tho they may be at an advantage to Western countries they still have some of the population to become industrialised

Do you have a number? A figure that the human population can self regulate and level out at and be sustainable in terms of food production, food consumption, dietary balance, poverty elimination, energy production, energy use, chemical use, deforestation, reforestation etc.

Difficult to assess your argument or even call it an argument in the absence of a number

[Farrandeelin]

Anybody see RTÉ's programme on this on Monday night? I thought it was a bit ott, however planning for the worst is no bad thing either.

[t_mac]

The elephant in the room is modern living. Man wasn't designed to live this way. Give us all a plot of land and a fishing rod and let us live self sufficiently, as we're supposed to.

Go back to pre-industrial medieval style living? Not going to work for 7 billion people.

There's your issue in a sentence, 7 billion people, a huge environmental disaster taking two or three billion out of the equation is the only thing going save the planet.

[RadioGAAGAA]

And an aging population is economically unsustainable it will quickly lead to societal collapse.

Society in general is heading for a collapse due to many factors beyond aging population.

When unskilled labour (and even some skilled labour) is largely replaced by robotics and highly skilled jobs to maintain them - what will those with poor qualifications do?

[lurganblue]

And an aging population is economically unsustainable it will quickly lead to societal collapse.

Society in general is heading for a collapse due to many factors beyond aging population.

When unskilled labour (and even some skilled labour) is largely replaced by robotics and highly skilled jobs to maintain them - what will those with poor qualifications do?

Work in McDonalds?

[omaghjoe]

Elephant in the room. Stop the population explosion. Everything else is window dressing

Nail on the head.

Unfortunately no one wants to address this issue. Less people will use less resources.

Global population growth is expected to level off sometime around 2100. As people become more affluent they have fewer children. China's leveling off already.

Affluence is exactly the problem not population.
And an aging population is economically unsustainable it will quickly lead to societal collapse.
China is leveling off because of it's one child policy and they can now see the probs with that. How China fares in the next 30 years will tell a story of how other countries will deal with the same problem tho they may be at an advantage to Western countries they still have some of the population to become industrialised

Do you have a number? A figure that the human population can self regulate and level out at and be sustainable in terms of food production, food consumption, dietary balance, poverty elimination, energy production, energy use, chemical use, deforestation, reforestation etc.

Difficult to assess your argument or even call it an argument in the absence of a number

I'm hardly gonna give my number to an anonymous internet poster for discussion when we could do it right here on the thread.

[smelmoth]

Hilarious there Joe.

What about that population figure? And its sustainability as a figure and its sustainable use of available resources?

[omaghjoe]

Hilarious there Joe.

What about that population figure? And its sustainability as a figure and its sustainable use of available resources?

Prehaps you missed my point, that such a number is as mythical as my phone number.
Population resource needs and extraction technologies are constantly evolving as is the level of industrialisation

Besides I wasnt even making a point about that, my point was more about the division of labour for a society with a top heavy age profile.

[smelmoth]

Hilarious there Joe.

What about that population figure? And its sustainability as a figure and its sustainable use of available resources?

Prehaps you missed my point, that such a number is as mythical as my phone number.
Population resource needs and extraction technologies are constantly evolving as is the level of industrialisation

Besides I wasnt even making a point about that, my point was more about the division of labour for a society with a top heavy age profile.

I'll ask you a direct question then - are you satisfied that the current global population can be sustained without placing a greater burden on the earth's resources and biodiversity and maintain a decent living for those citizens of the globe? And if you are what evidence do you point to?

[omaghjoe]

Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.

But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.

Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.

[smelmoth]

Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.

But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.

Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.

What percentage of the world's population are you describing as affluent?

[omaghjoe]

Depends what you mean by decent standard of living but anyway...
Considering the world has always been in a state of change and that the issues you point to have been occurring since civilization began indeed even before that since homo sapians migrated out of Africa they have been disrupting ecosystems from their arrival. (Indeed you could say we are sn invasive species on every continent except Africa) then to reach the perfect promised land that you propose I would say is impossible.

But as I stated originally affluence is the problem ie consumption. So by limiting our consumption it's perfectly logical that we can reduce our demand on the earth's resources. We have to balance that against the fact that no economic system has ever really existed that didnt use an expanding population and an increasing commerce as its basis. So hardship would definitely prevail for a portion of the population, I dunno if you would classify this as a decent of standard of living.

Evidence for this is the demand in commodities drops during economic downturns.

What percentage of the world's population are you describing as affluent?

It's a subjective term and as I said its about the more objective term of consumption which even itself is all about degrees.

Most of the world lives in an economy of some sort but the further the level of industrialisation of the economy then generally speaking the higher the level of consumption. Attaching this toa percentage of population is misleading as different persons have different levels of consumption.