Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

*NO I AM NOT*

**FOR EITHER STATEMENT**

You DO realize that flying insect populations, globally, have declined 75% in the past 3 decades, right?
That GLOBAL fish populations are in dangeorus decline from over exploitation?

That this picture is pretty much systemic OVER THE WHOLE DAMN PLANET, right?

---And the REASON for it, is because of the thinking you are proposing?!

"Hey, we just about made atlantic tuna extinct-- Lets fish something ELSE to extinction, because hey, there's always more fish in the sea!! People gotta eat, right!?"

Humans aren't insects. We experience a sustainable curve in population growth. The issue is resource exploitation, and that is being fixed (slowly) from multiple venues into something far more sustainable.

There's no need to call for the collapse of the human race. Climate change is definitely happening, but we're not about to end the whole biosphere quite yet, and it looks less likely by the day.

Duuuude... Do you NOT comprehend the implications of insect decline!??!?!?!

Here, insects are important in the breakdown of complex organic matter, to recycle them in the biosphere. they are essential organisms. In addition to that, the classification of insect most impacted by this ALARMING AS FUCK TREND, are the ones responsible for pollinating our crops.  They die, we dont have food.

Their decline is directly attributable to human actions that were taken to further human interests without serious contemplation of their long term effects, much like your proposed handwavey solutions.

You will find that the consensus opinion among climate and ecological scientists is that "Technology will not save you."
http://e360.yale.edu/features/how_far_can_technology_go_to_stave_off_climate_change

The solution they propose? "Societal change"-- eg, "Hey yo, you dont really need that hummer, you cant have it." et al.  EG, a serious reduction in the conspicuous consumption of mankind. The very thing that is synonymous with "first world living."

There's a difference between "Everyone give up your hummers" and "societal collapse and biosphere death."

[pikachu17]

Yes, because the second only happens if the first isn't done. Well, not really, because their are a lot more human-caused problematics that are going to destroy the biosphere than that, but it's a start, and it's not like Hummers are even slightly necessary.

[smjjames]

This is probably going to be a completely stupid statement to make, but for some reason (I honestly do not know what) I have this feeling in the back of my head that the next economic crash is soon. Not sure exactly what it is that made me come to this, but it's like a little switch flipped in my head- not even paranoia or anything. There's no fear, just a kind of "yeah, shit's probably going downhill soon".

Probably nothing to worry about.

You're not the only one saying that. Granted, there are always doomsayers, but the signs are there that something big is approaching and I think how as a nation, maybe even globally to some extent, how we react to it is going to determine the final damage totals. I think 2008 was just a preview. And we handled that poorly.

The housing bubble isn't neccesarily THE or the only sign that something could happen, the world is undergoing an economic transition between the boom years and a period of more stable equilibrium with population growth and theres the rise of automation, really, theres so much going on that it's a transitional period.

And theres the fact that lots of countries have to deal with debt and lots of other stuff. An economist could probably summarize the problems better.

I have been seeing these signs for the past 5 years. (The extreme measures required to try to inflate our way out of the 2008 collapse was pretty telling on just how 'healthy' the economy is with our incumbent hyperleech oligopoly players in charge, and following that, the clearly suicidal policy they have championed in its wake)

At this point, I am hoping for a complete systemic collapse. (Yes, really. The human race has put off natural boom-bust cycles for itself for a dangerously long time, and despite what some very naive people might think, our planet just does not have the capacity to elevate all of its existing population to first world status. The conspicuous lifestyles of those already at that level are sufficient to be driving manmade climate change at a truly appalling rate. If we look at animal models as a guide, the sooner the bust cycle happens, the better the long term survival rate for human kind is.  So, I find myself wishing for the collapse to happen sooner rather than later, to avoid the complete loss of the human race.)

Are you talking about population wise or economics wise? We had a massive and long boom due to technology advances, but we're already seeing the population growth starting to decline. Heck, the birth rate has gone down in developed countries and it's happening as developing countries, well, develop. We've already started a natural bust just from the boom having ended and the population from that boom aging and dying.

*NO I AM NOT*

**FOR EITHER STATEMENT**

You DO realize that flying insect populations, globally, have declined 75% in the past 3 decades, right?
That GLOBAL fish populations are in dangeorus decline from over exploitation?

That this picture is pretty much systemic OVER THE WHOLE DAMN PLANET, right?

---And the REASON for it, is because of the thinking you are proposing?!

"Hey, we just about made atlantic tuna extinct-- Lets fish something ELSE to extinction, because hey, there's always more fish in the sea!! People gotta eat, right!?"

Humans aren't insects. We experience a sustainable curve in population growth. The issue is resource exploitation, and that is being fixed (slowly) from multiple venues into something far more sustainable.

There's no need to call for the collapse of the human race. Climate change is definitely happening, but we're not about to end the whole biosphere quite yet, and it looks less likely by the day.

Duuuude... Do you NOT comprehend the implications of insect decline!??!?!?!

Here, insects are important in the breakdown of complex organic matter, to recycle them in the biosphere. they are essential organisms. In addition to that, the classification of insect most impacted by this ALARMING AS FUCK TREND, are the ones responsible for pollinating our crops.  They die, we dont have food.

Their decline is directly attributable to human actions that were taken to further human interests without serious contemplation of their long term effects, much like your proposed handwavey solutions.

You will find that the consensus opinion among climate and ecological scientists is that "Technology will not save you."
http://e360.yale.edu/features/how_far_can_technology_go_to_stave_off_climate_change

The solution they propose? "Societal change"-- eg, "Hey yo, you dont really need that hummer, you cant have it." et al.  EG, a serious reduction in the conspicuous consumption of mankind. The very thing that is synonymous with "first world living."

Do you have little faith in human resourcefulness?

[wierd]

The scientists are aware that "Yo, like, 4/5s of us need to die, and our society needs to go into permanent decline if our planet is really going to recover." is a non-starter, for basically every reason imaginable.

Instead, the offer a "Hey, we might not TOTALLY fuck the planet, just make it horribly difficult to live in, if we totally cut down on basically everything-- we MIGHT survive the now inevitable mass-extinctions."

The public's reaction?

"Climate change isnt even real-- it's fearmongering by big science."


SMJJ:

Given humanity's track record concerning resource depletion vs societal change, over the entire span of human history, YES, I AM THAT PESSIMISTIC.  The difference is that this time, there is no place for humanity to settle after the diaspora.

[pikachu17]

And Donal Trump tries to backpedal on the few anti-climate change stuff we had.
@Ispil, I fear it is going to happen, at least partially, because our president doesn't know a good economic theory if it hit him in the face.

[Zangi]

Do you have little faith in human resourcefulness?

Faith in humanity.
Humanity as a collective still has its head up its own ass.  Specifically cause it perversely still rewards itself for doing so.

Being resourceful will only get you so far... but hey, maybe we will find a magic bullet.

[smjjames]

@Ispil, I fear it is going to happen, at least partially, because our president doesn't know a good economic theory if it hit him in the face.

I can definetly see the Republicans contributing to the problem since they're insisting on going back to the conditions before 2008.

[sluissa]

The planet is more than capable of supporting everyone we currently have. It's just a matter of using what we have efficiently and sustainably. It probably won't support the constant struggle to "Keep up with the Joneses" (Or the Kardashians, these days.) But as far as food, shelter, and a generalized "technological society" we can keep that up. We just need to make sure the food, shelter and technology we have is made in a way that's not for the sake of "as cheap as we can make it, as expensive as we can sell it."

Collapse of the economy might actually help there. But we're nowhere near, "we need to start dying if we want to live."

[wierd]

Those two things you just said?  They don't go together.

The first one, sustaining current populations-- is predicated on the use of extensive agriculture and the use of pesticide, herbicide, and nitrogen fertilizer.

As pointed out, pesticide use has reduced flying insect populations by 75% in 30 years.
The use of herbicide is likewise implicated in systemic biosphere collapse,
and nitrogen fertilizers are predominantly made from fossil fuel derived sources, and their use has been known to destroy cropland over time for the past 60 years.

The second one, efficient redistribution and sustainable production, are dependent upon the first-- I just illustrated why current production is NOT sustainable, killing your second argument in the crib, but in addition to that, should some magic bullet be found that can make fucking magic happen, you still have to find a safe and reliable energy source more convenient and energy dense than fossil fuels, which has been systematically thwarted by incumbent interests for like 200 years, following a long and sordid script humanity seems hardwired to follow (if you bother to research the falls of various other civilizations, anyway.)

NO. YOUR STATEMENT IS WRONG. IN EVERY WAY.

[MrRoboto75]

You could do your part in solving the overpopulaion crisis today with the power of suicide

[pikachu17]

I can't tell if Roboto is just being a troll, or trying to make a point.

[sluissa]

Efficient agriculture would forgo traditional "fields" altogether. You can grow a hell of a lot more in controlled greenhouses with modern hydroponic systems than you can in a field. It's just for now fields are still cheaper to run. Solves the pesticide problem. Cuts severely down on the use of fertilizer, and while fossil fuel based fertilizers are still cheaper, they're not the only source and not a REQUIREMENT of farming. They're just cheap. That's why they're used.

[Maximum Spin]

You could do your part in solving the overpopulaion crisis today with the power of suicide

Homicide is much more effective. You could reduce the population by potentially dozens of times as much that way.

[wierd]

Controlled greenhouse == land use.

Exclusive land use is the major contributing factor to ecological collapse, by restricting population migration patterns, and habitat destruction.

BZZZZT.

You will find, (eventually I hope, if you actually follow the breadcrumbs and the numbers), that sustainable human populations that do no degrade the environment are substantially smaller values than what is existing currently, and the only way to realistically get those numbers is a decline in human society.

[smjjames]

The planet is more than capable of supporting everyone we currently have. It's just a matter of using what we have efficiently and sustainably. It probably won't support the constant struggle to "Keep up with the Joneses" (Or the Kardashians, these days.) But as far as food, shelter, and a generalized "technological society" we can keep that up. We just need to make sure the food, shelter and technology we have is made in a way that's not for the sake of "as cheap as we can make it, as expensive as we can sell it."

Collapse of the economy might actually help there. But we're nowhere near, "we need to start dying if we want to live."

No it isn't, not with our current rate of growth and especially not if the entire world consumes food in the same way as fully developed countries do.

Controlled greenhouse == land use.

Exclusive land use is the major contributing factor to ecological collapse, by restricting population migration patterns, and habitat destruction.

BZZZZT.

You know, one problem is that we are trying to use land in a 2D fashion, if we really want more use out of farms, we should be using the vertical space too. Most likely through the use of hydroponics, but we'd also have to make sure that the water use is efficient as well. We could also make use of rooftops and such.