The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#121  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 4:56 am

Hermit wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:...you appear to be labouring under a rather nonsensical condition that we're here to 'propose' things to people

Point of order: The first of several meanings given in the Oxford Dictionary for 'propose' is to [p]ut forward (a plan or suggestion) for consideration by others. That is exactly what tuco has done. He did not "Nominate (someone) for an elected office or as a member of a society", "Put forward (a motion) to a legislature or committee", "Intend to do something" nor "Make an offer of marriage to someone". I really doubt he meant we should make policies in this forum when he wrote: "that we should prepare, we should instill policies, for example as per the recommendations of IPBES Global Assessment, for 20B - the worst case scenario".



But as I already said; 'we' cannot install policies as per the IPBES Global Assessment, and said assessment offers no suggestions as to what individuals could or should do.

At best, we can apply pressure through democratic means to encourage our elected representatives to have them install those policies, or perhaps run for office ourselves.

Either which way, this still isn't a requirement for engaging in discussion on a discussion forum. It's not a 'proposal forum'.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24373
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#122  Postby Hermit » Jun 10, 2019 5:18 am

I propose you take cognisance of the fact that tuco did not use the word 'install', secondly, that as a Czech he does not always find the most suitable words for what he is trying to say, that he probably would have chosen some word like 'encourage', 'promote' or similar had he thought of it, and that you get off his back. You're making a big deal about a small matter.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2477
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#123  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 6:00 am

Hermit wrote:I propose you take cognisance of the fact that tuco did not use the word 'install', secondly, that as a Czech he does not always find the most suitable words for what he is trying to say, that he probably would have chosen some word like 'encourage', 'promote' or similar had he thought of it, and that you get off his back. You're making a big deal about a small matter.


No.

But I similarly propose you read the post in question:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2700201

Also note that tuco won't be able to read your replies because you're on his juvenile list too.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24373
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#124  Postby Hermit » Jun 10, 2019 6:03 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Hermit wrote:I propose you take cognisance of the fact that tuco did not use the word 'install', secondly, that as a Czech he does not always find the most suitable words for what he is trying to say, that he probably would have chosen some word like 'encourage', 'promote' or similar had he thought of it, and that you get off his back. You're making a big deal about a small matter.

No.

Image

Spearthrower is a poopyhead. :tongue:
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2477
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#125  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 6:05 am

Hermit wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Hermit wrote:I propose you take cognisance of the fact that tuco did not use the word 'install', secondly, that as a Czech he does not always find the most suitable words for what he is trying to say, that he probably would have chosen some word like 'encourage', 'promote' or similar had he thought of it, and that you get off his back. You're making a big deal about a small matter.

No.

Image

Spearthrower is a poopyhead. :tongue:



If you look at the post in question, you're asking me to treat him in a manner completely contrary to the way he treats others. Typically, I ignore any of his silliness, but I shouldn't have to ignore it. No one should. Perhaps if more people called him out on it, he'd stop.


tuco wrote:What do you propose? Except stating the trivial:

Oh really!? That is fucking genius, Nobel Prize material. It never occurred to anyone I am sure, certainly never occurred to me. I guess it's because I was never postgrad.

Now what? Do you have kids? Do you propose government imposed birth control? Do you propose birth control on self-restraint bases? Do you propose releasing virus wiping out population like some other posters here? What to do with the fucking obvious statement? I am all ears.

You guys have a club or something? Jesus fucking christ this unbelievable. I have to promise myself not to take you off the list at least for 6 months now. Fuck this shit.

Do you want to know what I personally think? Where can I write it without being sanctioned? Gimme email? I will write to you fucking personally.



To be blunt, this kind of response warrants a smack on the arse and bed without supper.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24373
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#126  Postby Hermit » Jun 10, 2019 6:09 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Hermit wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Hermit wrote:I propose you take cognisance of the fact that tuco did not use the word 'install', secondly, that as a Czech he does not always find the most suitable words for what he is trying to say, that he probably would have chosen some word like 'encourage', 'promote' or similar had he thought of it, and that you get off his back. You're making a big deal about a small matter.

No.

Image

Spearthrower is a poopyhead. :tongue:

If you look at the post in question, you're asking me to treat him in a manner completely contrary to the way he treats others. Typically, I ignore any of his silliness, but I shouldn't have to ignore it. No one should. Perhaps if more people called him out on it, he'd stop.

Oh, you've added to your post.

I've read his post yesterday. You're still a poopyhead. :P
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2477
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#127  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 6:11 am

Hermit wrote:
Oh, you've added to your post.


A misclick, I'm afraid, as I went to look for where tuco put you in his weenie list, but after I didn't find it for 5 seconds, I realized that was about as much time as it was worth.


Hermit wrote:I've read his post yesterday. You're still a poopyhead. :P


I can live with that! :)
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24373
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#128  Postby juju7 » Jun 10, 2019 7:05 am

tuco wrote:lol there will not be 2B people. Period. Babble all you want.

It was just a number they pulled from their rear ends.

It means nothing, but you'll never get a sensible answer as to why they were presenting that hypothetical number.
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#129  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 10:26 am

juju7 wrote:It was just a number they pulled from their rear ends.


Back scrapping incoherently?


juju7 wrote:It means nothing, but you'll never get a sensible answer as to why they were presenting that hypothetical number.



Unfortunately, you are once again not asking questions, but deciding in advance what someone means.

It's silly Juju7. A public rehearsal of prejudice, not at all an interesting approach to discussion on a discussion forum.

There's a reason why population predictions of the year 2200 are just as likely to be 2 billion as they are 10 or 20 billion. That's because it's the lower end expected of potential sustainable human population (Earth's carrying capacity for current industrial human society); i.e. the most conservative. If our population crashes, if modern society comes tumbling down, do you think it means all human life will disappear? If you do, then the world's scientists don't agree with you. In reality, we can reliably maintain 2 billion people (on average accounting for booms and busts) even with poor infrastructure and low technology; i.e. subsistence level existence. If our civilization crashes, while the population may potentially drop lower due to the knock-on effects of lost expertise, broken distribution networks, and general chaos and conflict, it would quickly stabilize again around 2 billion people.

For example, the United Nations Environment Programme analyzed 65 scientific studies modelling Earth's capacity to sustainably maintain modern industrialized human society, and the lower bounds, comprised of 8 studies, were 2 billion people. They didn't pull that number out of their rear ends, Juju7 - they arrived at it from calculating a slew of factors such as production of food, birth rates, water usage etc. It's the conservative assessment requiring the fewest assumptions.

On top of that, we can look at historical factors to see when humanity's population growth increased most dramatically, and when particular environmental impacts started becoming alarming. Up until the 1920's, Earth's population had never crossed the 2 billion mark. Once it did so, we began to see cycles of famine in large tracts of the world that weren't resolved until the 50's and 60's with the 'Green Revolution', so there was already a Malthusian cap in play in terms of food production that we'd run into before technology allowed us to circumvent this physical restriction. While there's no doubt that 2 billion people were having an impact on the planet, the question is whether or not that impact was unsustainable, i.e. whether the exploitation outstripped the environment's ability to regenerate. As it turns out, the period from the 50's and 60's onwards is when we see markers across the board begin to arise for unsustainable development - the Rubicon was crossed somewhere back in the 2 billion mark; that much consumption, regardless of increasing technology or ability to manage our impacts is simply unsustainable.

So no, unlike your remark, the number wasn't pulled from anyone's rear end.

However, it's not like I am wedded to a particular number nor did I make any suggestion of being so wedded, so it's tempting to conclude that you are once again indulging in some strawmanning.

Also contrary to your remark, this IS a sensible answer as to why I referred to that number. Perhaps you could attempt to make your posts worthy of serious answers in the future and then you might engender what you seek?

Why is it so hard to actually discuss this topic, Juju7? Why do you want to scrap rather than discuss? If you really are that motivated to scrap, probably best you bring a little bit more punching power to the arena, eh? Alternatively, and certainly more desirably, engage in discussion. Not sure why we have a bunch of people here who seem so resilient against the concept of discussion these days.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24373
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#130  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 11:14 am

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2700337

Juju7 wrote:Even better kill off 5 billion people, and we'll be fine?


So aside from the discourtesy of dragging one argument to another thread, this is how my posts are now being misrepresented.

Because as we can all see, I was calling for the murder of 5 billion people... right?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24373
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#131  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 11:19 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Rubbish, yourself. Spearthrower clearly stated that if the population were 2 billion instead of 7 billion, current levels of consumption would not be unsustainable. You weren't paying attention, though, or else you have some other axe to grind...



It's starting to look like the latter. :)
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24373
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#132  Postby juju7 » Jun 10, 2019 11:31 am

Spearthrower wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2700338.html#p2700337

Juju7 wrote:Even better kill off 5 billion people, and we'll be fine?


So aside from the discourtesy of dragging one argument to another thread, this is how my posts are now being misrepresented.

Because as we can all see, I was calling for the murder of 5 billion people... right?

Can you explain how we go from 7 billion down to 2 billion?
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#133  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 10, 2019 11:39 am

juju7 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2700338.html#p2700337

Juju7 wrote:Even better kill off 5 billion people, and we'll be fine?


So aside from the discourtesy of dragging one argument to another thread, this is how my posts are now being misrepresented.

Because as we can all see, I was calling for the murder of 5 billion people... right?

Can you explain how we go from 7 billion down to 2 billion?


Lots of stiffs.

There ya go, juju7. Words of one syllable.

Who's saying anyone has to practice family planning? Furthermore, who's saying anyone has to murder anyone else? Given our typical ground ape proclivities, there's going to be mayhem whenever push comes to shove.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28465
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#134  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 10, 2019 11:47 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Rubbish, yourself. Spearthrower clearly stated that if the population were 2 billion instead of 7 billion, current levels of consumption would not be unsustainable. You weren't paying attention, though, or else you have some other axe to grind...



It's starting to look like the latter. :)


Nope, nothing so sharp, I guess, unless it's the axes of butthurt.

Spearthrower wrote:dragging one argument to another thread


Well, that's the direction that the butthurt express is headed.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28465
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#135  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 11:51 am

juju7 wrote:Can you explain how we go from 7 billion down to 2 billion?


How could we intentionally do it, or how it could happen regardless of our intent?

For the former, population growth rates are already in decline and have been for decades. So from a most banal method, simply by having less babies. If each generation produces only one offspring per couple, we would see very rapid declines in total population. Alternatively, as discussed in another thread, if tyranny were not an objection then policies could be formulated to disincentivize having more than 1 child. Whatever the case, if sufficient numbers of people were convinced through awareness of our impact on the Earth and its systems that our population is harming our ability to thrive on an individual and species-wide level, then we could intentionally lower our numbers consistently over decades. Is it likely? I am not sure as I don't have a lot of faith in humanity as a whole to act rationally, and there's always the problem of the tragedy of the commons motivating acquisitive behavior, but it's not completely unthinkable given some recent events where humans have chosen to forgo some immediate benefits in place of long term sustainability, i.e. the Montreal Protocol.

For the latter, there are numerous ways it could occur given the natural history of this planet and how briefly we've maintained our population. However, given the trajectory of our consumption's impact on the world's ability to sustain us, I expect we will begin to see increasing difficulties in maintaining our numbers starting within the next decade simply because we will start to struggle to produce enough food to maintain such a population, and this will only become more pressing as the population grows. For clarity, this isn't entirely true - we actually do produce enough for many more humans than we currently have, but there is a lot of waste involved - up to 1/3 of produced food is lost to waste. It's not exactly clear given current distribution systems how much of that waste we could save, and of course, the effects of it are unequal with certain regions being very resistant to lost produce through waste, and others being much more heavily impacted. However, again without needing to appeal to giant bollide strikes, there are Malthusian processes we have not transcended which could potentially cause devastating effects on society and our population.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24373
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#136  Postby juju7 » Jun 10, 2019 12:18 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
juju7 wrote:Can you explain how we go from 7 billion down to 2 billion?


How could we intentionally do it, or how it could happen regardless of our intent?

For the former, population growth rates are already in decline and have been for decades. So from a most banal method, simply by having less babies. If each generation produces only one offspring per couple, we would see very rapid declines in total population. Alternatively, as discussed in another thread, if tyranny were not an objection then policies could be formulated to disincentivize having more than 1 child. Whatever the case, if sufficient numbers of people were convinced through awareness of our impact on the Earth and its systems that our population is harming our ability to thrive on an individual and species-wide level, then we could intentionally lower our numbers consistently over decades.


Good, this was tried in China. A one child policy.
Image

What effect did this have on the carbon footprint?
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#137  Postby juju7 » Jun 10, 2019 12:21 pm

Image
User avatar
juju7
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 905

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#138  Postby tuco » Jun 10, 2019 12:41 pm

Effects of China's One Child Policy on its children

New research shows China's controversial One Child Policy (OCP) has not only dramatically re-shaped the population, but has produced individuals lacking characteristics important for economic and social attainment.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 142131.htm

----

This area should be explored more thoroughly before committing to Little Emperors.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#139  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 1:18 pm

juju7 wrote:
Good, this was tried in China. A one child policy.


Yes, I referred to that in the post where I talked about the correspondence with tyranny.


juju7 wrote:What effect did this have on the carbon footprint?


I'm not really sure how to answer that question because there's no way of knowing how many extra people there would have been if the one child policy wasn't in place, and China albeit a very populous nation, still only accounts for 20% of the world's population. In general terms, had Chinese people continued to have 3, 4, 5 or 6 children per couple per generation, then the effect on the ecological footprint would have been larger. How much larger? Hard to say as there's a difference in ecological footprint between some barely above subsistence level rice-farmer from the countryside and an urban dweller, but 'quite a lot' seems reasonable given the lack of known quantities.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24373
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: The tale of our ecological footprints as best we can convey

#140  Postby felltoearth » Jun 10, 2019 1:46 pm

Spearthrower wrote:http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2700338.html#p2700337

Juju7 wrote:Even better kill off 5 billion people, and we'll be fine?


So aside from the discourtesy of dragging one argument to another thread, this is how my posts are now being misrepresented.

Because as we can all see, I was calling for the murder of 5 billion people... right?

[youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUHk2RSMCS8[/youtube]
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11609
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest