Cito di Pense wrote:


You seem a bit rattled, there, juju. 7 billion plus 2 billion equals 9 billion.

Nitpicking.
Yes, I meant 5 billion.

So who is this Rainbow person I am supposed to be?

juju7 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:


You seem a bit rattled, there, juju. 7 billion plus 2 billion equals 9 billion.

Nitpicking.
Yes, I meant 5 billion.

So who is this Rainbow person I am supposed to be?

A championship-calibre masturbator. Just so you know, juju, you're reacting just like the typical sock-puppet whose cover has been blown. The optimal response is to pretend you don't know, but even that looks a bit studious. You need better, and there is no such thing for someone like you.

You really were keeping a pretty low profile, but I guess somebody found your hot-button issue. And it was you.

You seem fixated currently on the notion that the only people who would be left after a population reduction, either by choice or by catastrophe, would be people in the west with economic power. Here's a tap from Cito's clue bat, Juju: Not everyone in the west has a lot of economic power, to the tune of your 80% figure, and population reduction, however accompished, is going to hit the rich as well, which is what growth-oriented ideologues are frequently on about.

juju7 wrote:
The graph I provided shows this very clearly. These 2 billion provide 80% about of the ecological foot print. The remaining 7 billion are responsible for only 20%.
How did you not see this?

It absolutely does not show 'this' very clearly.

How did I not see it?

Because it's not actually there.

The question is how did you see something that's categorically not in the graphic?

Your graphic does not show that the wealthiest 2 billion provide 80% of the ecological footprint. That's a complete fabrication your part, apparently a willful one at that.

As is clearly written on the graphic: Richest 10% responsible for almost half of total lifestyle consumption emissions.

Lifestyle consumption emissions =/= ecological footprint, as I just pointed out to you in the post you're nominally replying to.

Lifestyle consumption emissions aren't equivalent to all emissions.

Further, even total emissions are not equivalent to ecological footprint because the latter includes other elements like land usage, water usage, plastic waste and dozens of other factors which aren't in the 'emissions' category.

See? This is an honest reply to your post where I apply the principle of charity and don't try and score points based on your error which results in you invoking 9 billion people, but rather challenging the best reading of the argument you tried to make. That argument is clearly false. Unfortunately, I can't apply the principle of charity to that argument because you are replying to a post where I'd already spelled out your mistake, but here you are trying to slip it past me again.

juju7 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:You know who your style of 'discourse' reminds me of?

Rainbow.


EDIT:

Ooh, there's a fancy coincidence.

Rainbow's last post was Jun 01, 2012 3:00 pm

Juju7 joined on Jun 02, 2012 2:12 pm


EDIT II:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... d#p1340303

Rainbow was banned for being an intractable troll. He repeatedly demonstrated a lack of willingness to engage meaningfully in threads that he joined, despite taking a large role in them and leading members into derails.

...

went to absurd lengths to misrepresent others (whilst maintaining that he had not done so) on a regular basis, had a habit of playing word games to twist the meaning of written text out of all proportion

It's funny, because that's what I was seeing in this thread that made me think of him.

Sounds like a fine fellow how do I contact him?

If anyone's interested the methodology for the image is described here:

https://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/pu ... wes-582545
https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.co ... sequence=2

Each (elastic) distribution index is then converted into a synthetic emissions distribution (giving the emissions associated with each income percentile) by multiplying the average national (or global) per capita emissions by each percentile’s index value divided by the distribution’s average index values [A, F]

The resulting emissions distributions, while faithful to the underlying income distributions, in many cases produce per capita emissions values at the lower end of the distribution (i.e. associated with the poorest segments of the population) that are lower than might be considered plausible. For example, unless living a subsistence life completely off-grid using only renewable energy, each person will have a base level of emissions resulting from their energy use that, in some cases, may be higher than suggested by the distribution. The lower bound of plausibility will differ by country and will be dependent on the structure of that nation’s economy and fuel mix used for energy provision. As a result, for these indicative calculations, a nationally determined threshold of minimally plausible emissions is applied, below which no percentile’s per capita emissions can fall.

To paraphrase, they apportioned carbon emissions within countries on a 1 for 1 basis with income and then fudged the bottom end a bit.

Spearthrower wrote:

juju7 wrote:
The graph I provided shows this very clearly. These 2 billion provide 80% about of the ecological foot print. The remaining 7 billion are responsible for only 20%.
How did you not see this?

It absolutely does not show 'this' very clearly.

How did I not see it?

Because it's not actually there.

The question is how did you see something that's categorically not in the graphic?

Your graphic does not show that the wealthiest 2 billion provide 80% of the ecological footprint. That's a complete fabrication your part, apparently a willful one at that.

As is clearly written on the graphic: Richest 10% responsible for almost half of total lifestyle consumption emissions.

Lifestyle consumption emissions =/= ecological footprint, as I just pointed out to you in the post you're nominally replying to.

Lifestyle consumption emissions aren't equivalent to all emissions.

Further, even total emissions are not equivalent to ecological footprint because the latter includes other elements like land usage, water usage, plastic waste and dozens of other factors which aren't in the 'emissions' category.

See? This is an honest reply to your post where I apply the principle of charity and don't try and score points based on your error which results in you invoking 9 billion people, but rather challenging the best reading of the argument you tried to make. That argument is clearly false. Unfortunately, I can't apply the principle of charity to that argument because you are replying to a post where I'd already spelled out your mistake, but here you are trying to slip it past me again.

2 billion out of 7 is approximately 30%.
The top 10% make up 48%, the next 10% do 19%, and the third 10% are 11% of the footprint.
Simple addition: 48 + 19 +11 = 78% of the contribution from your 2 billion.

It is all in the graph.

You may say that

Lifestyle consumption emissions =/= ecological footprint

, but so what?
How do they differ?

By the way you did not spell out any mistake, you just contradicted, and provided no evidence to support your view. I have given articles, graphs to support my view. You just gainsay what I have put forward.

Let me ask again, why are you debating 2B? It's a scenario nobody plans for and nobody should plan for.

juju7 wrote:2 billion out of 7 is approximately 30%.
The top 10% make up 48%, the next 10% do 19%, and the third 10% are 11% of the footprint.
Simple addition: 48 + 19 +11 = 78% of the contribution from your 2 billion.

It is all in the graph.

It's amazing that you are still trying to get this past me.

Your graphic does not show that the wealthiest 2 billion provide 80% of the ecological footprint. That's a complete fabrication on your part, becoming ever more clear that it is a willful fabrication.

As is clearly written on the graphic: Richest 10% responsible for almost half of total lifestyle consumption emissions.

Lifestyle consumption emissions =/= ecological footprint, as I just pointed out to you in 2 posts now.

Lifestyle consumption emissions aren't equivalent to all emissions.

Further, even total emissions are not equivalent to ecological footprint because the latter includes other elements like land usage, water usage, plastic waste and dozens of other factors which aren't in the 'emissions' category.

There's being wrong, and there's being willfully wrong.

juju7 wrote:You may say that

Lifestyle consumption emissions =/= ecological footprint

, but so what?
How do they differ?

Well one key way that they differ is that your graphic is about the former not the latter.

However, it being your graphic, and your argument, that would be your job to establish, wouldn't it?

All I need to do is point out that your graphic does not support your argument - it's a bait and switch, and it's what you've been trying throughout this thread.

juju7 wrote:By the way you did not spell out any mistake,...

I spelled out your mistake: you claimed that the graphic you presented:

These 2 billion provide 80% about of the ecological foot print.

Whereas that's not what the graphic shows at all, ergo a mistake.

juju7 wrote:you just contradicted,...

Untrue, as anyone can see in the post which you're replying to. I spelled out to you in clear argumentation.

juju7 wrote:... and provided no evidence to support your view.

I don't need to provide evidence to support my view - it's written in YOUR graphic and you misrepresented it in YOUR post.

juju7 wrote: I have given articles, graphs to support my view.

And the articles and graphics categorically do not support your argument, nor are they actually relevant to the point that was supposedly being discussed. You're attempting a bait and switch, but it's not working.

juju7 wrote: You just gainsay what I have put forward.

Yes, I am denying what you're written, but I am doing so on substantive grounds, whereas we can go back to when this thread of discussion started and see that you've actually offered nothing, nada, niente relevant to that.

If you want me to agree with you, then say something truthful.

tuco wrote:Let me ask again, why are you debating 2B? It's a scenario nobody plans for and nobody should plan for.

You're mistaken, as I already showed you. The fact is that if the population reaches 9+ billion by 2050, no one knows how we will be able to feed that population. If we can't feed that population, then people begin to starve and the population goes down. As I already shared with you - plotted trends into the future show that a population of 2 billion in 2200 is just as likely as a population of over 12 billion. Further, numerous scientific papers analyzing consumption and production have suggested that 2 billion is the Earth's carrying capacity for industrial human society.

So 'no one' just means you, and as you don't dictate the debate or the remit of the debate, there's obviously no reason to limit ourselves to please you.

Rainbow is over at Ratz, but mostly talks about boiling missionaries.

I've picked up a few culinary pointers from him.

tuco wrote:Let me ask again, why are you debating 2B? It's a scenario nobody plans for and nobody should plan for.

Me, I'm planning for a future in which people make posts online that may or may not have anything to do with the way they actually behave outside the blogosphere. I'm planning for a future in which people claim they're proposing solutions when they're just waving their hands around and who knows what they do in their spare time. I'm planning for a future in which a significant fraction of the people I talk to will be virtue-signalling because of how fucking good that feels to them. It's like a fucking drug.

What I care about is whether you can muster any data that backs up your assertions and proposals in a world in which we wish people behaved better than they do, but I don't plan on it.

So now I also need to add another attempted slight of hand to this: equivocating between lifestyle consumption emissions and ecological footprint.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2700366

Spearthrower wrote:As there appears to be some desired slight of hand in effect here, let's just take stock of the sequence of events so far:


An apparently straight-forward question:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2700341

Juju7 wrote:Can you explain how we go from 7 billion down to 2 billion?

An honest and sensible answer:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2700344

Spearthrower wrote:
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...

So the question was how a population of 7 billion might become a population of 2 billion, with options both for an intentional decline in population, and an unintentional decline in population. The former, I suggested might occur if people were convinced that our population is having a detrimental impact on the environment that they might seek to have only one child per couple per generation, and that this would eventually have the effect the question was asked to explain.

But now we're talking about China's One Child Policy (and what might have happened in an alternate universe had it not been or things that might have been some consequence of it), which the sharp-eyed among us might note a) didn't lower population at all (it grew by half a billion) because it wasn't really a one-child policy in anything other than name b) wasn't motivated by ecological concerns.

That is, of course, all by-the-by because the answer still stands as true. If the majority of humanity elected to have one child per couple per generation then population numbers would quickly stabilize then drop rapidly. The actual effect would be exponential... up to a point! Thus the question is answered: this is one (of many) ways that our population could go from 7 to 2 billion and no murders are required.

laklak wrote:Rainbow is over at Ratz, but mostly talks about boiling missionaries.

I've picked up a few culinary pointers from him.

See the Mau Maus underneath the jungle sky.
Jolly Mau Maus, eating missionary pie.

This is a quote. That's why it's in italics.

Spearthrower wrote:

juju7 wrote:2 billion out of 7 is approximately 30%.
The top 10% make up 48%, the next 10% do 19%, and the third 10% are 11% of the footprint.
Simple addition: 48 + 19 +11 = 78% of the contribution from your 2 billion.

It is all in the graph.

It's amazing that you are still trying to get this past me.

Your graphic does not show that the wealthiest 2 billion provide 80% of the ecological footprint. That's a complete fabrication on your part, becoming ever more clear that it is a willful fabrication.

You are correct it shows that they are responsible for 78% of the ecological footprint, not 80%.

Foolish nitpicking is not going to get you out of the fact that you can't read a graph, and add.

I give up.

No kidding.

juju7 wrote:You are correct it shows that they are responsible for 78% of the ecological footprint, not 80%.

Incorrect: that's just not at all what your graphic says. You are completely wrong.

juju7 wrote:Foolish nitpicking is not going to get you out of the fact that you can't read a graph, and add.

Well, I'll raise you a 'can't read a sentence in English' because it says 'lifestyle consumption emissions' and you read it as 'ecological footprint'.

juju7 wrote:I give up.

Quit while you're not even in the race.

Lifestyle consumption emissions aren't equivalent to ecological footprint
Lifestyle consumption emissions aren't equivalent to total emissions.
Even total emissions are not equivalent to ecological footprint

I am not sure how you can be so thoroughly confused by such a simple thing, but then you didn't seem to grasp the difference between population and population growth rates either.

/shrug

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2700461

Juju7 wrote:The graph I provided shows this very clearly. These 2 billion provide 80% about of the ecological foot print. The remaining 7 billion are responsible for only 20%.

Spearthrower wrote:Your graphic does not show that the wealthiest 2 billion provide 80% of the ecological footprint. That's a complete fabrication your part, apparently a willful one at that.

Juju7 wrote:You are correct it shows that they are responsible for 78% of the ecological footprint, not 80%.

Foolish nitpicking is not going to get you out of the fact that you can't... add.

So typical Rainbow.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... d#p1340303

Rainbow was banned for being an intractable troll. He repeatedly demonstrated a lack of willingness to engage meaningfully in threads that he joined, despite taking a large role in them and leading members into derails. Further, he continuously made inflammatory comments when questioned about a topic, went to absurd lengths to misrepresent others (whilst maintaining that he had not done so) on a regular basis, had a habit of playing word games to twist the meaning of written text out of all proportion...

You're fooling no one...

Oh wait!

tuco wrote:No kidding.

Congratulations Juju7! You got a hit!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2675849

My favorite exchange with juju/rainbow

juju7 wrote:Learn some manners, mate.

Wow, what an asshole. Now it can be told.