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

#201  Postby Thommo » Jun 12, 2019 10:26 am

tuco wrote:
Thommo wrote:
tuco wrote:Are you? How about predictions to 2200 or 2B population scenarios to be taken seriously? Not sad about those? I am not being mean now, just curious.


I didn't see any that weren't appropriately qualified. So no.

I wouldn't take them too seriously if they were expressed with undue certainty. And I might get sad if people were unduly sure.


I don't know what "appropriately qualified" means but alright.


It just means that situationally appropriate words that limit or constrain the extent or circumstances of a claim have been used.

tuco wrote:I guess you missed the part with the claim that the current level of consumption would be sustainable if the population were 2B people, leaving alone where the 2B came from.


Quite possibly I did, although that doesn't actually sound like a prediction of population in 2200 to me anyway. I'm sure there's lots to discuss in such a claim, but it doesn't sound inherently unreasonable to me. Certainly if you had a world population stratified in the same way the current world population is, but stable at around the 2B mark a lot of sustainability issues like land use, deforestation, water use, mineral depletion or fish stock depletion would take on radically different dimensions, and other resources would be deteriorating at a proportionately lower rate which would allow for a much more gradual course correction.

There'd need to be more in depth discussion to form a sensible view one way or the other, I'm sure. Any criticism I would have to offer would be markedly different than that I would offer to the repetition of Oxfam's claim, which was rather uncritically based on the assumption that environmental impact operates on a 1 for 1 basis with income, combined with what rather disappointingly amounted to a small amount of disguised numerology.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26163

Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#202  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 10:30 am

Thommo wrote:
Quite possibly I did, although that doesn't actually sound like a prediction of population in 2200 to me anyway. I'm sure there's lots to discuss in such a claim, but it doesn't sound inherently unreasonable to me. Certainly if you had a world population stratified in the same way the current world population is, but stable at around the 2B mark a lot of sustainability issues like land use, deforestation, water use, mineral depletion or fish stock depletion would take on radically different dimensions, and other resources would be deteriorating at a proportionately lower rate which would allow for a much more gradual course correction.


Oops Thommo, you went and took all the wind out of the sails setting course for fanciful new horizons! :grin:


Thommo wrote:There'd need to be more in depth discussion to form a sensible view one way or the other, I'm sure.


Very much agreed. There are certain people you can expect to engage in this kind of discussion with here. And then there are those who don't seem able to engage in such discussion.

That might well be enough of an explanation as to why tuco's still trotting out soundbites.
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: 24403
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

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

#203  Postby tuco » Jun 12, 2019 10:44 am

Thommo wrote:
tuco wrote:
Thommo wrote:
tuco wrote:Are you? How about predictions to 2200 or 2B population scenarios to be taken seriously? Not sad about those? I am not being mean now, just curious.


I didn't see any that weren't appropriately qualified. So no.

I wouldn't take them too seriously if they were expressed with undue certainty. And I might get sad if people were unduly sure.


I don't know what "appropriately qualified" means but alright.


It just means that situationally appropriate words that limit or constrain the extent or circumstances of a claim have been used.

tuco wrote:I guess you missed the part with the claim that the current level of consumption would be sustainable if the population were 2B people, leaving alone where the 2B came from.


Quite possibly I did, although that doesn't actually sound like a prediction of population in 2200 to me anyway. I'm sure there's lots to discuss in such a claim, but it doesn't sound inherently unreasonable to me. Certainly if you had a world population stratified in the same way the current world population is, but stable at around the 2B mark a lot of sustainability issues like land use, deforestation, water use, mineral depletion or fish stock depletion would take on radically different dimensions, and other resources would be deteriorating at a proportionately lower rate which would allow for a much more gradual course correction.

There'd need to be more in depth discussion to form a sensible view one way or the other, I'm sure. Any criticism I would have to offer would be markedly different than that I would offer to the repetition of Oxfam's claim, which was rather uncritically based on the assumption that environmental impact operates on a 1 for 1 basis with income, combined with what rather disappointingly amounted to a small amount of disguised numerology.


Predictions to 2200 are so unreliable that nobody even does them. Well, nobody who has any idea about predictions.

About 2/7 radically different dimension. What kind of gradual course of correction are you talking about? The claim was that it would be sustainable.

On what bases do you determine what is reasonable and whatnot? How about 2 million, is that reasonable or not?

No population prediction model I am aware of predicts 2B.

Make me happy.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

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

#204  Postby newolder » Jun 12, 2019 10:51 am

tuco wrote:...

No population prediction model I am aware of predicts 2B.

Make me happy.

You are unaware of the connection between the Mandelbrot set and fractal population dynamics? :ask:
https://fractalfoundation.org/OFC/OFC-6-1.html
...
Given the right conditions, the population of a single species can fluctuate chaotically, as we will see in the next section.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6406
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

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

#205  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 12, 2019 10:53 am

tuco wrote:The claim was that it would be sustainable.


By whom? Given your proclivities for seeking any port in a storm, I think it's reasonable for you to support what you think "would be sustainable" refers to as a prediction. For my part, I think you're just having massive trouble with the English conditional.
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

#206  Postby tuco » Jun 12, 2019 10:57 am

newolder wrote:
tuco wrote:...

No population prediction model I am aware of predicts 2B.

Make me happy.

You are unaware of the connection between the Mandelbrot set and fractal population dynamics? :ask:
https://fractalfoundation.org/OFC/OFC-6-1.html


I am aware and I posted about it numerous times here. From the tragedy of the commons to the deers on an island or was it koalas?

What are you trying to say? That the Earth can feed only 2B? I do not understand. Please elaborate.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

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

#207  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 12, 2019 11:05 am

tuco wrote:I do not understand. Please elaborate.


Why bother? You don't understand when somebody does elaborate. At least you have mastered the English come-back with hauteur, "please elaborate". You must have read it somewhere, or seen it in an internet gif.
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

Ads by Google


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

#208  Postby newolder » Jun 12, 2019 11:08 am

tuco wrote:
newolder wrote:
tuco wrote:...

No population prediction model I am aware of predicts 2B.

Make me happy.

You are unaware of the connection between the Mandelbrot set and fractal population dynamics? :ask:
https://fractalfoundation.org/OFC/OFC-6-1.html


I am aware and I posted about it numerous times here. From the tragedy of the commons to the deers on an island or was it koalas?

What are you trying to say? That the Earth can feed only 2B? I do not understand. Please elaborate.

There are an infinite number of models, given the correct conditions, that predict any number you like for the population of a species at a given time.

Lyapunov probably got there first:
Image
Are you happier now?
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6406
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

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

#209  Postby tuco » Jun 12, 2019 11:11 am

I am really confused. So we live in a world where there is 7B of us and we have a problem. Well, several problems. From climate change to sustainability and biodiversity and we debate what-if there was 2B. Well, as I said .. what-if there was 2 million, right? That should be ok. Now back to reality where there is 7B. Back on topic, our ecological footprint, our problems at hand with some realistic outlooks. No? No. Ok.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

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

#210  Postby tuco » Jun 12, 2019 11:14 am

newolder wrote:
tuco wrote:
newolder wrote:
tuco wrote:...

No population prediction model I am aware of predicts 2B.

Make me happy.

You are unaware of the connection between the Mandelbrot set and fractal population dynamics? :ask:
https://fractalfoundation.org/OFC/OFC-6-1.html


I am aware and I posted about it numerous times here. From the tragedy of the commons to the deers on an island or was it koalas?

What are you trying to say? That the Earth can feed only 2B? I do not understand. Please elaborate.

There are an infinite number of models, given the correct conditions, that predict any number you like for the population of a species at a given time.

Lyapunov probably got there first:
Image
Are you happier now?


Not really and why should I be? There are an infinite number of models ... hmm cool story. How does that help with the issues at hand?
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

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

#211  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 12, 2019 11:17 am

tuco wrote:Back on topic, our ecological footprint...


... we don't expect most people to take it seriously unless the government coerces them. Isn't that the problem you're having, and no one else is?

tuco wrote:How does that help with the issues at hand?


It means that nothing is hunky dory simply because you're obsessing about somebody else's footprint.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jun 12, 2019 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

#212  Postby newolder » Jun 12, 2019 11:19 am

tuco wrote:
newolder wrote:
tuco wrote:
newolder wrote:
You are unaware of the connection between the Mandelbrot set and fractal population dynamics? :ask:
https://fractalfoundation.org/OFC/OFC-6-1.html


I am aware and I posted about it numerous times here. From the tragedy of the commons to the deers on an island or was it koalas?

What are you trying to say? That the Earth can feed only 2B? I do not understand. Please elaborate.

There are an infinite number of models, given the correct conditions, that predict any number you like for the population of a species at a given time.

Lyapunov probably got there first:
Image
Are you happier now?


Not really and why should I be? There are an infinite number of models ... hmm cool story. How does that help with the issues at hand?

The single "issue at hand" here is that,
No population prediction model I am aware of predicts 2B.

Make me happy.

You are now aware of very many models that predict any number you want to be predicted so, I guess you are happier than before.
Last edited by newolder on Jun 12, 2019 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6406
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

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

#213  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 11:19 am

tuco wrote:
Predictions to 2200 are so unreliable that nobody even does them.


I mean, except for the dozens... (hundreds?) of scientific papers on population dynamics that do exactly this?


tuco wrote:Well, nobody who has any idea about predictions.


:)

That 'nobody' is back again!


tuco wrote:About 2/7 radically different dimension. What kind of gradual course of correction are you talking about? The claim was that it would be sustainable.


Rather, the claim is that at least 8 studies looking into Earth's carrying capacity for contemporary industrial human society suggest that 2 billion is the limit. This is actually the most conservative of all the sample studies analyzed (65 in total) by the United Nations Environment Programme and requires the least assumptions.

/shrug

You could've just read this when I wrote about it the first time:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... l#p2700332

But you're still pretending that it's some outlandish fairy tale contrived which no one can account for.

If you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and shout LA LA LA, then you may well be correct that you have not seen or heard something, but it's a very different claim than saying that it has not already been shown.



tuco wrote:On what bases do you determine what is reasonable and whatnot?


Well, that's quite involving. The problem is that you're tossing out questions without seeming to be interested in substantive responses, so perhaps you should engender a little more ability in the discourse department before expecting others to fight to educate you?



tuco wrote: How about 2 million, is that reasonable or not?


Reasonable for what? For most of human prehistory there were probably around 10 million human hunter-gatherers.



tuco wrote: No population prediction model I am aware of predicts 2B.


Which would be intriguing under the assumption that you are aware of all, or nearly all population models ever made. But of course, there's no reason to assume that's the case, so all the sentence tells us is that you're not aware of something. But as you could've become aware of it in this thread, but somehow didn't become aware of it, is it just that you are being resistant to becoming aware of it? If so, what follows from here? Are we supposed to struggle mightily to force you to become aware?


tuco wrote: Make me happy.


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: 24403
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

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

#214  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 11:22 am

tuco wrote:
What are you trying to say? That the Earth can feed only 2B? I do not understand. Please elaborate.


At present, the Earth can feed just under 9 billion, although with substantial waste.

Of course, that is not sustainable in the sense that it is taking more from the Earth's natural resources in a shorter time frame than the Earth can regenerate. About 1.6 times too quickly is the most detailed model.
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: 24403
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

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

#215  Postby tuco » Jun 12, 2019 11:25 am

newolder wrote:
tuco wrote:
newolder wrote:
tuco wrote:

I am aware and I posted about it numerous times here. From the tragedy of the commons to the deers on an island or was it koalas?

What are you trying to say? That the Earth can feed only 2B? I do not understand. Please elaborate.

There are an infinite number of models, given the correct conditions, that predict any number you like for the population of a species at a given time.

Lyapunov probably got there first:
Image
Are you happier now?


Not really and why should I be? There are an infinite number of models ... hmm cool story. How does that help with the issues at hand?

The single "issue at hand" here is that,
No population prediction model I am aware of predicts 2B.

Make me happy.

You are now aware of very many models that predict any number you want to be predicted so, I guess you are happier than before.


The single issue at hand for you and I dunno who else. To me, it's pointless to talk about such a scenario, given the topic, and I indicated this several times.

And no, I am aware of population prediction models. Perhaps you want to edit the wiki entry with your Lyapunov-fractal.png and Mandelbrot set and let's see how it goes. That would actually make me happy. Seriously.
tuco
 
Posts: 15246

Print view this post

Ads by Google


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

#216  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 12, 2019 11:27 am

tuco wrote:To me, it's pointless to talk about such a scenario


That much is clear. To you. When you are recognized World Class Great Genius, then it may be relevant to someone who cares.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jun 12, 2019 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

#217  Postby Thommo » Jun 12, 2019 11:28 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
tuco wrote:Back on topic, our ecological footprint...


... we don't expect most people to take it seriously unless the government coerces them. Isn't that the problem you're having, and no one else is?


I take it seriously. At the very least I can claim to have one fewer children than I would have had, if I'd had one more.

As we saw from Rainbow/juju that's the single best thing I can have done. It required no government intervention, although the role of 2B population's alleged sustainability is less clear.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26163

Print view this post

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

#218  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 11:28 am

tuco wrote:I am really confused. So we live in a world where there is 7B of us and we have a problem. Well, several problems. From climate change to sustainability and biodiversity and we debate what-if there was 2B.


As I mentioned, the issue here really is regarding your understanding of hypothetical scenarios.

I do wonder if it's cultural. Intriguing.


tuco wrote:Well, as I said .. what-if there was 2 million, right?


Yes, you did indeed say that: well done for remembering what you just posted.

Let me have a try at that.... what if there was 178,000 a dog, and a can of tuna?

Mmm yes, that was fun.


tuco wrote:That should be ok.


Great! We're having fun. Isn't that nice?


tuco wrote: Now back to reality where there is 7B.


Back to reality where 7 billion is progressing towards 8 billion, then to 9 billion where we notionally hit a Malthusian cap. What happens when people starve to death, tuco? Does the number of people go up or down?

If we didn't want to hit a Malthusian cap, would there potentially be a number of people we might want to stop at?

Similarly, if there was a maximum planetary carrying capacity for contemporary industrial human society, what would that be? A lot of serious scientists writing in peer-reviewed papers have suggested 2 billion.

But you don't seem interested in talking about that hypothetical reality.

Oh well, other people are, and it's not like we're obliged to conform to your demands, are we?


tuco wrote: Back on topic, our ecological footprint, our problems at hand with some realistic outlooks. No? No. Ok.


Could you try that one again and maybe add a verb somewhere?
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: 24403
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

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

#219  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 12, 2019 11:30 am

Thommo wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
tuco wrote:Back on topic, our ecological footprint...


... we don't expect most people to take it seriously unless the government coerces them. Isn't that the problem you're having, and no one else is?


I take it seriously.


Clearly, Thommo, you are not most people.

Thommo wrote:At the very least I can claim to have one fewer children than I would have had, if I'd had one more.


At the very least (yet again) your sense of humour is among the qualities that set you apart.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jun 12, 2019 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
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

#220  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 11:31 am

tuco wrote:
The single issue at hand for you and I dunno who else. To me, it's pointless to talk about such a scenario, given the topic, and I indicated this several times.


Then perhaps you should stop talking about it as it only seems to be you who keeps resurrecting it? ;)


tuco wrote:And no, I am aware of population prediction models.


All that shows is that you're aware of wikipedia and how to hyperlink.


tuco wrote:Perhaps you want to edit the wiki entry with your Lyapunov-fractal.png and Mandelbrot set and let's see how it goes. That would actually make me happy. Seriously.


I guess we're all just here to make you happy, 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: 24403
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest