But the responsibility is that of the consumer. Just because Apple puts a new phone in front of us making the previous version from 10 months ago ‘obsolete’, it doesn’t mean we have to buy it. We should not be so manipulable that we consume it. But situational stupidity kicks in, we buy into the cool advertising with a frizzy-haired youth flipping his skateboard with a perfect smile while posting a picture of the kid in the sweat shop who glued the product together (so you can’t replace the throttled battery) and we have to queue outside the shop to be the first to have it.
You know, some anthropomorphic climate change deniers suggest the rise in atmospheric CO2 is a good thing because it will increase crop yields (CO2 is required by plants in photosynthesis and hence growth) to feed an ever increasing population!
You know, that’s probably not enough to halt or reverse the negative impact we‘re having on the plane. The population would need to reduce (by natural attrition, I hasten to add) to a tenth of it’s current level (7.8billion to 780million).
Isn’t that redistributing the population rather than creating more of it to consume more?
I dont understand why economies need to grow year-on-year. If they all become static won’t that cure the issue of inflation etc, assuming the population levels become static….there you go….population is the issue…..
A difficult moral dilemma if the world together should reduce it's expenditures and wear and tear on the planet is the the unevenly distributed wealth in the world. Does the wealthy part have a moral right to keep this wealth, at the expense of denying others to develop up to our level?
I know you’re only kidding here for comic effect, but it’s a good opportunity to share this great little video so we can recognise those who actually are idiots. I think we are all susceptible to this kind of bias but recognising that fact is the first step.
This is the argument for culling populations to avoid suffering by starvation. Nature ‘allows’ populations to increase until there are insufficient resources to sustain that population at that level and then the surplus starves to death ‘stabilising’ the population. Is that the hideous way we wish the equilibrium to be achieved?
You have to look at overall population, not regional changes. Certain third world countries/continents are having a population explosion.
This sounds somewhat like anthropomorphic climate change denier brigade. The consensus is that global population will increase to 10Billion by about 2050
Not that efficient if we’ll reach 10 Billion in 26 years. Think about what you’re suggesting here, population limitation by disease, war, lack of water/food and climatic change. Shouldn’t we worry about that?
I’m gobsmacked by your post, JowGaWolf!
There will be more resources for those people…less suffering. Perhaps you could expand on this?
I think it means exactly that.
That makes absolutely no sense. Please explain what you mean.
And I think the ‘save the world’ arena is a good example of this.
This is how ‘strong presenters’ in many field of world affairs lever themselves into position of power. Lectern thumpers, prophets of impending doom unless things go their way and the charming, witty types who can present themselves as a latter day Cincinnatus!
That’s true, but anyone can use a critical thinking process to see if a claim or idea is generally credible. Weeding out the unlikely is as important as identifying the most probable.
We are all drawn to charismatic speakers, I mean, I’m constantly chased by adoring women when I go to buy milk. I’ve resorted to carrying a broomstick to poke them away. The trick, no, our duty is to identify if that charismatic presentation is coupled with solid knowledge.
To speak for myself, I tend to be MORE critical the more charismatic they are. As I feel something that is relying too much on polished rethorics is trying to make something sound alot better than it is. If someone is too charismatic or nice, they either want to sell you somehing or influence you. This often puts me off big time, but that's just me,
www.glurecruit.co.uk
I completely concur with you!
But we’re humans an still susceptible to ‘the sell’. Why else would companies spend $674 billion every year on glossy advertisements? It must work!
You’re a physicist aren’t you? I think I’m blue with yellow polka dots.The personality traits matters, I know from own experience. I am mostly a blue personality type myself.
Are you a Red, Blue, Green or Yellow personality type? - Glu Recruit
03 August 2022 – UPDATED: How to get the most out of your employees based on their personality type. Our personalities can be divided into colours. Each colour has particular traits, and it is important for you to understand your own traits and those who you are directly responsible for. Not...
Yes it works, that is the problem, and not sure what to do about that.
Yes, but mostly interested in the nature of laws and the foundations of physics, rather than engineering applications. The explanatory and inference chain is what is interesting to me.
Haha...
I think nature does a better job at it than what humans are capable of. Humans don't have a true understanding of the bigger picture.and how things connect as a glibal eco system. Politics, hate, and destructive greed for power and money never factor in the bigger picture. China tried to manage the population and greatly failed at it. They are still trying to artificially manage their population and they will fail at that.
Humans are part of nature, just beacuse we are on the top of the chain doesn't mean we somehow are not part of nature. So whatever we or other decides to do, is part of nature. But such insight in itself should I think not be used as an excuse to not take responsibility for that our actions today influence the future.
It didn’t.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
How are they doing that? Why will it fail?
Unsubstantiated. Tell us more. This is a discussion!
You find comfort in that? JowGaWolf, you’re either very poor at expressing yourself or a rather twisted individual.
I really don’t follow this. Please explain.
They know best? That explains it, you’re not a human but from the planet Zxtqjklp.
Hang on, so you are human?
Are you aware of the famous case of the near extermination of the once great population of deer on the Kaibab in the 1920s? I studied this at school both in Colorado and Connecticut. Ironic since it actuallly occurred in my home state of Arizona.
This may be true if you are talking on a planetary scale and in a geologic time frame. Not so much if you care about the species Homo sapiens.
This is true. If we collectively try to intervene, we will screw things up. And, if we do nothing, we will screw things up.
Nature doesn't care about "humanity". Maybe that's why the force we call "nature" has been been historically personified by very fierce and cruel deities (as shown in my previous post).
(I love Goya and this painting)This may be true if you are talking on a planetary scale and in a geologic time frame. Not so much if you care about the species Homo sapiens.
This is true. If we collectively try to intervene, we will screw things up. And, if we do nothing, we will screw things up.
Nature doesn't care about "humanity". Maybe that's why the force we call "nature" has been been historically personified by very fierce and cruel deities (as shown in my previous post).
Here's another. Before the anthropomorphic gods of Olympus, the ancient Greeks posited the autochthonous Titans. That's raw nature for you. Goya painted a memorable version of the Titan Saturn Devouring his Children:
Do you really want "Nature" to get hungry?
Those areas are experiencing growth because they now have the resources to support the growth. Many of those countries are also smaller than Texas, USA.
A "Slow Population Growth" is the same as a decline. Even the UN's global population data shows a decline.
Worrying about climate change, water/food and climatic change is different from dealing with it. I'm not saying don't worry about it. I'm a person who strongly believes in balance. That 10 billion in 26 years is an estimate. Alot can happen within that time. COVID is still in play, War is still in play as well as drought. Lots of opportunities to change.
I'm just a realist. There's a lot of stuff out there that can and often does kill people. Even when we try to reduce those risks, there are still many things that can and will trim the human population. People have been trying to live forever and live long and the same truth is that we die. No matter how we try to stop things like cancer and disease, we will still be at risk of dying from a new disease or a new cancer, or new war. The idea that we are concerned about the extinction of animals and plants should give some insight into how fragile population growth is. To assume that humans can't be on that same list would be a big mistake. There's no need to manage population from a macro perspective. There's more than enough stuff trimming the population as it is.
More resources don't mean less suffering. They U.S. has more resources than most and we still suffer. We don't have war in the country, but we still have a high murder rate. We have enough resources in the US to end starvation in the U.S. but starvation still exists. We still have crime and grabs for land resources.
This is where the confusion lies in what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we shouldn't take responsibility. I'm all for that. My job is to solve problems without causing additional problems and when I accidentally do that, I own up to it and I try to correct it.
Studies say otherwise
This is a really good bit of information that backs up your point well. Social engineering often goes wildly awry and this is most obvious in totalitarian societies where the leadership presumes to know what is best for the masses ...it's why every truly communist economy is such a mess.
