We’re Not Going To Make It…

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
, ,
61

Hi all.
In all the discussions of sustainability, I never see anyone talking about population control.

China has done a brilliant job in lowering their population numbers for the next generation – since couples were limited to one child, many more chose to have a boy, so now males outnumber females.

Our planet can't sustain unlimited human population growth.  At some point, several things will happen:

When any species population gets too crowded:
      a.  Opportunistic disease wipes out a large chunk
      b.  Fights over dwindling resources
      c.  Starvation

Whatever the outcome, nature has a way of resetting the population to sustainable levels.  Technology will only get us so far. 

Going to other planets could be possible, but I don't think that would ever happen before critical mass is reached.

The world could agree to one child per female.  After the one child is born, the female is "fixed". 

I know people would hollar about reproductive rights.  I'm a female … I know to some people having a big family is important life experience.  But, we're talking about survival of the human race, we're talking about creating a decent quality of life for people in the future. 

In wealthier countries you could tax additional children (instead of giving tax breaks – encouraging more children).  But what to do in poorer countries with little birth control and the desire to procreate a lot of children?

If we don't stem population growth, no matter what we do "green" – we eventually will run out of resources. 

 

 

62

In reply to Kurt Vonnegut’s 8 Tips on How to Write a Great Story email: (see below)

Once upon a time, about three years ago, Stanley, a skeptic and a mathematician, was convinced that it would take the oceans “at least” 100 years to rise three meters. He was quite arrogant about it with his friends most of whom put up with his wife just to hear his rational arguments about the universe they all happen to be born into. Well, one fine sunny day Stanley was standing on a corner with his calculator when he realized with horror that he had made a mistake. He was very upset, being unaccustomed to making mistakes, that is, ever since his mother sent him off to military academy to fix him. What was the mistake which made him so upset? That would take quite some time and at least a MS in Climatology to understand. What mattered was the “new” data appeared to suggest an inevitability that the beach house he had always wanted would be under water in his life time, if not sooner, like 10 years or so . He immediately began to negotiate with the universe (he happened to be born into). Perhaps we could build windmills instead of chasing them? Surely rearranging the chairs on the Titanic saved some lives (can’t proved it didn’t). What about putting some solar panels on the roof and recycling a little more? and on and on he thought of ways to negotiate with the data that seemed to imply if not directly point out that extinction was on the way. Of course, we all knew that it was inevitable but in 10-30 years? What about my dentist appointment! he thought.

And, with that, our cheery little story, fueled by planet killing coffee, comes to it’s enlightened conclusion but first, a message from our sponsor, an honorable and legitimate gasoline manufacturing conglomerate. Please stay tuned.

Apologies to Mr.’s Hitchcock and Beckett not to mention Mr. Benjamin, my high school english teacher.

On Mar 31, 2016, at 2:20 AM, ________s wrote:

*Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
*Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
*Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.
*Every sentence must do one of two things — reveal character or advance the action.
*Start as close to the end as possible.
*Be a Sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them-in order that the reader may see what they are made of.
*Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.
*Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To hell with suspense.
Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.

63

What I don't see in any discussions is the topic of global population control.
The US gives incentives for more children (tax break).  The US wants more bodies to tax, to fund the government.  Religions and cultures encourage large families.  It made sense when there was high infant mortality, but not now.

As some point, no matter what "green" technologies are implemented, with unchecked human population growth, we will run out of resources.  The "haves" will be fine, the masses — not so fine. 
Nature will correct the problem, if we don't (ie, limit of 1 child per female for a generation or two).

  • Starvation
  • Opportunistic Disease (ie plague)
  • Fighting over limited resources

 

 

64

I am a Field Energy Consultant for SolarCity and I meet with 3 or 4 homeowners a day and educate them on the benefits of going solar and I can tell you this much, for most people, about 90%, the environmental and sustainability benefits of solar take a backseat to savings. Bottom line, what am I going to save.
I go in offering a way for them to move from dirty energy to clean energy and even save 10-18% and it will cost them nothing to get installed, no maintenance or repair concerns, etc and half will pass. Even the ones that do move forward require a lot of convincing. Most people just don't care about the environment, I think it's just too abstract in their mind, the electric bill that comes every month takes priority. 99% of the people I meet with have little to know idea of the long term cost of their energy choices. Only about 1 in 20 people I meet have the environment as their primary motivator and most of them wouldn't move forward unless they were at least saving a little.

Making the kind of big sweeping change Chris referenced above is truly going to be an uphill battle on a sand dune of nearly infinite height. Most people are so self absorbed in their own little microcosms that they won't look up until it's too late. 

65

I also see/share your observations about people.
The way I would communicate the same thought is by saying, The public really doesn't listen, they are being told straight forward facts. They'd rather except what some charismatic character tells them rather think about what the truth really might be. 

or

People don't believe what they think is right or real. They believe what they perceive they need to believe. 

Which leads us down the path of whom ever is leading the most popular social delusion. Which is where a vulnerability exist. 

R

66

If you have the time, I think we all should listen to the Energy Transition Show podcast, hosted by Chris Nelder. In his discussion with Mason Inman, they outline the peak oil subject, marvelously. History can teach us a lot, especially, if we take the time to listen.

http://energytransitionshow.com/

A good fellow to have on one of your Featured Interviews.

67

When I keep saying we need a humongous, enormous energy project to truly tackle the scale and the scope of the energy predicament, I say it needs to be like the Manhattan Project (times) The Apollo Project (times) some whole number like 10.
And I noted that China is way ahead of the thinking and leadership on alternative energy as represented at the UN gig I was just at.

Well, here are those two observations wrapped into one gigantic proposal.

China Unveils Proposal for $50 Trillion Global Electricity Network

MAR 31, 2016

BEIJING — China has unveiled a proposal for a $50 trillion global electricity network that would help fight pollution and the effects of climate change.

The plan envisions linking existing and future solar farms, wind turbines and electricity plants in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas, according to the head of State Grid Corporation of China.

The proposal is in its initial stages and would require huge investment from around the world. If it goes ahead, it would be the world's largest infrastructure project. It could be operational by 2050, according to backers.

The planet faces "three major challenges" of energy scarcity, environmental pollution and climate change, state-run news agency Xinhua News Agency quoted the firm's chairman Liu Zhenya as saying at an international energy conference on Wednesday.

The State Grid Corporation of China envisions a future "global village" of efficient transmission lines to tap and distribute electricity from giant solar farms around the equator and wind stations in the Arctic, according to its website. Liu estimated that the global network could mean clean energy comprising 80 percent of global consumption, displacing fossil fuels as Earth's principal energy source.

Not *that’s * what I am talking about!

I know this is just a proposal, and getting it off the ground would be a major political achievement, but it’s in the ball park of what’s needed.

$50 trillion. Good start and roughly correct. I like it.

Way to go China!

Awesome way to get the conversation started with realistic numbers in terms of investment scope.

 

68

Durango Dan,
If you convolute climate science as being connected to political ideology and go to a 'Mushroom Physiologist' for your best take on AGW I'm guessing that you aren't really open to physics but if you truly think there is any "falsity of the radiative greenhouse effect" you are going to have to explain why we have life on this planet. Average temperatures of the entire planet would be well below freezing without those radiative gases. Sad but true but the greenhouse effect of those radiative gases traps enough heat to keep the average temperature of the Earth 33 C (59 F) warmer than it would be based solely on the strength of the sunlight that we receive. Of course that was before AGW ever got started when we began adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and jacked it up another degree or so (celsius).

This isn't exactly new science. Joseph Fourier figured the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere out and published his findings in 1824 "General Remarks on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Spaces". If you are interested, you can read a translation of his work at this link (Fourier 1824).

In 1859, John Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of individual gases.

He published his findings proving that carbon dioxide, ozone and water vapor were all radiative gases in 1861, titled "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction", linked for your reading pleasure.

Based on the findings of Fourier and Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius was the first scientist to calculate how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase global temperatures through the greenhouse effect. He published his findings in 1896 "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground".

In well over 100 years now no one has been able to prove Arrhenius wrong and it hasn't been for a lack of trying. Tyndall's science has stood for over 150 years, Fourier's has been solid for over 190 years. So, to be clear, you are trying to peddle the story that there has been some sort of conspiracy or hoax being played on people by the entire scientific community to stop using fossil fuel use since 35 years before the first commercial oil well was even drilled? Why exactly?

Happy reading to you.

69

It sounds like the Chinese are trying to put meat on the bones of at least a portion of what Lester Brown has been cajoling for in his books and talks of various incarnations over the years (Plan B 4.0 Mobilizing to Save Civilization). It wouldn't be enough to solve the issues we face but it would be a huge step in the right direction and a sign that we can globally coordinate actions on a massive scale. There would be tremendous technological and resource challenges but implementing this global energy plan would finally put human imagination and global-QE-to-infinity to work on something potentially useful for future generations.

70

Somewhat related…
Even though the basic math of exponential growth isn't too difficult from a computational standpoint, it's very difficult for most people from a conceptual standpoint.  As has been mentioned, the exponential growing demand for energy in the future makes it exceedingly difficult to create sufficient alternative energy sources. The last topic you will ever hear anyone talk about in the MSM is the overpopulation of this planet.  Chris has talked repeatedly about our very sick oceans around the world.  I read something the other day that is somewhat related & extremely alarming.  I had trouble sleeping the night after I read it.  Apparently India & several other third world countries have no regulations on feeding antibiotics to chickens.  Throughout India chicken farmers are feeding chickens a  cocktail of 3 antibiotics to maximize the number of chickens that survive until arriving at the processing factory.  All 3 antibiotics are important in regards to humans and healthcare, but colistin is a last resort antibiotic for some of the so-called "super-bugs" that have become resistant to all other antibiotics.  It's almost predictable that this process of giving antibiotics to millions & millions of chickens will undoubtedly cause many highly resistant bacteria to be selected out in very rapid fashion. These bacteria will then infect humans and infections that used to be fairly routine in treating & will be potentially life threatening.  Many peripheral aspects of healthcare will be anything but routine & possibly deadly:  chemotherapy for many very treatable cancers (high infection risk when the immune system is temporarily weakened), routine surgeries & associated infectious complications (think any procedure that cuts through any skin on any part of the body), etc.  Many advances in medicine could be neutralized by this widespread antibiotic resistance.  IMO, this problem ranks right up there with all the other problems associated with the limits of growth in this world.  

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/antibiotic-apocalypse-fear-stoked-by-india’s-drugged-chickens/ar-BBr6h6j?li=BBnbfcN

It is true that it's only a matter of time before bacteria become resistant to each antibiotic.  However, with prudence this is typically a very slow process, and as old antibiotics lose some of of their efficacy new antibiotics are created.  Giving antibiotics throughout chicken farms in a country the size of India puts this process into warp speed.

71

As far as "A" in AGW goes I have never been able to shake the feeling that if it were so obviously true its advocates would not have to selectively manipulate data to support it as Mann did by eliminating the medieval warming period from his hockey stick.  I recall such manipulation also being revealed in the email scandal. 
Ever since The Creature I have been forced against my will to view our entire monetary and political systems as frauds designed to force collectivism on us and otherwise control our behavior.  Fraud in the AGW scientific community, which is funded in large part by political systems, would be small beer in comparison and dovetail nicely with these efforts. I do not believe there to be freedom even of inquiry in this area, certainly not in academe.  Personally I find the peak oil argument for reducing fossil fuel consumption far more convincing and am pining for off-grid solar but that day is a ways away right now. 

 

72

I'ld rather live, as I do, with respect for AGW and be wrong. Than live with out.
get your are settled folks, better yet teach your children well

73

Work together to build something like the Chinese propose to adapt as best we can
or

Fight it out over the last remaining fossil fuel resources, risking global war and other mayhem.

Hmmm.

I would add that the global grid would require lots of efficiency, learning how to live with less and serious efforts to address population growth as well.

74

So who do you trust?  Mann or the people who portrayed his hockey stick as a fraud?  There are obvious possible motives on the part of moneyed interests to discredit him.  If you really want to identify the most likely truth, it's essential to do your own due diligence and sift through the research yourself. 

Even more important, it's essential to identify and let go of beliefs and attachments to stories or agendas that protect us from our own unique psychological weaknesses whatever they may be (and we all have them). I'm talking about things like victim mentality, tendency to attach to conspiracy theories whether the evidence supports them or not - which goes hand in hand with distrust of authority.  I'm not saying distrust of authority is a bad thing, but it is not in itself proof that anything an authority figure claims is an attempt at deception.

Have you really looked at AGW in this way?

75

If as you did not deny Mann in fact removed the medieval warming period from his hockey stick to artificially create the impression that global warming was precipitated somewhere around the industrial revolution and hence attributable to human activity as opposed to something else I don't understand why anyone would or should trust him or why it would even be a close question.  That is my understanding of what he did. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.
I will reluctantly concede that just because an authority figure's lips move doesn't automatically mean he's telling a hideous lie, but that's precisely where trust comes in.  As much as any of us would love to there's not enough time in the day to sift through the research on each and every topic which may spark one's interest.  For example, although I do my best to personally sift through the research as to economic issues, I do not have the spare time to personally sift through the research on the energy and environmental issues discussed at PP.  I trust Chris and Adam to do that for me because I have to trust someone and they have never given me a reason not to trust them.  Given my understanding of what Mann did, he has.  That's all I mean.

 

76

For me personally, I wouldn't phrase this as an issue of "trust."   I view this as more realistically perceiving a speakers relationship to honesty and lying.
Evaluating the climate literature is way above my pay-grade.  So, as an INFP, I look for a guide.  Someone who repeatedly passes my assessment for honesty, clarity, intelligence, motivation and moral developmental level.

With the information available to me, at this point in time, I'm going with his assessment.

And thanks, Mark Cochrane.

 

 

77

Where else but PP.com would you see a sentence juxtaposing action on AGW with the harnessing of, "global-QE-to-infinity".  Should we be building more ghost cities, or should we building out wind power and carbon capture for power plants?          

  There would be tremendous technological and resource challenges but implementing this global energy plan would finally put human imagination and global-QE-to-infinity to work on something potentially useful for future generations.
78

For a long time - since the time of Chrismartenson.com - this site has consciously chosen not to focus on climate change, not to allow it to be a wedge issue that keeps people away.
By and large though, people on this site have seen enough data to be convinced of climate change. But I know, it isn't about numbers of people. It is, however, about expertise and Mark Cochrane is a real expert. I'm not saying you should adopt Mark Cochrane's positions on anything and neither was he. But if I was you, I'd click on the links he gave you, instead of sticking to your complaint that somebody at some point published some deceptive research in an attempt to convince skeptics like yourself.

I don't think that anybody wants climate change to be a reality. But we confront harsh truths on this site. Think what you want, or don't think about it if you prefer, but to be dismissive about a large body of knowledge just because somebody tried to deceive you at some point…I think you should let that go.

79

What if TPTB engineer a population reduction program, say 30% over 4 years.   Maybe the vector would be nano suicide bomb introduced in the yearly vaccination…

80

First - I think if the discussion is going to go off into the AGW wilderness then to avoid hijacking a very good thread we should move these matters over to the appropriate venue (https://peakprosperity.com/forum/definitive-global-climate-change-aka-global-warming-thread-general-discussion-and-questions/71).
As for the endless maligning Michael Mann and other climate scientists caught up in the Climategate propaganda attack, please stop. This has been examined endless times and all have been cleared of any wrongdoing. Consider the obvious, the only ones lying to you and misleading you are ones who are feeding you disinformation against anything that would threaten a certain political ideology.

Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.

Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails. Background Information Press Releases and Factchecks UCS Analysis UCS's analysis of the emails and the debate surrounding them aims to correct popular misconceptions about what the emails say, put them in scientific context and explain the importance of scientific integrity. Additional Resources As for the endless nonsense claiming that Mann's so-called hockey stick is any way tainted science, please refer to the actual science, not opinions spouted by people who wouldn't know the first thing about paleoclimate records if they tripped over them. The way 'science' works is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof to be accepted. Even once published, your results will be tested by many others. Do Mann's findings seem like outliers from these?

In 2013, 78 research scientists from 24 countries published the most comprehensive study yet, based on seven years of painstaking work pulling together 511 climate archives from around the world (Pages 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences 2013). Mann et al. 1999 original data in blue, instrument record in red, Pages 2k data in green.  Mann's published incertainty range in shading.

Does anyone see any major problem with Mann's data? For this he receives death threats?

If you want to learn how climate science really works or how funding of the research actually happens, come over to the climate thread linked above.

For now, let's get this thread Chris started back on track for the critical matters he addressing.

Mark