Climate Change

[dudog84]

I read the first paragraph. It's all I could stomach coming across this: “If there aren’t enough people for Earth, then there definitely won’t be enough for Mars,” Musk noted. There is just so much wrong with that, I couldn't continue.

Yeah, because it's soooo much cheaper to colonize another planet than taking care of the paradise we were blessed with.

Have you (not you specifically, P3) ever thought about what a miracle it is that we are here? Not just the millions of years of evolution. The distance from the sun. The presence of the moon that gives us tides and more. The tilt of the Earth's axis...more tilt would mean more extreme seasons, less would mean almost no seasons at all...and all the weather and ocean circulation patterns that would be affected by either. Just a miracle.

[-jk]

Yeah, because it's soooo much cheaper to colonize another planet than taking care of the paradise we were blessed with.

Have you (not you specifically, P3) ever thought about what a miracle it is that we are here? Not just the millions of years of evolution. The distance from the sun. The presence of the moon that gives us tides and more. The tilt of the Earth's axis...more tilt would mean more extreme seasons, less would mean almost no seasons at all...and all the weather and ocean circulation patterns that would be affected by either. Just a miracle.

Not cheaper, but perhaps easier!

-jk

[dudog84]

Nothing to see here, move along.

National Geographic: "Everest’s highest glacier has lost 2,000 years of ice in 30 years"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...CDb?li=BBnb7Kz

[Steven43]

Yeah, because it's soooo much cheaper to colonize another planet than taking care of the paradise we were blessed with.

Have you (not you specifically, P3) ever thought about what a miracle it is that we are here? Not just the millions of years of evolution. The distance from the sun. The presence of the moon that gives us tides and more. The tilt of the Earth's axis...more tilt would mean more extreme seasons, less would mean almost no seasons at all...and all the weather and ocean circulation patterns that would be affected by either. Just a miracle.

I love this post. It absolutely amazes me that I don’t hear a lot more people expressing this view. It seems that a very high percentage of us — not necessarily excluding me — just live in a bubble of day-to-day existence without stopping to contemplate and truly appreciate the incredible wonders of nature and how fortunate we are to have this planet — and how truly tragic it is that we are systematically destroying it.

[bundabergdevil]

Fairly big news on the climate change front w/ the SEC issuing proposed rules on Monday for how public companies should now report on climate-related risks and data.

https://www.natlawreview.com/article...-related-risks

[dudog84]

Here's a simple video graphic prepared by NASA to share with your doubting friends. Less than a minute, hopefully they can pay attention that long.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...res/vi-AAVsS8I

[dudog84]

More bad news. It's all about population IMO...and greed...and selfishness. Hey, on the bright side, most of us on the board will be long gone by 2030!

"UN warns Earth 'firmly on track toward an unlivable world'"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...doN?li=BBnb7Kz

[PackMan97]

More bad news. It's all about population IMO...and greed...and selfishness. Hey, on the bright side, most of us on the board will be long gone by 2030!

"UN warns Earth 'firmly on track toward an unlivable world'"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...doN?li=BBnb7Kz

We took one step back from the ledge tonight. UNC winning it all would have definitely made a more unliveable world.

[dudog84]

Kinda sad that this existential threat has been dead around here for 9 months.

"Stanford Scientists Warn That Civilization as We Know It Is Ending"

According to Ehrlich, the problem is "too many people, too much consumption and growth mania" — a reality that few would likely argue is showing any meaningful sign of slowing down.

"Humanity is not sustainable. To maintain our lifestyle (yours and mine, basically) for the entire planet, you'd need five more Earths," Ehrlich told his interviewer. "Not clear where they're gonna come from."

"Resources that would be required, the systems that support our lives, which of course are the biodiversity that we're wiping out," the 90-year-old researcher added. "Humanity is very busily sitting on a limb that we're sawing off."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...82fc0e56c76f3c

For your consideration:

Population Year Reached
1 Billion 1804
2 Billion 1927
3 Billion 1960
4 Billion 1974
5 Billion 1987
6 Billion 1998
7 Billion 2010
8 Billion 2022

[mr. synellinden]

I love this post. It absolutely amazes me that I don’t hear a lot more people expressing this view. It seems that a very high percentage of us — not necessarily excluding me — just live in a bubble of day-to-day existence without stopping to contemplate and truly appreciate the incredible wonders of nature and how fortunate we are to have this planet — and how truly tragic it is that we are systematically destroying it.

Here's another way to think about this miracle of life (much less intelligent life) on this planet. If we found an ant (or a weed) on Mars it would be the safest living being in the universe. On earth kids burn them with magnifying glasses for fun.

[Bluedog]

Kinda sad that this existential threat has been dead around here for 9 months.

"Stanford Scientists Warn That Civilization as We Know It Is Ending"



https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...82fc0e56c76f3c

For your consideration:

Population Year Reached
1 Billion 1804
2 Billion 1927
3 Billion 1960
4 Billion 1974
5 Billion 1987
6 Billion 1998
7 Billion 2010
8 Billion 2022

Pretty amazing considering that most developed nations' birth rates are below the replacement level currently (U.S. is 1.64 births/woman whereas replacement level is 2.1. Many countries in Europe are even lower). Africa makes up for it though with several countries at 5.0+.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Pretty amazing considering that most developed nations' birth rates are below the replacement level currently (U.S. is 1.64 births/woman whereas replacement level is 2.1. Many countries in Europe are even lower). Africa makes up for it though with several countries at 5.0+.

No kids for me. I'm doing my part!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

No kids for me. I'm doing my part!

Same here.

[Phredd3]

Same here.

After having a child who was destined to be sterile, I agreed to have three. The luck of the dice gave us four. We couldn't put one back.

[YmoBeThere]

After having a child who was destined to be sterile, I agreed to have three. The luck of the dice gave us four. We couldn't put one back.

One of the more classic moments was when a friend’s older child, on meeting his new sister, asked, “Mommy, can you just put back?”

[Kdogg]

Pretty amazing considering that most developed nations' birth rates are below the replacement level currently (U.S. is 1.64 births/woman whereas replacement level is 2.1. Many countries in Europe are even lower). Africa makes up for it though with several countries at 5.0+.

Not just developed nations. Both India and China are below replacement level now. That’s about one third of the world population right there.

[PackMan97]

Not just developed nations. Both India and China are below replacement level now. That’s about one third of the world population right there.

India's population is still projected to grow for some time due to demographics, but yes, it will level off in the not too distant future.

China has already hit peak population and along with other Pacific Rim countries going to be in a world of hurt with aging populations and a worsening demographic situation. Japan can pretty much look at the past 30 years of economic stagnation in part caused by worsening demographics. Singapore is trying to make making babies a patriot thing. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...bies-15402105/

Europe isn't much better but has some immigration holding up some populations. Even then some countries will be in trouble soon.

Not enough workers. Heck, we are seeing that problem in the US right now.

[Bluedog]

Not just developed nations. Both India and China are below replacement level now. That’s about one third of the world population right there.

India's population is still projected to grow for some time due to demographics, but yes, it will level off in the not too distant future.

China has already hit peak population and along with other Pacific Rim countries going to be in a world of hurt with aging populations and a worsening demographic situation. Japan can pretty much look at the past 30 years of economic stagnation in part caused by worsening demographics. Singapore is trying to make making babies a patriot thing. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...bies-15402105/

Europe isn't much better but has some immigration holding up some populations. Even then some countries will be in trouble soon.

Not enough workers. Heck, we are seeing that problem in the US right now.

Yep...the thing that boggles me about Europe is many countries there give HUGE benefits to parents. I visited family in Scandinavia and they get SOOO much time off for PAID parental leave (1 year) + free childcare. If that was the case, I'd imagine many people would have more kids in the U.S., so I'm surprised Europe isn't that much higher, although perhaps they'd be even lower without those gov't benefits. I was told "In the U.S., you must have a plan before you have a baby [financially and childcare]. In Denmark, you can have baby and those things work themselves out." Of course, having a child is still a big life decision and impacts in many other ways, but there's not AS large of a financial disincentive as is the case in the U.S. And people absolutely make decisions based on money, which is why you see fewer babies coming out of a recession/high unemployment periods.

For the U.S., immigration has been the saving grace historically. But there are signs that is slowing to an extent.

As you mentioned, Japan has the bleakest outlook. People just aren't having children there.

So, I guess a country's economic growth and climate change are oppositely correlated as it relates to population levels. Fewer people would certainly be better for the planet, but isn't great for a country's economy. Having kids is the worst thing you can do to the planet (how big of a landfill do diapers alone fill???). -Signed someone who has children

[budwom]

semi relevantly, I was recently reading an article about an old Vermont mill town most of whose citizens were French Canadian, and back in the 1950s the Catholic church paid their parishioners $500 bucks for having another kid, which was a bundle of money back then...we very frequently see obituaries which mention the deceased had 12 or 13 siblings...(the line to the bathroom forms here).

[WillJ]

Here's something from my economicsy blog on the topic:

https://subgameperfect.substack.com/p/zpg