ACC is a direct consequence of too many people.
Even if we level off at the predicted 9 billion, those 9 billion all want to live like me and Mr Al “Strawman” Gore.
That means an awful lot of energyto create that fabulous living, and that in turn means we have no hope of avoiding this curve.
So if we can’t diminish the population we already have, whatever is going to happen with CO2 levels over 400ppm–way over 400–is gonna happen. The machinery to support the current population is already churning it out for the forseeable future.
It’s an exercise in hobby anxiety to worry about climate change instead of the root cause–overpopulation. Like worrying about whether or not you’ll get a massive salary raise instead of worrying about the root cause: you’ve borrowed way too much.
Unfortunately a combination of poor science education, willful ignorance and deliberate obfuscation tends to blur the line between the solid foundation of climate science (and its effects) with the inability to predict with a high degree of confidence when, where and the exact magnitude of those effect.
In other words, there is no debate (climate deniers and creationists aside) whether climate change impacts will include shifting rainfall patterns, increased sea levels (and hence inundation of coastal agricultural regions), changing disease vectors, and a host of other effects. (I’m on shaky ground in the idea that the global community will react to larger manifestations of these effects by acting on mitigation measures). Further, there is little to no debate as to whether these effects will be tiny compared to current climate variations—they will be large-scale, long-term shifts in the factors I mentioned (which, unfortunately, is not an exhaustive list).
Which turns the “lotta ifs” on its head. In order to avoid broad consequences, an astronomically absurd number of cascading ‘ifs’ need to take place. Maybe all the areas that see changes in rainfall will only be over the open ocean? Maybe the number of decreased agricultural land will just happen to be offset (or more) by gains in other agricultural areas (and those areas will just happen to be able to take advantage of their new climate patterns). Maybe we’ll find that the recent stories about a vast ocean of water in the crust will lead to universal access to safe, potable water.
But that’s kind of like saying that it’s okay to drive drunk. Sure, you’re weaving pretty badly just walking, and you’re really having a hard time seeing where you’re going, but no one can predict where you’ll go off the road or what your speed will be–even in the face of people reminding you about this sharp curve or that you’ll be on the highway for most of your trip. (If there’s a denier out there who just can’t help themselves, change ‘drive drunk’ to ‘drive after taking a bath salt-like designer drug that a chemist just concocted after basing his experiments on thoroughly published research data’.)
This isn’t to discount any of the other possibilities mentioned in the thread. Overpopulation is an intractable issue that is less likely to be addressed than climate change under a Palin administration (did someone mention thermonuclear war?). And as you noted, you can ascribe the root cause of conflict, climate change, resource use, etc. to overpopulation without making any logical errors. So saying a major threat to human society as we are familiar with it stems from, say, and overuse of antibiotics or from climate change (in contrast to a meteor or volcano) is ostensibly pointing to a manifestation of overpopulation, not a distinct cause.
ETA: Sorry, I wrote this before refreshing, so I didn’t see the cutesy ‘*Mr Al “Strawman” Gore’ * before posting. Um, nevermind then.
Not really. Not when 5% of the people do 24% of the energy consumption, for instance. Or uses 25% of the fossil fuels.
No, they don’t all necessarily want to live like you. Large swathes of the world do quite nicely without that lifestyle, even in the developed world.
Which article in that archive am I supposed to be reading?
Which is why I said “it isn’t going to stop”, so why are you telling me this, again?
If climate change is goin to be the major effect (and I believe it is), I’m better off planning specifically how to handle it, rather than any root causes - I’m not going to be able to stop people breeding, am I? But I can certainly plan to grow drought-resistant strains in coming years rather than my regular crops. I can not buy any beachfront property. I can invest in solar power firms. etc. How is worrying about overpopulation going to be an improvement? Should I be investing in Soylent Green, is that what you’re saying?
What he is saying in reality is that he will let Greenpeace, not Soylent make policy in the future, he is only championing the ones that recommend that we do nothing, only to get even a worse result in the future.
The perceived increase in religiosity is actually the backlash of the religious who see their previously dominant position being eroded by rising secularism.
Climate change is a big problem, but I don’t see it being an extinction event. It will lead to more scarce resources and make life more difficult, probably cause a lot of deaths, but as with many of these things, but I just don’t see us going on forever so blindly that we kill ourselves with it.
World War, at least the traditional kind, I think, is pretty much a thing of the past. The costs of war have gone up too high. Not only are there nuclear weapons and other WMDs likely on both sides of any likely world war scenario, but the world economy is so intertwined that it would be economic suicide for any world powers to get involved. We will continue to have conflicts, but I see it much more as proxy wars in less developed countries, economic and cyber attacks, etc.
A cataclysmic global disaster, natural or cosmic in origin, could easily end us, but I don’t think there’s any point in worrying about it because we don’t have the tools to fend them off, and the chances are so remote that it’s not worth the time and resources to invest in developing them. Why worry about something we’re powerless to prevent?
Energy is a real problem, but I also think that it’s largely going to be self-correcting. As energy becomes more scarce, prices go up and eventually we’ll HAVE to cut back. We all know that the life-style that the developed world has been enjoying isn’t sustainable into perpetuity. Like anyone that lives large, eventually the bill comes and we’ll have to make cuts. If it happens too suddenly, it could cause wars, but I think it will tend to be more gradual, at least on a historical scale.
I don’t think religiosity is on the rise, I think it’s on the decline. I do think, however, that we’re getting more extreme. That is, where for a long time we had a pretty steady curve from not or minimally religious through moderately religious into the very devout, I’m seeing a lot of the moderately religious sort of disappearing. More of them than not seem to be becoming less religious, but some are becoming moreso. This isn’t all that unlike how it seems, at least in America, how so many of the moderate voters have seemed to become more extreme on either end. I think the bigger problem here isn’t religiosity or secularism, per se, but the clash between the very devout and the strongly irreligious.
I have zero fear of the results of the film Idiocracy occuring. There’s always been these kinds of worries and yet, humanity continues to grow at an exponential rate.
I also think inequality is an overblown issue. Yes, it’s definitely a problem, but a lot of progress has been made, especially in the developed world. If anything, I see this issue as a cause for optimism because it shows how we’ve been able to take what seems like an intractable problem and take huge strides in a short period of time.
No, what I see as the issue is technology and how we interact with it. I don’t believe in the singularity, at least not as we look at it, since the singularity is just the horizon of where we see our technology leading; we can never actually reach it. After all, the modern world, with the internet and smart phones would be well beyond the singularity to people a century or two ago. We can, however, get closer and closer to it where it becomes increasingly difficult to make accurate predictions into the future.
In this sense, I think our recent issues with the internet highlight why this has such danger for humanity. With technology improving at an ever faster rate, could we reach a point where we can’t really settle the moral dilemmas it presents before we reach the next moral dilemma? The rise of the internet in the late 90s raised a bunch of questions about intellectual property rights, privacy, inter-personal interaction and communication. Some of those questions were solved quickly, some took time or are even still being answered.
More recently, we’ve had the social media tied to that really come into full swing, and it’s raised a lot of new questions, some of which I don’t think we, as a society, have fully agreed on yet. In times past, these sorts of revolutions would rarely happen more often than once a generation, but now we could see them at a faster and faster rate. Sure, I know “kids these days” has been a complaint for millenia, but I’m wondering if we could actually reach a point where, society cannot adjust fast enough for the technological advances.
And more, what happens as these technologies become more and pervasive. These been lots of people who have found Google Glass creepy. What happens when they become small and more powerful? What happens when we start getting to the point of actual cybernetic implants?
That is, I’m less worried about the extinction of the human race to actual extinction in a traditional sense, but to a point where over the course of a generation or two at some point in the future, we lose some essential part of our humanity. And I think this is worth worrying about because, unlike so many other circumstances that would wipe us out, this is almost certain to happen, but we have time to think about the repercussions and find out how to grow in it, rather than fight it or get shocked and destroyed by it.
The other 95% would like to consume like the best-living 5%, which is why overpopulation is our biggest problem.
And we won’t solve it, which is why we should worry.
At least, those inclined to worry should worry.
The rest will continue to muddle along while they consume (on the assumption that others will continue to consume) and that curve will just continue to go up, for all energy sources.
For me it’s climate change, hands down. Unfortunately, not enough people seem to give a rip. All I’m hoping is that I don’t meet my end as a result of climate change, or at the hands of the kind of person who denies that climate change exists.
Rhythmdvl – excellent posts here and the followup here on the impacts of climate change and the question of probabilities, respectively. I can only wholeheartedly agree and recommend that both are worth a careful read.
Self-destruction in some creative way. War with extra-powerful weapons, engineered superbacterias, experiment gone wrong, you name it. I don’t know how, but i expect it will be spectacular.
Earth population doesn’t grow exponentially, by the way. Birth rates are dwindling everywhere, nowadays, and IIRC, it is predicted to reach about 10 billions and then stagnate and even diminish.
The problem with Climate Change or Global Warming if you prefer, is that the hundreds of millions of us in the developed world (the guys who eat all the energy) simply don’t believe its a human problem. Their answer is “the climate is always changing - look at the ice cores” and keep on polluting because understandably, none of us wants to give up our comfortable life style.
So in that sense I don’t think anything bold can be achieved.
As intimated above I think we face a collapse of the biosphere as a result of human activities. That is a direct consequence of anthropomorphic climate change albeit more subtle. Pollution. Poison. When the soil fails to grow crops we will be in deep do do.
The Duggers! Over population can be connected with famine, war, climate change, pollution. Maybe only the smart, physically fit humans be allowed to breed. Hasn’t some group already tried that?
make policy in the future, he is only championing the ones that recommend that we do nothing, only to get even a worse result in the future.