Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, chronyx said:

I simply think CO2 (Only one of the greenhouse gases) is the latest bogeyman to justify the next range of taxes, and that the human's impact on the levels is miniscule.  CO2 is even beneficial to humans - if we breathe pure O2 we eventually die, as most people know.  There are some really interesting studies showing how CO2 is an essential metabolic component rather than simply a waste product.

Most of what we breathe is nitrogen, CO2's component to not breathing pure oxygen is fairly small.

Whilst I agree it's all too often being used as an excuse for things like taxes the correlation between human activity and the rate of change seems a bit beyond coincidence; I'm unaware of anything else that could plausibly explain it. Yes, there are other greenhouse gases, water vapour is the biggest contributor AFAIK but it doesn't change much (rains itself out of the atmosphere even though we add more), CO2 is the one that's changed.

That something might be essential isn't really the point, essential doesn't mean that too much or too little can't be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Riedquat said:

That something might be essential isn't really the point, essential doesn't mean that too much or too little can't be a problem.

What problems is CO2 causing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, nightowl said:

 If the world population growth slows there are less consumers driving demand and scarcity and without scarcity there's less innovation, so hence lower returns on (useful productive) investment.

Capitalism requires increased population. Those who govern us require more people to govern. Power is directly derived from numbers. The Catholic church realises this :)  Make more followers! (Not you, priests, you can stay celibate...)

I don’t reckon there’s much we can do about it now, the ending is baked in.

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/global-population-science-growth-study-wars-disaster-disease

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, nightowl said:

 If the world population growth slows there are less consumers driving demand and scarcity and without scarcity there's less innovation, so hence lower returns on (useful productive) investment.

Which shouldn't be a problem. It would be a problem because we're so set up for pushing onwards for the sake of pushing onwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's consider the negative impact of population growth on biodiversity. This 2018 article assembles a census of the biomass of all kingdoms of life:

http://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506 

In terms of biomass, the article notes that of all the mammals on Earth, 96% are livestock and humans. Also, 70% of all birds are domesticated Chickens and other poultry. IMHO, that is absolutely horrifying.

This Guardian article about the paper above has some graphical representations of these numbers. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study

-------------------

Related to this, here is another 2018 study suggesting based on historical data that: 

Quote

Mammal diversity will take millions of years to recover from the current biodiversity crisis

http://www.pnas.org/content/115/44/11262

-----------------------

Here is a 2018 WWF report on biodiversity from a slightly different perspective::

https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018

Quote

Plummeting numbers of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and fish around the world are an urgent sign that nature needs life support. Our Living Planet Report 2018 shows population sizes of wildlife decreased by 60% globally between 1970 and 2014.

OUR IMPACT
Humans have only been around for 200,000 years, a tiny blip in the 4.5 billion years of our planet’s history. Yet we have had a greater impact on the Earth than any other species. All over the world, we are cutting down forests, using too much water from rivers, choking our oceans with plastic and pushing many animals to extinction. 

Here's a Guardian article on the above WWF report:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds

--------------------

Here's a media release on a 2018 IPBES (Often described as the “IPCC for biodiversity”) report broken down by continent:

https://www.ipbes.net/news/media-release-updated-biodiversity-nature’s-contributions-continue-dangerous-decline-scientists

--------------------

From the UN biodiversity lab

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/news-centre/news/2018/un-biodiversity-lab-launched-to-revolutionize-biodiversity-plann.html

Quote

By 2030, demand for food may increase by 35%, for water by 40%, and for energy by 50%.  Innovative solutions that meet this increased demand while conserving critical natural ecosystems are a necessity

---------------------

Finally, here is biologist Paul Ehrlich suggesting the optimal global population is 2 billion. I think we can manage more than that with lower consumption and pollution, but I'm just a natural optimist. 😉

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/22/collapse-civilisation-near-certain-decades-population-bomb-paul-ehrlich

https://mahb.stanford.edu/

Quote

“Population growth, along with over-consumption per capita, is driving civilisation over the edge: billions of people are now hungry or micronutrient malnourished, and climate disruption is killing people.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to get bogged down on climate change, but there are a few more things to say.

1) I understand suspicion of governments and tax motives, but remember than when it comes to climate change all the big money and VI's linking to global fossil fuels, energy, cars, planes, and agriculture are all aligned against any emissions reductions. Even when governments do reluctantly acknowledge there is a problem, they inevitably drag their feet on the scale of changes required to make a difference. Ultimately, digging up coal in Australia to ship to China and Japan so they can make disposal tat and ship it to Europe and North America is no way to operate sustainably. Yet here we are.

2) Carbon Dioxide is by far the most important greenhouse gas for anthropogenic global warming. 

Quote

carbon dioxide accounts for around three-quarters of total greenhouse gas emissions. However, both methane and nitrous oxide are also important sources, accounting for around 17 and 7 percent of emissions, respectively.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/greenhouse-gas-emissions-coe-by-gas

3) The Sir Humphrey-Style Five stages of climate denial

Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists
Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause
Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem
Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It
Stage 5: It's too Late

The Trump administration has reached level 5, but they'll regress again:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/oct/08/the-trump-administration-has-entered-stage-5-climate-denial

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

4) Science doesn't work like politics. It's based on evidence and facts.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence

Quote

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was a phrase made popular by Carl Sagan. Its roots are much older, however, with the French mathematician Laplace stating that: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."[1] Also, David Hume wrote in 1748: "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence", and "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."[2] and Marcello Truzzi says: "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."[3]

Either way, the phrase is central to the scientific method, and a key issue for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere.

With the huge weight of evidence showing humans are causing global warming via greenhouse gases, denying this is an extraordinary claim. Doing so without extraordinary evidence is conspiracy theory.

5) I will finish with an old quote that is still true:

Quote

Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. Kenneth Boulding, 1973

Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quicken said:

---------------------

Finally, here is biologist Paul Ehrlich suggesting the optimal global population is 2 billion. I think we can manage more than that with lower consumption and pollution, but I'm just a natural optimist. 😉

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/22/collapse-civilisation-near-certain-decades-population-bomb-paul-ehrlich

https://mahb.stanford.edu/

 

And should you find those dusty old academic texts somewhat indigestible... try 'Population' the boardgame!

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/132577/population-having-fun-zpg

game+best.JPG

game+contents.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quicken said:

 

In terms of biomass, the article notes that of all the mammals on Earth, 96% are livestock and humans.

 

 

Is that right....? Amazing.  But what about rats.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we all need to be doing is consuming less, not more.

This is why our current consumer capitalist ssytem is a broken model, followed by total halfwits and forced upon us by greedy b4stards.

Scum will destroy the planet to feed insecurties.  All humans are just passing through.  You cant take that new Audi with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Social Justice League said:

What we all need to be doing is consuming less, not more.

This is why our current consumer capitalist ssytem is a broken model, followed by total halfwits and forced upon us by greedy b4stards.

Scum will destroy the planet to feed insecurties.  All humans are just passing through.  You cant take that new Audi with you.

Actively pushed by total halfwits and greedy b4stards and a blind eye turned to its issues and all the problems it causes by virtually everyone - "don't let it get to you", the cry of those whose attitude creates the environment in which the greedy b4stards' efforts thrive. Oh, and throw in those who insist rampant consumerism means that life is great today and that without it the only choices are things like medieval peasant or Victorian factory worker lifestyles for the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

Capitalism requires increased population. Those who govern us require more people to govern. Power is directly derived from numbers. The Catholic church realises this :)  Make more followers! (Not you, priests, you can stay celibate...)

I don’t reckon there’s much we can do about it now, the ending is baked in.

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/global-population-science-growth-study-wars-disaster-disease

 

 

Also the UK benefit system until recently encouraged people to have more children (fortunately that is changing now)   Islam also encourage big families as does Orthodox Judaism (so there were until recently 4 religions promoting big families, 3 if you don't count the benefit system as one).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Wayward said:

Is that right....? Amazing.  But what about rats.?

I assume its specifically mammals, so excludes insects (which I think are the largest groups anyway), reptiles, birds, micro-organisms, crustaceans and fish etc so is a cherry picked statistic to make an ideological point.  Its possible without humans influence on these mammals, they might be even rarer in the wild and closer to extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Wayward said:

Is that right....? Amazing.  But what about rats.?

It is an estimate based on available data, but it will be approximately right - certainly over 90%. The number is based on biomass, and each beef cow weighs as much as tens of thousands of mice...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iamnumerate said:

Also the UK benefit system until recently encouraged people to have more children (fortunately that is changing now)   Islam also encourage big families as does Orthodox Judaism (so there were until recently 4 religions promoting big families, 3 if you don't count the benefit system as one).

I didn't know about the others, thanks. Seems as if organised religion is a ponzi scheme. Hence why so many require adherents to go forth and annex new souls, fresh sources of income. 

Here's the house one of those US evangelists lives in - tax free of course ;) God is great (god is money)

Remember, he can look forward to any new member being told to give him (sorry 'God') 10% of their income. No wonder religion prefers big families. 

Joel-Osteen-house.jpg.8487aeef12aa879b2908017e5978a802.jpg 

 

I've also noticed a lot of these new gamergate white supremacist types are also on the population bandwagon, spouting off about having large white families to 'counteract' the increase in non-whites. The venerable 'if you can't beat em join em' tactic, and hardly a feat of intelligence. It's all so terribly thick. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PeanutButter said:

I didn't know about the others, thanks. Seems as if organised religion is a ponzi scheme. Hence why so many require adherents to go forth and annex new souls, fresh sources of income. 

Here's the house one of those US evangelists lives in - tax free of course ;) God is great (god is money)

Remember, he can look forward to any new member being told to give him (sorry 'God') 10% of their income. No wonder religion prefers big families. 

Joel-Osteen-house.jpg.8487aeef12aa879b2908017e5978a802.jpg 

 

I've also noticed a lot of these new gamergate white supremacist types are also on the population bandwagon, spouting off about having large white families to 'counteract' the increase in non-whites. The venerable 'if you can't beat em join em' tactic, and hardly a feat of intelligence. It's all so terribly thick. 

 

I don't think many evangelicals are anti contraception like Catholicism so there is less population growth promoted by evangelical churches.

On the plus side in South America as the Catholic church is losing its influence population growth is declining!   In the past the Catholic church's teaching did cause very big families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

I don't think many evangelicals are anti contraception like Catholicism so there is less population growth promoted by evangelical churches.

On the plus side in South America as the Catholic church is losing its influence population growth is declining!   In the past the Catholic church's teaching did cause very big families.

You're right, I just had a quick read of this (excellent article) https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/7/16259952/birth-control-evangelical-agenda and although they converge on abortion and the morning after pill, they tend to diverge on general contraception.

I suppose I got my impressions from TV evangelicals like the Duggars - who seem to be growing (sorry) in popularity. 

Quote

On the surface, Quiverfull follows your typical radical evangelical principles—every word of the Bible is taken literally, traditional gender roles and “family values” are emphasized, and the secular world is alternately scorned and feared. But followers of Quiverfull take one key tenet and let it shape the rest of their beliefs: Birth control is evil. They want to have as many children as possible, in order to build a pint-sized fundamentalist Christian army. 

 

 

Edited by PeanutButter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PeanutButter said:

Seems as if organised religion is a ponzi scheme. Hence why so many require adherents to go forth and annex new souls, fresh sources of income. 

They may have been religions and belief systems in the past that didn't encourage members to procreate but they wouldn't survive.  The religions we have today all have characteristics that enabled them to survive and expand.  This will include not only encouraging procreation but condemning homosexuality, proselytism, heresy, blasphemy, apostates etc - all the tools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PeanutButter said:

Here's the house one of those US evangelists lives in -

I am far from convinced that living in that manner is consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wayward said:

They may have been religions and belief systems in the past that didn't encourage members to procreate but they wouldn't survive.  The religions we have today all have characteristics that enabled them to survive and expand.  This will include not only encouraging procreation but condemning homosexuality, proselytism, heresy, blasphemy, apostates etc - all the tools.

Ah! Like a virus. Wonderful. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll say this again.

The human animal only has around 110 years, maximum, with our current biology and genetics.

We are all just passing through planet earth, but many ******wits want to do an much damage as possible before the lights go out.

Just retards.  Middle classes are the worst of the lot. 

Aspiring c*unts who would be beter off swinging from the rope today, rather then using up more resources.

Most humand, or all, depending on your opinion, are a total waste of precious resources.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Social Justice League said:

I'll say this again.

The human animal only has around 110 years, maximum, with our current biology and genetics.

We are all just passing through planet earth, but many ******wits want to do an much damage as possible before the lights go out.

Just retards.  Middle classes are the worst of the lot. 

Aspiring c*unts who would be beter off swinging from the rope today, rather then using up more resources.

Most humand, or all, depending on your opinion, are a total waste of precious resources.

 

What's precious about the resources?  Other than the fact that we need them to survive? 

If human kind is a waste, then why not consider resources to also be a waste and not bother protecting them?

Survival instincts are strong and are logical conclusion of the evolution.  Those who don't have them quickly become extinct. That's the strength of the religions surviving: all it takes for their believers to multiply more than non-believers, and their views will always win.

But is there any actual absolute value in our survival?  Other than some biodiversity advantage for the local ecosystem with its other parts also evolved to survive? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

Ah! Like a virus. Wonderful. 

 

You said it not me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.