Theoretically speaking isn't it essentially impossible to reverse the effects of climate change?

You play chess? PM me if you want to play sometime. I use Chess.com for correspondence and live chess.

1 Like

I was only speaking hypothetically as an example. I donā€™t know how much more CO2 is produced by non-organic life activity.

Samm got it.

Our very advanced economy and society is the overarching reason for overpopulation.

An economy based on perpetual growth is the overarching respn for overpopulation.

Same reason why bacteria will overpopulate provided an unlimited food supply.

We think our brains make us immune to the realities of natureā€™s limits.

Weā€™re kidding ourselves.

What you are saying here is different from what Samm said. He pointed out like the article did that medical advances are one of the key reasons for the exponential population growth we have seen. Whereas you are claiming that the reasons are economic. The fact is that in countries with advanced economies are seeing stagnant and even declining population growth. In the US for example if it were not for immigration we would see our population decrease. People in advanced economies see children as economic liability and hence have few if any children.

1 Like

LOL. I forget why I enjoy coming here sometimes and then I read posts like this.

:cyclone:

I would have thought that number - 280 ppm to 410 ppm - would have been much larger especially when you consider deforestation. So if I understand you correctly the planet has been trying to compensate for the excess CO2 being produced but cannot deal with all of it?

Thatā€™s one way to look at it. But in truth, there is no set amount of CO2 in the atmosphere on which to determine ā€œexcess.ā€ Using that same reasoning, one could look at it as when the concentration was at 280 ppm, there was a shortage of CO2.

By the same token the entire world fully industrializing might save us. Birth rates decline as countries advance through industrialization and move into service economies.

So thereā€™s some hope in terms of overall population.

The big problem, IMO, is that when that happens the living standards will rise worldwide. And developed countries actually use significantly more natural resources than agricultural nations still holding on to elements of feudalism. The issue then is can we find new ways to provide this standard of living with existing resources, even if the population stabilizes and reaches equilibrium.

I actually think our ultimate foe will not be an exploding population but a resource crunch that fuels a new wave of open warfare to gain access to more utilizing even more lethal technology than we have today.

Non-organic life? What are you talking about?

Sorry misspeak on my part. I meant to say industrial means. Cars, factories, etc.

Oh, okay. I gave you that number ā€¦ 3-4%.

Maybe, maybe not, but it seem like whatever efforts are put forth will only be to still make things worse but at a slightly lower pace than before.

Do you really think that living standards are going to rise worldwide? Look at this whole caravan situation. Decade after decade thereā€™s still no improvement in all these Latin American countries? People are still fleeing these countries year after year? I donā€™t see things getting better in these countries. I see population growth as the elephant in the room nobody wants to really talk about. More people means more trees have to come down and itā€™s hard to deal with carbon when you have fewer trees.

Could go either way.

If these countries are ever to stabilize their governments, which is key to successful industrialization, then the living standards will rise albeit slowly. Even tyrannical government can push industrialization; the Soviet Union is a good example.

With that comes reduced birth rates. Itā€™s happened in every country that has made it through the crisis of early industrialization.

But you could be right.

If the population stabilizes itā€™ll be at around 10 - 12 billion. We may see it slowly decrease after that. Or it could continue to increase.

But itā€™s all hypothetical theories. We wonā€™t know what will happen until it happens.

Isnā€™t the around 6 billion now? You anticipate that it will double from where we are today? If thatā€™s the case population growth could very be the biggest threat the planet faces.

We are closer to 7.4 billion now.

It depends on the scenario at play.

Assuming global trends stay as they are Africa will provide the majority of new population growth from now till 2100. Developing nations in south east Asia will come in second. Latin America third.

We went from 2 billion in the aftermath of World War II to 6 billion by the time the 20th century closed. Just 60 years. By all accounts famine should been common considering the mass explosion of population.

But food production actually increased several times over the population explosion.

If history is a teacher and assuming we (as a species) decide not to fight a nuclear war then food production will continue to increase as technology improves.

But who knows.

You are very knowledgeable!

Itā€™s an interesting subject.

We need to stabilize the population, though. Thereā€™s a limit to how many people the planet can support in the long term. And itā€™ll be an extremely long time before we can even seriously consider building habitable space colonies or colonizing Mars or other planets.

But Iā€™m also a bit of a negative Nancy when it comes to humanityā€™s future anyway. Iā€™m fully convinced that at some point we will off ourselves or at the least destroy modern civilization.