|
Thread title should just be "Overshoot: are we going to do anything about it?" at this point.
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Humans achieved overshoot maybe... 50,000? 100,000? years ago. The overshoot calculations we use to study animal population don't really apply to humans because we're far more adaptable than any other species ever to exist, so it's at best a metaphor. How do you mean? I'd say humans have overshot and collapsed in nearly every environment we've ever been in at one point or another, and now we've taken the party world-wide. e: They looted, they raided, they held whole cities for ransom for fresh supplies of cheese crackers, avocado dip, spare ribs and wine and spirits, which would now get piped aboard from floating tankers. The problem of when the drink is going to run out is, however, going to have to be faced one day. The planet over which they are floating is no longer the planet it was when they first started floating over it. It is in bad shape. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Aug 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:That's not what overshoot and collapse is. "Overshoot" refers to population growth in access of ecological carry capacity, and "collapse" refers to population decline in response. Humans exceeded the earth's natural carrying capacity sometime in distant prehistory, but there was never a corresponding collapse, because humans are too adaptable to be subject to that ecological process in the way that animals are. There is, ultimately, some sort of limit of how many humans can live on earth, but it's not an ecological one, and it's probably far in excess of what human populations will actual reach. Hundreds of billions or trillions, whereas the population is likely to stabilize mid-century around 10 billion. Hey, this is ludicrous. Fire and agriculture may have allowed us much higher than normal capacity, but the limits still exist and local populations through history regularly overshoot and collapse. Humans are just much better at walking away and leaving entirely gutted ecosystems behind. Also, really? Hundreds of billions, or even trillions of 150 pound mammals roaming the Earth? Where does the energy come from?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
I thought the 10 billion will not survive argument was based on distribution issues? Like how the heck are we going to move all that food around as fuel gets more and more expensive, equatorial regions become uninhabitable for longer and longer periods of high summer, infrastructure buckles under migration, etc etc. Oh and fertilizer gets more expensive and the soil runs out in like 60-80 harvests in a lot of places or something?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
Ah, so we innovate our way out of the problems innovation generated, forever.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Luckily, we have
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:On one hand we have the climate nihilists who don't understand that we have ratcheted equilibria at 6C and 11C before things get truly hosed. Humanity may or may not be able to survive at each one. On the other hand, we have lil milquetoast idiots trying to cite IPCC numbers while ignoring the myriad positive feedbacks that have been researched since. Where's the equilibria stuff from? Been curious about that for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Polio Vax Scene posted:Just hit the gas and get across that bridge before it collapses!! *Dukes of Hazzard theme plays as a Confederate flag made of smog envelops the US*
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:This is a good overview from one of the leading researchers on subsea permafrost caps: http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/nick-breeze/203-subsea-permafrost-on-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-now-in-accelerated-decline What would happen if we nuked it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I, too, believe vague reports from government officials in an autocratic state. Especially in the midst of a PR campaign being run by the guy who just declared himself dictator for life. Isn't "guy who just declared himself dictator for life of an autocratic state is running a cleanup/PR campaign because his people want a cleaner environment" an equally valid interpretation though?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Only if you think dictators are cool and good and care about the common man. I don't think that, but I can clearly see the incentives for Xi to pull this off, soooo interpretation still valid I guess
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Miami send-off goonmeet? I've never been but I'd like to see it before it becomes Atlantis.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:You can have whatever environmental politics you want but you need to be practical about it. Lol I just want to ban the internal combustion engine, nbd and jet engines too Car Hater fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Dec 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Rime posted:Advocating realistically pragmatic solutions to climate change would get me ToC'd here. Thrown out of Court? Triggered on Cows? Terms of Conscription?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The crazy thing is the change that would do the most good would involve charging the real cost of beef etc. to consumers, instead of letting the industry treat the planet as a toilet. I said "don't fly, keep your vacations within reasonable motoring distance if you must" about something last week and it derailed a thread, just lol into the wind and admit we're hosed without a butlerian jihad and only very slightly less hosed with one
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If that is the derail I am thinking of your placement of the claim people need to stay in their own place sure seemed like it had more to do with fear of having to interact with foreigners and less to do with airplane pollution. Nah, planes are just nonviable technology without some absurd battery densities for hypothetical passenger electric flight. Maybe I should have said take a dirigible.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Saying people need to stay I their own country tends to be less about people saying I don't need to go to Africa and more about saying people from Africa shouldn't come here. More often than not. I've already talked to my college best friend turned roommate of 4 years about getting his family out of the Ivory Coast and up here to Michigan before poo poo gets hyperreal in the whole middle of the world area there but he doesn't buy my hype at all. :/ E; And I mean that is exactly where I went when I did fly, too. It doesn't matter, air tourism is still bad and I feel bad for it, and in a way it does chap my rear end that people act as if, by the very act of flying and acculturating themselves, they are benefiting the world. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Dec 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
white sauce posted:What he means is that corporations are people and their money is free speech, and if you go against what corporations want then you're being undemocratic. I don't think it's that, and he might be being more honest than most in this thread. It reads to me more like "human desires are sacrosanct, growth for the sake of happiness must happen no matter what, and if that conflicts with preventing apocalypse, eh, discount the possibility of apocalypse to avoid feeling the monstrous absurdity of life clawing at me"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
blowfish posted:i'm not sure if you're serious or trolling but i'll take nuclear powered luxury space communism with net zero-to-negligible emissions over whatever you're selling Good luck getting there without destroying your homeworld apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:Just to clarify, humans are not going to leave Earth in any meaningful numbers. I was going to give us the solar system at most.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:I would think we'll do space tourism but I don't know if there will be colonies on mars or whatever. Nah just as an absolute upper limit of humanity's might we colonize the jovian moons and maybe some floaty Venus platforms. We're too far out in the space boonies for interstellar anything to happen using actual biological travelers. It requires generation ships and there's plenty of reading on why that won't work out well. But we're not going to solve our problems here so whatever. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jan 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
Feb 2016 was when I really started getting the "hold onto your butts" imaginary klaxons in my head, so this is fun.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
tsa posted:It's really interesting how for CC you see the same kind of logic that conservatives use for abortion: people must be punished for their sins. The idea of humans 'getting off' without suffering while still being to use vast amounts of resources (which is the reason standards of living have skyrocketed in the past 1-2 century) actually angers them. I don't think you'll find a single person who wouldn't wave the "fusion and replicators now" magic wand, it's just not physically realistic.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
call to action posted:Realistically, you're gonna live your natural life in the first world, as long as you've got skills or money, regardless of what happens with climate change though. Hope you don't like nature though, you're gonna watch it all die painfully as you age as the oceans die and forests turn to ash. Idk, I tend to think we're getting pretty close to the point where climate change will cause so much annual damage that it eats us from the rear end in a top hat (insurance companies) on up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Gortarius posted:Hey so there's this pretty mediocre/lovely newspaper and every time it has an article about climate change in any context, the comment sections is ALWAYS filled with deniers and the most common thing I see there is that "Oh actually we are entering a miniature ice age, why isn't anyone covering that topic, huh?????" Since my father is one of them, because Europe is having a harsh winter.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Developed nations should skip the wait and povertize themselves. Even without climate change, soil erosion, the draining of the aquifers, etc, we can never build enough nuke plants to get out of the energy trap and maintain growth, so gently caress it. The final score is "Industrial civilization is non-viable, thank you for playing Life."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2018 13:27
|
|
|
If you raise your children off-grid it's pretty much nbd, but yeah, they're still going to suffer beyond your comprehension.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:This is repugnant. That doesn't make it incorrect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Have as many kids as you want, just don't raise them to be civilized.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
The argument is "voluntary reduction in human population to a level which is possible to support without industrial civilization is necessary in order to accommodate the timely drawdown of said civilization. Alternatively, attempt to continue said civilization, and run the apparently rather high risk of causing a mass extinction that could include us."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I mean, the argument I responded to was literally "if the choice is between the survival of humans or the natural world, I choose the natural world". You guys are over there having an argument about anti-natalism that I'm way too high-level to care about. Why respond then? There is no choice; there are no humans on an Earth with a collapsed biosphere.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
self unaware posted:What do you mean by "without industrial civilization"? Are you giving up electricty? Also, we're already in a mass extinction so the ship has sailed on that one. Electricity, mechanical transit, fertilizer synthesis especially. I am preparing to do without these things, though I don't really expect it to make any difference overall since people have been blinkered into believing it's a matter of individual responsibility and not a non-viable system at fault. Thug Lessons posted:I doubt it. I'm with Peter Ward: This is functionally no different than my argument if we're going by # of humans that can be supported. Actually probably less humans, but we'll get to keep our sweet underground living and yeast-food growing technology?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
self unaware posted:Alright but that is a straight up death sentence for large swathes of the population, why can't we have telephones or refrigerators? Are we just going to eat the warming brought on by stopping aerosol production? The death sentence is written already, yes we're going to eat the warming. The matter at hand is how much additional warming we are going to add before we stop pumping aerosols all over, which will happen one way or another. You cannot have telephones and refrigerators without extraction, refining, packaging and shipping, these things cannot be done without the use of fossil fuels, so no, you can't have them long-term on carbon worlds.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
self unaware posted:What's long term? Why can't we use any fossil fuels? Surely we can use some level "sustainably"? Given the evidence, about a century or two of use. We probably could use them sustainably if it was extremely limited and we didn't use them to grow our population, but when it comes down to it all life is is self-perpetuating systems that are incentivized into exploiting the maximum amount of energy available, so we WILL use them to grow if we can, locking ourselves into this very situation. As to why not, obviously because sudden sharp changes to the carbon cycle will undermine the stability of any organized civ. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Good, it should be politically inconvenient to tell people the solution to climate change is rejection of existing freedoms. Climate change is real and needs real solutions. And real solutions are never going to be “everyone just be poorer and more limited forever” Tbh I don't comprehend your insistince that real solutions be bounded by human desires (particularly those of a globetrotting elite consumer class) and not "whatever is necessary to keep the seasons stable and crops maturing."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
So don't not fly, but do continue to advocate to my representatives for all air travel to be banned as a nonviable technology, got it. There's a whole bunch of other fun stuff to talk to them about too, like how long do you think it is before people start mass-migrating inland from the east coast? Heartland and Midwest need to get ready to produce more food with worse weather and more pollution from bigger cities, and if we don't get some lead time in on it, oh boy it'll suck more. What's the thread's beliefs on an acceptable CO2 target? 350? 400? Ford's future city plan contains the assumption that we stabilize at 450, and this will supposedly keep temperatures to no more than 2C by 2100. I tend to think hitting 450 would have us at 2C+ within years of it. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 15:10 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Then you have no clue what you're talking about. It's not enough to cause +2C warming, and even if it was the planet wouldn't warm that fast. To answer your question, we should eventually get CO2 <350ppm because otherwise the Greenland ice sheet will melt. Ok, I'm clueless. Please give me a clue on how we achieve a carbon negative civilization and reach 350 ppm without immense austerity, because last time I checked, solar, wind, nuclear power plants, electrical grids, etc all have irreducible associated emissions, so if they're part of our mandatory emissions spending, something somewhere else has to give.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Inflicting austerity on people won't lower carbon emissions, only decarbonization will. I'm not convinced we can actually make it below 350, because it would take tens of trillions of dollars to accomplish, but it should be the goal. If we can't make it we'll get SLR, and that will cost even more. Decarbonization is austerity though. Jets are a great example because for air travel to be decarbonized (and for electric cars to be ubiquitous) battery technology has to have a "and then a miracle happened" moment. It's a fantasy to ignore the non-negotiable status of fossil emissions to our current mode of civilization, and particularly to the set of technologies built around the conversion of explosive liquids to rotary motion, so the only conclusion is that we would necessarily have to somehow have greater negative emissions than positive emissions, while still growing the global economy. idgi, how does this seem possible also, you can't use the energy from BECCS, that defeats the purpose I mean you could, but it would be hilariously short-sighted and inefficient...oh right Oooh, also, that puts airplanes and hungry people into direct competition for the fertilizer used, and land since idk that scooping algae up will be as economical for the energy companies as just doing it in the rainforest https://www.carbonbrief.org/negative-emissions-have-limited-potential-to-help-meet-climate-goals “We conclude that these technologies offer only limited realistic potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere and not at the scale envisaged in some climate scenarios.” Car Hater fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:It's completely possible. Let's say we have 10Gt in residual emissions. That just means we need to get an additional 10Gt in negative emissions. How much would that cost? Depends. Let's say it's a $100/ton. That means it's $1 trillion a year, or 1% of global GDP. That's not an impossible amount of money to spend, even if it is a waste. With BECCS it might even be profitable. I'm not sure we'll do this, because people are loath to spend money, but there's no inherent reason it couldn't be. I think this thought-example is exactly why every thing I read about BECCS insisted that it alone wasn't enough, we'd need massive reduction in emissions as well. Even if it is possible to scale to that extent, it's just going to become an excuse for people to continue the pursuit of economic growth and development. That 10Gt becomes 11, 12, etc, and we have to build more and more BECCS capacity in perpetuity (eating up lots of fertilizer) in order to maintain what is basically life support so that we can keep emitting affluently and bring more people into the high-emissions class. The monetary cost is meaningless against the fact that we're going deeper into a trap. Car Hater fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Apr 17, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:If you're not volunteering to be one of the slain, perhaps you should rethink your metric for "best". I'd volunteer, wouldn't you? Better slain than starved to death.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 16:34
|
|