[Pants-of-dog]

@Pants-of-dog Why would the industrialized world keep using the same amount of energy with a reduced population? Fewer people, fewer industry needed.

Not under a capitalist model where consumption and production must constantly be expanding.

If people from the developing world are not allowed to reduce their population pressure by immigrating then they too will come to the realization of controlling birth rates.

I doubt it. Has this ever worked?

Alleviating their population pressure through immigration prevents them from fully confronting their own contributions to the problem. "We don't need to change, we can just move to a better place."

I doubt it. That sounds like amateur poo psychology.

[Oxymoron]

@Oxymoron developing economies emit the least per capita

@Suntzu @SolarCross Actually read the papers I linked and come up with problem with their methods or something

Who cares about per capita, they churn out babies like its going out of style. Plus they are developing economies, what happens when they develop?

[One Degree]

Not under a capitalist model where consumption and production must constantly be expanding.

Yes, but what happens to that capitalist model when you restrict immigration and the population actually does decrease? Maybe, just maybe we would look for a more humane economic system.

I doubt it. Has this ever worked?

Welllll, the world has encouraged immigration for quite awhile so that limits the number of countries I can use as an example since their decision to reduce population must be tied, at least partly, to lack of immigration opportunity. The best example would probably be Cuba, but many developing countries have taken steps to control their population.

I doubt it. That sounds like amateur poo psychology.

Probably, but it is the rational choice I would make and I see no reason to believe they would be less rational than me.

[Saeko]

In my experience climate change deniers are idiots who don't (or don't want to understand) the underlying physics. The absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gasses is indisputable physical fact. That there is twice as much CO2 in our atmosphere than at the start of industrialization is undeniable. Hence, it is simply physically impossible for average global temperatures to NOT have risen and to NOT continue to rise.

[Suntzu]

In my experience climate change deniers are idiots who don't (or don't want to understand) the underlying physics. The absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gasses is indisputable physical fact. That there is twice as much CO2 in our atmosphere than at the start of industrialization is undeniable. Hence, it is simply physically impossible for average global temperatures to NOT have risen and to NOT continue to rise.

It should work they way.

Unfortunately it does not.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, but what happens to that capitalist model when you restrict immigration and the population actually does decrease? Maybe, just maybe we would look for a more humane economic system.

I doubt it. When we tried to do that, the capitalists disappeared us.

Welllll, the world has encouraged immigration for quite awhile so that limits the number of countries I can use as an example since their decision to reduce population must be tied, at least partly, to lack of immigration opportunity. The best example would probably be Cuba, but many developing countries have taken steps to control their population.

Please present evidence that Cuba controls its birth rates because immigration from Cuba is not allowed.

How this can be reconciled with the fact that Cuban migrants to the US have a more relaxed immigration policy than other Latin American nations, I have no idea.

Probably, but it is the rational choice I would make and I see no reason to believe they would be less rational than me.

But you didn't make that choice. You had five kids. How can you say you would have less kids as the rational choice when you didn't?

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

It should work they way.

Unfortunately it does not.

This post, like your second last one, makes no sense at all.

[Saeko]

2 + 2 = 5

Very enlightening.

[One Degree]

I doubt it. When we tried to do that, the capitalists disappeared us.

I will concede that is a potential hurdle.

Please present evidence that Cuba controls its birth rates because immigration from Cuba is not allowed.

That is not actually what I said. I said since immigration has been encouraged for many years, Cuba was probably the best example that lack of immigration may have been a factor in reducing population. Island nations are a little more aware of the population level they can support, when US warships surround them.

How this can be reconciled with the fact that Cuban migrants to the US have a more relaxed immigration policy than other Latin American nations, I have no idea.

That is a nice policy, but first they had to get out of Cuba, so I am sure you are aware it is not a valid argument.

But you didn't make that choice. You had five kids. How can you say you would have less kids as the rational choice when you didn't?

A nation choosing to control it's population does not need to require every individual to do so. Yes, I have 5 children and many people have none. Our combined choices have resulted in a US fertility rate close to zero.
We have controlled our population by our individual free choices, without stringently enforcing policies on anyone. Of course this is totally undone by our insistence upon immigration.

[Suntzu]

Very enlightening.

And 7 + 8 = E.

[Suntzu]

Sorry! F, been a while.

[MememyselfandIJK]

Who cares about per capita, they churn out babies like its going out of style. Plus they are developing economies, what happens when they develop?

I suggest you refer to this

@Suntzu For like the third time, come up with a proper rebuttal to the paper I posted.

[Pants-of-dog]

I will concede that is a potential hurdle.

So we agree that under capitalism, people in the developed world will probably continue to use the same amount of energy or more, despite negative population growth.

Since that is the case, population reduction is not necessarily a good solution.

That is not actually what I said. I said since immigration has been encouraged for many years, Cuba was probably the best example that lack of immigration may have been a factor in reducing population. Island nations are a little more aware of the population level they can support, when US warships surround them.

This makes no sense. You are saying that Cuba is a case study on lack of immigration because immigration is encouraged.

That is a nice policy, but first they had to get out of Cuba, so I am sure you are aware it is not a valid argument.

Yes it is, unless you are saying emigration controls have an impact on birthrates.

There is a difference between immigration and emigration.

A nation choosing to control it's population does not need to require every individual to do so. Yes, I have 5 children and many people have none. Our combined choices have resulted in a US fertility rate close to zero.
We have controlled our population by our individual free choices, without stringently enforcing policies on anyone. Of course this is totally undone by our insistence upon immigration.

So, how does this support your weird claim that allowing immigration leads to higher birthrates in developing countries?

[One Degree]

So we agree that under capitalism, people in the developed world will probably continue to use the same amount of energy or more, despite negative population growth.

Not what I said and you are well aware saying something is a 'hurdle' is not the same as agreeing with your hypothesis.

Since that is the case, population reduction is not necessarily a good solution.

Faulty assumption from a faulty premise.

This makes no sense. You are saying that Cuba is a case study on lack of immigration because immigration is encouraged.

I don't follow you here other than I probably should have written it as 'lack of immigration' but I thought you would know I was referring to our debate point.

Yes it is, unless you are saying emigration controls have an impact on birthrates.

There is a difference between immigration and emigration.

Yes, I am saying that. I am aware of the difference. See above and it might make more sense.

So, how does this support your weird claim that allowing immigration leads to higher birthrates in developing countries?

Already explained.

[Wellsy]

Spoiler: show

Yet, some of you I am sure, deny over population. :?:
It is the root cause. Capitalism encourages it, but anti-capitalists often deny it is a problem.

Edit: Some Conservatives are climate change deniers yet they are against immigration. Reducing immigration and therefore the populations of industrialized countries should be our first line of battle against climate change.
Some Liberals encourage immigration which is in direct opposition to helping the environment. Reducing immigration also hurts capitalism and again the political forces seem to be on the wrong sides. :?:

Ofcourse the fact earths population increased from under one billion in 1800 to over 7 billion now is irrelevant?

Both of these are 7 times more destructive due to population increases. Population is the problem and the best cure.

Industrialized nations populations are decreasing except for immigration. Stop excess immigration and the population will adjust itself.

@Pants-of-dog Why would the industrialized world keep using the same amount of energy with a reduced population? Fewer people, fewer industry needed.
If people from the developing world are not allowed to reduce their population pressure by immigrating then they too will come to the realization of controlling birth rates. Alleviating their population pressure through immigration prevents them from fully confronting their own contributions to the problem. "We don't need to change, we can just move to a better place."

Yes, but what happens to that capitalist model when you restrict immigration and the population actually does decrease? Maybe, just maybe we would look for a more humane economic system.

Welllll, the world has encouraged immigration for quite awhile so that limits the number of countries I can use as an example since their decision to reduce population must be tied, at least partly, to lack of immigration opportunity. The best example would probably be Cuba, but many developing countries have taken steps to control their population.

Probably, but it is the rational choice I would make and I see no reason to believe they would be less rational than me.

I will concede that is a potential hurdle.

That is not actually what I said. I said since immigration has been encouraged for many years, Cuba was probably the best example that lack of immigration may have been a factor in reducing population. Island nations are a little more aware of the population level they can support, when US warships surround them.

...

A nation choosing to control it's population does not need to require every individual to do so. Yes, I have 5 children and many people have none. Our combined choices have resulted in a US fertility rate close to zero.
We have controlled our population by our individual free choices, without stringently enforcing policies on anyone. Of course this is totally undone by our insistence upon immigration.

You recognize that population in itself isn't the root cause but seem quite concerned with it and in an extremely restricted fashion ie immigration to industrialized nations.
Sure, more people increases the impact of production and consumption, but I assume you acknowledge that the problem doesn't lay in how many people we have as much as the manner in which we produce and consume things. It comes off feeling like the middle class trend of environmentalists that take an anti-human view, which isn't to prescribe to you an extreme position of wishing the world dead as the earth is better off without us. But it treats our existence as the problem and doesn't look to the conditions of our present existence.
Because it's the conditions of our present existence that is the problem, and as such we need to learn to change it, which isn't an individual matter in which if we all just recycled more the problem would be solved because the improving it at consumption would totally ignore the majority of the issue deriving from production.

This matter seems entirely side stepped in this emphasis on population control, where by problematizing it I assume the solution is thought that we'll get to some ideal level of people and the problem of climate change will make itself negligent again. But it should be apparent that even if you created such conditions, the rise of population to problematic level is likely to occur again, and thus one wouldn't have solved the matter outright but temporarily dealt with it. Population merely enhances the problem to varying degrees but isn't the basis of any problems to the environment within itself unless one believes there is no real solution to our impact on the environment and thus the only option is to cull ourselves through some means, thus rejecting any hope to solve the impact that our production has which sets the stage for the impact of our consumption.
Which seems even more Utopian than the sentiment that we could revolutionize our production and need to break open the fetters of old industry on government that bars support and development of new technologies and methods of production.
And your emphasis on immigration to developed countries again seems extremely narrow in that I take it that you're thinking that industrialized nations produce the most pollution because our production and consumption is more significantly developed and so anyone there is part of the problem more than if we were all in deprived conditions like third world.

And you seem to treat the high birth rates in undeveloped countries as mere lack of understanding where they'll come to realize the error of their ways if their barred immigration to other countries as opposed to their birth rates being the product of their societal conditions.
So I guess you are concerned with birth rates in developing countries but seem to think their problem lays in their ability to immigrate. But immigration is a a desperate solution to the plight of their societies as opposed to their lack of response to it.
I'm pretty sure the conditions in those society are very well felt and that immigration is often a rational choice since the wealth and conditions of those societies are actively maintained to be so shitty for intense exploitation.
Immigration makes sense when third world countries are purposely fettered in industrializing too much and made to be dependent on the economic and political interests of the developed world. Of which immigrants are an important part of maintaining cheap labour, which you perhaps recognize in taking issue with the capitalist economy as being part of the problem.
Though you aren't arguing from scarcity, Malthusianism was based in avoiding the necessary critique of the capitalist system, people themselves become the problem for satisfying their needs and wants within our present societal conditions, it problemtizes existence itself. But think of if we improved our production so that it wasn't so wasteful, this is why fights over energy are such a big deal, because if we could change our energy technology, we'd avoid so much that is contributing to this issue of climate change. Old industries of wealth are a fetter on the development of new production, the green economy which is emerging, is new and thus not as well established and thus not able to lobby with as much money for their support. In my country, a mass seller of uranium and coal, mining corporations force the market to be confined to them.

I don't get this emphasis on reduced population as an the best means as it ends up seeming to treat the economy as less significant in all of it, and at it's best wouldn't outright solve the issue of waste/pollution that our production produces and thus is a non-solution.
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says
The goal should be attention to our relationship with nature which we have obscured in our exploitation of it which was an expected result for our past selves, but in becoming conscious that we've moved into the Anthropocene, where humans are now a signficint to the state of geological and ecological state of the earth, the task should be the revolution of production itself. The solution to diminish ourselves, which is unlikely in the interests of capital would to be to only maintain capitalist production itself in it's damaging capacity. Because the impact of a person would become nill if the issue of production itself is solved. We should not deny ourselves our natural existence but improve upon ourselves, onward and forward.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch05-s03.html

Spoiler: show

One would like to think that the limited capacities of nature do not signify a fatal limitation of civilisation itself. The irrational principle, which once permeated human nature, still exists in human behavioural mechanisms, as can be seen, for instance, in the unpredictable consequences of their individual and concerted efforts. Much in human activity goes beyond the limits of the predictable, even when it is humanely oriented.

The man-nature relation, the crisis of the ecological situation is a global problem. Its solution lies in the plane of rational and humane, that is to say, wise organisation, both of production itself and care for mother nature, not just by individuals, enterprises or countries, but by all humanity, linked with a clear awareness of our planetary responsibility for the ecological consequences of a civilisation that has reached a state of crisis. One of the ways to deal with the crisis situation in the "man-nature" system is to use such resources as solar energy, the power of winds, the riches of the seas and oceans and other, as yet unknown natural forces of the universe. At one time in his evolution man was a gatherer. He used the ready-made gifts of nature. This was how human existence began. Perhaps even today it would be wise to resort to this method, but on a quite different level, of course. The human being cannot restrict himself to gathering, any more than he could in primitive times. But such a shift in attitude could at least abate the destructive and polluting principle in civilisation.

As cybernetic methods and principles in the various fields of knowledge and practice develop, control theory has been widely applied in many spheres. Its aim is to ensure the optimal function of a system. A humanely oriented mind should be able to transfer the idea of optimality and harmony to ecological phenomena.

In their production activity people are mastering more and more new materials and learning to replace one with another. In the long term this could lead, as the alchemists once believed, to production on the principle of everything out of everything. Moreover, our planet has an active balance—it loses less substance in the upper layers of the atmosphere than it receives from outer space. It would therefore appear that the amount of substance available as a whole will not place any radical limitation on material production.

Life, including human life, is not only metabolism; it is also a form of energy transformation and movement developed to degrees of subtlety that are as yet beyond our comprehension. Every cell, every organ and organism as a whole is a crucial arena of the struggle between entropic (dispersing) and anti-entropic processes, and the biosphere represents the constant victory of life, the triumph of the anti-entropic principle in the existence of the living.

Losses of living energy from our organism are constantly compensated by various forms of energy flowing from the vast expanses of the universe. We need not simply energy, such as electromagnetic radiation or heat, but radiant energy of the finest quality. The struggle for the existence of living creatures, including man, is a struggle not so much for the elements that compose his organism—they are abundantly available in the air, water and underground—not for solar energy in its direct, electromagnetic radiation, but for the energy that is captured by the mechanisms of photosynthesis and exists in the form of organic, particularly plant structures. When we consume vegetable food, we take the energy of nature, particularly that of the sun, at first hand, so to speak. But plants are also the food of herbivorous animals, and when we eat meat, we take this energy at second hand.

So the biosphere is not a chaotic conglomeration of natural phenomena and formations. By a seemingly objective logic everything is taken into account and everything mutually adapts with the same obedience to proportion and harmony that we discern in the harmonious motion of the heavenly bodies or the integral paintings of the great masters. With a sense of wonder we see revealed before us a picture of the magnificent universe, a universe whose separate parts are interconnected by the most subtle threads of kinship, forming the harmonious whole which the ancient philosophers surmised when they viewed the world with their integrating, intuitively perceptive gaze. We are part of the ecological environment and it is a part of the universe. It contains myriads of stars and the nearest of them is the Sun. The Sun is the master of Earth. We are, in a certain sense, its children. Not for nothing did the rich imagination on whose wings mankind flies ever further and higher in the orbit of civilisation portray the Sun in ancient legends as the highest deity.

But to return to our theme, the bitter truth is that those human actions which violate the laws of nature, the harmony of the biosphere, threaten to bring disaster and this disaster may turn out to be universal. How apt then are the words of ancient Oriental wisdom: live closer to nature, my friends, and its eternal laws will protect you!

The tension isn't our very existence but our current relation to nature of which we are part of.

[SolarCross]

In my experience climate change deniers are idiots who don't (or don't want to understand) the underlying physics.

It is right to subject theories and methodologies for obtaining data to some rigorous scepticism, for such is the way of science. Credulously swallowing the stories of experts is the way of religion. Is man made climate change theory a scientific theory or the central dogma of a new doomsday cult? Too many of these conservations with climate change true believers seems to indicate the latter, especially when the commies join in, and that is a suspicious thing in itself.

The absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gasses is indisputable physical fact. That there is twice as much CO2 in our atmosphere than at the start of industrialization is undeniable. Hence, it is simply physically impossible for average global temperatures to NOT have risen and to NOT continue to rise.

That's some physics but how about some biology? The primeval atmosphere of earth was composed of around 25% CO2, nowadays it is only about 0.4%. Doubling the CO2 content is not that big a deal when it had been over 25% and is now 0.4%.



Once eukaryotes developed the means to extract energy from sunlight they had a bio-chemical process which extracts atmospheric CO2 and in turn expel O2 as a waste product. These organisms basically ate, and continue to eat, the CO2 present in the atmosphere, altering the atmospheric composition in the way shown in the diagram above.

Plants in their ruthless competition with each other for both CO2 and sunlight have reduced CO2 levels to the point where it barely exists in the atmosphere today. When mankind figured out a way of using the carbon compounds buried in the earth they had a chemical process (combustion) which results in the excretion of CO2 as a waste product. As the saying goes one organism's trash is another organism's treasure. For plants this CO2 release is a bounty of riches to be exploited. If they could reduce Earth's atmospheric Carbon Dioxide from 25% to virtually nothing they will do so with whatever carbon humans find out of the earth and transfers to the atmosphere.

People who know a little physics but assume for simplicity that the Earth is dead planet completely absent of the adaptive living processes capable of making use of this relatively small increase in atmospheric CO2 can certainly scare themselves into believing in runaway processes but sadly for the End Timers that is not the case.

They also are apt to imagine they need to invent new technologies which will sequester CO2 from the atmosphere into the ground in complete ignorance that Natural Selection already invented and implemented on a massive scale this technology billions of years ago. Quite literally not seeing the wood for the trees...

[One Degree]

@Wellsy

As I mentioned in another thread, our primary goal should be the future survival of our species and not serving the needs of the current citizens. What does it matter in the scheme of things if I starve to death or am euthanized? My living standard level will have no impact on my view of how important my life was. As we get close to the end of our lives, I believe most of us start wondering what legacy we have left. We realize our life was only important if it contributed to a better future for our children, which requires a better life for our species. If my death, or my having not been born, is the best way to contribute to that, then my life had meaning. Yes, even if I did not actually have a life.
Therefore, I do not adhere to the Marxist view because it is based too much on the people now.
Hope that we will accomplish all these wonderful things as we allow our population to continue to increase so everything will be fine, to me, is the worst possible denial of our reality. It simply can not happen. Our past efforts show it is not going to happen, and it guarantees the destruction of our civilizations to continue to try.

As far as immigration, since the population has already surpassed a level where I believe we can even control that in time, then our only alternative is to demand the people in each area find their own means of survival. It will come down to protecting your own resources for survival, so to allow immigration is very misguided since the lower your population density, the greater your chance of survival.

The over population deniers always point to our technology to not only save us, but bring everyone up to the same standard of living. What is our biggest economic complaint right now? "Fewer and fewer people possessing all the wealth." Does that look like we are solving our problems? It is simply denial of reality, because reducing population is not 'morally' right. Nothing like being a morally correct extinct species.

The tension isn't our very existence but our current relation to nature of which we are part of.

How can you have a relation with nature when you are covering it with concrete to meet the needs of too many people.

[MememyselfandIJK]

The primeval atmosphere of earth was composed of around 25% CO2, nowadays it is only about 0.4%. Doubling the CO2 content is not that big a deal when it had been over 25% and is now 0.4%.

Would you like to hear about the temperature of the early earth? Also you cite plant life as a preventative measure, but you fail to account for deforestation, instability of ocean ecosystems and other factors that are killing off said plant life.

[Saeko]

.... If they could reduce Earth's atmospheric Carbon Dioxide from 25% to virtually nothing they will do so with whatever carbon humans find out of the earth and transfers to the atmosphere.

People who know a little physics but assume for simplicity that the Earth is dead planet completely absent of the adaptive living processes capable of making use of this relatively small increase in atmospheric CO2 can certainly scare themselves into believing in runaway processes but sadly for the End Timers that is not the case.

They also are apt to imagine they need to invent new technologies which will sequester CO2 from the atmosphere into the ground in complete ignorance that Natural Selection already invented and implemented on a massive scale this technology billions of years ago. Quite literally not seeing the wood for the trees...

This process takes hundreds of millions and maybe more than a billion years. Humans can pump the atmosphere full of CO2 way faster than plants can take it out.

[One Degree]

This process takes hundreds of millions and maybe more than a billion years. Humans can pump the atmosphere full of CO2 way faster than plants can take it out.

Unless the human population is in balance with the plant population.

[SolarCross]

Would you like to hear about the temperature of the early earth?

Sure it is was hotter, a shit ton hotter than today, i already posted a graph of temperature changes across geological time, you should take a look. The point is that was before life got going effectively terraforming the earth. Our planet isn't a dead ball of rock in space anymore but populated by adaptive organisms instead. These adaptive organisms make for dampening effects to the release of CO2 which mitigate the relationship between the temperature and CO2 levels.

There are more dampening factors besides the biosphere, that are neglected in the models of the alarmists. Warming will result in more evaporation, which means more clouds which means a greater albedo index reflecting solar radiation away from earth cooling it. The alarmists talk about the a reduced albedo from melting polar ice but ignore the increased albedo of more cloud cover.

There is a consistent pattern in the alarmists of cherry picking data and theories to produce a doomsday scenario whilst ignoring everything that suggests a less than apocalyptic outcome. In the end it is a revival of doomsday psychology, as seen in prior doomsday cults.

Climate change is just the latest in a long line of doomsday cults including: Planet Niburu, Mayan Calendar, Y2K bug, Late stage Capitalism and all those spawned by the book Revelations.