[SolarCross]

Our ‘helping’ starving people has demonstrated how ineffectual we are in understanding what needs done and how nature is the key, not us. The Aswan dam should be a constant reminder of how little we understand.
Your 95% starvation rate is highly doubtful. 1/2 billion people could survive from hunting and gathering. Any farming at all makes the figure unbelievable.

A lack of understanding can only be improved by more understanding which is done by hands and minds of living people. The dead and never existing cannot help.

When your food producing technology is so low that 95% of the population must produce food as a full time occupation then there is no margin of error and any disruption to production from disease, injury, bad weather, war or whatever else will cause famine. In 0AD that was the case for even the most advanced people in the world.

[One Degree]

A lack of understanding can only be improved by more understanding which is done by hands and minds of living people. The dead and never existing cannot help.

When your food producing technology is so low that 95% of the population must produce food as a full time occupation then there is no margin of error and any disruption to production from disease, injury, bad weather, war or whatever else will cause famine. In 0AD that was the case for even the most advanced people in the world.

I have read studies about how everyone was on the verge of starvation and I have read others saying it was actually a time of plenty. It is a sure thing Rome’s massive armies could not exist without surplus food. You can’t steal it if it is not there.

[SolarCross]

I have read studies about how everyone was on the verge of starvation and I have read others saying it was actually a time of plenty. It is a sure thing Rome’s massive armies could not exist without surplus food. You can’t steal it if it is not there.

What are you even arguing at this point? The Roman Empire was among the top three most advanced civilisations in the world at the time. The relative surpluses they enjoyed were due to their technology. Even the Romans experienced famines.

[One Degree]

What are you even arguing at this point? The Roman Empire was among the top three most advanced civilisations in the world at the time. The relative surpluses they enjoyed were due to their technology. Even the Romans experienced famines.

Like most discussions we devolved to this point. You said 95% of people were starving. I am pointing out that is very unlikely. You then switch and say they weren’t starving because of technology. Were they starving or not?

[Potemkin]

Like most discussions we devolved to this point. You said 95% of people were starving. I am pointing out that is very unlikely. You then switch and say they weren’t starving because of technology. Were they starving or not?

He said they were in danger of starving, which they were. There was little food security in the ancient world. Most of the time, there was a food surplus (so much so that the Romans could give away free food to their economically non-productive proletariat). But at any time, there could be a war, a drought, a flood or whatnot, and then people would start starving.... Even ancient Rome experienced periodic famines.

[One Degree]

He said they were in danger of starving, which they were. There was little food security in the ancient world. Most of the time, there was a food surplus (so much so that the Romans could give away free food to their economically non-productive proletariat). But at any time, there could be a war, a drought, a flood or whatnot, and then people would start starving.... Even ancient Rome experienced periodic famines.

Would you put the number at 95%? I understand the difficulty of such a number, but it was supplied as a characterization of the times.

[Potemkin]

Would you put the number at 95%? I understand the difficulty of such a number, but it was supplied as a characterization of the times.

Were 95% of the population facing food insecurity? Pretty much, yeah. Were 95% of the population starving at any given time? Absolutely not. Most ancient civilisations had a food surplus most of the time, so much so that they could actually give food away.

[Godstud]

All I can tell you is I would be horrified for society to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep me alive a couple extra years. I’m not that important.

Yes, but I am important.

It also doesn't cost what you say it does(nor does society pay for it... it's not Welfare), why do you think society doesn't benefit from it?

The earth can, comfortably, provide for 10 billion people. This is something most scientists tend to agree on. We're going to have problems, regardless, because of nations like America, with their "Me first" attitude. They're the snotty rich kid who won't share.

[One Degree]

Yes, but I am important.

It also doesn't cost what you say it does(nor does society pay for it... it's not Welfare), why do you think society doesn't benefit from it?

The earth can, comfortably, provide for 10 billion people. This is something most scientists tend to agree on. We're going to have problems, regardless, because of nations like America, with their "Me first" attitude. They're the snotty rich kid who won't share.

I think all out medical care for everyone is great if you have solved all your other needs and have a great future plan. I don’t think what we are doing today is practical. Spending so much of our wealth on healthcare is characteristic of an unhealthy self importance, especially when there are too many of us. This is just more of my view that overall society and the future should take priority over the individual. I can’t see the logic in spending our wealth for a minor increase in my temporary existence. We should spend on what provides a future. The overall welfare should take precedence over mine. This has been lost and I think we have lost meaningfulness to our lives with it.

Based upon the growth in my lifetime then we will be maxed out in 10-20 years? Scary.

[Godstud]

Spending so much of our wealth on healthcare is characteristic of an unhealthy self importance, especially when there are too many of us.

America spends TWICE as much as other countries do for an inferior form of healthcare because they don't believe in healthcare for all. How is that working out for you?

It's about quality of life, not self-importance. Happier and healthier people are more productive, and benefit society more.

I can’t see the logic in spending our wealth for a minor increase in my temporary existence.

That's the selfish view. What about the people who value YOU?

We should spend on what provides a future.

Happier and more productive people are the key to that future, not miserable, unproductive ones.

The overall welfare should take precedence over mine. This has been lost and I think we have lost meaningfulness to our lives with it.

You are speaking only for yourself. Most people don't have such a selfish and cynical view.

[One Degree]

America spends TWICE as much as other countries do for an inferior form of healthcare because they don't believe in healthcare for all. How is that working out for you?

It's about quality of life, not self-importance. Happier and healthier people are more productive, and benefit society more.

That's the selfish view. What about the people who value YOU?

Happier and more productive people are the key to that future, not miserable, unproductive ones.

You are speaking only for yourself. Most people don't have such a selfish and cynical view.

People definitely have different views. That is why I promote local autonomy.

[Steve_American]

Thank you-all for derailing my thread.

No response to my replies is disheartening.

I'll try again. The worst case result of AGW is very, very bad. Every sngle climate scientist agrees with this statement. Cereal grain crops will fail to grow. We depend on them for the vast majority of our food.
The resulting chaos of crops failing to grow will definitely lead to wars. These wars may lead to a nuclear exchange. With nuclear winter for a while, then back to it being too hot for 1000+ yr.
The resulting chaos *could* lead to the workers at nuclear power plants not shutting them down completely. If even one goes 'China Syndrome" it would be very, very bad for humanity.
The worst case includes massive releases of Methane which will be unstoppable. This will be added on top of the expected temp. rise by as much as 4-6 more deg. F.
If civilization breaks down then it will create and release less smoke and airplane vapor trails. This will let more of the sun's heat reach the surface and heat it another 2 deg. F. over current projections.
This amount of temp. being added onto the worst heat waves will kill crops, fruit trees, and even people outright. Do you want to try to live where it is 120 deg. F for weeks on end?
Moving to the warming Arctic is not an answer because Arctic soils are NOT fertile for what we want to grow. Not Arctic pine forest soils or tundra soils either; not for at least 20-100 yr.

Just hoping that technology will somehow save us is not doing enough. Yes, it might. However, at the moment growth in tech seems to be growing slowly. Wouldn't it be better to make it grow faster? Just creating cash is a pretty painless way to do that. It surprises me that you-all are more willing to hope that AGW will not be much of a problem BECAUSE you-all can't being yourselves to hope that MMT is right and creating cash is no big deal. Or, is it just that it scares the shit out of you and you have frozen into denial as a result.
. . . If you are wrong about the 1st we all may die; OTOH if MMTers are wrong about the 2nd we get a bunch of inflation. It seems like you-all would rather risk extinction rather than risk inflation. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS WAY OF THINKING.
. . . It seems to me that it is far better to risk inflation if we are wrong, than it is to risk extinction if we are wrong. Why is it not even one of you-all can agree with that? Why? is that?

[Steve_American]

Yes, I agree the population is way too large and it must come down.
That can be addressed as part of the program to save humanity.
But, 1st we have to get off out asses and start a program to save humanity.

30 yr. ago I proposed that every person be issued a license to have 1 child, so each couple would be able to have 2 children.
There would be no exception for religion or anything.
Poor people could sell their license for whatever the market can bare. Richer people could buy them to have 3 kids.
This would make economic competition's winners also win with population growth.
This would help poor nations be able to spend more on the children they do finally have because they have fewer and because they get cash for some of their licenses.
Religions like Mormons, Muslims, and Catholics [and others no doubt] would hate this but we are worrying about extinction here.

[Godstud]

The worst case result of AGW is very, very bad. Every sngle climate scientist agrees with this statement.

Yes, but that doesn't mean every single climate scientist agrees that there will be a worse case scenario, or when it would be. I very much doubt the apocalypse that some fear-mongers predict.

Climate science is a very new science, and as such, most climate change models are very much guesswork, and we're going to be making a lot of mistakes given the chaotic system we are trying to make predictions about.

Now, I am not denying that climate change is happening(I fully believe humans are affecting the climate very negatively- tons of evidence to this effect), but the gloom and doom climate change proponents have little to go on, besides models that are often based Hindsightcasting, and occasionally poor science(like CO2 predictions).

The earth isn't going to die in the next 100 years, in other words, and the human race is going to be making a lot of radical changes in that 100 years.

Do you remember the ozone layer scare? Whatever happened to that?

The Ozone Hole Was Super Scary, So What Happened To It?
When the ozone hole was discovered, it became a worldwide sensation. Thirty years later, what’s become of it?
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180957775/

I think we, as a species, are fully capable of turning things around in the next 50 years.

[Steve_American]

Yes, but that doesn't mean every single climate scientist agrees that there will be a worse case scenario, or when it would be. I very much doubt the apocalypse that some fear-mongers predict.

Climate science is a very new science, and as such, most climate change models are very much guesswork, and we're going to be making a lot of mistakes given the chaotic system we are trying to make predictions about.

I never said that the *worst case* would or will happen. {I did say that there are a few who do say this though.}
Can you say that hyperinflation [of >200% per year] *will* happen if the US adopts a policy of spending $2 of newly created cash for every $1 is borrows? Can you? Well, can you?

Because we are talking about the future, there are few things we can be certain of.
My climate scientists point out 2 things ---
1] Recently, most predictions made by the models have come to pass sooner than the model predicted.
2] This is almost certainly because the models are leaving out important factors and effects. This is often done because the scientists don't understand them well enough to model them. So, far most of the left out things that did happen but were not modeled have been in the wrong direction for humanity's sake.
3] One of the things left out is Methane releases from the Arctic.

You label my scientists "fear mongers". That tells me where your mind is at.

But, even the vast majority of your scientists would agree that the worst case I described is possible. If this is true then you and I are just arguing about at what percentage of a chance would it take to get you or me motivated to do something drastic to avoid the worst case being what we get.
. . . Your data point is that, in your words, "that doesn't mean every single climate scientist agrees that there will be a worse case scenario ...".
. . . Your data point doesn't address at all what percentage of climate scientists would agree that there is a 30% chance of humanity seeing that worst case in the next 200 years IF less than a lot is done to avoid it.

So, I ask you where would you draw that line? What percentage of scientists agreeing that in 200 years there is a 30% chance we will see the worst case I described would get you on to the "Let's do a lot " bandwagon?
. . . If you can't answer this then I have to assume that you are frozen in denial because the future looks so scary.

[Godstud]

You label my scientists "fear mongers".

No, I was not calling scientists fear-mongers. You misunderstood.

A lot of climate science is being politicized and fear is a common factor. I feel this is pushing agendas that are not always positive towards environmental protection/change, or even unrelated. eg. Carbon taxes.

I firmly believe that in 100 years, the human race won't be damaging the environment, but repairing it, much as we did with the ozone layer(predicted to be fully recovered by 2050). 100 years is a very long time by our modern technological standards.

We all need to start doing even a little, until time as we are capable of doing a lot.

Green energy is around, but it's still in its infancy. What works in one area does not work in another. eg. solar, geothermal, wind power, etc.

Solar energy is fine where I live, but wind power would be impossible. Likewise, in much of Canada solar and wind power aren't possible to any great extent.

[Steve_American]

I get it.
You refused to answer my question.
You are in total denial mode.
If we all do just a little then everything will be OK. Yeah, that's going to be enough!
I hope you live long and finally see the error of your thinking.

[Godstud]

I answered your question. Perhaps I did not answer it in the manner you wanted, but I did answer it.

If we all do just a little then everything will be OK. Yeah, that's going to be enough!

I never said it would be, but it's a start. We are quite incapable of doing a LOT at this juncture in time. The world isn't unified enough to even attempt such a thing, at this time. We might well be there in a few decades, when the problem is more pressing, and political denial has disappeared.

I hope you live long and finally see the error of your thinking.

There is no error in my thinking. I am a pragmatist and realist when it comes to this problem.

Here's a question(2) for you...
Do you think the nations of the world are advanced and united enough to really take a shot at stopping global climate change?

If so, how can they go about it?

[Steve_American]

I answered your question. Perhaps I did not answer it in the manner you wanted, but I did answer it.

I never said it would be, but it's a start. We are quite incapable of doing a LOT at this juncture in time. The world isn't unified enough to even attempt such a thing, at this time. We might well be there in a few decades, when the problem is more pressing, and political denial has disappeared.

There is no error in my thinking. I am a pragmatist and realist when it comes to this problem.

Here's a question(2) for you...
Do you think the nations of the world are advanced and united enough to really take a shot at stopping global climate change?

If so, how can they go about it?

No, you didn't. I find your answer to be quite non-responsive.

Why should I answer your question in the way you want when you didn't answer mine? All I asked for was a percentage. But, that was to much for you.

Yes, enough.

Spend $1T over the next 3 years to keep the Arctic sea ice from all melting in any Sept. Maybe mobilize ships by the hundreds to cover it with fog somehow to reflect more sun light during the summer months.

Will the US do this as long as Trump is Pres.? NO!

[Godstud]

No, you didn't. I find your answer to be quite non-responsive.

Why should I answer your question in the way you want when you didn't answer mine? All I asked for was a percentage. But, that was to much for you.

You are asking for the impossible and I don't respond how you like?

How do we even know where the percentage is? That's a ridiculous thing to ask. In 200 years, I don't believe climate change will be an issue.

You ask exceptionally vague questions yet want precise answers. That is quite unreasonable. Can you be more specific with your question?

Spend $1T over the next 3 years to keep the Arctic sea ice from all melting in any Sept.

What are you going to spend it on? Ice machines? Snow machines? Air conditioning units? How are you going to spend this money to prevent global climate change?

Will the US do this as long as Trump is Pres.? NO!

Certainly, because China caused global climate change(which also doesn't exist), according to Dolt 45.

That said, what is ANY President going to do? Paris Climate Change Accords were at least a step in the right direction. We need cooperation from all nations if we expect to conquer such a monumental task.