The Great Global Warming/Cooling Thread Part 2

[Strontium Dawg]

Given that it's a population issue the logical place to start is by looking at which groups of people are having more children than others.  If your group is having say 6-8 kids per family on average like you see in a lot of African and Muslim nations that's considerably worse than what you see in a lot of western nations like Germany where they're having 1.3 children per family which is below the 2.1 children needed to maintain any given population

 

Dude. That comes across as pretty I'll informed which I'm sure isn't your intention. In 3rd world countries the infant mortality rate is much higher. Of those 6-8 kids how many make it to adulthood before succumbing to the things we don't have to worry about (like, you know, those diseases that vaccination takes care of!).

Also. What is the carbon footprint of those kids in the third world? I bet it's a shitload less per capita than most of us. 

[Ethnoob]

2 hours ago, waterboy 2.0 said:

 

However playing the population numbers game hides the real impacts of emissions per capita.... Not the number of kids any demographic/"race" has... 

 

But it's another justification for inaction by some... Can't slay half the world.. Lol. Personally I think the Thanos solution is a crock of shit in regards to the current carbon balance (the issue) . Most likely help relieve several other enviro problems though pretty quickly

 

It's an individuals choice to accept, deny, do shit or surrender.... We are all gunna have to adapt regardless, and pay one way or another. 

 

 

Western lifestyles are spreading the globe over at an alarming rate.  Don't get me wrong it's good for those people to have a higher quality of life but the more people that get it the less the Earth can support.  We can either have more people living a caveman type existence or we can have less people living in a high tech society.  Either way balance will be reached so what is it you'd prefer? More people living a shit life or less people living a good one?  Now if you pick less people as any sane person would due to the fact the memory of science and technology will inspire people to rebuild their lost societies, you still have to acknowledge that some people are going to continue breeding out of control unless their numbers are kept in check by force.  You can forcibly sterilize them, you can bomb them, whatever, point is if you don't do something we're going to go back up to our current numbers in no time at all putting us in an even worse position than we're in now because absolutely everyone will be living like a western lifestyle and most likely to a higher degree than we do now.

 

But hey, let's assume I'm completely wrong as you don't believe it would make a difference.  In your ideal world how would you go about fixing the issue? Make yourself emperor of Earth and your will gets done no matter what anyone else thinks.  What do you do?

[waterboy 2.0]

You know....  maybe work on the actual problem of fixed carbon becoming free atmospheric carbon. 

Edit - and the other turbo charged gases

 

That's a change to business as usual. Then accomodate sequestration into development works. 

 

The "western" model as aspirational it is has a lot of room left to improve its performance sustainability wise. 

 

It's not rocket science 

 

Yep... Lol... "Sane" people wanna go culling folk who are not them. 

 

Edited March 18, 2019 by waterboy 2.0

[Ethnoob]

18 minutes ago, waterboy 2.0 said:

You know....  maybe work on the actual problem of fixed carbon becoming free atmospheric carbon. 

Edit - and the other turbo charged gases

 

That's a change to business as usual. Then accomodate sequestration into development works. 

 

The "western" model as aspirational it is has a lot of room left to improve its performance sustainability wise. 

 

It's not rocket science 

 

Yep... Lol... "Sane" people wanna go culling folk who are not them. 

 

You're kidding yourself if you think there's a technological solution that doesn't result in the human population going up which is literally the sole cause of the environmental damage we're doing as a species.  Even if I were wrong though how much of the Earth should be dedicated to a single species?  We've chopped down the majority of forests, we've raped the oceans for food and every single person that's born has a mouth that needs feeding and absolutely will put their foot down claiming some space as for themselves displacing other species.  The more of us there are the less room there is for everything else and there's no technological solution for that.

 

You may call me insane for thinking population control is the only viable cure for what ails this planet but I think you're the insane one for ignoring it merely because it makes you feel bad to think about it.  I get how it's cold, ruthless and we'd lose what remains of our humanity going down that path which is why you'd never consider it an option but that doesn't make it wrong.  It just makes it morally objectionable and even then that depends on how much of a greater good you believe such actions would result in.

[waterboy 2.0]

See this is where your confounding the problem. Your raising a raft of issues there..... 

 

Lol... I've killed more shit than you can imagine, and humans are just another animal IMO  lol... You haven't got me pinned matey.... Don't kid yourself. 

 

You can be an argumentative arse all you like, your opinion ain't gospel,nor is mine. 

 

Also never said there was a fix.. . 

[nothinghead]

Population problem or not (I think there is one), carbon emissions per capita is pretty central to the issue. But before we go all controlled intentional apocalypse on one more species on the planet, maybe we should listen to what people in the field are saying: https://www.textpublishing.com.au/books/atmosphere-of-hope

[Ethnoob]

3 hours ago, nothinghead said:

Population problem or not (I think there is one), carbon emissions per capita is pretty central to the issue. But before we go all controlled intentional apocalypse on one more species on the planet, maybe we should listen to what people in the field are saying: https://www.textpublishing.com.au/books/atmosphere-of-hope

This is what he recommends:

From atmospheric carbon capture through extensive seaweed farming, CO2 snow production in Antarctica and the manufacture of carbon-rich biochar to reflecting the sun’s rays by releasing sulphur into the atmosphere and painting landscapes and cities white, Flannery outlines an array of innovative technologies that give cause for hope.

 

Every single one of those suggestions are band aid solutions that ultimately fail to address the underlying cause of their necessity.  Sure they could help a little but why would we want to make all our towns blindingly white and identical the world over for example when doing so ruins architecture which is one of the largest defining qualities of every culture not to mention it actually helping to make the problem worse with the constant maintenance and production of the paint?  I won't even get started on the million plus reasons why geoengineering is retarded or how when plants die they ultimately release all their carbon back as they decay.

 

Deep down we all know that human existence has a negative effect on this planet which means the fewer of us there are the better off the world would be.    It's just no one wants to admit that people need to be killed off in such numbers that Thanos would look like a pussy because if we admit that we then have to consider the reasons why certain people should live or die which is horribly uncomfortable to think about.  It makes you feel like a racist, it makes you feel like a eugenicist and really just plain evil in general but we already have examples from nature to reflect upon that proves it is the right course of action to take.  Just look at what happens when kangaroos breed out of control for example.  They all suffer until they start dying off but can cause so much damage between now and then the humane thing to do is to thin the herd.  We don't like to do it but we know it's ultimately morally correct to forcibly bring them back in balance with nature and lessen their suffering and all I'm saying is that we need to take a similar approach with ourselves.

[bardo]

14 hours ago, Ethnoob said:

make all our towns blindingly white

That's what they did on the moon. 

 

14 hours ago, Ethnoob said:

people need to be killed off in such numbers that Thanos would look like a pussy

World war 3 on a scale that will knock as back to the stone age, maybe bomb the deserts as well to try send a heap of dust up in the atmosphere to block out some sun light. 

 

I don't know but it seems there is no real solution to the problem, with all the feedbacks being triggered and the lag effect in heating etc, and if we stop emissions we loose the dimming effect which may accelerate our demise ?  its a pickle 

Maybe we need to try get to Saturns moon Titan and hope for the best lol  

[Strontium Dawg]

14 hours ago, Ethnoob said:

Just look at what happens when kangaroos breed out of control for example.  They all suffer until they start dying off but can cause so much damage between now and then the humane thing to do is to thin the herd.  We don't like to do it but we know it's ultimately morally correct to forcibly bring them back in balance with nature and lessen their suffering and all I'm saying is that we need to take a similar approach with ourselves.

Why do kangaroos breed out of control? Because we fucked the system up. Then we try to correct it and probably fuck up more things in the process. 

I often wonder if this is actually our purpose. Maybe we have it all wrong. Maybe we are supposed to transform base elements into complex technology as part of some macroecosystem process. Are we an abberration? It's hugely depressing to contemplate that you are apart from the natural order of things, so maybe we aren't, and we just can't see the end game. Maybe I'm clutching at straws because it's too horrible to think about...

[Insequent]

I recently read a couple of books by Charles Eisenstein, Climate: A new Story, The Ascent of Humanity and Sacred Economics. I like his take on things. I read them all in a couple of weeks, but that's all I do in my spare time when I'm not travelling well. I highly recommend them for another perspective on quite a few things, but in particular, the environment and the global capital system, and how all the problems we're facing now are connected. He creates a big picture narrative and explains what he thinks it will take to remedy problems like climate change.

 

We've two choices; continue the path we're on, or find the solutions. If we keep on the same track, I don't think we need to worry about the population issue. Water for example, is only one of the things upcoming wars are going to be fought over. Perhaps we've already seen the lead up to reaching the tipping point. If we haven't, I'm thinking we're going to see it (much) sooner rather than later.  We'll get our population reduction. 

[Insequent]

5 hours ago, Glaukus said:

It's hugely depressing to contemplate that you are apart from the natural order of things, so maybe we aren't, and we just can't see the end game. Maybe I'm clutching at straws because it's too horrible to think about...

 

My friend, I think you've summed up the core of all the problems we face.  The author I mentioned above centres a lot of what he has to say around what our place is in nature and I found it incredibly comforting.  

[paradox]

On 18/03/2019 at 4:12 PM, Ethnoob said:

 

You may call me insane for thinking population control is the only viable cure for what ails this planet but I think you're the insane one for ignoring it merely because it makes you feel bad to think about it.  I get how it's cold, ruthless and we'd lose what remains of our humanity going down that path which is why you'd never consider it an option but that doesn't make it wrong.  It just makes it morally objectionable and even then that depends on how much of a greater good you believe such actions would result in.

 

Just a sec, I haven’t read all your posts, are you advocating mass genocide?  

[paradox]

On 18/03/2019 at 10:53 PM, Ethnoob said:

all I'm saying is that we need to take a similar approach with ourselves.

 

all you’re saying is billions of men, women & children need to be rounded up against their will & slaughtered.. got it.. simple right?

 

maybe the hundreds of millions of tonnes of dead human bodies can be processed into fertiliser to grow the soy that will feed to privileged class of vegans whom were the only ones deemed worthy of life by the supreme leftist overlords 

 

 

[paradox]

On 18/03/2019 at 4:12 PM, Ethnoob said:

You may call me insane for thinking population control is the only viable cure for what ails this planet but I think you're the insane one for ignoring it merely because it makes you feel bad to think about it.  I get how it's cold, ruthless and we'd lose what remains of our humanity going down that path which is why you'd never consider it an option but that doesn't make it wrong. 

 

I’d be more inclined to call you monumentally psychopathic to a degree that’s beyond comprehension.. insane doesn’t come close. 

 

You describe rounding up & murdering BILLIONS of innocent babies & children & people (I guess as long as it’s not you & your friends) as ‘cold’?  I’m sure for those billions of people murdered it would also be a bit annoying, slightly inconvenient, kind of mean, a little slack..

 

So if this psychopathic, genocidal slaughtering of billions of babies & innocent people is such that ‘you'd never consider it an option’ then why are you saying it’s our only viable option? What’s your point? Are you interested in solutions or do you just like fantasising about mass murder on a scale unfathomable by worst genocidal dictators known to humanity?

 

if this scale of mass genocide can’t be considered ‘wrong’ then how on earth do you define that word?  What kind of demented post modernist extremist projection do you inhabit where you can’t even define something of that scale as wrong? 

 

Please explain how you aren’t the most deplorable kind of psychopathic freak? 

 

[paradox]

I agree that over population is a huge issue by the way & it freaks me out & affects my life as much as anyone & there’s so much that is most valuable to me that is deeply, mortally threatened by it... I have often fantasised about living in a world where there’s plenty of space & resources for everyone & the biosphere is not continually being destroyed but I still find your perspective either naive or psychopathic, possibly both.. 

 

Yes I’m trolling you but I’m also serious. It really seems you haven’t thought through the monumental implications of this idea.. which is fine, we’re all allowed to talk shit but you’re shooting down people in the thread who think practical solutions are worth focusing on before resorting to genocidal mass murder.. 

 

It seems to me you’re either jerking off for the heck of it, you really haven’t begun to consider the problem outside of the fantasy world in your head or you’re actually just a psychopathic post-modernist extremist nutjob.

 

no offense  

[bardo]

lol settle down paradox, its just a bit of mass murder, its all good 

 

When ethnoob says 'we then have to consider the reasons why certain people should live or die' just gotta hope you are apart of the we or found worthy of living by the we lol

 

I wonder what the criteria would be to make such a decision/s,  maybe people with disabilities and on the dole can be the first round, then the criminals, then anyone who apposes or disagrees with the new order and there decisions, also bomb all 3 world countries while we are at it, then all the middle class folks who are docile and found worthy can be chipped and work in camps to farm and care for the chosen ones, the elite, and new gods can be created to justify all that's happened and everyone indoctrinated into the religion of servitude to the chosen ones. 

 

Yeh that sounds pretty good, I think that oughta do it. We can have death drones permanently scanning for anyone outside the safe zones and not indoctrinated so they don't have any chance to build up there numbers and challenge or threaten the new religion and cause trouble. We can call the outsiders the unmarked ones. 

 

 

 

 

[nothinghead]

On 18/03/2019 at 10:53 PM, Ethnoob said:

Every single one of those suggestions are band aid solutions that ultimately fail to address the underlying cause of their necessity. 

 

If you read the book he gives one of the most straightforward explanations of why our global ecosystem is in the precarious state that it is in, and describes the existing and potential technologies that have the best chance of stabilising it. 

 

I'd say that advocating a population reduction ultimately fails to address the underlying cause of global environmental degradation. Why would a reduced population not simply breed back to the point we're at today? Most of the ecological damage we've inflicted as a species has happened within roughly the last couple of centuries, the same time period for the rapid growth of human population. Leave in place the societal structures, national and international systems of governance that have gotten us here, largely defined by industrial capitalism, international competition, and religion-based morality, and reduce the number of people and you're probably just deferring the problem without addressing its underlying cause. 

 

Tim Flannery talks about the practical steps we can take towards curbing ecological degradation. Leftist/anarchist philosophers from Leopold Kohr to Murray Bookchin have described ways of organising society that reduces our propensity for violence and destruction and would allow us to live with a more harmonious relationship to each other, other species' and our environment. 

 

There may be too many people living in some parts of the world for that ecosystem to support them, but ultimately climate change and other large scale environmental problems are about how we live. We know that economic affluence is a large factor in determining birth-rate, and we know that affluence is, demographically, causative of a large carbon footprint. We need to address the material issues of inequality and the systems that cause it, the cultural practices that support selfish and ecologically destructive behaviours, and of course the actual problems like ocean acidification, glacial melt, and reduction of biodiversity.

[Ethnoob]

22 hours ago, paradox said:

 

I’d be more inclined to call you monumentally psychopathic to a degree that’s beyond comprehension.. insane doesn’t come close. 

 

You describe rounding up & murdering BILLIONS of innocent babies & children & people (I guess as long as it’s not you & your friends) as ‘cold’?  I’m sure for those billions of people murdered it would also be a bit annoying, slightly inconvenient, kind of mean, a little slack..

 

So if this psychopathic, genocidal slaughtering of billions of babies & innocent people is such that ‘you'd never consider it an option’ then why are you saying it’s our only viable option? What’s your point? Are you interested in solutions or do you just like fantasising about mass murder on a scale unfathomable by worst genocidal dictators known to humanity?

 

if this scale of mass genocide can’t be considered ‘wrong’ then how on earth do you define that word?  What kind of demented post modernist extremist projection do you inhabit where you can’t even define something of that scale as wrong? 

 

Please explain how you aren’t the most deplorable kind of psychopathic freak? 

 

 

I am a psychopath in that I can look at things objectively without involving emotion bu that doesn't mean I'm wrong.  Every species can live in harmony with the surrounding environment provided it's numbers are kept in balance and it's obvious our species is out of balance due to the global effects we're having.  As such logically the cure is a reduction in our numbers to bring us back into line.

 

Now that said I know it's morally objectionable to kill even pedophiles so it's not like the idea of murdering billions of innocents sits well with me.  My only point was that since there's not going to be some technological miracle cure that allows us to make all 7.5 billion people live the 1% lifestyle without causing the entire world to get fucked over a forced reduction in the human population is in the interest of everything.  Now if we can admit that to ourselves and consider ourselves guardians of the planet is it then not our duty to lessen the suffering of that decision being made?  To me though this is where the real moral implications come into play though because by which criteria do you judge?  Let's say you wanted Africa for Africans, Japan for the Japanese, etc. to preserve all the races in a distinct place of their own then places like Australia that have been taken over by whites would either be forced to take measures like saying Australia is for the Aboriginals or that the nation was founded in 1901 and if you can't trace your family history to then you've gotta go.  Choosing the sick, the elderly, druggos on welfare, fresh off the boat immigrants, etc. seems easy enough but it can get real complicated, real fast and it's going to be a shit show either way.  What I do know is that people would be absolutely butt hurt for all of eternity over it no matter how much better off they and the rest of the world has it.

 

Another thing I know is that if humanity was to go down that path then there needs to be an all powerful global force that can land a nuke anywhere.  They need to hold the world hostage and say either you stick to your breeding plan so your numbers stay within their limits or you get hit with a nuke and lose an even greater number of people.  If the punishment isn't worse like that people simply won't care and we'll end right back where we are today. I know, I know, psychopath, but explain how I'm wrong with cold logic and change my mind....

 

 

3 hours ago, nothinghead said:

 

If you read the book he gives one of the most straightforward explanations of why our global ecosystem is in the precarious state that it is in, and describes the existing and potential technologies that have the best chance of stabilising it. 

 

I'd say that advocating a population reduction ultimately fails to address the underlying cause of global environmental degradation. Why would a reduced population not simply breed back to the point we're at today? Most of the ecological damage we've inflicted as a species has happened within roughly the last couple of centuries, the same time period for the rapid growth of human population. Leave in place the societal structures, national and international systems of governance that have gotten us here, largely defined by industrial capitalism, international competition, and religion-based morality, and reduce the number of people and you're probably just deferring the problem without addressing its underlying cause. 

 

Tim Flannery talks about the practical steps we can take towards curbing ecological degradation. Leftist/anarchist philosophers from Leopold Kohr to Murray Bookchin have described ways of organising society that reduces our propensity for violence and destruction and would allow us to live with a more harmonious relationship to each other, other species' and our environment. 

 

There may be too many people living in some parts of the world for that ecosystem to support them, but ultimately climate change and other large scale environmental problems are about how we live. We know that economic affluence is a large factor in determining birth-rate, and we know that affluence is, demographically, causative of a large carbon footprint. We need to address the material issues of inequality and the systems that cause it, the cultural practices that support selfish and ecologically destructive behaviours, and of course the actual problems like ocean acidification, glacial melt, and reduction of biodiversity.

 

The earth tries to live in harmony like two sides of an equation trying to even each other out.  There's a certain number of people that can live on this earth but it depends on the lifestyles that we have.  We can have more vegans living in mud huts for example than we can westerners that eat meat.  My point was that people are never going to forget the western life, our sciences, the technology, etc. which means they absolutely will strive for it again and that as a result we have to pick lower numbers of people with a greater impact over more people with less impact.

 

As for addressing the population to make sure it doesn't jump again hold the world hostage with nukes.

 

Leftists are mostly retarded.  They always put feels before reals and put all their faith in future technologies that are either unproven, unworkable or as in most cases simply don't exist.  More than that they don't think about the ramifications of their plans because they live in an imaginary world.  Take multiculturalism for example.  It's meant to make us less racist, be our strength and all that shit right? Instead it destroys both cultures by forcing them to change, it forces the races to inevitably blend destroying the ethnic differences we once had and until that happens it fosters hatred and self segregation.  Don't believe me? Why is there a China town in every major city in the world? Why do muslims hang around one another more than they do us? Why is white flight a thing?  Deep down we know these things to be true but it feels bad thinking that way so a leftist ignores reality to absolve them of their wrongthink crime which they also do to everything else in life such as renewable energy sources like solar saying it's energy from the sun while completely ignoring the absolutely horrendous impact the panels construction has done before ending up on their roof.  It's always feels before reals so I'll never buy into their philosophy or politics.  Don't get me wrong, the hardcore right are retarded too, just leftists more so.

 

Now obviously it's about how we live as a species that impacts the environment as I described in the first paragraph of my reply to you but if you think for a moment dealing with inequality will help you're assuming that the 3rd world will start breeding at 1st world rates.  The 3rd world will forever breed like the 3rd world and by giving them greater access to resources like food and medicine it just means more will survive and make the overpopulation problem worse.  Look at Africa.  We've fed them for over 100 years and they're still popping out like 8 kids knowing they're going to starve too.  More than that their now western lifestyles are going to devastate the planet in real short order.  It's psychopathic again on my behalf, probably racist too, but logically if you want to address the overpopulation issue you absolutely must start with the ones doing the majority of the breeding and prevent them from wanting to emulate our lifestyles too.  If you don't you're literally just adding fuel to the fire.

[waterboy 2.0]

LOL

 

"we".... "us" 

 

You bro, you... Fuck you rant on 

 

 

 

[Strontium Dawg]

I think nothinghead has already said what needs to be said. We could have a global population of one million people total and they could still cause global warming.

[bardo]

If we together or as an individual try solve the problem peacefully and succeed then we can be proud and positive of that achievement, if we/I/you try solve it peacefully and fail we/I/you can die with some dignity and integrity. 

 

If we mass murder billions what do we live and die with ? 

[paradox]

On 22/03/2019 at 11:08 AM, Ethnoob said:

explain how I'm wrong with cold logic and change my mind....

 

These ideas are infinitely more complicated, unachievable & fraught with insurmountable complexities than just about any other solution imaginable 

 

Climate change has been politicised in such a way so as to dupe morons into supporting utterly unacceptable social control. It’s working like a charm & you’re a prime example among prime examples of this considering what you are advocating. 

 

please stop being so hysterical people. In 1989 we were told the ice caps would be melted & the world would end by the year 2000.. sure things are a bit worrying but we aren’t even close to being smart enough to understand the true implications of the unknown changes that we don’t even understand what those changes really are yet.. positive progress & meaningful solutions to problems come from calm, clear, positive minds.. the only things that come from hysteria is personal hell & a willingness to accept insidious social control. 

 

I’m pretty sure you are not going to become this genocidal overlord noob so which way your mind sways is neither here nor there, I just was compelled to point out how retarded your ideas are & point out how dangerous that kind of psychotic hysteria is.  the fact you’re a psychopath is just an obvious side-note

[Crop]

 https://outabouter.com/2019/04/11/rest-of-earths-inhabitants-vote-to-phase-out-people-by-the-year-2040/?fbclid=IwAR3Vcqkoeozpaf1e6agb5fSeNe4-lAfkopIHaPxjYq1oTqLjPPQUEBeX2-o

Rest Of Earth’s Inhabitants Vote To Phase Out People By The Year 2040

BY PAUL DUNCAN ON APRIL 11, 2019 • ( 13 COMMENTS )

Edited April 17, 2019 by Crop
Added pic.

[Crop]

Maybe Ethnoob's solution to the population problem is a wee bit extreme So what is a good solution?  India tried giving away radio's to any women who would volunteer for sterilization, but it wasn't very successful. China's 'One Child Policy' essentially taxed individuals at a higher rate for each child after the first. Much more successful, but problematic in a patriarchal society. Many female fetuses were aborted, and worse.

Anyone have any better idea's?

[bardo]

Yeh, make the most of every moment, live and let live, do all you want and remember all is transient anyhow