The two existential crises of the 21st century

[Bristol-Cruiser]

I rest my case,

That is a little simplistic to be sure. The obvious answer is to build another wave pool or three or ten and with the typical Chinese focus to make a buck yuan that likely. happened pretty quickly after the demand became apparent.

To look more broadly, traditionally thinking about population growth has fallen in to two camps - the Neo-Malthusians on one hand who are into doom and gloom and the Cornucopians on the other, who think we will find a way, the Green Revolution which provided for billions of people being a good example of their thinking. Now there is another wrinkle, the idea that the population may be self-regulating, which seems to be the case now with declining fertility rates around the world. As part of my work, teacher and author, I have kept my eye on UN population projections since the '70s. What has been interesting is that these projections have become more and more optimistic. The only major exception is Africa which continues to have high growth and a limited ability to sustain a growing population.

Have a look at the UN population report - it is an annual publication and worth a quick read.
https://www.un.org/development/desa....desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf

 

[pusslicker]

How To Read This Chart: A history of the decline of the world

Plus, what the kids are doing with their Tiks and their Toks.

s2.washingtonpost.com

 

[Blue Crab]

o look more broadly, traditionally thinking about population growth has fallen in to two camps - the Neo-Malthusians on one hand who are into doom and gloom and the Cornucopians on the other, who think we will find a way, the Green Revolution which provided for billions of people being a good example of their thinking.

I read somewhere that a Repub pov is that innovation will keep ahead of need.

 

[phill_nz]

the message so many are not getting

 

[Go Left]

Yet the planet has sustained a population greater than your 1.5-2.5 billion for a long time and hasn't failed. And may continue with a population of 8 billion for another 1000 years.

The blanket statement "too many people=too much environmental damage" is too simple to be seen as accurate.

A thousand years is NOT a long time in geologic or climactic terms. It is but a minute.

And failure doesn't happen at the rate of a car crash. More like a panamax heading for a reef with a fight broken out at the helm.

 

[Mid]

 

[Ease the sheet.]

wasn't what i said though was it
or
do you not comprehend a difference between
existence living
and
living in an eden oasis

fuk me
if all you want on the planet is rats, humans and cockroaches we could easily sustain well over 30 billion

So you're suggesting you are living an existence living?

Or are your opinions not backed by reality?

 

[Ease the sheet.]

that 'long time' you allude to sure as fk isn't on a geological/planetary time scale. 'long time', my ass, more like the blink of an eye.

we don't deserve to be here or belong here. our human legacy is ecocide.

I can barely wrap my head around this shit...

Using the timeline of human existence to illustrate a point was always going to be problematic....

 

[phill_nz]

So you're suggesting you are living an existence living?

Or are your opinions not backed by reality?

seeing as how we are talking about a planet full of people we have to go by the average
in which case that's a definite yes
an existence level of living is about or more than the average
if we are not talking about the whole population then it becomes the expected
fuk you i have got mine mentality

 

[Navig8tor]

seeing as how we are talking about a planet full of people we have to go by the average
in which case that's a definite yes
an existence level of living is about or more than the average
if we are not talking about the whole population then it becomes the expected
fuk you i have got mine mentality

Whilst I agree somewhat the existential crisis for me will become one of water and weather both of which have the ability to change things dramatically from affecting how and where we live to an actual thinning of the herd.

 

[phill_nz]

Whilst I agree somewhat the existential crisis for me will become one of water and weather both of which have the ability to change things dramatically from affecting how and where we live to an actual thinning of the herd.

for most here those will be a mix of good news and bad news

good news .. lots more navigable water to sail in

bad news .... weather too heavy to go sailing .. big waves keep throwing the boat ashore

 

[Mid]

whilst the distribution of wealth continues to be obscenely skewered , darker days will be our future .

 

[Ease the sheet.]

whilst the distribution of wealth continues to be obscenely skewered , darker days will be our future .

This.
While people starve, others are throwing it away.

Inequality creates conflict. Humans will kill each other before the world decides to do something drastic.

 

[Bristol-Cruiser]

I read somewhere that a Repub pov is that innovation will keep ahead of need.

That would be the Cornucopian (horn of plenty) camp.

 

[Blue Crab]

Yep. It's played out pretty well so far too. Once the whales were hunted out, we found another source for lamp fuel. We are now moving to renewable sources as we deplete the petroleum reserves.

Nuke plants work ... with some reservations. Hydrogen is available. By the time we deplete the oil, innovation will have rendered the issue moot.

Dems do a lot of worrying about stuff that won't necessarily happen. Like thinking inequality is something fixable.

 

[billy backstay]

Yep. It's played out pretty well so far too. Once the whales were hunted out, we found another source for lamp fuel. We are now moving to renewable sources as we deplete the petroleum reserves.

Nuke plants work ... with some reservations. Hydrogen is available. By the time we deplete the oil, innovation will have rendered the issue moot.

Dems do a lot of worrying about stuff that won't necessarily happen. Like thinking inequality is something fixable.

By the time we deplete the oil, there may not be a habitable planet to exist on for us.....

 

[Steam Flyer]

Yep. It's played out pretty well so far too. Once the whales were hunted out, we found another source for lamp fuel. We are now moving to renewable sources as we deplete the petroleum reserves.

Nuke plants work ... with some reservations. Hydrogen is available. By the time we deplete the oil, innovation will have rendered the issue moot.

Dems do a lot of worrying about stuff that won't necessarily happen. Like thinking inequality is something fixable.

Inequality -in law- is fixable.
In fact, it's necessary.

Fusion power is the answer. It's only 20 years away!

 

[billy backstay]

Inequality -in law- is fixable.
In fact, it's necessary.

Fusion power is the answer. It's only 20 years away!

Of course it is!!

 

[Blue Crab]

By the time we deplete the oil, there may not be a habitable planet to exist on for us.....

That too. And it may well have nothing to do with any animal activity at all.

 

[billy backstay]

While the technology is still many years away from being widely used, the hope is that some nuclear fusion reactors will be fully operational by 2027.Jan 13, 2023

When can we expect nuclear fusion?

Developments in nuclear fusion are bringing us closer to using the technology to generate electricity, but we are still a long way away from it being ready.

www.newsweek.com