Politics Vs Climate (and how to stop it)

[Dog's_Breakfast]

I never heard of the success means extinction paradigm, although perhaps you mean the classic bacteria exponential growth, plateau and death phase curve?
I don't think that applies exactly to humans to but it could definitely get nasty at some point.

It actually doesn't happen that often, because few species are that successful. It's believed that this is what wiped out wild horses in North America (they were later reintroduced by the Spanish, after having gone extinct 15,000 years earlier). In more recent times, a classic example was the St Matthew Island (in Alaska's Bering Sea) reindeer. From Wikipedia:

In 1944, 29 reindeer were introduced to the island by the United States Coast Guard to provide an emergency food source. The coast guard abandoned the island a few years later, leaving the reindeer. Subsequently, the reindeer population rose to about 6,000 by 1963[5] and then died off in the next two years to 42 animals.[6] A scientific study attributed the population crash to the limited food supply in interaction with climatic factors (the winter of 1963–64 was exceptionally severe in the region).[1] By the 1980s, the reindeer population had completely died out.[2] Environmentalists see this as an issue of overpopulation. For example, Garrett Hardin cited the "natural experiment" of St. Matthew Island of the reindeer population explosion and collapse as a paradigmatic example of the consequences of overpopulation in his essay An Ecolate View of the Human Predicament.



The above was for reindeer. Here is a population curve for humans:



The above is the much-reviled hockey stick. There are those (mainly religious fundamentalists) who argue that the hockey stick is a fabrication, and that there is no limit on high human population can grow. Allah will provide. Or Jesus. Or someone. So the human population can go right on growing until it exceeds the mass of the Earth, and then we can always move the excess population to Mars, Jupiter and beyond. It's so simple - just close your eyes and wish, and it will happen (kind of like those plans to power the world with "alternative energy").

[Dog's_Breakfast]

Another post by me in this dying thread. I feel like I'm posting to respond to my own posts. But whatever, if anyone is reading this...

Germany to fund new coal plants with climate change cash

The German government wants to encourage the construction of new coal and gas power plants with millions of euros from a fund for promoting clean energy and combating climate change. The plan has come under stiff criticism, but the Ministry of Economics and Technology defended the idea. A spokeswoman said it was necessary as the government switches from nuclear to other renewable energy sources and added that the money would promote the most efficient plants possible...

I should think this news would be the final nail in the coffin for the idea that "renewables" can replace nuclear power, but of course it won't be viewed that way by the green faithful. They'll go right on insisting that we can shut down the nukes and still have all the power we need from renewables. I guess that coal is now a renewable. Just like firewood.

[headhonchoII]

I never heard of the success means extinction paradigm, although perhaps you mean the classic bacteria exponential growth, plateau and death phase curve?
I don't think that applies exactly to humans to but it could definitely get nasty at some point.

It actually doesn't happen that often, because few species are that successful. It's believed that this is what wiped out wild horses in North America (they were later reintroduced by the Spanish, after having gone extinct 15,000 years earlier). In more recent times, a classic example was the St Matthew Island (in Alaska's Bering Sea) reindeer. From Wikipedia:

In 1944, 29 reindeer were introduced to the island by the United States Coast Guard to provide an emergency food source. The coast guard abandoned the island a few years later, leaving the reindeer. Subsequently, the reindeer population rose to about 6,000 by 1963[5] and then died off in the next two years to 42 animals.[6] A scientific study attributed the population crash to the limited food supply in interaction with climatic factors (the winter of 1963–64 was exceptionally severe in the region).[1] By the 1980s, the reindeer population had completely died out.[2] Environmentalists see this as an issue of overpopulation. For example, Garrett Hardin cited the "natural experiment" of St. Matthew Island of the reindeer population explosion and collapse as a paradigmatic example of the consequences of overpopulation in his essay An Ecolate View of the Human Predicament.



The above was for reindeer. Here is a population curve for humans:



The above is the much-reviled hockey stick. There are those (mainly religious fundamentalists) who argue that the hockey stick is a fabrication, and that there is no limit on high human population can grow. Allah will provide. Or Jesus. Or someone. So the human population can go right on growing until it exceeds the mass of the Earth, and then we can always move the excess population to Mars, Jupiter and beyond. It's so simple - just close your eyes and wish, and it will happen (kind of like those plans to power the world with "alternative energy").

I can over population helped cause the crash when faced with an abrupt change in climate. However it does not explain why they died out later on in the 80s. The story is probably more complex involving disease or change in vegetation.

[finley]

I should think this news would be the final nail in the coffin for the idea that "renewables" can replace nuclear power, but of course it won't be viewed that way by the green faithful.

Hardly. It's just realpolitik as usual. Politicians say one thing and do something else. 'twas ever thus. No big deal.

They'll go right on insisting that we can shut down the nukes and still have all the power we need from renewables. I guess that coal is now a renewable. Just like firewood.

Renewables won't power what we have now; you're confusing "need" with "want". They'll power a future world, where people finally understand that we don't need to waste massive amounts of energy to achieve an affluent lifestyle. We only do it now because we can. Or because we think we can; most of the world still doesn't have anything resembling a reliable power/fuel supply.

[trubadour]

Your data is wrong. It's 300 years old (and it was proven wrong then, too). It's now generally accepted that as nations develop, populations decline. So there is no threat exponential growth in population. In fact, we might be facing the opposite problem (not enough people). Either way, for those worried we could starve, consider this: we currently have more than enough resources to meet everyone basic needs - but people still go hungry. This is not because there is a problem with the earth supporting our population but because humanity exhibits various social and psychological problems which I think we can generally refer to as collective distributive inefficiency.



Legend: World population estimates from 1800 to 2100, based on UN 2010 projections (red, orange, green) and US Census Bureau historical estimates (black). According to the highest estimate, the world population may rise to 16 billion by 2100; according to the lowest estimate, it may decline to only 6 billion.

[Steviebike]

I'm wondering more and more about actual population decline and it's natural effects. I totally agree with your statement Trubadour.

It's really curious. For example after the World War II, the male birth rate was higher than the female birth rate. For the obvious reason of the war and soldiers dieing. But how can that be? No one controls that, it's just nature...

Could it be possible that there is a natural ceiling for birthrates?

[finley]

Could it be possible that there is a natural ceiling for birthrates?

There is, actually, but AFAIK nobody is sure what the limit is for humans. It's been shown, with various different species, that animals naturally stop reproducing when they become too crowded. It's not a conscious decision (we assume); it just happens. I can't see why humans would be any different. The threshold for animals is typically slightly below the density where they start spontanously fighting, so it seems humans aren't as clever as, say, woodlice.

[Dog's_Breakfast]

Your data is wrong. It's 300 years old (and it was proven wrong then, too).

Breathtaking statement. And wrong. Not sure which data it is you're objecting to, but the growth rate in those charts I published are historical fact. They already happened and are engraved in stone. The only thing that is not already carved in stone are the future projections.

Hard fact is: world population growth has been exponential, and still is. When I was born, the world's population was a little under 3 billion. Fact is it is now over 7 billion. More than doubled. This is in just one person's lifetime, and I'm not dead yet.

It's now generally accepted that as nations develop, populations decline. So there is no threat exponential growth in population. In fact, we might be facing the opposite problem (not enough people).

Yes, in countries that develop, population growth rates tend to drop. Reality on the ground is that many countries are not developing and some even are going backwards. A pretty substantial portion of Africa falls into that category. In the developed world, some countries are seeing substantial population increase due to immigration - the USA derives more than half it's annual population increase from immigrants. And the immigrants have a high birth rate for at least one more generation, before they fall into developed country habits of reproduction.

Taiwan has a low birthrate, and population growth may soon turn negative here. Considering how crowded it is already in Taiwan, I'm rather glad. I'm fully aware that this means an aging population. The price we pay for overpopulation by past generations.

Taiwan is, I think, a very good example of a country that has populated way beyond the means to support itself without relying on hefty imports of energy, and at least some food. A war in the Middle East that cuts off our imports of oil, natural gas and coal means starvation for Taiwanese. If the population were half of what it is now, we might be able to squeak by.

A big wildcard is the recent rise of religious fundamentalism, which brings with it a desire to breed more foot soldiers for "the cause." That's particularly true in the Middle East. It also sets the stage for war, the traditional means of population control.

The following map gives a good idea what parts of the world are breeding like crazy, and which aren't:

Either way, for those worried we could starve, consider this: we currently have more than enough resources to meet everyone basic needs - but people still go hungry. This is not because there is a problem with the earth supporting our population but because humanity exhibits various social and psychological problems which I think we can generally refer to as collective distributive inefficiency.

The very uneven spread of wealth in the world is indeed a cause of starvation. Some form of wealth redistribution could help a lot, but what I see happening in the world today is mostly the opposite. I'd like to point out that my native country, the USA, is the current leader on making the world more unequal. Sadly, the Ayn Rand mentality is spreading.

Legend: World population estimates from 1800 to 2100, based on UN 2010 projections (red, orange, green) and US Census Bureau historical estimates (black). According to the highest estimate, the world population may rise to 16 billion by 2100; according to the lowest estimate, it may decline to only 6 billion.

I don't see why this graph you published gives much cause for optimism. It shows possible population projections. So which one is correct? I guess you want to believe it will be the lower one, resulting in 6 billion souls by year 2100. Why it could not be the one projecting 16 billion? Actually, I don't think we'll reach 16 billion, but not because of a declining birth rate - rather, I think because of a rising death rate.

If the world continues to burn coal and pump CO2 into the atmosphere like now, we will certainly see a rising death rate regardless of other factors.

If the world listens to the anti-nuclear power greens (which seems to be happening), the nukes will shut down and we'll certainly see a lot more coal being burned as a result. I find it greatly ironic to see the so-called "greens" working hard to put even more CO2 into the atmosphere. They are making the same mistake as the "drill-baby-drill" crowd, and they don't even know it. Their reasoning is different, and yet the result is the same.

At the end of the day, only results matter. Greenpeace and the Tea Party are both advocating a path to disaster.

Merkel's Green Shift Forces Germany to Burn More Coal Energy

Of course, the "greener alternative" is natural gas, right? Because it's so much cleaner than coal...

If Natural Gas is Less Noxious Than Coal, Don't We Have to Frack?

[trubadour]

The fact is it is not population growth which is the problem. Population growth will slow significantly and more old people will die than are born to replace them. This is already happening. I suppose you can take a pessimistic view of the future but I believe it is unfounded. The origin of over-population fears are based on the theory of the now proven fear-monger Thomas Malthus who was already proved wrong in his own lifetime. Regardless the math doesn't stand up:

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

The only reason people keep going on about it is, I suppose, up to them to answer for.

I suppose, fundamentally, it passes the buck. The real problems are caused by the way we live not how many people are living it. How can anyone ignore the 'distribution problem'? It's easier to pass the buck.

[finley]

Population growth will slow significantly and more old people will die than are born to replace them.

For what reason? As noted above, birth rates only decline once a country reaches a certain level of "civilisation". Most of the planet hasn't reached that point, and won't in the foreseeable future.

The origin of over-population fears are based on the theory of the now proven fear-monger Thomas Malthus who was already proved wrong in his own lifetime.

No, he wasn't. The only thing that (temporarily) stymied his prediction was the catalytic synthesis of ammonia and the discovery of large phosphate rock deposits. I'd say that was a forgiveable oversight. There was nothing wrong with his logic. The consequences of (local) overpopulation are very, very clear to see in places like Haiti, Nigeria and the Philippines. A good fraction of their problems can be ascribed to simply having inadequate ecosystem services to support their population (in the first two cases, because those services have been comprehensively destroyed by the locals).

Regardless the math doesn't stand up:

:facepalm: That is the most jaw-droppingly stupid "explanation" I've ever seen. Someone needs to explain to the writers, who apparently didn't finish high school (a) the properties of a geometric progression and (b) why human population growth is a geometric progression.

The real problems are caused by the way we live not how many people are living it.

That's certainly true; but the original question Steviebike posted was, what do we do about that?