Population, Pollution & Politics: The Future of Civilization

[Doktor Avalanche]

Random thoughts: 

I never thought anarchy was possible, other than anarchist capitalism. However, this defeats the entire traditional idea of anarchy. Proponents of anarchist capitalism like to claim some kind of freedom. "Free markets = free people" or some garbage. The reality is that anarchist capitalism means that anything can be capitalized. And in order to capitalize, competition must be eliminated. Allowing competition in capitalism is only allowing your own future downfall. It's a "survival of the fittest" game through and through. 

At the end of the day, this means that even human life is literally nothing but a price tag. We can already see that now. 

It's the future of politics. As migrants flood into Europe and as more and more people join PMC's money is replacing nations and ideas are the food behind that money. 

I've argued against leftist anarchism for a while now because I'm 100% sure it doesn't work. But perhaps "anarchy" itself does work in terms of pure, raw human nature. 

Let's take a look at drug cartels..... Who literally runs southern America? Governments? Or people with money?

Anarchy literally means "no government". Drug cartels are warlords, not anarchists.

Anarchism also does not mean chaos. Democracy equals "mob rule" in which chaos does ensue as the majority who screams the loudest has the most influence.

Anarcho-Capitalists wish to eliminate the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property and free markets. To capitalize means to expand on something. I believe you meant to use the phrase "monopolize" which is impossible to do in an Anarcho-Capitalist society because there is no government to enforce laws to restrict or expand on any parties behalf.

[greatkitteh]

As we should all be aware of, the world is an ever changing place. Nothing is static. Today, humanity faces many great challenges. One of those challenges in particular is a changing climate, primarily due to human activity. We are also in the midst of the worlds 6th mass extinction, also due to human activity. No doubt these things are related, but what's being done to solve them?

Well, aside from a climate meeting in Paris where nothing significant was agreed on, basically nothing. Most of what was agreed on in Paris appears to be empty promises by governments regarding future production with no penalties or pressure for not honoring their agreements. Meanwhile, pollution in China has already reached apocalyptic proportions several years ago. At the same time, energy companies, specifically oil companies, seem to have little interest in advancing to clean energy without having it in their pockets first. We may have had far more fuel efficient vehicles if not for a mysteriously convenient murder for oil companies. Nowadays however, oil companies seem to be accepting the inevitable; that their product is drying up. Thus, they seem to be putting much more investment into clean energy, because you know, they can't stop making money. Big business can't fail. Not even when people protest oil leaks destroying their land. In fact, that tends to get them killed. So it's safe to assume these massive companies, or at least the people leading them, will be around for a while. With or without oil.

Which brings me to the next topic: Politics. The politics of the future could become a very vague place, where nations and borders become obscured by money. Anyone with money can hire a very well equipped and trained military these days, known as Private Military Contractors or PMCs. These PMCs do not represent a nation, only their own desire for money and war. With arguably the worlds best trained military soldiers joining PMCs in disturbingly large numbers across the world, are we reaching a point where corporations and companies have or are gaining more projection power than an entire modernized nation?

When it's all said and done, Americans at least, seem to be unconcerned with climate change or our impacts on the environment. Something they are heavily concerned with however is warfare and security. A business that is very much booming all over the oil rich area of the middle east. Perhaps the future of mankind is to slowly dissolve this age old notion of politics in favor of raw business. A world where even superpower governments are absolute puppets of corporations, the global environment is a poisoned wasteland and only the strong will survive at the pure expense of the weak. A polluted, hostile, nearly uninhabitable world of anarchist capitalism held hostage by the simple currency system we invented so long ago. Perhaps we are already there? After all, there is no money in clean energy that may not even work. But there is plenty of money in war and that business is growing.

This is why I don't have children. Discuss.

 

TLDR: The world will become an "anarchist capitalist" society where the large majority will be living in squalor and filth left over from all other capitalizing generations.

And this is why I agree with key North Korean politicians and leaders more than Obama.

[Fox Fire]

Anarchy literally means "no government". Drug cartels are warlords, not anarchists.

Anarchism also does not mean chaos. Democracy equals "mob rule" in which chaos does ensue as the majority who screams the loudest has the most influence.

Anarcho-Capitalists wish to eliminate the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property and free markets. To capitalize means to expand on something. I believe you meant to use the phrase "monopolize" which is impossible to do in an Anarcho-Capitalist society because there is no government to enforce laws to restrict or expand on any parties behalf.

Ana anarchist capitalist society doesn't need government to monopolize. In fact, it's easier to monopolize without government. Places like Mexico and El Salvador are anarchist capitalist societies or the closest you can get to one. The cartels have their hands in everything and the government is nothing but a puppet to protect their investments. It's the best modern example of anarchist capitalism. 

 

Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets. Anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence of statute (law by decree or legislation), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (or what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society").

 

^Cartels: Done

 

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation.

 

^Cartels: Done

 

I mean anarchist capitalism in general is a self defeating idea considering anything, including human, life can be capitalized and regulation is simply competing entities, you end up with war and all along you've always had a hierarchy leadership in place.

 

 

And this is why I agree with key North Korean politicians and leaders more than Obama.

That's just silly.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Clarke]

What sort of government do you want?

[Fox Fire]

What sort of government do you want?

Something like libertarian socialism (not anarchy). Though I don't see how that's relevant.

[LordRahl2]

Population: Allow me to directly respond to your link:
"I believe that human overpopulation is the biggest issue we face today. When I was born, the world population was 3 billion people. Now, 48 years later, the world population has more than doubled to 7 billion."

-That is true historically.  However, it will not happen again.  In fact no actual demographer projects 14 billion people this century (85 years).

 

So far, the doom crowd, led by Malthus, has been proven incorrect - by a wide margin. So it is definitely in your court to convey compelling evidence that 10.5b is significantly less sustainable that 7b.  Population will continue to increase throughout this century although at an increasingly lower rate of growth particularly relative to that observed in the last century.  The current facts are that population growth is slowing.  The most reasonable projections see us hitting 10b people somewhere around 2050/2060 (most of your lifetimes).  At that point reasonable projections do not see more than a 1b increase over the next two generations (60 years).  In other words the population explosion is ending and given current, not even projected, population the increase is sustainable given current land usage coupled with the diffusion of known technology and methods.

 

Given current trends in terms of efficiency regarding land use and the promulgation of enhanced farming techniques plus the anticipated rates of urbanization there seems to be little if any risk of running out of land.  Adjustments required to cope with fresh water reserves are known and assessed to be reasonable globally.  However, there are certain regional/local problems that will likely require adjustments.  At the regional level it is reasonable to assume that these issues will cause some level of instability and conflict - so I buy your argument there to some degree.  As far as earth ending issues, no that is unlikely.  There are almost always drivers for regional and local instability so I am not sure that is compelling enough to project a dystopian future.  I know this is boringly non-dystopian.  However, it is what it is.

 

Climate change.  I am not a climatologist so I will trust what they collectively predict.  I do have a degree in environmental engineering so I can at least read their publications.  The issue is more complex than 2 degrees = global death or something, although the issue is frequently reduced to this kind of conversation.  You seem to easily dismiss that there is a technological solution.  However, it seems reasonable that there will be more compelling reasons to pursue technologies to mitigate climate change.  It is impossible to predict how that will play out.  Frankly we could significantly reduce current CO2 output by replacing baseline load requirements with nuke power.  Then you have the Germans going dumb on a mass scale and decommissioning theirs so they can transition to black coal plants. Go Germany!

Even given a static technological environment life may very well continue generally unchanged.  Weather patterns will probably increase the viability of some regions and reduce it in others.  That also seems likely to increase regional instability.

As to mass extinctions, OK.  I am not as excited about that as you seem to be.  Typically, species evolve to survive in niche environments as long as there is a long period of time at a static and predictable climate pattern.  Climate change disrupts those static environments and those species that are very niche die off if they cannot move to another hospitable environment.  They are replaced with species that can survive in more environments.  Given long enough they will specialize and evolve into new species in these new niche environments.  So, ummm, so what?

In regards to peak oil (which is sorta what you are talking around), there surely and undeniably is a finite amount of recoverable carbon energy.  Whatever that magic number is, it is far more than previously though.  So...we probably will not see a direct impact within any reasonable timeline.  Hopefully, as prices increase there will be more space for research into renewables that are just generally better once their EREOI is pushed higher.

Again, there is some potential for increased regional instability.

 

PMCs.  I am not really sure where you are going with this.  Historically mercenaries have been a fact.  It is only recently, historically, that the state has monopolized warfare to the degree that it does.  In fact it is hard to fathom a return to the historical norm.  Armies, navies, and air-forces at the higher end operating in a joint environment are very expensive to equip, man, and train.  PMCs offer a marginal capability at best and  are in no danger whatsoever of supplanting state backed forces.  They may be able to operate at the lower end of the spectrum in limited conflicts, which is not a change from recent history even.  So...not a big deal really.

 

BL: The world will continue to turn and people will get along much as they have (which is not all that encouraging but not that bad).  In fact humanity is getting better generally speaking.  You don't hear about it much because gradual improvements are not news worthy "breaking news". 

 

TLDR: Stop using these reasons to excuse your lack of practice at having children.  Go forth and have more sex fox fire.  It will be good for you and a wash for humanity. 

Edited February 7, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Big Brother]

Good for you. Do you mean you're going to bomb the poor with drones?

 

Well, I hadn't really thought of it but I guess that would be tradition. After all, the proles do need to be reminded of the constant threat of Eastasian Eurasian aggression

Edited February 7, 2016 by Big Brother

[Fox Fire]

Population: Allow me to directly respond to your link:

"I believe that human overpopulation is the biggest issue we face today. When I was born, the world population was 3 billion people. Now, 48 years later, the world population has more than doubled to 7 billion."

-That is true historically.  However, it will not happen again.  In fact no actual demographer projects 14 billion people this century (85 years).

 

So far, the doom crowd, led by Malthus, has been proven incorrect - by a wide margin. So it is definitely in your court to convey compelling evidence that 10.5b is significantly less sustainable that 7b.  Population will continue to increase throughout this century although at an increasingly lower rate of growth particularly relative to that observed in the last century.  The current facts are that population growth is slowing.  The most reasonable projections see us hitting 10b people somewhere around 2050/2060 (most of your lifetimes).  At that point reasonable projections do not see more than a 1b increase over the next two generations (60 years).  In other words the population explosion is ending and given current, not even projected, population the increase is sustainable given current land usage coupled with the diffusion of known technology and methods.

 

Given current trends in terms of efficiency regarding land use and the promulgation of enhanced farming techniques plus the anticipated rates of urbanization there seems to be little if any risk of running out of land.  Adjustments required to cope with fresh water reserves are known and assessed to be reasonable globally.  However, there are certain regional/local problems that will likely require adjustments.  At the regional level it is reasonable to assume that these issues will cause some level of instability and conflict - so I buy your argument there to some degree.  As far as earth ending issues, no that is unlikely.  There are almost always drivers for regional and local instability so I am not sure that is compelling enough to project a dystopian future.  I know this is boringly non-dystopian.  However, it is what it is.

 

Climate change.  I am not a climatologist so I will trust what they collectively predict.  I do have a degree in environmental engineering so I can at least read their publications.  The issue is more complex than 2 degrees = global death or something, although the issue is frequently reduced to this kind of conversation.  You seem to easily dismiss that there is a technological solution.  However, it seems reasonable that there will be more compelling reasons to pursue technologies to mitigate climate change.  It is impossible to predict how that will play out.  Frankly we could significantly reduce current CO2 output by replacing baseline load requirements with nuke power.  Then you have the Germans going dumb on a mass scale and decommissioning theirs so they can transition to black coal plants. Go Germany!

Even given a static technological environment life may very well continue generally unchanged.  Weather patterns will probably increase the viability of some regions and reduce it in others.  That also seems likely to increase regional instability.

As to mass extinctions, OK.  I am not as excited about that as you seem to be.  Typically, species evolve to survive in niche environments as long as there is a long period of time at a static and predictable climate pattern.  Climate change disrupts those static environments and those species that are very niche die off if they cannot move to another hospitable environment.  They are replaced with species that can survive in more environments.  Given long enough they will specialize and evolve into new species in these new niche environments.  So, ummm, so what?

In regards to peak oil (which is sorta what you are talking around), there surely and undeniably is a finite amount of recoverable carbon energy.  Whatever that magic number is, it is far more than previously though.  So...we probably will not see a direct impact within any reasonable timeline.  Hopefully, as prices increase there will be more space for research into renewables that are just generally better once their EREOI is pushed higher.

Again, there is some potential for increased regional instability.

 

PMCs.  I am not really sure where you are going with this.  Historically mercenaries have been a fact.  It is only recently, historically, that the state has monopolized warfare to the degree that it does.  In fact it is hard to fathom a return to the historical norm.  Armies, navies, and air-forces at the higher end operating in a joint environment are very expensive to equip, man, and train.  PMCs offer a marginal capability at best and  are in no danger whatsoever of supplanting state backed forces.  They may be able to operate at the lower end of the spectrum in limited conflicts, which is not a change from recent history even.  So...not a big deal really.

 

BL: The world will continue to turn and people will get along much as they have (which is not all that encouraging but not that bad).  In fact humanity is getting better generally speaking.  You don't hear about it much because gradual improvements are not news worthy "breaking news". 

 

TLDR: Stop using these reasons to excuse your lack of practice at having children.  Go forth and have more sex fox fire.  It will be good for you and a wash for humanity. 

Population: You can talk about increases all you want and IDK who Malthus is. The fact I've just pointed out is that the current population is already unsustainable. So in 100 years, it doesn't even matter how much it increases. We can all agree it will increase. The global water crisis is only expected to worsen, not get better. California is in a drought for example. You say there are ways to cope with this, but what? Coping with something isn't exactly fixing it. The drought in California is expected to spread. By "cope" do you mean we just "deal with it"? The world is running out of ground water, which I speculate could have something to do with all these recent sink holes. Desalinization is not a very feasible method of supplying the world with water at this time.

As for land, we are already out of land. You have to consider how much is already being used and the fact that we rely on untouched land to survive. Agriculture alone has destroyed 1/3 of the earths forests. Usable land can become unusable through many different processes. At least half of the cultivatable land is already being used. Improved agriculture techniques could help solve this problem, although that doesn't restore land that is already destroyed, people would have to make lifestyle changes on a global scale, and most deforestation is happening in areas where more high tech farming is much less likely to happen. 

 

Climate Change: Really? There is a technological solution that we aren't using for some reason? And actually, a 2 degree increase in temp could be catastrophic. Mt. Tamboras eruption in 1815 caused a global decrease in temp by about 1/2 degree which caused snow storms on the east coast of the US in the middle of July, crop failures and killed about 90,000 people. Fossil fuels are not the only thing contributing to climate change. Our mere existence is changing the climate, deforestation is changing the climate. The ice ages tend to go hand in hand with mass extinctions. The dinosaurs did not evolve and adapt to their changing climate. They all died. It's not like animals just change into something else and go on living during a mass extinction. They die. Plain and simple. We are a species that is very reliant on biodiversity. We aren't talking about "oh the poor polar bear is dying off" here. We are talking about a global event that humanity has never once experienced. And event that paleontology has shown, generally signals the end of most of earths complex life forms. We are a very complex life form. 

 

PMC's: In the Iraq war, most of the soldiers fighting were PMCs (You didn't look at any of my OP citations, did you?). The concern here is that people who are actually good at fighting are all joining PMCs and PMCs are beginning to replace ground forces. Who's to stop a PMC from forming their own foreign policy? Perhaps one that is not that of the US/West? The point is, they fight for money, not a nation, not a system, not anyone's laws. Just pure, raw money. Give a bunch of self interested people guns, and they will pursue their interests. 

So who's to say that nations, as we know them, will not just become a show? Like the same way that the federal government in Mexico is a show and the nation in reality, is governed in accordance with the interests of the cartels. Who's to say we are not already in this position? Why did we invade Iraq again?

 

I'll have all the sex I want. However I think that bringing a child into this world would be selfish as !@#$. I'd love to have a child, but I wouldn't want them to grow up in this world the way things are going now.

[LordRahl2]

Population:

http://cgge.aag.org/PopulationandNaturalResources1e/CF_PopNatRes_Jan10/CF_PopNatRes_Jan108.html

^fist link on my google, there are likely better ones

Basically Malthus was the first to postulate on the topic you bring up.  Hesaid what you said - more or less (obviously).  The theory and its successors have been proven wrong over and over again.

You have stated but not supported that you think the current population is unsustainable.  I see no evidence that you are correct.  Water is projected to be a regional and not a global issue and technology and shifting agricultural patterns are generally considered sufficient to sustain current and projected populations globally speaking.  So, the general body of argument disagrees with you.

As for land.  We are not out of land and land can absolutely and demonstrably support any, even the most pessimistic, levels of population growth. No serious argument is made against this.

 

Climate Change:

Kindly reread what I wrote.  I did not say there was a tech solution at the moment.  Where did you read that?  I said: "it seems reasonable that there will be more compelling reasons to pursue technologies to mitigate climate change.  It is impossible to predict how that will play out"  I postulate that there will be increased drive to find one as time moves on. I have some faith that there will be reasonable solutions that mitigate the issue.  Historically speaking this seems more likely than not. 

Additionally, climate has changed over the course of human history.  Humanity has survived more or less alright every time.  The "dark ages" by the way were probably "dark" in a literal sense as global temp is estimated to have dipped following the MWP into what is called the Little Ice Age.  The swing was in the range of 4-5 C.  So just proclaiming that climate change is unprecedented, it is in fact "precedented", and that it will kill off all complex life forms, it has not in the past, does not make your postulation substantiated.  Feel free to point me at peer reviewed literature that contradicts this.

If you want to bring the analysis of what unchecked global warming will actually realistically do:

It will probably increase regional instability leading to wars, famines, and the like.  So a probable regression closer to the mean for humanity.  Given how far we have pushed humanity forward it will likely remain far above the mean though. So, bad but not as bad as it used to be.

 

PMCs: No.  Mercenaries did not do "most of the fighting" in the Iraq war.  I am intimately familiar with this topic and you may consider me an expert here.  Your source was some sort of youtube video yeah?  No I did not watch it.  Hit me up with an actual article at least that I can read and dissect.  Again, mercenaries are useful in certain contexts at the low end of the conflict scale.  There are no mercenary aircraft carrier battle groups. Nor are there Heavy Brigade Combat teams with logistical reach-back for sustainment (these would be required at an absolute minimum to "replace ground forces").  The are no mercenary air-forces with integrated capabilities.  And certainly none that are trained or equipped to operate in the joint context needed to fight and win an actual war.  Wars at this level are not simple affairs that you can simply hire a bunch of dudes, no matter how skilled at infantry tasks they may be, can replace what a State brings to the fight.

You can hire people to perform light infantry and local security tasks.  In HIC fights they are, at best (and not likely-as they lack the required enablers), going to perform at the light infantry level.

So who is going to stop them from creating their own foreign policy?  Any state that really cares enough to do so really.

 

I was just poking at you about sex.  But really, you can have kids and they will most likely be just fine.

Edited February 7, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Abu Haddad]

its clear we must cut back on our food needs. Maybe we should use fertilisers and GM for higher crop yields and even eat less and waste less. That way we shall save land and water.

I have had in ingenious idea. Instead of using water in power stations we should use liquids that boil at lower temperatures. This would mean we need less energy to create steam! I am genius am i not. kek

[LordRahl2]

its clear we must cut back on our food needs.

 

Is it now?  Care to find some evidence that there are insufficient calories produced globally?

[Doktor Avalanche]

An anarchist capitalist society doesn't need government to monopolize. In fact, it's easier to monopolize without government. Places like Mexico and El Salvador are anarchist capitalist societies or the closest you can get to one. The cartels have their hands in everything and the government is nothing but a puppet to protect their investments. It's the best modern example of anarchist capitalism. 

A Cartel/Warlord State is not an Anarchist society. It is a Military Junta/Dictatorship. Do not mix up the lack of a centralized system or chaotic province with Anarchism, let alone Anarcho-Capitalism(of which I am not an advocate for any hyphenated Anarchist Ideal).

[Fox Fire]

Population:

http://cgge.aag.org/PopulationandNaturalResources1e/CF_PopNatRes_Jan10/CF_PopNatRes_Jan108.html

^fist link on my google, there are likely better ones

Basically Malthus was the first to postulate on the topic you bring up.  Hesaid what you said - more or less (obviously).  The theory and its successors have been proven wrong over and over again.

You have stated but not supported that you think the current population is unsustainable.  I see no evidence that you are correct.  Water is projected to be a regional and not a global issue and technology and shifting agricultural patterns are generally considered sufficient to sustain current and projected populations globally speaking.  So, the general body of argument disagrees with you.

As for land.  We are not out of land and land can absolutely and demonstrably support any, even the most pessimistic, levels of population growth. No serious argument is made against this.

Bullcrap. According to the United Nations they sound pretty unsure of the future relationship between humans and the environment in their report, but they do seem to agree that population will indeed be a future issue. Nearly all of our environmental problems are our own fault. This is the most recent report from 2001:

 

Concerns about population and the environment have been evolving over time. Beginning in the late 1940s and 1950s, environmental concerns focused almost exclusively on what was felt to be the negative impact of population growth on non-renewable natural resources and food production, echoing Malthus’s original concerns. Virtually no attention was given to environmental side effects. During the 1960s and 1970s, the focus was widened to incorporate the by-products of production and consumption, such as air and water pollution, waste disposal, pesticides and radioactive waste. By the 1980s and into the 1990s, a new dimension was added, encompassing global environmental changes, including acid rain, global warming and ozone depletion, biodiversity, deforestation, migration and new and re-emerging diseases Many of the environmental issues of greatest concern today involve resources that are to a greater or lesser degree “common property resourcesâ€. Economic theory predicts, and much experiential evidence demonstrates, that unhindered access to such resources leads to overuse, misuse, and quality degradation. In the absence of effective social mechanisms to limit and ameliorate the tendency for common property resources to be overused and degraded, population growth will tend to exacerbate such problems. Population growth is rarely the only factor operating, though, for especially during recent decades, population growth has gone hand in hand with massive technological and social change. While all the environmental problems discussed above are largely or entirely the result of human activities, they vary in the degree to which they can be linked directly to population size, growth or distribution. It is generally not possible to partition “blame†for environmental problems among the various contributing factors, except in a very rough manner. In considering responses to environmental problems, it is important to recognize that social-institutional factors can be as important as, if not more important than, technological ones. Even though the overall social as well as environmental benefit to such organizational change may be large, the process is likely to be contentious and politically difficult. Indeed, there are apt to be losers as well as winners in any such process; achieving an equitable transition represents a major social and political challenge at all levels, from local to national—and even international, when we consider problems that have a global impact, such as emissions of greenhouse gases. Population growth is the main force driving increases in agricultural demand. While most recent expert assessments are cautiously optimistic about the ability of global food production to keep up with demand for the foreseeable future (that is to say, until approximately 2030 or 2050), it is important to note that these assessments are predicated upon the expectation that population growth rates will continue to decline. At the same time, food insecurity, associated with poverty, is projected to persist for hundreds of millions of people. A host of environmental side effects derive from farming, and these pose serious threats to sustainability of food production in some areas. However, FAO has concluded that “with regard to poverty alleviation and food security, the inability to achieve environmentally sound and sustainable food production is primarily the result of human inaction and indifference rather than natural or social factors†(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1996a). The need to feed a growing population is placing mounting stress on water supplies in many parts of the world. On a global basis, irrigation accounts for more than 70 per cent of fresh water taken from lakes, rivers and underground sources. While water is often inefficiently used, it can be very difficult to implement effective water management policies, especially in poor areas. Population pressures are thus not the only, nor even necessarily the primary, cause of ineffective water use and pollution, but they do aggravate the magnitude of ecological damage. Population growth, through its effects on the expansion of cropland and the harvesting of wood for fuel, is also an important factor contributing to deforestation and is thought to be the predominant factor in some areas. Commercial logging and other factors predominate in other areas. In general, global and regional data in this area are quite weak, though improving. There have, however, been many local area studies relating to population and land use, and these can help diagnose problems and point to solutions at the local level (see Marquette and Bilsborrow, 1999). Pollution of air and pollution of water are the principal environmental threats facing developed countries and a growing number of developing countries. High rates of emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are associated with high levels of development, and this is also true of many types of pollution with a local or regional, rather than a global, impact. In general, population growth appears to be much less important as a driving force of such problems than are economic growth and technology. Nevertheless, other things being equal, continued increase in population plays a role by increasing aggregate economic demand and hence the volume of pollution-causing production. Although recent decades have witnessed significant environmental degradation, the nature and causes of environmental problems, as well as the need for appropriate environmental management, are being increasingly recognized. Environmental use and poverty reduction are integrally linked with demographic, economic and political change. While rapid population growth can exacerbate problems associated with poor environmental quality and poverty, policies that promote a more equitable income growth, empower the poor with education and health and provide incentives for sound environmental management can break this “vicious cycleâ€. In such a setting, population policies can be an important element for promoting socio-economic development, while fostering long-term environmental progress. 38 Even for those environmental issues for which population change appears to be a relatively minor factor by comparison with recent trends in per capita consumption or in pollutioncausing technologies, over the longer term the effect of alternative paths of population growth will assume more importance. As noted by Preston (1994): “The widely recognized momentum of population growth cuts both ways. While it reduces the apparent advantages of lower fertility in the short run, it may increase them in the long run. The fact that population growth is a ponderous process means that whatever happens today has multiplier effects in each successive generation. In a very real sense, today’s births are tomorrow’s momentum. The more concerned we are with long-term futures, the more important are population policies in the array of strategies for enhancing the human condition.â€

 

 

We are facing an environmental apocalypse, basically. Everything on the planet is dying because we're killing it. Our oceans are filled with all sorts plastic and misc garbage that's wiping out life. Our forests are disappearing and the animals along with them. I'm pretty sure the experts agree that the Holocene extinction event (the one we are in now) is caused by humans. And you're trying to convince me that the very clear indicators of overpopulation do not indicate overpopulation? We are using most of the planets land. That means it's likely not being used by wildlife. This is with 7 billion people. But you think we will be A-OK with 10 billion just because we can prop up some hydroponic farms? I wonder how much forest will be left by the time that becomes completely normal in South America....

All of the optimistic predictions people throw out for the future are based entirely on some faith that technology will save us. However it's completely ignoring that fact that for one, it doesn't exist now. Or the fact that world hunger is rising. Or the fact that everything is dying. Or the fact that new technology deployed in developed nations is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. We are overpopulated now, not tomorrow. Tell me how proven wrong I am.

 

PMCs: No.  Mercenaries did not do "most of the fighting" in the Iraq war.  I am intimately familiar with this topic and you may consider me an expert here.  Your source was some sort of youtube video yeah?  No I did not watch it.  Hit me up with an actual article at least that I can read and dissect.  Again, mercenaries are useful in certain contexts at the low end of the conflict scale.  There are no mercenary aircraft carrier battle groups. Nor are there Heavy Brigade Combat teams with logistical reach-back for sustainment (these would be required at an absolute minimum to "replace ground forces").  The are no mercenary air-forces with integrated capabilities.  And certainly none that are trained or equipped to operate in the joint context needed to fight and win an actual war.  Wars at this level are not simple affairs that you can simply hire a bunch of dudes, no matter how skilled at infantry tasks they may be, can replace what a State brings to the fight.

You can hire people to perform light infantry and local security tasks.  In HIC fights they are, at best (and not likely-as they lack the required enablers), going to perform at the light infantry level.

So who is going to stop them from creating their own foreign policy?  Any state that really cares enough to do so really.

 

I was just poking at you about sex.  But really, you can have kids and they will most likely be just fine.

 

 

Nobody knows for sure how many PMCs were in Iraq. They spend quite a lot of money on them though and it's all hush hush. Nobody even knows if they're dead or deployed unless you know them, or the company decides to release that information (which they usually don't). The government is pretty quite about them.

The primary controversy behind their use is accountability and the fact they were involved in several war crime scandals. PMCs may not have fancy things like a navy or air force, but they have money and skilled fighters. At the end of the day, it's people on the ground that make the difference in a war and politics in actuality is usually influenced by money. Political connections and monetary interests are important for any PMC. They are basically lobbyists. I'm not saying some particular PMC is going to take over the world or anything, but large corporations basically run the worlds economy to a reliant extent. Now militarizes are being privatized with nothing particularly preventing them from potentially building that to a reliant extent. The idea of having people that do not even represent our nation or even operate on our own standards making up considerable portions of our military in a war is unsettling. Our governments encouragement of it, is even more unsettling. 

Edited February 7, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Clarke]

Something like libertarian socialism (not anarchy). Though I don't see how that's relevant.

Because I'm sick of seeing you talking about government and would like to hear a better solution.

How would Libertarian Socialism differ from the current system? I mean in a practical sense and not a fantasy. 

[LordRahl2]

Bullcrap. According to the United Nations they sound pretty unsure of the future relationship between humans and the environment in their report, but they do seem to agree that population will indeed be a future issue. Nearly all of our environmental problems are our own fault. This is the most recent report from 2001:

 

Concerns about population and the environment have been evolving over time. Beginning in the late 1940s and 1950s, environmental concerns focused almost exclusively on what was felt to be the negative impact of population growth on non-renewable natural resources and food production, echoing Malthus’s original concerns. Virtually no attention was given to environmental side effects. During the 1960s and 1970s, the focus was widened to incorporate the by-products of production and consumption, such as air and water pollution, waste disposal, pesticides and radioactive waste. By the 1980s and into the 1990s, a new dimension was added, encompassing global environmental changes, including acid rain, global warming and ozone depletion, biodiversity, deforestation, migration and new and re-emerging diseases Many of the environmental issues of greatest concern today involve resources that are to a greater or lesser degree “common property resourcesâ€. Economic theory predicts, and much experiential evidence demonstrates, that unhindered access to such resources leads to overuse, misuse, and quality degradation. In the absence of effective social mechanisms to limit and ameliorate the tendency for common property resources to be overused and degraded, population growth will tend to exacerbate such problems. Population growth is rarely the only factor operating, though, for especially during recent decades, population growth has gone hand in hand with massive technological and social change. While all the environmental problems discussed above are largely or entirely the result of human activities, they vary in the degree to which they can be linked directly to population size, growth or distribution. It is generally not possible to partition “blame†for environmental problems among the various contributing factors, except in a very rough manner. In considering responses to environmental problems, it is important to recognize that social-institutional factors can be as important as, if not more important than, technological ones. Even though the overall social as well as environmental benefit to such organizational change may be large, the process is likely to be contentious and politically difficult. Indeed, there are apt to be losers as well as winners in any such process; achieving an equitable transition represents a major social and political challenge at all levels, from local to national—and even international, when we consider problems that have a global impact, such as emissions of greenhouse gases. Population growth is the main force driving increases in agricultural demand. While most recent expert assessments are cautiously optimistic about the ability of global food production to keep up with demand for the foreseeable future (that is to say, until approximately 2030 or 2050), it is important to note that these assessments are predicated upon the expectation that population growth rates will continue to decline. At the same time, food insecurity, associated with poverty, is projected to persist for hundreds of millions of people. A host of environmental side effects derive from farming, and these pose serious threats to sustainability of food production in some areas. However, FAO has concluded that “with regard to poverty alleviation and food security, the inability to achieve environmentally sound and sustainable food production is primarily the result of human inaction and indifference rather than natural or social factors†(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1996a). The need to feed a growing population is placing mounting stress on water supplies in many parts of the world. On a global basis, irrigation accounts for more than 70 per cent of fresh water taken from lakes, rivers and underground sources. While water is often inefficiently used, it can be very difficult to implement effective water management policies, especially in poor areas. Population pressures are thus not the only, nor even necessarily the primary, cause of ineffective water use and pollution, but they do aggravate the magnitude of ecological damage. Population growth, through its effects on the expansion of cropland and the harvesting of wood for fuel, is also an important factor contributing to deforestation and is thought to be the predominant factor in some areas. Commercial logging and other factors predominate in other areas. In general, global and regional data in this area are quite weak, though improving. There have, however, been many local area studies relating to population and land use, and these can help diagnose problems and point to solutions at the local level (see Marquette and Bilsborrow, 1999). Pollution of air and pollution of water are the principal environmental threats facing developed countries and a growing number of developing countries. High rates of emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are associated with high levels of development, and this is also true of many types of pollution with a local or regional, rather than a global, impact. In general, population growth appears to be much less important as a driving force of such problems than are economic growth and technology. Nevertheless, other things being equal, continued increase in population plays a role by increasing aggregate economic demand and hence the volume of pollution-causing production. Although recent decades have witnessed significant environmental degradation, the nature and causes of environmental problems, as well as the need for appropriate environmental management, are being increasingly recognized. Environmental use and poverty reduction are integrally linked with demographic, economic and political change. While rapid population growth can exacerbate problems associated with poor environmental quality and poverty, policies that promote a more equitable income growth, empower the poor with education and health and provide incentives for sound environmental management can break this “vicious cycleâ€. In such a setting, population policies can be an important element for promoting socio-economic development, while fostering long-term environmental progress. 38 Even for those environmental issues for which population change appears to be a relatively minor factor by comparison with recent trends in per capita consumption or in pollutioncausing technologies, over the longer term the effect of alternative paths of population growth will assume more importance. As noted by Preston (1994): “The widely recognized momentum of population growth cuts both ways. While it reduces the apparent advantages of lower fertility in the short run, it may increase them in the long run. The fact that population growth is a ponderous process means that whatever happens today has multiplier effects in each successive generation. In a very real sense, today’s births are tomorrow’s momentum. The more concerned we are with long-term futures, the more important are population policies in the array of strategies for enhancing the human condition.â€

 

 

We are facing an environmental apocalypse, basically. Everything on the planet is dying because we're killing it. Our oceans are filled with all sorts plastic and misc garbage that's wiping out life. Our forests are disappearing and the animals along with them. I'm pretty sure the experts agree that the Holocene extinction event (the one we are in now) is caused by humans. And you're trying to convince me that the very clear indicators of overpopulation do not indicate overpopulation? We are using most of the planets land. That means it's likely not being used by wildlife. This is with 7 billion people. But you think we will be A-OK with 10 billion just because we can prop up some hydroponic farms? I wonder how much forest will be left by the time that becomes completely normal in South America....

All of the optimistic predictions people throw out for the future are based entirely on some faith that technology will save us. However it's completely ignoring that fact that for one, it doesn't exist now. Or the fact that world hunger is rising. Or the fact that everything is dying. Or the fact that new technology deployed in developed nations is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. We are overpopulated now, not tomorrow. Tell me how proven wrong I am.

 

 

Nobody knows for sure how many PMCs were in Iraq. They spend quite a lot of money on them though and it's all hush hush. Nobody even knows if they're dead or deployed unless you know them, or the company decides to release that information (which they usually don't). The government is pretty quite about them.

The primary controversy behind their use is accountability and the fact they were involved in several war crime scandals. PMCs may not have fancy things like a navy or air force, but they have money and skilled fighters. At the end of the day, it's people on the ground that make the difference in a war and politics in actuality is usually influenced by money. Political connections and monetary interests are important for any PMC. They are basically lobbyists. I'm not saying some particular PMC is going to take over the world or anything, but large corporations basically run the worlds economy to a reliant extent. Now militarizes are being privatized with nothing particularly preventing them from potentially building that to a reliant extent. The idea of having people that do not even represent our nation or even operate on our own standards making up considerable portions of our military in a war is unsettling. Our governments encouragement of it, is even more unsettling.

I bullcrap your bullcrap. In fact feel free to dig into the UN data sets. You will find that my analysis falls within their data. They have some nice graphs and huge data sets and everything. Good times. Anyway, those are some decent quotes from the UN did you read them? Experts do agree with me yes. I agree with them too.

 

>Apacolyse. >Everything dying.

OK mate...calm down. It's ok. Being shrill does not make your analysis any better and it certainly does not enhance your point.

 

So are things going extinct? Certainly. Most, although not all, of those species are niche species. Is that a problem? Sure. Is it OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE RUNFORTHESHELTERS!!? As I said, highly specialized species are at the highest risk. Humans, btw, are in no way highly specialized. Will other niches develop once climate stabilizes? The history of the earth suggests that they will.

 

Can we modify our behavior and support policies that address deforestation, cleaner oceans, more sustainable, duverse, and healthy food suplies? Most certainly.

 

If we were overpopulated to the extent you seem to think we would have insufficient food and water. To show you how wrong you are, I will challenge one of your assumptions. Hunger is globally decreasing, not increasing. This is a fact.

 

On a more somber note there are real problems with the environment. What the end result will be is very hard to project. Overstating the problem can be just as negative as ignoring it though. People will, correctly, assess that you are being alarmist/overdramatic and tune you out.

 

Actually the DoD IG and comptroller have a pretty fair understanding of how much was spent on and how many were employed. Are their number suspect at some level? Sure. But they are generally accurate. How many were there durring the invasion? Basically zero. Durring the occupation there were some - overwhelming assigned to security duties. Nor were they particularly skilled in agrigate. So yeah, precisely my point. Good for light infantry duties in low intensity conflicts.

 

Frankly, mercenaries had far more relative capability in the past. Today the requirements for an effective force far outstrip anything other than one provided by a State.

Edited February 8, 2016 by LordRahl2

[johnl023]

Well, I hadn't really thought of it but I guess that would be tradition. After all, the proles do need to be reminded of the constant threat of Eastasian Eurasian aggression

 

Eastasia has never been aggressive. It's always been Eurasia.

[LordRahl2]

Eastasia has never been aggressive. It's always been Eurasia.

Is that so?

[Big Brother]

Eurasia has never been aggressive. It's always been Eastasia.

 

Fixed it for you    The Eurasians have always been our faithful allies against the vile Eastasian rabble! We have never been remotely hostile towards our dear friends! Now if you'll excuse me, I have to attend my daily Two Minutes Hate and scream my lungs out.

[Fox Fire]

Because I'm sick of seeing you talking about government and would like to hear a better solution.

How would Libertarian Socialism differ from the current system? I mean in a practical sense and not a fantasy. 

You don't seem to like me too much. I hope that didn't influence your decision to leave IRON.

Anyway, just because I point out an issue doesn't mean I need to have a solution. My ideal government would be much smaller, have a flat tax code, discourage capitalization beyond ones needs, enforce fair trading and accountability, have a neutral foreign policy and work to shrink the upper and lower classes of society. Basically the total opposite of what the US is now. Though that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Whatever government system I want is irrelevant to what the entire planet actually is.

As for solutions to the actual topic:

Population: There is no standard solution. Government regulated reproduction on a global scale, a mass extermination, forced sterilization? We are overpopulated as is and still growing. The only thing to do at this point is stop reproducing faster than we are dying. Which, on a global scale, is impractical. Our society is actually dependent on endless growth and without it our global economic system would collapse. Society would need to fundamentally change itself to even try to look for a practical solution.

Climate Change: Not much to be done here either. Stop polluting the planet with fossil fuels and let the earth do it's thing. Nuclear energy is not a very bright idea either.

PMC's: Stop using them. Tax payers fund a military for a reason. One which has not even been used to it's extent for decades.  

 

 

I bullcrap your bullcrap. In fact feel free to dig into the UN data sets. You will find that my analysis falls within their data. They have some nice graphs and huge data sets and everything. Good times. Anyway, those are some decent quotes from the UN did you read them? Experts do agree with me yes. I agree with them too.

 

>Apacolyse. >Everything dying.

OK mate...calm down. It's ok. Being shrill does not make your analysis any better and it certainly does not enhance your point.

 

So are things going extinct? Certainly. Most, although not all, of those species are niche species. Is that a problem? Sure. Is it OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE RUNFORTHESHELTERS!!? As I said, highly specialized species are at the highest risk. Humans, btw, are in no way highly specialized. Will other niches develop once climate stabilizes? The history of the earth suggests that they will.

 

Can we modify our behavior and support policies that address deforestation, cleaner oceans, more sustainable, duverse, and healthy food suplies? Most certainly.

 

If we were overpopulated to the extent you seem to think we would have insufficient food and water. To show you how wrong you are, I will challenge one of your assumptions. Hunger is globally decreasing, not increasing. This is a fact.

 

On a more somber note there are real problems with the environment. What the end result will be is very hard to project. Overstating the problem can be just as negative as ignoring it though. People will, correctly, assess that you are being alarmist/overdramatic and tune you out.

 

Actually the DoD IG and comptroller have a pretty fair understanding of how much was spent on and how many were employed. Are their number suspect at some level? Sure. But they are generally accurate. How many were there durring the invasion? Basically zero. Durring the occupation there were some - overwhelming assigned to security duties. Nor were they particularly skilled in agrigate. So yeah, precisely my point. Good for light infantry duties in low intensity conflicts.

 

Frankly, mercenaries had far more relative capability in the past. Today the requirements for an effective force far outstrip anything other than one provided by a State.

OK..... And I just gave you something from the UN that agrees with me from the actual UN website rather than some random shit I found on google because it has cool graphs. Did you read it? It's their full report on world population monitoring, buddy. 

 

In 2000 there were 790 million starving people. In 2015 that number is 795 million according to WFP:

https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdf

I think you underestimate the severity of a mass extinction, especially when the primary cause is overpopulation. We are consuming many resources faster than they can reform. That is a fact. Another fact is that it is not sustainable. Which is what I'm defining overpopulation to be. You say water is a regional problem until it actually becomes a global problem (see Syria). Forest, oil, metals, gasses, all of these things are only regional until sustainability reaches it's tipping point. Calling it a regional problem is just a convenient way of ignoring it.

And of course we can attempt to modify our behavior, but it's a slim chance. Our behaviors are natural and people are far more concerned with the direct issues of their daily life than something that not only hasn't effected them but would require a fundamental change in their lifestyle or behavior. The climate talks in Paris were a joke, as if nobody even wanted to be there. I mean, I think the issue has already reached a tipping point where we may just be screwed no matter what we do. Even at this point, nobody is doing anything. I don't mean to sound like an alarmist, I just think people should take it more seriously. Human civilization is more fragile than you're thinking it is. But even if we are screwed and nobody does anything, so be it. Yin and Yang will do their thing.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Fox Fire

[LordRahl2]

OK..... And I just gave you something from the UN that agrees with me from the actual UN website rather than some random shit I found on google because it has cool graphs. Did you read it? It's their full report on world population monitoring, buddy.

 

I did read it.  Did you? buddy?  The passage is pretty good and relatively balanced.  I do read that they assess that population growth is sustainable for the foreseeable future.  I agree.  I read that water used in agriculture is inefficient and that fixing it will be hard.  Agree.  What I did not read is "We are facing an environmental apocalypse, basically. Everything on the planet is dying".  So no, buddy, It does not look like it agrees with you.  It does explicitly agree with me.  So, thank you for that.

 

In 2000 there were 790 million starving people. In 2015 that number is 795 million according to WFP:

https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdf

 

In 1970 2.218 billion people lived in poverty.  In 2011 that number had fallen to 1.011 billion.  That is an absolute fall to say nothing of the % fall.

http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/world-poverty/#declining-global-poverty-share-of-people-living-in-extreme-poverty-1820-2015-max-roserref

 

That reminds me that you can check out gapminder for lots more comparable data.

 

 

I think you underestimate the severity of a mass extinction, especially when the primary cause is overpopulation. We are consuming many resources faster than they can reform. That is a fact. Another fact is that it is not sustainable. Which is what I'm defining overpopulation to be. You say water is a regional problem until it actually becomes a global problem (see Syria). Forest, oil, metals, gasses, all of these things are only regional until sustainability reaches it's tipping point. Calling it a regional problem is just a convenient way of ignoring it.

 

Your opinions are interesting.  Read or reread what you posted.  Lets say "While all the environmental problems discussed above are largely or entirely the result of human activities, they vary in the degree to which they can be linked directly to population size, growth or distribution."  So I would say the ball is in your court to defend that population is the "primary cause".  And since the UN report says that it IS sustainable, maybe you can back that up too.

Syria is a regional issue and if you are trying to link it to "water" ummm, yeah no.

What is actually just a convenient way of not learning about actual issues is to over dramatize them and work oneself into a tizzy.  Actually working on feasible/realistic policies requires critical analysis and an understanding of the issues as they are to the best of our abilities.  For example I note that you are against nuclear power.  We can argue about this elsewhere but turning your back on nuke power is about the most un-green policy that you can support.

Anyway.  Syria is a region issue and the conflict there is not driven by water.

 

"Human civilization is more fragile than you're thinking it is.

-And obviously a lot less fragile than you are thinking it is.  Worse has happened already and civilization did not end.

[Fox Fire]

I did read it.  Did you? buddy?  The passage is pretty good and relatively balanced.  I do read that they assess that population growth is sustainable for the foreseeable future.  I agree.  I read that water used in agriculture is inefficient and that fixing it will be hard.  Agree.  What I did not read is "We are facing an environmental apocalypse, basically. Everything on the planet is dying".  So no, buddy, It does not look like it agrees with you.  It does explicitly agree with me.  So, thank you for that.

 

 

In 1970 2.218 billion people lived in poverty.  In 2011 that number had fallen to 1.011 billion.  That is an absolute fall to say nothing of the % fall.

http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/world-poverty/#declining-global-poverty-share-of-people-living-in-extreme-poverty-1820-2015-max-roserref

 

That reminds me that you can check out gapminder for lots more comparable data.

 

 

 

Your opinions are interesting.  Read or reread what you posted.  Lets say "While all the environmental problems discussed above are largely or entirely the result of human activities, they vary in the degree to which they can be linked directly to population size, growth or distribution."  So I would say the ball is in your court to defend that population is the "primary cause".  And since the UN report says that it IS sustainable, maybe you can back that up too.

Syria is a regional issue and if you are trying to link it to "water" ummm, yeah no.

What is actually just a convenient way of not learning about actual issues is to over dramatize them and work oneself into a tizzy.  Actually working on feasible/realistic policies requires critical analysis and an understanding of the issues as they are to the best of our abilities.  For example I note that you are against nuclear power.  We can argue about this elsewhere but turning your back on nuke power is about the most un-green policy that you can support.

Anyway.  Syria is a region issue and the conflict there is not driven by water.

 

"Human civilization is more fragile than you're thinking it is.

-And obviously a lot less fragile than you are thinking it is.  Worse has happened already and civilization did not end.

The UN report said food production was sustainable until 2030-2050. 

Everything on the planet actually is dying, by that I mean there is a mass extinction happening right now. This is well documented and proven. Experts say it is the result of human activity.

People are still starving and poverty is what a government defines it as. Define poverty. The World Bank, one of the sources in your random article (you sure like graphs) defines it as earning less than $1.90 USD per day and that accounts for nearly a billion people.

http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/pubdocs/publicdoc/2015/10/503001444058224597/Global-Monitoring-Report-2015.pdf

Water definitely plays a role in the build of of tension before the Syrian civil war. Like all the farmers leaving their land and moving into urban areas, straining the nations economy. Go read a book. 

There is nothing green about nuclear power. "Nuclear energy is clean" is the biggest lie in the industry. Sure, it doesn't put smoke into the air. Instead, it just leaks radioactive particles into the air, ground and water while leaving us with insanely harmful byproducts we can't figure out what to do with. Did I mention what happens if something goes wrong with them?

Civilization has regionally ended a few times. Arguably broke down globally for a while during the black death. There is a lot of ideological tension built up in the modern world. What happens when that's combined with a lack of resources?

 

[LordRahl2]

No it said for the foreseeable future and specified what it could foresee.  Its a reading comprehension thing.  And yes food.  I and it also addressed water.

"Everything" on the planet is not dying.  Period.  Bring the rhetoric down a notch and I may engage.

Poverty was defined in all of those.  Actually it is extreme poverty.  It is less than or equal to $1.25 a day in 2005 USD and adjusted for inflation from there.

Go ahead and go check the graphs.  1 is smaller than 2 by the way.  When something goes from 2 to 1 it is said to be falling.  I enjoy that you like confirming my point though.  I did say 1.011 (in 2011) so yeah, I agree with the world bank who agrees with me.  =)

 

Geopolitical forces and intervention is what happened to and in Syria.  Not water.

 

On nuke we can discuss it elsewhere if you like.  But if you actually care about climate change then nuke power is basically your only option.  Sorry for inconvenient truths but there it is.  Not perfect but then nothing is.

 

I would say that the black plague is a good example.  Far worse compared to what is actually predicted by people who are more knowledgeable than you or I.  I would say it strained the governance of the time, sure.  But if you were to actually argue that it broke down then you would be wrong.

 

What happens when tension grows, over anything, enough in a multi-polar world?  Often war.   So we got that to look forward to.  But that is part of the human condition and civilization.

Edited February 11, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Fox Fire]

No it said for the foreseeable future and specified what it could foresee.  Its a reading comprehension thing.  And yes food.  I and it also addressed water.

"Everything" on the planet is not dying.  Period.  Bring the rhetoric down a notch and I may engage.

Poverty was defined in all of those.  Actually it is extreme poverty.  It is less than or equal to $1.25 a day in 2005 USD and adjusted for inflation from there.

Go ahead and go check the graphs.  1 is smaller than 2 by the way.  When something goes from 2 to 1 it is said to be falling.  I enjoy that you like confirming my point though.  I did say 1.011 (in 2011) so yeah, I agree with the world bank who agrees with me.  =)

 

Geopolitical forces and intervention is what happened to and in Syria.  Not water.

 

On nuke we can discuss it elsewhere if you like.  But if you actually care about climate change then nuke power is basically your only option.  Sorry for inconvenient truths but there it is.  Not perfect but then nothing is.

 

I would say that the black plague is a good example.  Far worse compared to what is actually predicted by people who are more knowledgeable than you or I.  I would say it strained the governance of the time, sure.  But if you were to actually argue that it broke down then you would be wrong.

 

What happens when tension grows, over anything, enough in a multi-polar world?  Often war.   So we got that to look forward to.  But that is part of the human condition and civilization.

No, the UN report specifically says "(say 2030-2050)". The World Banks Global Monitoring Report for 2015 gives completely different numbers and explains the figure has shifted from $1.25 to $1.90. They go on to say that they intend to make future revisions for certain regions because it's the World Bank. You can trust them. But let's be honest. $2 a day is a bit of a joke. If that many people are that poor.......

I suppose I can't deny that global poverty has decreased, but the cost of living increases and it seems like around the same amount of people are starving from over a decade ago.

 

I'm not saying the drought is the primary cause of the war, but I'm saying it played a significant role in the build of of tensions that lead to war. If you know anything about how the climate is expected to change, you'd know the middle east is getting the worst of it. The whole area could be uninhabitable in 100 years, because the heat alone will kill you. People in the whole area are feeling it right now with this drought. It's forcing people out of rural areas and into urban areas and straining the nations:

 

http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/11/beyond-conflict-water-stress-contributed-europe%E2%80%99s-migration-crisis

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6151/1235367.abstract?sid=652b3be8-1226-4d4c-b499-47ed360459bc/

 

With regional violence and political turmoil commanding global attention, water may seem tangential. However, drought and water shortages in Syria likely contributed to the unrest that stoked the country’s 2011 civil war. Dwindling water resources and chronic mismanagement forced 1.5 million people, primarily farmers and herders, to lose their livelihoods and leave their land, move to urban areas, and magnify Syria’s general destabilization.

 

 

A rapidly growing body of research examines whether human conflict can be affected by climatic changes. Drawing from archaeology, criminology, economics, geography, history, political science, and psychology, we assemble and analyze the 60 most rigorous quantitative studies and document, for the first time, a striking convergence of results. We find strong causal evidence linking climatic events to human conflict across a range of spatial and temporal scales and across all major regions of the world. The magnitude of climate’s influence is substantial: for each one standard deviation (1σ) change in climate toward warmer temperatures or more extreme rainfall, median estimates indicate that the frequency of interpersonal violence rises 4% and the frequency of intergroup conflict rises 14%. Because locations throughout the inhabited world are expected to warm 2σ to 4σ by 2050, amplified rates of human conflict could represent a large and critical impact of anthropogenic climate change. 

 

 

The stress of water shortages in the middle east in a situation that only gets worse with time cannot be brushed aside. The entire area is basically being slowly baked to death while all the aquifers continue to be sucked dry. 

 

The trouble with major war in modern times is the pure potential for destruction. I think a crusader war with Islam and aggravated tensions with Russia could be catastrophic for the whole world when combined with issues like climate change. There are a LOT of Muslims out there and a religious war.... Is basically already happening. Could get worse. The migrant crisis is insane and the tensions that's building up within Europe during a fundamental economic crisis is crazy. It's already brought violence and killing between natives and refugees. It's a lot of people flooding in, and they don't want to leave. Those people are fleeing more than just war.

 

And OK, not everything is dying, but it is a mass extinction, it is caused by humans. It could severely impact our society.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Fox Fire

[LordRahl2]

You do understand "adjusted for inflation" yes?  And sure analysts move the formula around, usually up.  I normally say $2 USD nowadays, true.  Interesting that as they RAISE the standard for extreme poverty the number living on that line continues to go down isn't it?  Seems to support my point even more.  So lets be honest, I am not sure you have a good point of reference for the $2 dollar a day mark.  You can survive at that level.  Humanity has been doing it for basically its entire history.  So yeah, it is not nice and "that" many people are that poor.  But "that" number is shrinking (while population is increasing) so that is a good thing.  Is it a "good" thing that people are still starving as we produce more than enough calories?  Absolutely not.  Nor would I like to live on $2 a day?  !@#$ no.  But the global trend is at least encouraging.

"While most recent expert assessments are cautiously optimistic about the ability of global food production to keep up with demand for the foreseeable future (that is to say, until approximately 2030 or 2050)"

-They are specifying what " foreseeable future" means to them.  They are NOT saying that the situation will change in that date range simply what those forecasters were comfortable projecting.

 

I will buy that drought in the region is a contributing factor.  I took and will take issue with your previous claim that it was the primary cause of the conflict.  There are lots and lots of contributing factors to regional problems.  For example, a contributing factor to the whole "Arab Spring" was a spike in grain prices due to a poor winter wheat harvest in Ukraine and Russia.  However, that is almost by definition regional.

 

War is war.  The potential for destruction has certainly gone up.  Does that doom humanity to die in nuclear fire?  It does not.  Looking beyond the headlines of today, Strife in Arab/Muslim regions and immigrants, the future conflicts will inevitably include States we are not even considering at the moment.  Those conflicts are impossible to predict though we can speculate.  Will climate change impact future conflict?  At some level or another it most probably will.  However, even in the absence of such the probability for conflict would still exist.  Humanity and "civilization" has done this before - but it does not appear to portend the end of either.  You live in the USA or Europe yeah?  Your kids are unlikely to be directly impacted by these things.  Frankly our ability to cope with external events has gone way up.  Even in less wealthy regions States are much more capable of responding to natural disasters and the like.  Is it "good" that we will have to?  No.  But it is not civilization ending.

 

I would say that the current trend in extinction is caused by shifting micro climates.  This is generally attributable to changes in climate which is in turn impacted by human activity.  There would be similar shifts if solar output increased significantly, as it has in the past.  I provided two examples (the MWP and the "Little Ice Age").  I am not entirely sure how major impacts to our society will result from this trend but alright.

Edited February 11, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Moon Man]

human caused climate change is yet another myth created by the religion of social justice. Just listen and believe as they claim that the earth is heating up while it is the coldest in my part of the country in recent history. The earth runs in cycles, it has been that way since it was created. Now I do believe that we have a problem, but climate change is not that. Humans are going to get progressively dumber. Instead of the most fit having the most kids, now it is the poor. Whereas in the past they would die out due to disease, now they are living and multiplying like rabbits. We need to stop this problem if humanity will survive. We need to stop giving aid to third world countries until they learn to get their birth rate down.

 

This problem is also happening at home, and it sickens me. I used to know this girl, dumb as a doorknob. Her mom was a prostitute and her dad was a crack addict. Her mom had 5 other kids to keep getting money from social security. Her father is on welfare and cant keep a job, owes the bank tons of money for his house and truck payments, and had to get a liver transplant due to his hepatitis. The sad thing is there are many people in America who are leeches on the system as well, and I for one hate to see my hard earned money go to support crack heads and prostitutes. If this keeps going on, people are going to stop caring about having jobs, and just join in. Sooner or later the country will cease being able to pay these people, and it will result in chaos and famine. I imagine 1/6 to 1/4 of the population dying in the resulting anarchy until an oppressive regime winds up taking over