This is What Global Warming Looks Like

[Ace Otana]

Really......really? Cry doom and then blissfully move on to a sideline? A variety of places, whose water are we talking about? Your's locally, I don't know where you are. Globally?

Ok so you don't know.
It comes from rain, lots of it. Running down hills mountains and sometimes just straight into the reservoir itself. That's where we get our fresh (drinkable) water from, and it's drying out. Where will we get our fresh water from if our reservoirs dry out? No water, no food production either. Warmer planet, more heat waves, less rain, less water and less food production. We consume too much, it's not being replaced as fast as we're consuming it.

All of which are required for any housing project whatsoever and will be expended on them in any case regardless of what manner it is built in. Any form of population control would also require the exact same things, all I see is parity.

Actually population control is extremely cheap compared. All it requires is education, simple awareness and the willingness to act on it. Thing is, no one cares or thinks it's a problem. That is the source of the problem.
Stephen Hawking, Joe Rogan, Martin Luther King, Jr., Albert Einstein, Isaac Asimov also agree it's a serious problem.

Except that it doesn't, in so far as the scope and scale of rabbits and foxes are concerned.

Then you've failed to understand.

---

It may be that you and I have disagreement on this which we're unlikely to find middle ground on.

We're complete opposites on the subject it would seem.

"We have been God-like in our planned breeding of our domesticated plants and animals, but we have been rabbit-like in our unplanned breeding of ourselves."
Arnold Joseph Toynbee

[The Grand Nudger]

Ok so you don't know.
It comes from rain, lots of it. Running down hills mountains and sometimes just straight into the reservoir itself. That's where we get our fresh (drinkable) water from, and it's drying out. Where will we get our fresh water from if our reservoirs dry out? No water, no food production either. Warmer planet, more heat waves, less rain, less water and less food production. We consume too much, it's not being replaced as fast as we're consuming it.

Did you just invoke waste, I'll be godamned. So, shouldn't we address that first, before we set caps on population? Warmer, btw, means more rain..not less. Colder means less. Don't even get me started on the waste in water usage by food production, not that plants aren't wasteful themselves...you would be amazed at how many gallons of water a plant evaps daily.

Actually population control is extremely cheap compared. All it requires is education, simple awareness and the willingness to act on it. Thing is, no one cares or thinks it's a problem. That is the source of the problem.

Cheap education eh? Not sure if trolling.... Again, we already do that (indirect population control) here in the States and we still manage to be a major offender. You really can't proceed further with this without figuring out how that fits in.

Then you've failed to understand.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me then? Im fairly certain that human beings interaction with our environment is more complicated than the rabbits and foxes analogy, so much so that it loses comparative ability (but is probably a great introduction to the concept in grade/high school).

If someone doesn't want children, then they shouldn't have them. Why does it have to be more complicated than this, and at what point are we going to solve some environmental problems along these lines?

[Ace Otana]

Did you just invoke waste, I'll be godamned. So, shouldn't we address that first, before we set caps on population?

Solving waste will not solve the problem. 9 to 10 billion people is currently the maximum amount of people that can be supported on this planet. We don't want to reach that limit.

Cheap education eh? Not sure if trolling....again, we already do that here in the States..(though not through education) and we still manage to be a major offender. You haven't even touched that yet.

Really, you're taught about population maintenance and problems with overpopulation. Looks like the topic has been skipped.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me then?

Was going to give the the island that can only support 10 people example, but you're not going to listen though.

[The Grand Nudger]

Solving waste will not solve the problem. 9 to 10 billion people is currently the maximum amount of people that can be supported on this planet. We don't want to reach that limit.

That would be a unique event, whereby "solving" waste didn't solve a problem. That's a nice round number 9-10 billion, what assumptions go into this?

Really, you're taught about population maintenance and problems with overpopulation. Looks like the topic has been skipped.

Actually yeah, we are, but thats beside the point (seriously wtf is it with people assuming that american education is in the shitter......our students are in the shitter, not our godamned textbooks), what we already do is indirect population control (and has been noticed as a trend in developed countries for some time btw, smaller families, more concentrated wealth) For the third and final time-

It doesn't seem to be working, as those who have the fewest children by comparison are consuming the vast majority of resources and directly/indirectly causing the majority of environmental damage.

Was going to give the the island that can only support 10 people example, but you're not going to listen though.

Questioning both your assumptions and conclusions does not count as not listening Ace.

[Ace Otana]

That would be a unique event, whereby "solving" waste didn't solve a problem. That's a nice round number 9-10 billion, what assumptions go into this?

Maths, observations from numerous naturalists.

It doesn't seem to be working, as those who have the fewest children by comparison are consuming the vast majority of resources and directly/indirectly causing the majority of environmental damage.

If overpopulation isn't a trouble, then knock yourself out and reproduce like crazy. See what happens. We seem to be doing that anyway, so, might as well go for fuck.

Questioning both your assumptions and conclusions does not count as not listening Ace.

I'm afraid I'm just going to give up.

Agree to disagree? I'm sure the coming years will prove Attenbourgh correct.

The three options as he put it. Either we have less kids, quickly improve our technology to prolong the problem or have mass starvation, war.....death.

[The Grand Nudger]

We...do...have..fewer....children.......

The average household size has decreased in the last decade in the states. It's at 2.59 as of 2010. Remove one child from that equation and what are you left with? Are you suggesting that we save the planet the trouble and put ourselves into extinction? It isn't working Ace.

[Ace Otana]

Are you suggesting that we save the planet the trouble and put ourselves into extinction? It isn't working Ace.

Aren't we already doing that?
Which reminds me of a quote - "Our intelligence walks hand in hand with stupidity". We're as dumb as we are smart.

There's nothing more for me to say to you really. Believe whatever you want.

[Reforged]

We...do...have..fewer....children.......

The average household size has decreased in the last decade in the states. It's at 2.59 as of 2010. Remove one child from that equation and what are you left with? Are you suggesting that we save the planet the trouble and put ourselves into extinction? It isn't working Ace.

Extinction? Have you looked around you lately? Theres *way* too many people for that.
Alright so the average household size has decreased. Who said we were talking solely about the average household?
What about all those budding little octomoms that spawn endless legions of mewling cabbages while watching re-runs of the A-team? Are they counted in that statistic?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, they are. What's not included (beyond non-respondents) that could skew it-

-"Illegal" families (these are generally pretty big, but gain, we've noticed that as they become "naturalized" their family sizes decrease)

I really don't understand why I'm having trouble communicating this.

We (developed nations) do have fewer children
We (developed nations)are responsible for the greatest amount of environmental damage
The level of environmental damage seems to be increasing.

So, while population control may be a solution for some as yet undefined problem, it doesn't seem to help much RE the environment, and if we're invoking population control we (developed nations) already have that handled, and we'd just be telling people in third world shitholes not to have more children -while we destroy their third world shithole all around them- to support our .59 child (lets be honest, Daddy needs a Caddy, we're not supporting anyone with majority of the shit we go through..lol).

[Justtristo]

Okay....here we go. I'm going to suggest something heretical......

Whenever we end up on this topic Day After Tommorrow shit seems inevitable. We assume the worst, talk about the droughts and the storms etc. It's almost as if we're assuming that climate change is a unilateral bad scenario. That sounds a bit like the earth punishing us, don't you think? All bad, all the time, never any other side of the coin. You know we'd suffer much more if we went deep freeze -aridity- than we would by any amount of warming. Warming has historically fostered the greatest explosions of life ever seen on this planet...the densest flora, the greatest amount of fauna. I can't help but notice that there is something not altogether reasonable going on when we start to flirt with climate apocalypse. The psuedo apocalypse bit should be the canary in the mines..that's just my opinion. Storms and droughts and tornadoes and famine...why not just invoke the locusts already ffs?

-late edit- Okay, I grew up in S. Florida, when you guys think of "stronger storms" I have a sneaking suspicion that it doesn't even approach the shit a great many people ride out on their porch beer in hand- and yet civilization remains-food production continues. The temp was over 100 and over 90% humidity for nearly three decades of my life more often than it was under 90 or 70%humidity - despite their being a record decade long drought smack dab in the middle of that......even with that much moisture in the air..interesting isn't it? Sure, areas get devastated time to time, but that's the cost of living here. I'm not trying to downplay natural disasters or our effect on the environment in the least, both are priority concerns as far as I'm concerned. I just don't see how the chicken little approach does anything to alleviate any problem whatsoever.

I have never watched The Day After Tomorrow and do not intend to. I am basing my predictions of a high likelyhood of sudden climate change through what has been discovered through the field of Paleoclimatology. Although such a sudden climate change event would be still over a period of several years.

Also I cannot comment how a sudden warming event in the next century or two will affect other forms of life. However it would be a major disruption to human civilization, unless we either prepare for it or try and prevent it from happening.