“We Are in Deep Trouble”: Carbon Emissions Break Record in Devastating Global Setback

Global energy experts released grim findings Monday, saying that not only are planet-warming carbon-dioxide emissions still increasing, but the world’s growing thirst for energy has led to higher emissions from coal-fired power plants than ever before.

more….

Tau.Neutrino said:

“We Are in Deep Trouble”: Carbon Emissions Break Record in Devastating Global Setback

Global energy experts released grim findings Monday, saying that not only are planet-warming carbon-dioxide emissions still increasing, but the world’s growing thirst for energy has led to higher emissions from coal-fired power plants than ever before.

more….

doesn’t surprise me, china alone in recent times built more than a few coal-fired power stations

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

“We Are in Deep Trouble”: Carbon Emissions Break Record in Devastating Global Setback

Global energy experts released grim findings Monday, saying that not only are planet-warming carbon-dioxide emissions still increasing, but the world’s growing thirst for energy has led to higher emissions from coal-fired power plants than ever before.

more….

doesn’t surprise me, china alone in recent times built more than a few coal-fired power stations

They also built a very large number of Chinese.

Tamb said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

“We Are in Deep Trouble”: Carbon Emissions Break Record in Devastating Global Setback

Global energy experts released grim findings Monday, saying that not only are planet-warming carbon-dioxide emissions still increasing, but the world’s growing thirst for energy has led to higher emissions from coal-fired power plants than ever before.

more….

doesn’t surprise me, china alone in recent times built more than a few coal-fired power stations

They also built a very large number of Chinese.

that too, and there’s the India episode to follow, and others

>>“The growth in fossils is still greater than all the increases in renewables,” Jackson said, adding that few countries are living up to the pledges they made as part of the Paris climate accord.<<

>>“We are in deep trouble,” Jackson said of Monday’s findings. “The climate consequences are catastrophic. I don’t use any word like that very often. But we are headed for disaster, and nobody seems to be able to slow things down.”<<

PermeateFree said:

>>“The growth in fossils is still greater than all the increases in renewables,” Jackson said, adding that few countries are living up to the pledges they made as part of the Paris climate accord.<<

>>“We are in deep trouble,” Jackson said of Monday’s findings. “The climate consequences are catastrophic. I don’t use any word like that very often. But we are headed for disaster, and nobody seems to be able to slow things down.”<<

IMO until human population growth is reversed the situation must continue to get worse.

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

>>“The growth in fossils is still greater than all the increases in renewables,” Jackson said, adding that few countries are living up to the pledges they made as part of the Paris climate accord.<<

>>“We are in deep trouble,” Jackson said of Monday’s findings. “The climate consequences are catastrophic. I don’t use any word like that very often. But we are headed for disaster, and nobody seems to be able to slow things down.”<<

IMO until human population growth is reversed the situation must continue to get worse.

Agree, but that idea seems to be worse to most people than global warming itself.

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

>>“The growth in fossils is still greater than all the increases in renewables,” Jackson said, adding that few countries are living up to the pledges they made as part of the Paris climate accord.<<

>>“We are in deep trouble,” Jackson said of Monday’s findings. “The climate consequences are catastrophic. I don’t use any word like that very often. But we are headed for disaster, and nobody seems to be able to slow things down.”<<

IMO until human population growth is reversed the situation must continue to get worse.

how do you propose we do this without killing a few billion people?

ChrispenEvan said:

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

>>“The growth in fossils is still greater than all the increases in renewables,” Jackson said, adding that few countries are living up to the pledges they made as part of the Paris climate accord.<<

>>“We are in deep trouble,” Jackson said of Monday’s findings. “The climate consequences are catastrophic. I don’t use any word like that very often. But we are headed for disaster, and nobody seems to be able to slow things down.”<<

IMO until human population growth is reversed the situation must continue to get worse.

how do you propose we do this without killing a few billion people?

That is why we are fucked, or didn’t you realise?

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Tamb said:

IMO until human population growth is reversed the situation must continue to get worse.

how do you propose we do this without killing a few billion people?

That is why we are fucked, or didn’t you realise?

seeing as we have been over this numerous times i think i probably know better than you.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

how do you propose we do this without killing a few billion people?

That is why we are fucked, or didn’t you realise?

seeing as we have been over this numerous times i think i probably know better than you.

We have Not been over it numerous times, you have just mouthed dv’s ridiculous statements. You two are just so out of it, you might as well be on a little island in the middle of an ocean somewhere, patiently waiting for it to sink under the water.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

how do you propose we do this without killing a few billion people?

That is why we are fucked, or didn’t you realise?

seeing as we have been over this numerous times i think i probably know better than you.

We could convert our entire world economy to environment recover and go from there, if we can change to a war economy back in WWII we could with huge amounts of effort and sacrifice do the same to fix the planet.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

That is why we are fucked, or didn’t you realise?

seeing as we have been over this numerous times i think i probably know better than you.

We have Not been over it numerous times, you have just mouthed dv’s ridiculous statements. You two are just so out of it, you might as well be on a little island in the middle of an ocean somewhere, patiently waiting for it to sink under the water.

LOL. History says you are wrong. We have been over population reduction, fertility rates and population growth. And we know you are lying because you bring DV into this discussion when he wasn’t mentioned and as he and I are the ones who have had to teach you the difference between fertility rates and pop growth. So stop lying and trying to make out you are the sole one who knows.

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

That is why we are fucked, or didn’t you realise?

seeing as we have been over this numerous times i think i probably know better than you.

We could convert our entire world economy to environment recover and go from there, if we can change to a war economy back in WWII we could with huge amounts of effort and sacrifice do the same to fix the planet.

just spend the money we spend on arms on the environment. and poverty.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

seeing as we have been over this numerous times i think i probably know better than you.

We could convert our entire world economy to environment recover and go from there, if we can change to a war economy back in WWII we could with huge amounts of effort and sacrifice do the same to fix the planet.

just spend the money we spend on arms on the environment. and poverty.

We should yes

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

We could convert our entire world economy to environment recover and go from there, if we can change to a war economy back in WWII we could with huge amounts of effort and sacrifice do the same to fix the planet.

just spend the money we spend on arms on the environment. and poverty.

We should yes

but we wont.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

just spend the money we spend on arms on the environment. and poverty.

We should yes

but we wont.

No

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

just spend the money we spend on arms on the environment. and poverty.

We should yes

but we wont.

And we could sit around in a circle, put flowers in our hair and sing Kumbaya

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

seeing as we have been over this numerous times i think i probably know better than you.

We have Not been over it numerous times, you have just mouthed dv’s ridiculous statements. You two are just so out of it, you might as well be on a little island in the middle of an ocean somewhere, patiently waiting for it to sink under the water.

LOL. History says you are wrong. We have been over population reduction, fertility rates and population growth. And we know you are lying because you bring DV into this discussion when he wasn’t mentioned and as he and I are the ones who have had to teach you the difference between fertility rates and pop growth. So stop lying and trying to make out you are the sole one who knows.

Gezzs here you go again in your world of total unreality. Fertility rates are dropping in the developed world but certainly are not in African countries and other often strongly Catholic countries. What you don’t seem to realise is the drop in the birth rate will take at least 80 years before there is ANY population reduction. So for you and dv running around quoting the Western Countries reduction in fertility rates as a saviour is downright dishonest and misleading.

I have saved some of dv’s statements from the SSSF Forum of which the following is an example, whereby the effects of global warming, addition droughts and extreme weather events are totally ignored.

>>Daryn Voss: You say “keeps growing and growing” but population growth rates have been collapsing since the 1960s. The decline has occurred all over the world and it just keeps declining. Demographers look at the age and sex balance, the correlation between wealth and procreation, and we’re on track to reach a top population between 9 and 12 billion.

At the moment there remains huge scope to increase the amount of food that the world can produce: governments in both the EU and north America pay some farmers not to produce in order to manage prices, and around a third of food produced is wasted. You’d need to switch to renewables for power and tighten the recycling game for metals and also rely more on the sea for food, but you could support 30 billion humans without fundamentally changing technology.

If you really wanted to push it and you didn’t give a shit about the ecosystem or animal welfare or human quality of life, and literally turned all of earth’s renewable resources towards the goal of maximising the human head count, then you’d replace conventional agriculture with more area-efficient forms of food production: hydroponics, zero waste vertical farming etc. Then you could push it past the 100 billion mark.<<

Talk about blue sky and flying pigs!

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

We should yes

but we wont.

And we could sit around in a circle, put flowers in our hair and sing Kumbaya

1) you don’t want to hear me sing
2) i don’t know the words
3) it wont help
4) some flowers give me hay fever.

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

ChrispenEvan said:

but we wont.

And we could sit around in a circle, put flowers in our hair and sing Kumbaya

1) you don’t want to hear me sing
2) i don’t know the words
3) it wont help
4) some flowers give me hay fever.

From what I’ve heard Sibeen would be more flowers than hair…

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

We have Not been over it numerous times, you have just mouthed dv’s ridiculous statements. You two are just so out of it, you might as well be on a little island in the middle of an ocean somewhere, patiently waiting for it to sink under the water.

LOL. History says you are wrong. We have been over population reduction, fertility rates and population growth. And we know you are lying because you bring DV into this discussion when he wasn’t mentioned and as he and I are the ones who have had to teach you the difference between fertility rates and pop growth. So stop lying and trying to make out you are the sole one who knows.

Gezzs here you go again in your world of total unreality. Fertility rates are dropping in the developed world but certainly are not in African countries and other often strongly Catholic countries. What you don’t seem to realise is the drop in the birth rate will take at least 80 years before there is ANY population reduction. So for you and dv running around quoting the Western Countries reduction in fertility rates as a saviour is downright dishonest and misleading.

I have saved some of dv’s statements from the SSSF Forum of which the following is an example, whereby the effects of global warming, addition droughts and extreme weather events are totally ignored.

>>Daryn Voss: You say “keeps growing and growing” but population growth rates have been collapsing since the 1960s. The decline has occurred all over the world and it just keeps declining. Demographers look at the age and sex balance, the correlation between wealth and procreation, and we’re on track to reach a top population between 9 and 12 billion.

At the moment there remains huge scope to increase the amount of food that the world can produce: governments in both the EU and north America pay some farmers not to produce in order to manage prices, and around a third of food produced is wasted. You’d need to switch to renewables for power and tighten the recycling game for metals and also rely more on the sea for food, but you could support 30 billion humans without fundamentally changing technology.

If you really wanted to push it and you didn’t give a shit about the ecosystem or animal welfare or human quality of life, and literally turned all of earth’s renewable resources towards the goal of maximising the human head count, then you’d replace conventional agriculture with more area-efficient forms of food production: hydroponics, zero waste vertical farming etc. Then you could push it past the 100 billion mark.<<

Talk about blue sky and flying pigs!

The poor may also wish for and you can’t argue with them when others have it, is a decent lifestyle similar to what we have.
It would not be good for the planet

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

LOL. History says you are wrong. We have been over population reduction, fertility rates and population growth. And we know you are lying because you bring DV into this discussion when he wasn’t mentioned and as he and I are the ones who have had to teach you the difference between fertility rates and pop growth. So stop lying and trying to make out you are the sole one who knows.

Gezzs here you go again in your world of total unreality. Fertility rates are dropping in the developed world but certainly are not in African countries and other often strongly Catholic countries. What you don’t seem to realise is the drop in the birth rate will take at least 80 years before there is ANY population reduction. So for you and dv running around quoting the Western Countries reduction in fertility rates as a saviour is downright dishonest and misleading.

I have saved some of dv’s statements from the SSSF Forum of which the following is an example, whereby the effects of global warming, addition droughts and extreme weather events are totally ignored.

>>Daryn Voss: You say “keeps growing and growing” but population growth rates have been collapsing since the 1960s. The decline has occurred all over the world and it just keeps declining. Demographers look at the age and sex balance, the correlation between wealth and procreation, and we’re on track to reach a top population between 9 and 12 billion.

At the moment there remains huge scope to increase the amount of food that the world can produce: governments in both the EU and north America pay some farmers not to produce in order to manage prices, and around a third of food produced is wasted. You’d need to switch to renewables for power and tighten the recycling game for metals and also rely more on the sea for food, but you could support 30 billion humans without fundamentally changing technology.

If you really wanted to push it and you didn’t give a shit about the ecosystem or animal welfare or human quality of life, and literally turned all of earth’s renewable resources towards the goal of maximising the human head count, then you’d replace conventional agriculture with more area-efficient forms of food production: hydroponics, zero waste vertical farming etc. Then you could push it past the 100 billion mark.<<

Talk about blue sky and flying pigs!

The poor may also wish for and you can’t argue with them when others have it, is a decent lifestyle similar to what we have.
It would not be good for the planet

so you still are ignorant about the difference between population growth rates, fertility rates, and population growth? sheesh.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Gezzs here you go again in your world of total unreality. Fertility rates are dropping in the developed world but certainly are not in African countries and other often strongly Catholic countries. What you don’t seem to realise is the drop in the birth rate will take at least 80 years before there is ANY population reduction. So for you and dv running around quoting the Western Countries reduction in fertility rates as a saviour is downright dishonest and misleading.

I have saved some of dv’s statements from the SSSF Forum of which the following is an example, whereby the effects of global warming, addition droughts and extreme weather events are totally ignored.

>>Daryn Voss: You say “keeps growing and growing” but population growth rates have been collapsing since the 1960s. The decline has occurred all over the world and it just keeps declining. Demographers look at the age and sex balance, the correlation between wealth and procreation, and we’re on track to reach a top population between 9 and 12 billion.

At the moment there remains huge scope to increase the amount of food that the world can produce: governments in both the EU and north America pay some farmers not to produce in order to manage prices, and around a third of food produced is wasted. You’d need to switch to renewables for power and tighten the recycling game for metals and also rely more on the sea for food, but you could support 30 billion humans without fundamentally changing technology.

If you really wanted to push it and you didn’t give a shit about the ecosystem or animal welfare or human quality of life, and literally turned all of earth’s renewable resources towards the goal of maximising the human head count, then you’d replace conventional agriculture with more area-efficient forms of food production: hydroponics, zero waste vertical farming etc. Then you could push it past the 100 billion mark.<<

Talk about blue sky and flying pigs!

The poor may also wish for and you can’t argue with them when others have it, is a decent lifestyle similar to what we have.
It would not be good for the planet

so you still are ignorant about the difference between population growth rates, fertility rates, and population growth? sheesh.

You are a dab hand of making adverse statements without a single word of support for your own. You are not only a fool, but a dishonest one too.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Gezzs here you go again in your world of total unreality. Fertility rates are dropping in the developed world but certainly are not in African countries and other often strongly Catholic countries. What you don’t seem to realise is the drop in the birth rate will take at least 80 years before there is ANY population reduction. So for you and dv running around quoting the Western Countries reduction in fertility rates as a saviour is downright dishonest and misleading.

I have saved some of dv’s statements from the SSSF Forum of which the following is an example, whereby the effects of global warming, addition droughts and extreme weather events are totally ignored.

>>Daryn Voss: You say “keeps growing and growing” but population growth rates have been collapsing since the 1960s. The decline has occurred all over the world and it just keeps declining. Demographers look at the age and sex balance, the correlation between wealth and procreation, and we’re on track to reach a top population between 9 and 12 billion.

At the moment there remains huge scope to increase the amount of food that the world can produce: governments in both the EU and north America pay some farmers not to produce in order to manage prices, and around a third of food produced is wasted. You’d need to switch to renewables for power and tighten the recycling game for metals and also rely more on the sea for food, but you could support 30 billion humans without fundamentally changing technology.

If you really wanted to push it and you didn’t give a shit about the ecosystem or animal welfare or human quality of life, and literally turned all of earth’s renewable resources towards the goal of maximising the human head count, then you’d replace conventional agriculture with more area-efficient forms of food production: hydroponics, zero waste vertical farming etc. Then you could push it past the 100 billion mark.<<

Talk about blue sky and flying pigs!

The poor may also wish for and you can’t argue with them when others have it, is a decent lifestyle similar to what we have.
It would not be good for the planet

so you still are ignorant about the difference between population growth rates, fertility rates, and population growth? sheesh.

Me ?

I was meaning if you have a couple of billion people alive now they live a very frugal lifestyle as they are poor and this changes and they demand consumer goods its got to come from somewhere. The planet is a mess now and only a certain fraction of it caused the most damage

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

The poor may also wish for and you can’t argue with them when others have it, is a decent lifestyle similar to what we have.
It would not be good for the planet

so you still are ignorant about the difference between population growth rates, fertility rates, and population growth? sheesh.

You are a dab hand of making adverse statements without a single word of support for your own. You are not only a fool, but a dishonest one too.

To be fair falling fertility rates and population growth rates still won’t prevent billions being born over the next few decades when it should probably be zero born and then a reduction something just not possible

Cymek said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

The poor may also wish for and you can’t argue with them when others have it, is a decent lifestyle similar to what we have.
It would not be good for the planet

so you still are ignorant about the difference between population growth rates, fertility rates, and population growth? sheesh.

Me ?

I was meaning if you have a couple of billion people alive now they live a very frugal lifestyle as they are poor and this changes and they demand consumer goods its got to come from somewhere. The planet is a mess now and only a certain fraction of it caused the most damage

no, dick brain.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

The poor may also wish for and you can’t argue with them when others have it, is a decent lifestyle similar to what we have.
It would not be good for the planet

so you still are ignorant about the difference between population growth rates, fertility rates, and population growth? sheesh.

You are a dab hand of making adverse statements without a single word of support for your own. You are not only a fool, but a dishonest one too.

Hahahah you say that about everyone here though. so i don’t take much from it.

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

so you still are ignorant about the difference between population growth rates, fertility rates, and population growth? sheesh.

You are a dab hand of making adverse statements without a single word of support for your own. You are not only a fool, but a dishonest one too.

Hahahah you say that about everyone here though. so i don’t take much from it.

No I don’t, only you and dv who think there is nothing to worry about and everything will work out fine.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

PermeateFree said:

You are a dab hand of making adverse statements without a single word of support for your own. You are not only a fool, but a dishonest one too.

Hahahah you say that about everyone here though. so i don’t take much from it.

No I don’t, only you and dv who think there is nothing to worry about and everything will work out fine.

Wasn’t The Observer the only one that thought this

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Hahahah you say that about everyone here though. so i don’t take much from it.

No I don’t, only you and dv who think there is nothing to worry about and everything will work out fine.

Wasn’t The Observer the only one that thought this

yeah. pf is lying again.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Hahahah you say that about everyone here though. so i don’t take much from it.

No I don’t, only you and dv who think there is nothing to worry about and everything will work out fine.

Wasn’t The Observer the only one that thought this

People have fled and populations have survived shifting rivers, sinking and rising coasts, erosion, climate change including ice ages, I am confident we can continue to do so.

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

No I don’t, only you and dv who think there is nothing to worry about and everything will work out fine.

Wasn’t The Observer the only one that thought this

People have fled and populations have survived shifting rivers, sinking and rising coasts, erosion, climate change including ice ages, I am confident we can continue to do so.

though it was all probably a lot easier when the population was only a few million.

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

No I don’t, only you and dv who think there is nothing to worry about and everything will work out fine.

Wasn’t The Observer the only one that thought this

yeah. pf is lying again.

Well if you want to be lumped in with the Observer, more fool you.

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

No I don’t, only you and dv who think there is nothing to worry about and everything will work out fine.

Wasn’t The Observer the only one that thought this

People have fled and populations have survived shifting rivers, sinking and rising coasts, erosion, climate change including ice ages, I am confident we can continue to do so.

I am sure we will but its a pity other lifeforms will suffer worse than us.
I suppose as most of us only see a small fraction of the planet we don’t realise what is gone.

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Cymek said:

Wasn’t The Observer the only one that thought this

yeah. pf is lying again.

Well if you want to be lumped in with the Observer, more fool you.

He could be you from the mirror universe

ChrispenEvan said:

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

Wasn’t The Observer the only one that thought this

People have fled and populations have survived shifting rivers, sinking and rising coasts, erosion, climate change including ice ages, I am confident we can continue to do so.

though it was all probably a lot easier when the population was only a few million.

Whilst that is true, the dislocation is the same and these things don’t happen overnight, generally, people get to plan. Are complex societies more or less capable will be an interesting experiment. Population transfers will occur in the case of housing as insurance becomes prohibitive, farming as costs increase, this will be different for different times and places and even resilience of populations, plus feedback will be happening and solutions found, new markets and solutions discovered.

ChrispenEvan said:

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

Wasn’t The Observer the only one that thought this

People have fled and populations have survived shifting rivers, sinking and rising coasts, erosion, climate change including ice ages, I am confident we can continue to do so.

though it was all probably a lot easier when the population was only a few million.

Plus it is a global event with a high human population with limited room to move and it is happening very quickly.

ChrispenEvan said:

AwesomeO said:

Cymek said:

Wasn’t The Observer the only one that thought this

People have fled and populations have survived shifting rivers, sinking and rising coasts, erosion, climate change including ice ages, I am confident we can continue to do so.

though it was all probably a lot easier when the population was only a few million.

There was a time when humanity was only numbered in the hundreds, then in the thousands by the sound of things it increased then fell, did this a few times, then steadily increased to today. Looks like it it fall again, maybe hundreds of years? Quality of life is falling for all species. Species are becoming extinct at an accelerated rate, insects, bees, birds, fish, animals, mammals, plants.and trees.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

ChrispenEvan said:

yeah. pf is lying again.

Well if you want to be lumped in with the Observer, more fool you.

He could be you from the mirror universe

Providing that means I am completely the opposite.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Well if you want to be lumped in with the Observer, more fool you.

He could be you from the mirror universe

Providing that means I am completely the opposite.

If you have a beard you are the evil one

AwesomeO said:

ChrispenEvan said:

AwesomeO said:

People have fled and populations have survived shifting rivers, sinking and rising coasts, erosion, climate change including ice ages, I am confident we can continue to do so.

though it was all probably a lot easier when the population was only a few million.

Whilst that is true, the dislocation is the same and these things don’t happen overnight, generally, people get to plan. Are complex societies more or less capable will be an interesting experiment. Population transfers will occur in the case of housing as insurance becomes prohibitive, farming as costs increase, this will be different for different times and places and even resilience of populations, plus feedback will be happening and solutions found, new markets and solutions discovered.

i’ve probably watched, and read, too much dystopian fiction to have much hope that we will co-operate and not build walls instead.

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

AwesomeO said:

People have fled and populations have survived shifting rivers, sinking and rising coasts, erosion, climate change including ice ages, I am confident we can continue to do so.

though it was all probably a lot easier when the population was only a few million.

There was a time when humanity was only numbered in the hundreds, then in the thousands by the sound of things it increased then fell, did this a few times, then steadily increased to today. Looks like it it fall again, maybe hundreds of years? Quality of life is falling for all species. Species are becoming extinct at an accelerated rate, insects, bees, birds, fish, animals, mammals, plants.and trees.

Very true. Funny how people don’t think they are not animals too and reliant on much the same things as other species, so whatever happens to them will not happen to us.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

He could be you from the mirror universe

Providing that means I am completely the opposite.

If you have a beard you are the evil one

It is a neatly trimmed one, growing on a very handsome face.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

though it was all probably a lot easier when the population was only a few million.

There was a time when humanity was only numbered in the hundreds, then in the thousands by the sound of things it increased then fell, did this a few times, then steadily increased to today. Looks like it it fall again, maybe hundreds of years? Quality of life is falling for all species. Species are becoming extinct at an accelerated rate, insects, bees, birds, fish, animals, mammals, plants.and trees.

Very true. Funny how people don’t think they are not animals too and reliant on much the same things as other species, so whatever happens to them will not happen to us.

I imagine its what we haven’t planned for that may do the most damage.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Providing that means I am completely the opposite.

If you have a beard you are the evil one

It is a neatly trimmed one, growing on a very handsome face.

Hmmm, I also have a beard so I’ll let it pass

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

There was a time when humanity was only numbered in the hundreds, then in the thousands by the sound of things it increased then fell, did this a few times, then steadily increased to today. Looks like it it fall again, maybe hundreds of years? Quality of life is falling for all species. Species are becoming extinct at an accelerated rate, insects, bees, birds, fish, animals, mammals, plants.and trees.

Very true. Funny how people don’t think they are not animals too and reliant on much the same things as other species, so whatever happens to them will not happen to us.

I imagine its what we haven’t planned for that may do the most damage.

It might simply be the size and power.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

There was a time when humanity was only numbered in the hundreds, then in the thousands by the sound of things it increased then fell, did this a few times, then steadily increased to today. Looks like it it fall again, maybe hundreds of years? Quality of life is falling for all species. Species are becoming extinct at an accelerated rate, insects, bees, birds, fish, animals, mammals, plants.and trees.

Very true. Funny how people don’t think they are not animals too and reliant on much the same things as other species, so whatever happens to them will not happen to us.

I imagine its what we haven’t planned for that may do the most damage.

Say something like massive methane deposits locked up in melting permafrost or some reemerging disease that’s been frozen (unlikely but who knows)

ChrispenEvan said:

AwesomeO said:

ChrispenEvan said:

though it was all probably a lot easier when the population was only a few million.

Whilst that is true, the dislocation is the same and these things don’t happen overnight, generally, people get to plan. Are complex societies more or less capable will be an interesting experiment. Population transfers will occur in the case of housing as insurance becomes prohibitive, farming as costs increase, this will be different for different times and places and even resilience of populations, plus feedback will be happening and solutions found, new markets and solutions discovered.

i’ve probably watched, and read, too much dystopian fiction to have much hope that we will co-operate and not build walls instead.

Walls will happen for sure, I am just parsing a distinction between catastrophe for humanity and catastrophe for populations and populations have always known parlous times. I am thinking more of a constantly raining Bladerunner compared to Mad Max though in both cases humanity and society goes on.

PermeateFree said:

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

Very true. Funny how people don’t think they are not animals too and reliant on much the same things as other species, so whatever happens to them will not happen to us.

I imagine its what we haven’t planned for that may do the most damage.

It might simply be the size and power.

That as well.
What can people do though you can limit yourself personally and try to alleviate your footprint but not much more.

AwesomeO said:

ChrispenEvan said:

AwesomeO said:

Whilst that is true, the dislocation is the same and these things don’t happen overnight, generally, people get to plan. Are complex societies more or less capable will be an interesting experiment. Population transfers will occur in the case of housing as insurance becomes prohibitive, farming as costs increase, this will be different for different times and places and even resilience of populations, plus feedback will be happening and solutions found, new markets and solutions discovered.

i’ve probably watched, and read, too much dystopian fiction to have much hope that we will co-operate and not build walls instead.

Walls will happen for sure, I am just parsing a distinction between catastrophe for humanity and catastrophe for populations and populations have always known parlous times. I am thinking more of a constantly raining Bladerunner compared to Mad Max though in both cases humanity and society goes on.

Bladerunner world was pretty damn depressing even Mad Max had some life besides humans

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i’ve probably watched, and read, too much dystopian fiction to have much hope that we will co-operate and not build walls instead.

Walls will happen for sure, I am just parsing a distinction between catastrophe for humanity and catastrophe for populations and populations have always known parlous times. I am thinking more of a constantly raining Bladerunner compared to Mad Max though in both cases humanity and society goes on.

Bladerunner world was pretty damn depressing even Mad Max had some life besides humans

But Atari was still a going concern so it wasn’t all bad.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

though it was all probably a lot easier when the population was only a few million.

There was a time when humanity was only numbered in the hundreds, then in the thousands by the sound of things it increased then fell, did this a few times, then steadily increased to today. Looks like it it fall again, maybe hundreds of years? Quality of life is falling for all species. Species are becoming extinct at an accelerated rate, insects, bees, birds, fish, animals, mammals, plants.and trees.

Very true. Funny how people don’t think they are not animals too and reliant on much the same things as other species, so whatever happens to them will not happen to us.

There are a lot of people in denial.

Population numbers will have to be researched more vigorously until figures are agreed upon for continued sustainability.

Research indicates between 3 to 10 billion, but we need more accurate figures and those figures may have to come down past sustainable numbers to allow for recovery time.

More delay time equals more recovery time then its the tipping point which we are approaching then after that no recovery for millions of years.

Fixing the food chain is paramount, its broken.

Fixing human created global warming is also paramount has it too can effect the food chain.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

AwesomeO said:

Walls will happen for sure, I am just parsing a distinction between catastrophe for humanity and catastrophe for populations and populations have always known parlous times. I am thinking more of a constantly raining Bladerunner compared to Mad Max though in both cases humanity and society goes on.

Bladerunner world was pretty damn depressing even Mad Max had some life besides humans

But Atari was still a going concern so it wasn’t all bad.

You could see the Earth ending up that way, everything is dead but our technology keeps humanity alive

List of observations on climate change and global warming.

1 Increased temperatures bringing heatwaves and drought in local areas.
2 Changing rain patterns that can see rain decreasing in some areas and increasing in other areas.
3 Increased lightning and thunderstorm activity.
4 Increased bush fire activity.
5 Increased cyclones and storms.
6 Increased volcanism in some areas.
7 Increased polar vortex activity.
8 Increased intense winters.
9 Increased damage to fragile ecosystems and corals.
10 Climate change has effected crop pollination.
11 Warmer oceans global average increase of 0.1°C.
12 Increased ocean acidity due to more dissolved CO2.
13 Rising sea levels.
14 Reduction of polar ice.
15 Reduction of sea ice.
16 Reduction of glaciers, causing trapped methane to be released.
17 Reduction of snow packs.
18 Thawing permafrost.
19 Extra carbon dioxide, other gases and heavy metals in the atmosphere.
20 Warmer atmosphere Global average increase of 1.4 °C.
21 Increased ocean wave activity.
22 Increased coal mining leading to more emissions.
23 Increased tidal levels in some areas.
24 Plant and animal ranges are changing.
25 Trees flowering sooner in some areas.
26 Increased flooding and erosion is some areas.
27 Declining water supplies in other areas.
28 Declining biodiversity related to global warming.
29 Extinctions related to global warming.
30 Increase in human deaths related to global warming.
31 Migration of people as rain patterns change local drought.
32 Changes in crop locations with changing precipitation patterns.
33 Increases in diseases related to floods and sewage.
34 Changes in house prices due to various reasons flooding, rising sea levels.
35 Increase in malnutrition and food shortages.
36 Increases in air conditioning cooling and heating use as temperatures soar or plummet.
37 Extreme weather Is preventing plants from processing carbon.
38 Global warming is linked to agriculture.
39 Global warming is linked to deforestation.
40 Reduction in plants and trees.
41 Reduction in animals and mammals.
42 Reduction in insects and birds.