Experts warn that climate change will make the world a more inhospitable place to live, and we may be further along in that journey than we realized, a new report from the UN has revealed. The frequency of natural disasters over the past two decades is almost double that of the 1980-1999 period, the organization says, with extreme weather events driven by climate change accounting for a large portion of the uptick.

Over that two-decade period, there were 7,348 major disaster events recorded, which claimed 1.23 million lives and affected some 4.2 billion people, at a cost of US$2.97 trillion in global economic losses. This is a dramatic increase on the 1980-1999 period, in which 4,212 disaster events were recorded, claiming approximately 1.19 million lives and affecting 3.25 billion people. This came at a cost of US$1.63 trillion globally.

Climate-related extreme weather events account for a large amount of both tallies, according to the report, with 3,656 for the 1980-1999 period and 6,681 for the 2000-2019 period. Major floods have more than doubled across that period to number 3,254, while storms increased from 1,457 to 2,034.

“If this level of growth in extreme weather events continues over the next twenty years, the future of mankind looks very bleak indeed,” says Professor Debarati Guha-Sapir from Beligum’s University of Louvain, one of the authors of the report. “We will have to live with the consequences of existing levels of climate change for a long time to come and there are many practical measures that can be taken to reduce the burden of disaster losses especially on low and middle-income countries that lack resources and are most exposed to economic losses on a scale that undermines their efforts to eradicate poverty and to provide good quality social services including health and education.”

https://newatlas.com/environment/climate-change-natural-disasters-un-report/

the climate dysruptus, loss of long-time-scale-evolved-structure (rate of), is essentially caused by overpupulation, the trajectory of development including human proliferation, humans extract from pockets of energy, convert that energy, which is structure, which has incidentally included softer adaptive structure in climate, diluted by carbon dioxide and methane largely, which humans pump out, fart into the atmosphere in no small quantity, continuously, fairly much all over the planet

what needs reducing, turning around, is the momentum of the force of culture amplified by overpopulation

transition said:

the climate dysruptus, loss of long-time-scale-evolved-structure (rate of), is essentially caused by overpupulation, the trajectory of development including human proliferation, humans extract from pockets of energy, convert that energy, which is structure, which has incidentally included softer adaptive structure in climate, diluted by carbon dioxide and methane largely, which humans pump out, fart into the atmosphere in no small quantity, continuously, fairly much all over the planet

what needs reducing, turning around, is the momentum of the force of culture amplified by overpopulation

Covid 3?

roughbarked said:

transition said:

the climate dysruptus, loss of long-time-scale-evolved-structure (rate of), is essentially caused by overpupulation, the trajectory of development including human proliferation, humans extract from pockets of energy, convert that energy, which is structure, which has incidentally included softer adaptive structure in climate, diluted by carbon dioxide and methane largely, which humans pump out, fart into the atmosphere in no small quantity, continuously, fairly much all over the planet

what needs reducing, turning around, is the momentum of the force of culture amplified by overpopulation

Covid 3?

most people understand the idea of thermal runaway, they might also consider the concept of human runaway, or cultural runaway, that somewhere back in the late nineteen-seventies the species became invested in population growth that would take global population to the limit, mostly driven by casual arrogance of the superior species, it (the species) apparently understands so much, anything, perhaps everything, multiplied and shared by the many, so too many of their own doesn’t really register

instincts and mind tools that are at least a couple hundred thousand years old in their present configuration, as if still back on the african savanna threatened with extinction, they’ll push population up until the external environment (then to include humans many) so that there is such a threat

transition said:

that somewhere back in the late nineteen-seventies the species became invested in population growth that would take global population to the limit,

What a strange thing to say.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

that somewhere back in the late nineteen-seventies the species became invested in population growth that would take global population to the limit,

What a strange thing to say.

Considering that in 1972 the UN published a document entitled The Limits of Growth

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

that somewhere back in the late nineteen-seventies the species became invested in population growth that would take global population to the limit,

What a strange thing to say.

you need look at the total environmental costs, the real costs, of the trajectory of the human enterprise about that time, what humans were invested in by way of cultural momentum, the unsaid, unconsidered, what needed be ignored to continue on the trajectory

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

that somewhere back in the late nineteen-seventies the species became invested in population growth that would take global population to the limit,

What a strange thing to say.

you need look at the total environmental costs, the real costs, of the trajectory of the human enterprise about that time, what humans were invested in by way of cultural momentum, the unsaid, unconsidered, what needed be ignored to continue on the trajectory

I very much doubt that examination of those things would provide evidence to support the proposition that population growth started in the late nineteen-seventies, or that there was anything particularly different about the trajectory of the human enterprise at that time.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

that somewhere back in the late nineteen-seventies the species became invested in population growth that would take global population to the limit,

What a strange thing to say.

you need look at the total environmental costs, the real costs, of the trajectory of the human enterprise about that time, what humans were invested in by way of cultural momentum, the unsaid, unconsidered, what needed be ignored to continue on the trajectory

Prior to 1970, erosion had been noted and clearing had come to a virtual standstill. By 1990, we’d cleared twice as much in the past 20 years than the entire previous 200.
By 2020, we’ve probably doubled that again.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What a strange thing to say.

you need look at the total environmental costs, the real costs, of the trajectory of the human enterprise about that time, what humans were invested in by way of cultural momentum, the unsaid, unconsidered, what needed be ignored to continue on the trajectory

I very much doubt that examination of those things would provide evidence to support the proposition that population growth started in the late nineteen-seventies, or that there was anything particularly different about the trajectory of the human enterprise at that time.

Indian population growth started in the days of the Raj.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What a strange thing to say.

you need look at the total environmental costs, the real costs, of the trajectory of the human enterprise about that time, what humans were invested in by way of cultural momentum, the unsaid, unconsidered, what needed be ignored to continue on the trajectory

I very much doubt that examination of those things would provide evidence to support the proposition that population growth started in the late nineteen-seventies, or that there was anything particularly different about the trajectory of the human enterprise at that time.

I never said population growth started in the nineteen-seventies, nothing like that

consider the damage (structural loss) to the environment (rate of) exceeded what could be turned around given the trajectory of growth

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

you need look at the total environmental costs, the real costs, of the trajectory of the human enterprise about that time, what humans were invested in by way of cultural momentum, the unsaid, unconsidered, what needed be ignored to continue on the trajectory

I very much doubt that examination of those things would provide evidence to support the proposition that population growth started in the late nineteen-seventies, or that there was anything particularly different about the trajectory of the human enterprise at that time.

I never said population growth started in the nineteen-seventies, nothing like that

consider the damage (structural loss) to the environment (rate of) exceeded what could be turned around given the trajectory of growth

Which was why I mentioned the 1972 UN Conference on the “Limits of Growth”.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

you need look at the total environmental costs, the real costs, of the trajectory of the human enterprise about that time, what humans were invested in by way of cultural momentum, the unsaid, unconsidered, what needed be ignored to continue on the trajectory

I very much doubt that examination of those things would provide evidence to support the proposition that population growth started in the late nineteen-seventies, or that there was anything particularly different about the trajectory of the human enterprise at that time.

I never said population growth started in the nineteen-seventies, nothing like that

consider the damage (structural loss) to the environment (rate of) exceeded what could be turned around given the trajectory of growth

It may not have been what you meant, but that is exactly what you said.

But damage to the environment didn’t start in the late 1970’s either.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I very much doubt that examination of those things would provide evidence to support the proposition that population growth started in the late nineteen-seventies, or that there was anything particularly different about the trajectory of the human enterprise at that time.

I never said population growth started in the nineteen-seventies, nothing like that

consider the damage (structural loss) to the environment (rate of) exceeded what could be turned around given the trajectory of growth

Which was why I mentioned the 1972 UN Conference on the “Limits of Growth”.

Which was prompted by environmental movements starting to have a significant voice in the ’60’s and early 70’s.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I very much doubt that examination of those things would provide evidence to support the proposition that population growth started in the late nineteen-seventies, or that there was anything particularly different about the trajectory of the human enterprise at that time.

I never said population growth started in the nineteen-seventies, nothing like that

consider the damage (structural loss) to the environment (rate of) exceeded what could be turned around given the trajectory of growth

Which was why I mentioned the 1972 UN Conference on the “Limits of Growth”.

i’m talking sort of averages, across the planet, a persons impact per area, total real costs, what can’t be recovered of the environment that otherwise would lend to providing optimally for resources, habitation etc, long-term

>It may not have been what you meant, but that is exactly what you said

bullshit

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

I never said population growth started in the nineteen-seventies, nothing like that

consider the damage (structural loss) to the environment (rate of) exceeded what could be turned around given the trajectory of growth

Which was why I mentioned the 1972 UN Conference on the “Limits of Growth”.

Which was prompted by environmental movements starting to have a significant voice in the ’60’s and early 70’s.

Indeed.

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

I never said population growth started in the nineteen-seventies, nothing like that

consider the damage (structural loss) to the environment (rate of) exceeded what could be turned around given the trajectory of growth

Which was why I mentioned the 1972 UN Conference on the “Limits of Growth”.

i’m talking sort of averages, across the planet, a persons impact per area, total real costs, what can’t be recovered of the environment that otherwise would lend to providing optimally for resources, habitation etc, long-term

All of this was listed in the report that came from the conference.

transition said:

>It may not have been what you meant, but that is exactly what you said

bullshit

“that somewhere back in the late nineteen-seventies the species became invested in population growth that would take global population to the limit,”

transition said:

>It may not have been what you meant, but that is exactly what you said

bullshit

Usually you speak laterally but I’m struggling to see a lateral in the single word describing the effluent of bovines.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>It may not have been what you meant, but that is exactly what you said

bullshit

“that somewhere back in the late nineteen-seventies the species became invested in population growth that would take global population to the limit,”

But it’s all pretty academic anyway.

Surely it is more important to focus on what is happening now.

For instance, when senior people in the current Australian government suggest that we need population growth from an increased birth rate to ensure our future prosperity, how come no-one (or no-one prominent anyway) calls that out as the bullshit it is?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

In search of lost time: the rise and fall of limits to growth

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>It may not have been what you meant, but that is exactly what you said

bullshit

“that somewhere back in the late nineteen-seventies the species became invested in population growth that would take global population to the limit,”

But it’s all pretty academic anyway.

Surely it is more important to focus on what is happening now.

For instance, when senior people in the current Australian government suggest that we need population growth from an increased birth rate to ensure our future prosperity, how come no-one (or no-one prominent anyway) calls that out as the bullshit it is?

We do. and we all know about social media and viral transmission of.
So why don’t we do something?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>It may not have been what you meant, but that is exactly what you said

bullshit

“that somewhere back in the late nineteen-seventies the species became invested in population growth that would take global population to the limit,”

poke it back into the paragraphs it came, consider it with what followed, the qualifications, save the nonsense of you missing the point that somewhere in the late seventies the real environmental costs of human development exceeded what could be turned around given the trajectory, and it wasn’t turned around

roughbarked said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

In search of lost time: the rise and fall of limits to growth

Looks like a good article.

I’m not paying 35 Eurobucks for it though.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>It may not have been what you meant, but that is exactly what you said

bullshit

“that somewhere back in the late nineteen-seventies the species became invested in population growth that would take global population to the limit,”

But it’s all pretty academic anyway.

Surely it is more important to focus on what is happening now.

For instance, when senior people in the current Australian government suggest that we need population growth from an increased birth rate to ensure our future prosperity, how come no-one (or no-one prominent anyway) calls that out as the bullshit it is?

because young naive people are needed to make the bullshit work, the Lie awaits them, they are born into the Lie

roughbarked said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

In search of lost time: the rise and fall of limits to growth

and a bit of cherry picking:

As Limits to Growth concluded in 1972:

If the present growth trends in world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.

So far, there’s little to indicate they got that wrong.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>It may not have been what you meant, but that is exactly what you said

bullshit

“that somewhere back in the late nineteen-seventies the species became invested in population growth that would take global population to the limit,”

poke it back into the paragraphs it came, consider it with what followed, the qualifications, save the nonsense of you missing the point that somewhere in the late seventies the real environmental costs of human development exceeded what could be turned around given the trajectory, and it wasn’t turned around

No, I’ll just ignore it thanks.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

http://www.donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Limits-to-Growth-digital-scan-version.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

In search of lost time: the rise and fall of limits to growth

Looks like a good article.

I’m not paying 35 Eurobucks for it though.

We probably already know what is in it. Via the free press.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“that somewhere back in the late nineteen-seventies the species became invested in population growth that would take global population to the limit,”

But it’s all pretty academic anyway.

Surely it is more important to focus on what is happening now.

For instance, when senior people in the current Australian government suggest that we need population growth from an increased birth rate to ensure our future prosperity, how come no-one (or no-one prominent anyway) calls that out as the bullshit it is?

because young naive people are needed to make the bullshit work, the Lie awaits them, they are born into the Lie

One plate flied lie?

roughbarked said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But it’s all pretty academic anyway.

Surely it is more important to focus on what is happening now.

For instance, when senior people in the current Australian government suggest that we need population growth from an increased birth rate to ensure our future prosperity, how come no-one (or no-one prominent anyway) calls that out as the bullshit it is?

because young naive people are needed to make the bullshit work, the Lie awaits them, they are born into the Lie

One plate flied lie?

Our young may be young and naive but they are or should be gifted with a far greater education than I was offered.

Have confidence? Well, does it matter? The knowledge we have gained from our existence is already out there on Voyager. For the next intelligence to find.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But it’s all pretty academic anyway.

Surely it is more important to focus on what is happening now.

For instance, when senior people in the current Australian government suggest that we need population growth from an increased birth rate to ensure our future prosperity, how come no-one (or no-one prominent anyway) calls that out as the bullshit it is?

because young naive people are needed to make the bullshit work, the Lie awaits them, they are born into the Lie

One plate flied lie?

No, Too Play Fly Lie.

^ ^ ^
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Ogmog said:

Ogmog said:

^ ^ ^
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

What Do You Think Trump The Great Is Doing With His DPRNA, Our Great Saviour Will Sort This Climate Thing Out Easy

SCIENCE said:

Ogmog said:

Ogmog said:

^ ^ ^
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

What Do You Think Trump The Great Is Doing With His DPRNA, Our Great Saviour Will Sort This Climate Thing Out Easy

H’ain’t you Herd?
It’s All A Hoax!

Ogmog said:

SCIENCE said:

Ogmog said:

^ ^ ^
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

What Do You Think Trump The Great Is Doing With His DPRNA, Our Great Saviour Will Sort This Climate Thing Out Easy

H’ain’t you Herd?
It’s All A Hoax!

Four Hundred Years Ago Europeans Sent Disease Over To America And Massacred Them And Took Over

In 2020 Someone Sent Disease Over To America …

SCIENCE said:

Ogmog said:

SCIENCE said:

What Do You Think Trump The Great Is Doing With His DPRNA, Our Great Saviour Will Sort This Climate Thing Out Easy

H’ain’t you Herd?
It’s All A Hoax!

Four Hundred Years Ago Europeans Sent Disease Over To America And Massacred Them And Took Over

In 2020 Someone Sent Disease Over To America …

INDEED!

“What Goes Around Comes Around”

I was sort of thinking that one of the outcomes of overpopulation might be increased competition between countries (less friendly competition), a reversion more to heightened national interest maybe, some people would welcome such a thing, perhaps many people, I can’t say

I mean consider the anxieties about China for example, they aren’t all about China failing to evolve a democracy, some of the anxieties are population related, along with China doing so well, hints of expansion, doing very well in a broader global environment that has evolved democracies to limit political power, centralization of power, perhaps misuses of, or potential misuses of better said

Seems to me the self-organizing principles of democracies (say freer countries), variously economic and social freedoms, political freedoms included, those things are more challenged presently

My view is that overpopulation is not necessarily bad, doesn’t need be, to normalize denial about it though could be bad

I think most people resolve what they apprehend of external reality to a comfortable mental state, that’s fairly much a universal, and of groups part of the force of the group (force of culture, desired effect of numbers) is greater ease at maintaining the comfort. There’s nothing to suggest that whatever global population naturally stabilizes at will optimize the comfort, presently there seems to be perhaps an ideological view it will optimize

The title to this thread might be more accurately writ humans driving huge surge in natural disasters, rather than pointing toward wobbly climate, perhaps there’s something wobbly about the optimization projections regard numbers of humans

I mean the math isn’t going to evolve into a eugenics program, it may though present opportunity to consider the denial about the denial, the comfort got from that recursion

diminished responsibility, diminished by the numbers, it wouldn’t be a few that weren’t impressed by the force of numbers, the force of culture, becoming a force of nature, as it has, a lot can be conveniently buried in that