World, Writing, Wealth discussion
Wealth & Economics
>
If there were just enough food for the entire humanity..
You didn't really answer my question in the context it was posed.
Scout wrote: "You didn't really answer my question in the context it was posed."Sorry - I should say that if you are healthy visiting someone in hospital is riskier than not visiting them. If you have non-life-threatening illness or injury again risk in hospital is higher then outside, e.g. trend of people in UK not to go to GP with illness but to go to hospital A&E.
Clearly for other illnesses / injuries then hospital is the only place that will save your life but there remains a risk of picking up other illnesses.
During COVID there is emerging evidence of DNR being applied and not just for overwhelmed triage purposes. Whether any formal reports will cover it we shall have to wait and see. But, our special needs adults (Care homes) seem to have been heavily hit with DNR applied in reported cases where relatives were not told and the adult could not have given informed consent. Again overwhelmed doctors may have needed to move to next patient.
I definitely won't be going to the hospital unless I'm in dire straits. Self preservation is number one on my list. It would really piss me off to go to the hospital and be designated DNR because I'm too old to matter and docs need to move on
Philip wrote: "China is the sort of place where other rules from Science Fiction could come into place. They have enforced sterilisation, they had one child, how about euthanasia? - Perhaps not Logan's Run but......"The CCP are actively considering getting people to have 3 children as they have absolutely wrecked their own fertility stats. Lots of single children now marrying other single children think 1 child is just right...
In the face of an aging population, plan A - have more children. Plan B kill off the elderly...
Graeme wrote: "Philip wrote: "China is the sort of place where other rules from Science Fiction could come into place. They have enforced sterilisation, they had one child, how about euthanasia? - Perhaps not Log..."Covid making an effort on B....
Graeme, it's not looking good for us old folks. I've been looking at what's been going on politically, and I'm pretty sure that old folks (including the founders of the country) are being blamed for pretty much everything. If it's left up to the young sprouts, I think we're in trouble. I'm feeling lucky that I won't be here much longer to see what's going to happen.
Scout wrote: "Graeme, it's not looking good for us old folks. I've been looking at what's been going on politically, and I'm pretty sure that old folks (including the founders of the country) are being blamed fo..."How old are you?
67 last month. Many in my cohort are dying off. How about you?
I am 59. I do not see myself as old.
Good for you. My point was that young people see my generation as having caused the problems that they're going to have to deal with. I can't really blame them, although I'm not personally responsible and hope they'll fund SS until I kick the bucket. I can only see things going downhill from here, so I'm glad I won't be here to see what happens, and I fear for my grandson, what his world will be like.
The world will be fine. They will make their mistakes too and their children can blame them, but it will go on.
Yeah, well, I'm not sure the world will be fine. You give no facts on which to base this conclusion.
Global warmingPopulation increase, property resource shortages
AI and robotics taking over jobs
Divisive politics
More pandemics?
They'll need luck
Scout wrote: "Yeah, well, I'm not sure the world will be fine. You give no facts on which to base this conclusion."The entire history of humanity show this will continue on. The world is not ending.
Philip wrote: "Global warmingPopulation increase, property resource shortages
AI and robotics taking over jobs
Divisive politics
More pandemics?
They'll need luck"
We have these things in the past and guess what, we are still here.
Nobody has proved that robots will put people out of jobs. They change the nature of jobs and of course some will lose jobs, but they move to a new job. All robots are is the new technology. I remember paperwork was going to end with computers and it only became worse. Construction did not end with the invention of the steam shovel or hydraulic crane.
Papaphilly wrote: "We have these things in the past and guess what, we are still here."Except we're not all still here. History is replete with extinct civilizations and cultures. Sumer, Dynastic Egypt, Rome, and uncounted others have all died.
There are also the other species of humans which are no more. But how would they matter?
J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "We have these things in the past and guess what, we are still here."Except we're not all still here. History is replete with extinct civilizations and cultures. Sumer, Dynastic..."
Fair enough. I will make the same statement I always make when this type of issue is pushed. I will see you in five years and we can talk about it again. James Howard Kunstler once told me directly that gas would run out and prices will soar as everything collapses. I told him this very statement which he replied that I was wrong. That was in 2005.
I agree with Papaphilly. Though, I am a bit upset to learn he is younger than me.The world and humans will continue. Civilizations rise and fall, but the species continues. We many not recognize it and in 100 years it may be worse and in 1,000 it may be a version we would currently call utopia.
As for that other species that didn't survive, according to the DNA tests my kids did, my son has some of those genes. They intermixed somewhere.
Lizzie wrote: "I agree with Papaphilly. Though, I am a bit upset to learn he is younger than me.The world and humans will continue. Civilizations rise and fall, but the species continues. We many not recognize ..."
If I only looked as good as you, I would not mind.
PapaP, that's a weak argument that because something hasn't happened in the past, it won't happen in the future. Can you give proof of this? And if it's just your opinion, it's like any opinion, not a fact and not worthy of consideration.
Even if the humanity as a whole will continue, individual fates are not to be neglected. Hopefully, at some stage ppl won't be thrown under the bus/treated like cannon fodder anymore..
China is now paying people to have children.The demographic crunch beckons...
As I've said before, fertility will rise as an issue and overpopulation will fade into the dustbin of history....
REF: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/20210...
Scout wrote: "PapaP, that's a weak argument that because something hasn't happened in the past, it won't happen in the future. Can you give proof of this? And if it's just your opinion, it's like any opinion, no..."History is on my side. We are here, what else do you need to know? Not every argument needs to be brilliant. Sometimes it is very obvious.
Graeme wrote: "China is now paying people to have children.The demographic crunch beckons...
As I've said before, fertility will rise as an issue and overpopulation will fade into the dustbin of history....
R..."
China has major demographic problems they will not be able to overcome quickly or easily.
Scout wrote: "PapaP, that's a weak argument that because something hasn't happened in the past, it won't happen in the future. Can you give proof of this? And if it's just your opinion, it's like any opinion, no..."Human beings developed language about 50,000 years ago. We still have language. It many not be the same words, but the concept is the same. Language gave rise to what we consider to be modern humans.
If we go with the "evolution" point of view, Cro-Magnons developed in Africa and wiped out the Neantherdals. Both developed tools and left cave paintings and other signs of their existence. Despite plagues and wars, we are still here.
If you go with the Biblical version, mankind was made and will be here until God decrees the 2nd coming, at which point I don't think anyone will care if humanity will continue to exist on Earth.
Mostly, I see it as Papy stated. Past history is indicative of the future. Aside from some comet destroying the planet, there is no reason to believe the species will not continue. I can't speak to the quality of life, but that is another issue.
PapaP, I still say your argument is weak. Just because there was no terrorist attack yesterday doesn't mean that we won't have one today. The past doesn't necessarily predict the future. Before 911, we hadn't had a terrorist attack. Just because AI hasn't taken over, it doesn't mean they won't. What a weak argument to say that just because something hasn't happened before that it won't happen.
Scout wrote: "PapaP, I still say your argument is weak. Just because there was no terrorist attack yesterday doesn't mean that we won't have one today. The past doesn't necessarily predict the future. Before 911..."Not strictly true on terrorist attacks. There were attacks on US interests around the world notably USS Cole and the embassy attacks in 1998 in Tanzania and Kenya with direct links to 9/11. Then we can go back to the first World Trade Centre attack in 1993, amongst others
Oklahoma in 1995 another case.
Unfortunately, the security services failed to connect and were too busy infighting and protecting alleged sources/Saudi Regime to join the dots.
Suggest The Looming Tower as a semi-fictionailsed account of the events leading up to the attack.
That is also of course ignoring terrorist attacks in other countries where Western interests were targetted
Scout wrote: "PapaP, I still say your argument is weak. Just because there was no terrorist attack yesterday doesn't mean that we won't have one today. The past doesn't necessarily predict the future. Before 911..."Really? That is the best argument is to say mine is weak? OK using your terrorist attacks, how many have we had and how many have ended us? Do you know what actually was learned for terrorist attacks? They do not work and are actually counter productive. Mankind is unique that we keep figuring it out. The world is getting better not worse. Why does everyone have such a hard time seeing this fact?
Civilizations rise and fall, but something replaces it. In 100 years from now, the world may very well look very different, but it will be here and thriving.
Papaphilly wrote: "Scout wrote: "PapaP, I still say your argument is weak. Just because there was no terrorist attack yesterday doesn't mean that we won't have one today. The past doesn't necessarily predict the futu..."Like you I cannot think of a single terrorism campaign that has succeeded. Left a lot of suffering and disruption, and restrictions on civil liberties due to rise of surveillance state. But USA / UK, France / Belgium / Spain /Italy / Canada / NZ / Norway / Germany / etc all continue and have hardly changed foreign policy as a result. Even Israel that suffered more than most globally during 1970s and 80s have barely changed tack.
Has US domestic policy changed following Oklahoma?
UK did settle NI agreement (terrorism on all sides) but NI is till part on UK therefore main aim of IRA has failed.
I do not include revolutions in analysis although terrorist acts play a part sometimes.
Are we really saying that because something hasn't happened that it won't happen? Really? That's ridiculous. Please explain how that makes sense.
Scout wrote: "Are we really saying that because something hasn't happened that it won't happen? Really? That's ridiculous. Please explain how that makes sense."I'm not saying terrorism won't happen. It has for decades if not centuries. See anarchist actions in 19th century.
The biggest danger for terrorism in terms of casualties have been the threat of nuclear, chemical or other mass destruction events. Thankfully, these have not happened outside Government actions except in small scale chemical attacks (anthrax)
9/11 was a significant event for the USA (and other nations who lost citizens) but other terrorism actions have occurred and continued in many other countries. Despite the peace process in NI for example we still have terrorism related events on a weekly basis.
Like pollution it's something we will all have to deal with. 9/11 and Homeland Security did not end terrorism in USA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrori...
With the climate report out - I have seen the forecast for the impact on coastal/ low lying cities from London, Amsterdam, Shanghai, etc to whole nations like the Maldives or states like Florida. What I have not seen is anything on food production land. I am aware of Bangladesh rice production, but are there any other critical areas. UKs Lincolnshire is low lying and of course most of The Netherlands.
Then again if all the fish are dead from salinisation of the ocean we'll have additional food issues with still a population growinhg.
Philip wrote: "With the climate report out - I have seen the forecast for the impact on coastal/ low lying cities from London, Amsterdam, Shanghai, etc to whole nations like the Maldives or states like Florida. ..."
We've been pulling 90 million tonnes of fish from the oceans since the early 90s. Looks like a flat trend for the last 30 years.
In the mean time, aquaculture has risen to exceed that with over 100 million tonnes of fish per year.
No sign of flattening out there either.
REF: https://ourworldindata.org/fish#the-w...
So, Philip, do you have any idea when these fear, doom and gloom stories are supposed to come true?
I remember clearly people stating that the snowfields would all be gone by 2010 back in the late 90s... and yet they're still here.
Sorry Graeme, I have seen palm oil trees and rain forest clearance with my own eyes. I have flown over the Amazon and seen trees burning to be replaced by cattle ranches until they go barren.I cans see satellite photos for Arctic and Antarctic ice - we have nearly 50 years of comparable photos - appreciate 50 is not a lot in geological terms but its a lifetime trend
We can see rain forest depreciation in the same way
We can see population growth even if as you hope fertility may reduce continual increase
We have seen consumption grow for all materials and food
Clearly I am not a climate scientist - you appear to be saying they are all wrong and global warming will have no affect
Would you live in Maldives or Bangladesh with risk of sea rises. London or Amsterdam?
How will Sydney look with another average 0.5m, 1m or as forecast 2m average sea height?
Glaciers are significantly smaller than they were
A cut or burnt down 500-1,000 years old tree is not replaced with a sapling not for 500-1,000 years
Fishing may be up so why is every fishing fleet in the world complaining about lack of fish? Why are so many marine and land fauna or flora facing extinction.
I must be making this all up but
Rhinos https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino-in...
Elephants https://www.savetheelephants.org/abou...
Orang Utans Endangered since 2000 and its population has decreased by 80 per cent over the last 75 years (Wich et al. 2011).https://www.grida.no/resources/8340
I could add thousands of species to this list. The one opposite is humans under 2 billion in 1921 and now 7.5 billion. They all eat, they all excrete (inc CO2) and they all consume other goods. We take land to grow our food vegetable, cereal or meat
We are the problem.
As for snow fields, in NZ there is a small church built after WW 2 where the congregation could see outside a window if things were tedious and view the Franz Josef glacier passing through subtropical rain forest. Now, from the church it is quite a hike to even see what is left of the glacier as it slides down the mountain.Quite a lot of the most productive land is near the coast. We know the Greenland ice sheet is all that is left of the last ice age, and it has melted in interglacial periods in the past, If it does, and it looks like it is well on the way (I have flown over it more than once and during the period from the 1970s to 2004 even I have noticed a significant difference). If it melts, sea level rises 7 meters. See how many port cities that gets. If the obvious Antarctic sheets go, add a further 65 meters. Check your location on Google Earth. If you live in Denver, no problem, but Beijing gets under water, and check how much good agricultural land that eliminates. Nobody knows how the weather patterns will change, but in the short term NZ is supposed to get much worse floods in the West and drought and water shortage in the East. Both are disruptive to agriculture.
Philip wrote: "Sorry Graeme, I have seen palm oil trees and rain forest clearance with my own eyes. I have flown over the Amazon and seen trees burning to be replaced by cattle ranches until they go barren.I ca..."
I Philip, I count three distinct problems entwined within your comment.
[1] Overpopulation. Are we simply going to exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth, and has that already happened? If it hasn't already happened, will it happen, and if it will happen, when will it happen and what will be the effects of exceeding the carrying capacity of the Earth?
[2] Man Made Global Warming (as defined within the recently published AR6). Are human industrial emissions of CO2e (CO2 + Methane + others) warming the Earth's climate producing an array of negative impacts? If so, at what rate and to what extent is the warming and associated negative impacts occurring, and what is within our power as a species/society/individually to do about it?
[3] Resource Depletion. To what extent are we depleting the Earth's finite resources, and at what rate? What can be done to mitigate resource depletion and minimise/or eliminate impacts on the main ecosystems of the planets such as rainforests and oceans? What is our role? Are we stewards of this world, or masters of it? Is our role something else?
Even though there may be (are?) interrelationships between these issues, are we agreed that these are a reasonable starting point for discussion?
Graeme wrote: "Philip wrote: "Sorry Graeme, I have seen palm oil trees and rain forest clearance with my own eyes. I have flown over the Amazon and seen trees burning to be replaced by cattle ranches until they g..."Yes those are the three - although point 1 I already feel the argument - it cannot be treated in isolation of the other two. i.e. larger population (as already evidenced in increase in 100 years from 2 to 7 billion) is not the same as the ability to feed perhaps 10 billion but at what cost to everything else.
If we are very lucky 2 may limit increase to 1.5 degrees - I don't think any review of the trend data would believe we will change tack or limit it to 1.5 so what does a 2 degree rise mean.
We hear that EV are a way forward , but we have severe limitations on Cobalt and Lithium (in so far discovered resources)
Nuclear generation remains an option but appears politically unacceptable whilst fusion remains a distant dream. All those extra people want electricity, sanitation and the latest TV/Phone - Chine recently re-introduced coal power generation because of electricity shortages. People complaining about heat now want air conditioning thus creating more requirement for power, more CO2 which will make it hotter.
The UN report sited 14,000 different research papers showing global warming/climate change and various forecasts with errors of margin. If we take action now we may reverse that, but population pressure wil continue on habitation of all the other species.
The arrogance of humans is that we think we are masters, we're not stewards. The earth can continue without us (as it did before us) and without the species we share with as it did with other species. We seem to be keen to accelerate that process
A good starting point in a middle of a lengthy discussion :)I'd argue that the carrying capacity is not a constant, but a variable. If, for example, agricultural lands or lands in general go underwater, it may shrink, or if many go hi tech, like Holland here: https://qz.com/907971/the-netherlands..., it can expand
If there were 14000 scientific papers showing global warming, then there was a clear misallocation of resources. Most of them should have been trying to work out what to do about it instead of consuming valuable research funding chasing the easy stuff and confirming what we all knew.You can look forward to much agricultural land and cities being inundated. The cities will move and consume more agricultural land. Then what?
Ian wrote: "If there were 14000 scientific papers showing global warming, then there was a clear misallocation of resources. Most of them should have been trying to work out what to do about it instead of cons..."I believe the 14,000 reviewed were over the last 20+ years of detailed research i.e. figures found in a paper 20 + years ago were compared with current figures. Hence allowing greater degree of certainty on trends
14,000 is still a huge waste of effort. There was one Nature paper about 2010 that showed without doubt the net warming and fixed the net power input to oceans to within a few percent error. The money wasted making all these additional measurements could have been much better spent working on solutions. Sure, some checking is required, but 14000 efforts?
Does seem a lot but the sceptics wanted evidence. The politicians wanted evidence. Not that a single thing will be doneNeed to get to Venice before it goes under....
Amsterdam I've seen and London of course
Not been to Maldives but globe trotting will make me part of problem despite planting trees and sponsoring rain forest
Some interesting data can be derived from fresh US census, just published: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/12/po...
Graeme wrote: "So, Philip, do you have any idea when these fear, doom and gloom stories are supposed to come true? ..."Soon and it is only five years to go or so I have been told for the last fifty years....
Ian wrote: "14,000 is still a huge waste of effort. There was one Nature paper about 2010 that showed without doubt the net warming and fixed the net power input to oceans to within a few percent error. The mo..."Kind of makes one wonder how many of these scientist were being paid for all that wasted paper....
Ian wrote: "14,000 is still a huge waste of effort. There was one Nature paper about 2010 that showed without doubt the net warming and fixed the net power input to oceans to within a few percent error. The mo..."The core disciplines for quantifying climate change are climatology, meteorology, oceanography, marine and terrestrial biology, and even dendrochronology. You will note that these are all heavily observational sciences. I would also guess that many of the publishing scientists in this group have a low opinion of industry, which might lead them to favor solutions that do not involve large scale industrial processes, like geo-engineering. For them, your standard of living is the problem. You should cut back.
The size of the issue requires solutions on industrial scales. This means heavy engineering which is both frowned upon by the climate change core and is capital intensive. A chemist may develop a cheap process for sequestering atmospheric carbon, but the tree huggers will protest the industry needed to make it work and the capitalists will need a profitable use. Consequently, the chemist will probably just publish in a mostly unread journal where nobody with the necessary resources will see it.
Just to remind everyone here. We currently produce food for 10B people, and waste 25% of it. We only need to improve efficiency/productivity by approx. 1% a year to meet a world population in 2050 of approx. 10B to 11B.
Assuming that dropping fertility rates don't cause a substantial undershoot of max population numbers.
After the peak, populations will drop and average age will increase... producing an entirely different set of problems.
Given the damage less than 8 billion are doing I hate to think what 10 will doThe presumption is that world's distribution of food will improve - evidence why it will?
When (if is a bit late) agricultural land disappears under rising seas how will current production rates maintain that output?
Humanity will have to address the issue - just like its addressed the temp rise - i.e. ignore it hoping it will go away
Meanwhile:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-c...
Italy has just recorded its hottest ever days (near 200 years of data). I fear the rates of change will increase as the heating cycle self perpetuates e.g. burn more power (create CO2) to increase cooling and manufacture more cooling systems.
I look forward to major industrial answers (e.g. Morocco solar which stores power overnight) but only if the other power station are switched off. I wish we had more nuclear (as long as it was clean) but Germany for example cancelled all nuclear - in favour of gas from Russia and of course via EuroGrid nuclear from France.
Deaths from COVID 20 months 4.5 million population growth in just 2021 50 million plus and rising
There is a long term decline in undernourishment.REF: https://ourworldindata.org/hunger-and...
The key issue is poverty - not resources.
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
An Essay on the Principle of Population: The Future Improvement of Society (other topics)The Children of Men (other topics)
Make Room! Make Room! (other topics)
The Population Bomb (other topics)
An Essay on the Principle of Population (other topics)
More...
Some would say that statistically going to hospital is dangerous, viruses, sepsis etc.