Global Climate Change Is and Always Has Been a Population Problem

[MineralMan]

We're pushing hard on having 8 billion humans on this planet. Each of those humans has needs. One of those needs, always, is for energy. We have to heat and cool our dwellings, because we live everywhere on the planet, except at the poles. There is only a limited area on the planet where humans can live without expending energy to control temperature.

Humans also have to eat. We are too many to hunt and gather our food. That is, and has been for centuries, impossible. So, we have an agricultural industry that produces and prepares food for consumption, and then transports it to every place people live. Well, to most places, anyhow. There are humans starving on the planet, too. Imagine the amount of energy required to do that.

Humans like luxuries, like living in buildings and gathering in places like cities. More cost to create those buildings and maintain them in some sort of comfort level that is satisfactory. We need furniture and windows and roofing materials and materials to build those buildings. Then, we also have to go from where we live to some place where we can do something useful and receive compensation for our work. More energy expended.

All of that stuff, and much more, uses energy. We use too much energy, which is creating a heat load that is warming the planet, overall. Hence, we have global climate change. Dealing with that requires even more energy in the short term, which exacerbates the problem.

What's the solution? There is only one solution. We must reduce the size of the human population. If we could reduce it to 10% of its current level, we could probably reverse the effect of our overpopulation. So, what is 10% of 8 billion? It's 800 million. We could make that work. It would lower the demand for energy by 90%. Never mind that it would mean the loss of 7.2 billion lives, right. It's what it would take, right?

I mean 800 million people is still a shit ton of people, right?

But we're not going to do that.

Here's another way to look at it. 65 million years ago, or so, an asteroid created the Gulf of Mexico. All of the dinosaurs became extinct in the ensuing millennia. And that allowed the small proto-mammals to survive. They required far fewer resources. As things settled down they evolved into the full range of mammals on this planet, including primates like human beings. It took more millions of years, but it happened. In the 2 million years or so that humans of some sort have been on this planet, we've been so successful that we flooded the planet and are on the verge of causing our own extinction.

Odd, isn't it? Asteroids happen. Maybe one will show up and change things once again. Who can say? We've been here only a short time. Maybe we're just a passing thing.

Such is reality. This is why I did not have children. We are not the last generations of humans, I'm sure. The future in the next centuries, though, is something I'm not really optimistic about.

[montanacowboy]

1. And If you could see the building boom

in North Snohomish Co. in Washington State it makes your head spin. Mile after mile after mile of farmland being converted into housing subdivisions - big signs out front that most of them are sold out before construction begins.
And these houses - have FIVE BEDROOMS AND 5 BATHROOMS, offices, playspaces for the kiddos, and man caves. Who in the hell are buying these houses? Are people having more and more kids these days? It's madness.

And where does the money come from to pay for these homes? I don't have any friends who could even afford one.
And, with the advent of all these monster homes comes more need for bigger and more schools, soccer fields, shopping malls, and on and on and on.

I am glad I won't be around to see the shit hit the fan. When resources become so scarce what kind of war will we be facing then. The population will be contracted one way or another, either by choice and without choice. I am betting on Mother Nature because people have shown they are incapable of solving problems.

[MineralMan]

4. We have only inhabited this planet for a short time.

Perhaps we won't survive. Perhaps we are toxic to the planet. Geological time allows for all sorts of phenomena. The dinosaurs no longer exist. They haven't existed for 65 million years. They couldn't survive changes in the planet. Maybe we'll end up like that. Who can say?>

[myccrider]

15. I agree with the sentiment but...

technically, dinosaurs still exist. All the non-avian dinosaurs died off with the asteroid strike.🧐 [end pedantic itch] 😉

[MineralMan]

16. Now, though, they are definitely birds.

Evolution has continued.

[myccrider]

18. Birds definitely existed before the asteroid hit,

with the same basic features that we recognize as ‘birds’ today, eg feathers, beaks instead of teeth, loss of tails, wishbones, powered flight, loss of ‘fingers’ on the end of wings, etc. There’s vigorous debate among paleontologists and evolutionary biologists about exactly where to draw the (artificial) line between flying/gliding dinosaurs and fully avian dinosaurs. All extant pre-asteroid. The only branch that survived the strike and its aftermath were the neothornithes (iirc), who already were pretty much what we call birds today, just different species. (wish there were an "I’m being pedantic" smilie, maybe the ‘teacher’ covers that. )

I’m not trying to be quibbly, this is just an area of interest to me. And, yes, there have been further evolutionary changes (penguins! hummingbirds! maybe flightless birds, raptors?).

Here’s an overview paper, if you’re interested. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982215009458

[hedda_foil]

2. At least give Malthus credit for the theory.

I pretty much agree with your take on the problem, but Thomas Malthus summed it up neatly in 1798.

Malthusian theory

In 1798 Malthus published anonymously the first edition of An Essay on the Principle of Population as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society, with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Godwin, M. Condorcet, and Other Writers. The work received wide notice. Briefly, crudely, yet strikingly, Malthus argued that infinite human hopes for social happiness must be vain, for population will always tend to outrun the growth of production. The increase of population will take place, if unchecked, in a geometric progression, while the means of subsistence will increase in only an arithmetic progression. Population will always expand to the limit of subsistence. Only “vice” (including “the commission of war”), “misery” (including famine or want of food and ill health), and “moral restraint” (i.e., abstinence) could check this excessive growth.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Malthus

[MineralMan]

5. Yes. Reading Malthus was part of the reason I decided not to

Add any more humans to the planet. I guess I'm a Malthusian. Didn't everyone read Malthus? I guess not.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

3. I am so with you on this brother ... a highly trenchant analysis ...

This is also why I did not have children.

If people just stopped having babies, worldwide, starting now ... we wouldn't have to 'eliminate' the excess population, it would just happen over time.

That should be the constant, worldwide message to the entire population. The best thing you can do for climate ... is not have children. At all.

But the world's entire economic system is based on perpetual growth (and credit/debt), and population growth is a key component of overall growth.

So ... that'll never happen either.

[MineralMan]

6. Yup. I started thinking in the early 60s.

I read Malthus and others. They made sense to me.

[MineralMan]

7. Yes. We will not decide to eliminate ourselves.

Not consciously, at least. We might, however blow ourselves to smithereens. We are capable of that at this point. So, who can say?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

9. I think the realization that petroleum and natural gas are running out, globally

Will be a catalyst for World War III, entailing a massive world population reduction as an epic battle for remaining resources ensues.

Hopefully not nuclear, but can't rule it out.

And I don't think it will be that long before peak-everything is hit. 10-15 years is my somewhat educated guess.

[MineralMan]

14. Well, I'm 76 years old, almost 77.

So...

[CrispyQ]

22. I have a hard time imagining what a different economic system would look like.

One not based on consumption & growth. And could such an economic system survive if we don't control our numbers?

[EX500rider]

8. Modern climate change is certainly to be blamed on human activity

But I wouldn't say "always"

The Black Sea was formed less than 8,000 years ago as sea levels rose over a hundred meters in a few years, I doubt that was human caused.

There have been at least five major ice ages in Earth's history. During the Cryogenian period glacial ice sheets reached the equator.

The Mini-Ice Age roughly spanned the era from 1200 to 1850, when countries in the Northern Hemisphere particularly experienced exceptionally cold winters. The River Thames often froze, from 1607 to 1814 there were frost fairs, and in the winter of 1780 New York Harbour froze, allowing people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island.

The cause of the cold is not certain, but one likely hypothesis is that it was related to a reduction in flow of the Gulf Stream by up to 10 per cent.

The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa caused a volcanic winter. In the year following the eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by 0.4 °C (0.72 °F). The record rainfall that hit Southern California during the water year from July 1883 to June 1884 – Los Angeles received 970 millimetres (38.18 in) and San Diego 660 millimetres (25.97 in)

[Hugh_Lebowski]

10. Do you have a citation for this?

"The Black Sea was formed less than 8,000 years ago as sea levels rose over a hundred meters in a few years, I doubt that was human caused."

That does not sound remotely correct.

Not that I don't get your point, and agree with the majority, but I've never heard of that particular factoid.

Frankly I'd bet with 100-1 odds against, on everything I own ... that is not accurate.

[EX500rider]

11. Several theories on how

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

[Hugh_Lebowski]

12. Our disagreement here hinges on the definition of the term 'sea levels'

When I read 'sea levels' without qualification, I think The WORLD's 'sea levels'.

But The World as a whole ... experienced nothing of the sort at that time.

That's all

[hamsterjill]

13. I attended a small public school in Texas in the 1970's

We were literally taught that no one should have more than two children. For the planet and zero population growth, AND for the children (ratio of one parent to one child typically).

It was ingrained in me. I am surprised that I was taught this way back then, and I’ve never understood what changed in the years since when now people having five kids isn’t uncommon. My personal opinion is that a lot of it is Evangelical thinking - and keeping women tied to childbirth and childcare. Not sure that’s scientific but it’s what I’ve seen in my area of the state.

[CrispyQ]

23. In some cases it's a status thing too, that you can afford to have so many children. -nt

[Dukkha]

17. This is a problem that will correct itself

In a very bad way. Covid-19 will be seen as the good old days compared to what will come if we keep encroaching on nature and condescending populations to where mass quarantine will be impossible.

[hunter]

19. Lifestyles are a big part of it too.

Per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.A. and Canada are at least three times greater than humans living elsewhere.

[llmart]

21. +1

I'd say lifestyles is the major reason for it. When I grew up there were many, many families with 4 or more kids. That was normal back then. These days couples are having one or two and three is considered a lot. However, as someone else on this thread said, the houses are gigantic for these very small families. Our houses in the 50's were basically smallish on small lots. Think Levittown here. Only movie stars owned houses like some I see in the suburbs. Also, very few families had two cars. We sure never did. Now even the teenagers have their own cars, and they're not old clunkers. We weren't allowed to waste food, but now all the statistics show Americans waste 40% of their food.

Don't get me started on conspicuous consumption.

[marie999]

20. If a pandemic, and asteroid, or WWIII doesn't do it, climate change will.

Humans won't go extinct from climate change but eventually, enough people will die so the planet will be able to regenerate.