Global warming, what to do?

[Shinzai]

No. 2075 projections of 9 billion and 9.5 for 2100

Those are outdated projection figures from 2004. Current world population is just shy of 8 billion: 7.7 billion as of 1st July.

Most accepted predictions now show 9.5~10 billion by 2050 and 12 billion+ by 2100.

https://populationmatters.org/the-facts/the-numbers

[Galactis]

Ah. Yeah, I did the calculation. Roughly 2.2 persons born per second till 2050 is roughly 2,150,755,200 people from now till 2050. Which is roughly 9.8 billion minimum. Yikes, we need another world war i think.

[PC2]

Ah. Yeah, I did the calculation. Roughly 2.2 persons born per second till 2050 is roughly 2,150,755,200 people from now till 2050. Which is roughly 9.8 billion minimum. Yikes, we need another world war i think.

Nah we don't need another war. Agricultural output goes up overtime due to new inventions and techniques. So in 30 years it'll only need to go up by 30%. Won't be that difficult.

[Shinzai]

Nah we don't need another war. Agricultural output goes up overtime due to new inventions and techniques. So in 30 years it'll only need to go up by 30%. Won't be that difficult.

But that also means an equal increase in population related production, industry, waste, etc. More food, clothing, housing, etc, etc.

Just increasing the amount of sustainable food is only a fraction of the issue.

This is the real issue with humans and climate change: we're reaching a point, where even if most nations reduce carbon output and whatever, the sheer increase in humans will outweigh it.

Say we reduce our current carbon footprint by 50%, based on current figures, you then have to add 30% due to raw population increase, just by 2050. By 2100, we'll need theoretical measures to be implemented or for people to be leaving the planet en masse.

We have no real answer to how global warming could be averted, outside of genocide.

[PC2]

But that also means an equal increase in population related production, industry, waste, etc. More food, clothing, housing, etc, etc.

Just increasing the amount of sustainable food is only a fraction of the issue.

This is the real issue with humans and climate change: we're reaching a point, where even if most nations reduce carbon output and whatever, the sheer increase in humans will outweigh it.

Say we reduce our current carbon footprint by 50%, based on current figures, you then have to add 30% due to raw population increase, just by 2050. By 2100, we'll need theoretical measures to be implemented or for people to be leaving the planet en masse.

We have no real answer to how global warming could be averted, outside of genocide.

Omg there's no need to talk about genocide or leaving the planet right now. There can easily be enough food and clothing for 9 billion people. Not necessarily 1 house and 1 car per person, some resources have to be shared. 2/3rd of people already have smarthpones, those will only get easier to make.

People are freaking out for no reason, they do the same thing every generation. Baby Boomers thought they were going to die in hellfire as well.

[Thekri]

People claiming the point of no return in 2030, but I'm convinced we're already there due the how fast it's been tracking each year. It's not like if we completely stop all emissions everything will level out. Now the question is how can we prevent the worst case scenario because right now it's going to bleak especially for those people already living in areas prone to drought and flooding.

Well the "Point of no return" is rather an abstract concept based on what sort of symptoms we are trying to avoid. We are clearly well past the point where we can avoid any negative consequences, as some of them are already manifesting.

We cannot stop climate change. Climate is always changing anyway, the real concern is how do we mitigate the worst of the self inflicted symptoms. We probably aren't going to get to a point where earth is uninhabitable, but we could easily get to a point where we kill off the majority of species and are forced to shrink our own populations dramatically. One possible "Point of no return" is triggering massive oceanic algae blooms, like what happened in the Paleocene-Eocene collapse. Essentially by making warmer water temperatures with high atmospheric carbon content you can trigger some absolutely massive algae blooms that release hydrochloric acids into the ocean. This will reduce atmospheric carbon spectacularly, but it also removes the oxygen from the ocean and makes it very acidic, killing off the vast majority of sealife, and turning most of the earths surface into a desert. The planet will come back (Probably), but we would lose almost everything. All our farmland, and most of the plant and animal species.

Those blooms are already growing by the way, we may have already triggered that. Again, what we have to do is minimize the damage, it is too late to eliminate it.

[d00mGuArD]

Omg there's no need to talk about genocide or leaving the planet right now. There can easily be enough food and clothing for 9 billion people. Not necessarily 1 house and 1 car per person, some resources have to be shared. 2/3rd of people already have smarthpones, those will only get easier to make.

People are freaking out for no reason, they do the same thing every generation. Baby Boomers thought they were going to die in hellfire as well.

As far as I can see, half the people in 1st world are dreaming of revolutions or other crap because they don't feel they have enough.
More sharing, would mean even less for them.
I consider it impossible.

[Galactis]

As far as I can see, half the people in 1st world are dreaming of revolutions or other crap because they don't feel they have enough.
More sharing, would mean even less for them.
I consider it impossible.

So greedy we are as a 1st world. Sad but true. I would rather have everyone have everything. No status.

[stevenho]

Up to 18bil by 2100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...ulation_growth

The low one with pop decreasing is pretty funny IMO.

[Galactis]

Up to 18bil by 2100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projec...ulation_growth

The low one with pop decreasing is pretty funny IMO.

Wiki is not a credible source.... 18 billion is not even close.

[PC2]

As far as I can see, half the people in 1st world are dreaming of revolutions or other crap because they don't feel they have enough.
More sharing, would mean even less for them.
I consider it impossible.

lol you have a good point, many 1st worlders are oddly angsty about a revolution that would make things a lot worse for them.

[stevenho]

Wiki is not a credible source.... 18 billion is not even close.

It helps to read before commenting.
Wikipedia is not a "source", UN is the source https://population.un.org/wpp/

[wunksta]

It helps to read before commenting.
Wikipedia is not a "source", UN is the source https://population.un.org/wpp/

Their estimate is 10.9, not 18
https://population.un.org/wpp/Public...eyFindings.pdf

[derpkitteh]

i think we could have an effect by changing some things, and i wish we would.

but at the same time, geologic activity at the poles could be contributing to ice melt as much as we are.

https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.j...=NSF&from=news

[Stormspark]

He said the world would reach a point of no return in a decade, which would have been two years ago.

To be fair to him, I think it is already past the point of no return.

[Zython]

What to do?

Eat

the

rich

[PC2]

To be fair to him, I think it is already past the point of no return.

What's the metric for 'point of no return'?

- - - Updated - - -

Eat

the

rich

You mean violence?

[Celista]

You mean violence?

That's what usually happens when shit hits the fan. Not condoning it but I would not be surprised to see the wealthy and residents of wealthy countries (such as the US) targeted if Western civilization were to collapse. US is the largest producer of CO2 per capita iirc and by a large margin. We will be blamed for a lot of catastrophic events.

Did your blood run cold when reading that? Because it should.

[Shadowferal]

[B].

‘Climate apartheid’: UN expert says human rights may not survive

The world is increasingly at risk of “climate apartheid”, where the rich pay to escape heat and hunger caused by the escalating climate crisis while the rest of the world suffers, a report from a UN human rights expert has said. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...survive-crisis

Pretty sure societal collapse is imminent at that point, since it's a sinking ship and all the rats are scurrying to the greenest coolest part of the ship. Too many people would ruin such a locations though so....

[PC2]

@Celista What I meant is if we passed the 'point of no return' which civilizational metrics would indicate that? Especially macro-metrics. Would it be population, GDP, starvation, etc? Because we can stick a flag in this point of time, then check the metrics again in a year to see if reality backs up the claim.

That's what usually happens when shit hits the fan. Not condoning it but I would not be surprised to see the wealthy and residents of wealthy countries (such as the US) targeted if Western civilization were to collapse. US is the largest producer of CO2 per capita iirc and by a large margin. We will be blamed for a lot of catastrophic events.

Did your blood run cold when reading that? Because it should.

You mean violence against wealthy people globally or only against Westerners? Because Western countries have higher integrity military and law enforcement than most other countries, so all that would happen is the poorer countries would shoot themselves in the foot by killing their rich people, or 'kulaks', or whoever they perceive as evil.