[caution – feeble attempt at humour with a message at the end]
Nature has also had its own convention, and had originally decided on a three-pronged approach to deal with that issue called “Human Overpopulation”.
So overall, humans have proven to be too inventive and adaptive.
Hence, the convention for the eradication of mankind decided to seize the opportunity of resurgent nationalism to reactivate a project they had to abandon in the 90s: Project “Global Thermonuclear War” is now being re-launched, they hope quite literally so. Project “Doomsday Disease” has kindly agreed to use some of its resources to foment nationalism, and it is working very well. While the idea to put the virus initially in China was a pragmatic choice at the time – the committee for the selection of the initial outbreak simply threw a dart at a world map and hit Wuhan – it is now seen as the lucky break nature needed.
Almost all of the “end of days” scenarios were solved with a combination of behavioural change and technology. Also, population growth is slowing and forecast to stop.
In climate change, I think there is too much focus on FORCED behavioural change which is tinkering around the edges (what % of the carbon footprint is cutting 0.00x% of all flights which are only 3% of global CO2 anyway) while improved insulation, improved car engines, technology in electricity generation together made the biggest impact.
If the energy of all those people who try to impose their petty will on others were directed at technology instead, this might be better. [although I am not sure I would want such busybodies in any real-life tech project]
Cobalt wrote:
[caution – feeble attempt at humour with a message at the end]
ROFL !!!!
China tried a 1 child policy which, depending on which account you read, was pretty gruesome in its result, causing a massive single sided population shift and involving forced late term abortions as well as de facto infanticide. I think nobody wants this kind of thing, or as suggested by some green fanatics, forced involuntary sterilisations on a large scale of young people.
However, from what I see in a very crowded environment here, single kids and families without kids at all become much more common than when I was young. Albeit it is a cultural thing too, it does not help much if some parts of society forego kids altogether or keep to one or max two children, which means a constant or decreasing level of population, only for others to make it up with 11 kids.
Quite possibly today’s incentives are antiquated in that regard. While child support and relief is certainly not a bad thing, it might well go towards a direction where 1 and 2 kid families become the norm and more than that gets unattractive.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I think nobody wants this kind of thing, or as suggested by some green fanatics, forced involuntary sterilisations on a large scale of young people.
In your previous answer to me (#133), you implied that you do not have any particular grudge towards any specific political stance. Still you find it necessary to point out that the fanatics you refer to are “green”.
Cobalt wrote:
Nature has also had its own convention,
Why do we think that nature cares about such a tiny, marginal problem as human overpopulation? Or the not really bigger problem of climate change? Why should nature care?
An extinction of the human race would – from nature point of view – at best be a sidetone in history. Even the most pessimistic doomsday scenarios do not even imagine that anything mankind does while killing itself is seriously harming life on earth as such.
Let’s face it: Most of life on earth is bacteria, plants, insects, etc. There might be some temporary local reductions in this kind of life but in the grand scheme of things global warming will open up massive new spaces for life on earth – as esp. insects can much better cope with warm than with cold climate – as do Algae!
Is it really a problem that polar bears will not survive global warming? Some say yes – but ask some seals about that !?!
It is also a very human centric view that we bitterly complain about reduction of habitat for gorillas and other Anthropoidea, but nobody is actually celebrating the massive new habitats we have just been creating for Stegomyia, Anopheles or Phlebotomidae (-Bugs) across entire Europe !?!
From a nature point of view, we are far less relevant than many would like to think!
Malibuflyer wrote:
Why do we think that nature cares about such a tiny, marginal problem as human overpopulation? Or the not really bigger problem of climate change? Why should nature care?
Let’s not get teleological. Nature doesn’t care. Nature has no will, or desires, it just is.
Actually, caring about the environment in general is about saving ourselves. If we don’t do it, then the earth will shrug us off like we’re a bad cold, and quite happily continue the next ~500M years without us (which is when the sun gets too luminous for life as we know it).
Airborne_Again wrote:
Still you find it necessary to point out that the fanatics you refer to are “green”.
There are greens who are fanatics and there are others who are not. In Germany for a while they were pretty evenly split along a line of “fundamentalists” and “realists”, in Switzerland we have actually two parties which reflect that split. I have not much problems with the realists but I find fundamentalism of any kind a threat to society if not more.
Malibuflyer wrote:
From a nature point of view, we are far less relevant than many would like to think!
We can debate this on a philosophical level but I reckon in the end we are rather talking about physical laws of nature than to instill some kind of universal soul into nature. As @Airborne_Again rightly sais, there is little point in getting theological on this.
I suppose in the end it amounts to questioning what we call nature in which context. The whole system of nature has been one which has evolved over the existence of this planet since life itself was formed quite a long time ago. It is only natural, that it will evolve further and what the current society’s influence about this evolution will be. If you understand Nature as the whole ecosystem of the planet you are probably right, it will not be influenced fatally if any sort of life dies out or develops new, however, the life form which does die out obviously has an instinct of survival and will try to fight their demise.
In a way, trying to stop evolution on the planet (and climate change in a way is an evolution) or reverse it is a way of conservatism with the intent to keep conditions in what we deem best for our kind. As you rightly say, that does not mean they are perfect for others and we won’t even be sure for us.
Nature as a whole has seen massive changes during evolution of this planet, far beyond a 2 degree warming or cooling. While the planet and “nature” survived this in one or other fashion, obviously it had a profound effect on life on the planet. Maybe one way of looking at climate change may also be to actually explore possibilities rather than just doomsday scenarios of a certain amount of temperature fluctuation rather than trying to reverse it, at least as a plan B. We all know that Earth has seen much warmer times than now before as well as colder. Only at the time there was no mass media frenzy about it, life simply tried or failed to cope.
