OT: Sens Lounge CII | End Incorrect Roman Numerals Edition

[saskriders]

typo: billion.

The planet cannot sustain that population based on our current consumption needs, from energy, to resources, to water and food. http://www.footprintcalculator.org

The issue isn't that the planet can't sustain 11 billion of us, the issue would be 11 billion living how the developed world currently does. Considering that projections show that population growth will stop I think it is much more important to focus on making life in the developed world more sustainable rather than worry about population.

 

[PoutineSp00nZ]

The issue isn't that the planet can't sustain 11 billion of us, the issue would be 11 billion living how the developed world currently does. Considering that projections show that population growth will stop I think it is much more important to focus on making life in the developed world more sustainable rather than worry about population.

Agreed. In a large way, the western world lives in luxury on the back of the poor. We are in danger with maybe half the worlds population, if that, living the way we do in Canada.

11 billion people living this way, if even possible, would be catastrophic. Well ... even more catastrophic lol

The planet.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Agreed. In a large way, the western world lives in luxury on the back of the poor. We are in danger with maybe half the worlds population, if that, living the way we do in Canada.

11 billion people living this way, if even possible, would be catastrophic. Well ... even more catastrophic lol

The planet.

I like to think of it as the natural ending: any system that goes on for too long meets its end by reaching the point of peak absurdity.

In an effort to make our lives easier, and getting so very good at it, we doomed ourselves. Anything that runs for too long is doomed to reach its absurd and collapse on itself. Same with capitalism: as we make it more and more efficient, more and more are left behind.

EDIT: Clarification/precision. Maybe instead of duration, what matters is challenge. Anything left unchallenged for long enough will rot from within. That seems more accurate and appropriate: the defeat of classical socialism is a major factor of finance becoming the world-leading industry thanks to how powerful, far-reaching and insular it is.

To quote one of my favourite characters: "a culture's teachings, and more importantly its people, achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves... Or find themselves lacking".

 

[Engineer]

The issue isn't that the planet can't sustain 11 billion of us, the issue would be 11 billion living how the developed world currently does. Considering that projections show that population growth will stop I think it is much more important to focus on making life in the developed world more sustainable rather than worry about population.

How do you propose that we make the third world more sustainable? Our ability to 'sustain' [I put sustain in quotes because while we are able to sustain our population in the short term, our resource use is in no way sustainable long term] our current population was due to technology improvements provided by the mass production of oil products. I don't agree that the planet can sustain 11B, when that is 60% greater than our current population and we already have major sustainability issues. Not only will our energy production need to vastly increase, I have trouble seeing us able to sustain the necessary production of fresh water, food, and coarse grain sand (for cement), to provide the adequate basics for the population.

There is already shortages of all three of those basic necessities around the world. Cement is the 2nd most used substance in the world (behind water), and that is the basic building block for any modern structure. How do we house these people? Food production was greatly improved through the use of oil products (fertilizer, tractors, etc), are we going to continue to increase our oil use to attempt to produce enough food for 11B people? Where will the farm land come from? Not to mention, we already have major climate change problems, and increased oil use won't help that issue.

Water supplies are getting lower, we have cities like Las Vegas trying to change policy to use Lake Michigan as a supply of fresh water, where is all the water going to come from as the populations continue to grow? Desalination units? They're very energy demanding.

There is no stopping the population increase, that I agree with, and it will happen so long we can 'sustain' that growth, but is it truly long-term sustainable once we get there? I doubt it, considering our current lifestyle at 7B people isn't sustainable.

/edit: spelling

 

[Knave]

The announced iTunes changes suck.

 

[Stylizer1]

Nothing will prevent the climate from changing. Canada has always had tornadoes, floods, droughts, and fires. Maybe the Ottawa valley has a tornado cycle that runs every 500 years or maybe every 1205 years and lasts 1-100 years? Who knows.

 

[Stylizer1]

At the rate humanity is going, we'll have to start inhabiting another planet to keep up with the population growth, waste, and emissions.

Or maybe we'll invent advanced AI someday that will wipe us all out for endangering the health of the planet.

Humanity seems to have a problem with inventing and mass producing new technology before they fully understand it and the ramifications...or maybe I should just stop watching that Chernobyl show on HBO.

Wars, diseases, natural disasters, wealth, all help control populations

 

[Engineer]

The announced iTunes changes suck.

Seemed pretty decent to me, what's not to like?

 

[Engineer]

Nothing will prevent the climate from changing. Canada has always had tornadoes, floods, droughts, and fires. Maybe the Ottawa valley has a tornado cycle that runs every 500 years or maybe every 1205 years and lasts 1-100 years? Who knows.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[saskriders]

How do you propose that we make the third world more sustainable? Our ability to 'sustain' [I put sustain in quotes because while we are able to sustain our population in the short term, our resource use is in no way sustainable long term] our current population was due to technology improvements provided by the mass production of oil products. I don't agree that the planet can sustain 11B, when that is 60% greater than our current population and we already have major sustainability issues. Not only will our energy production need to vastly increase, I have trouble seeing us able to sustain the necessary production of fresh water, food, and coarse grain sand (for cement), to provide the adequate basics for the population.

There is already shortages of all three of those basic necessities around the world. Cement is the 2nd most used substance in the world (behind water), and that is the basic building block for any modern structure. How do we house these people? Food production was greatly improved through the use of oil products (fertilizer, tractors, etc), are we going to continue to increase our oil use to attempt to produce enough food for 11B people? Where will the farm land come from? Not to mention, we already have major climate change problems, and increased oil use won't help that issue.

Water supplies are getting lower, we have cities like Las Vegas trying to change policy to use Lake Michigan as a supply of fresh water, where is all the water going to come from as the populations continue to grow? Desalination units? They're very energy demanding.

There is no stopping the population increase, that I agree with, and it will happen so long we can 'sustain' that growth, but is it truly long-term sustainable once we get there? I doubt it, considering our current lifestyle at 7B people isn't sustainable.

/edit: spelling

I don't have anywhere near the expertise to answer these kinda of questions. My general approach would be to make a life in the developed world more sustainable, but again I don't think I am qualified to answer the how. I do think it is important to recognize that even small steps forward is still progress and it is far more likely that we arrive at a better future from several small steps than one giant leap. For example there has been talk here about using radio waves in the oilsands for a lower carbon footprint. That still provides oil for all the products that use it, doesn't completely sacrifice the short term economy, and is still progress. Now obviously we are going to need solutions for many different problems, but ultimately I don't think it is inevitably going to be catastrophic.

 

[Stylizer1]

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).
As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture. Eventually, a group of hypotheses might be integrated and generalized into a scientific theory, a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

Why is the earth's temperature not supposed to change over time?

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Engineer]

Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this

Why is the earth's temperature not supposed to change over time?

The scientific method does not steer scientists away from a consensus, lol.

As for changing over time and your confusion over natural vs anthropogenic climate change: Anthropogenic Climate Change

 

[Stylizer1]

The scientific method does not steer scientists away from a consensus, lol.

As for changing over time and your confusion over natural vs anthropogenic climate change: Anthropogenic Climate Change

I was just posting the footnote from the article you posted.

Is anthropogenic climate change really a concern when looking over the last 11,000 years or so? Can we do things better, of coarse, but to add a dollar value to it and let the industrties who benefited from it from in turn make the money off the solution seems short sighted.

 

[Engineer]

Is anthropogenic climate change really a concern when looking over the last 11,000 years or so?

Yes it obviously is. Effects | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[maclean]

used substance in the world (behind water), and that is the basic building block for any modern structure. How do we house these people? Food production was greatly improved through the use of oil products (fertilizer, tractors, etc), are we going to continue to increase our oil use to attempt to produce enough food for 11B people? Where will the farm land come from? Not to mention, we already have major climate change problems, and increased oil use won't help that issue.

Water supplies are getting lower, we have cities like Las Vegas trying to change policy to use Lake Michigan as a supply of fresh water, where is all the water going to come from as the populations continue to grow? Desalination units? They're very energy demanding.

There is no stopping the population increase, that I agree with, and it will happen so long we can 'sustain' that growth, but is it truly long-term sustainable once we get there? I doubt it, considering our current lifestyle at 7B people isn't sustainable.

I think the key point that was being made is the "current lifestyle" part. How do we house these people? Your typical Canadian home could house twenty people comfortably. How do we feed these people? Reduce our reliance on meat and use more farmland to build actual crops instead of using it to feed mcdonald's burgercows. Where is the water going to come from? Stop being so wasteful with water, stop having 15-minute showers and wasting water on lawns for example. But of course people in the rest of the world want to move towards our wasteful lifestyle instead of us being willing to give up a single inch of luxury until it all crumbles beneath us.

On another note, glad we are back on the right Roman numerals. I was going to make a new thread but I had no idea what number we were actually at.

 

[mysens]

We aren't actually getting more earthquakes though.

Floods and tornadoes though? Of course not. Overhead costs and margins means corners are cut everywhere and that is on "old world" data.

On the flip side, that is a bigtime earning opportunity.

Another thing I need to mention, we just renegotiated our commercial insurance and the residential insurance industry is coming with a 15-17% increase!! This is huge, they said that the industry is claiming that 2018 was a bad year for insurance and they are coming back at the consumer. That is a pretty big impact. I suggest that you people start shopping for other quotes before your premium is up for renewal. These catastrophic events are taking a toll.

 

[Stylizer1]

Another thing I need to mention, we just renegotiated our commercial insurance and the residential insurance industry is coming with a 15-17% increase!! This is huge, they said that the industry is claiming that 2018 was a bad year for insurance and they are coming back at the consumer. That is a pretty big impact. I suggest that you people start shopping for other quotes before your premium is up for renewal. These catastrophic events are taking a toll.

Too many mansions burning down in 2018?

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

This climate change debate stuff makes me wonder if the internet was as popular as it is now in the 90s if there would have been a lot of ozone hole deniers and denying that people are helping cause a hole in the o zone layer.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

This climate change debate stuff makes me wonder if the internet was as popular as it is now in the 90s if there would have been a lot of ozone hole deniers and denying that people are helping cause a hole in the o zone layer.

There would have been about as much. Problem is, the Internet gives them a voice. If something can be explained with any kind of rationality, then you get idiots who latch on because doing so makes them feel smart: this is why conspiracy theorist aren't very smart, they know they aren't and desperately want to be.

The Internet has given a megaphone to the mediocre. Unfortunately, the mediocre far outweigh those who can apply critical thinking. How could something so awesome lead us such a dark path... I guess it is just raw numbers in the end, elitism can't beat data.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

There would have been about as much. Problem is, the Internet gives them a voice. If something can be explained with any kind of rationality, then you get idiots who latch on because doing so makes them feel smart: this is why conspiracy theorist aren't very smart, they know they aren't and desperately want to be.

The flat earther documentary on Netflix is an interesting quick watch and kinda shows exactly what you are talking about here.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

The flat earther documentary on Netflix is an interesting quick watch and kinda shows exactly what you are talking about here.

Such a great example of utterly stupid individuals wanting to make the world fit into what they see, grasping at anything to make them feel smart and less excluded for being a waste of ressources.

 

[Engineer]

I am ashamed to admit that I have a flat earth believing cousin in-law.

He comes at it from a different angle though, he believes the bible literally, and apparently there is a passage that all of the earth was visible from Jerusalem or something. Anyway, he has convinced himself that that implies the earth is flat, and has hopped on the flat earth bandwagon to prove it. I always find it interesting when he claims that he is "woke" on his facebook feed.

The absolutely most devastating part of this is he has a young family, two children, that they don't vaccinate and are home schooling.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

I am ashamed to admit that I have a flat earth believing cousin in-law.

He comes at it from a different angle though, he believes the bible literally, and apparently there is a passage that all of the earth was visible from Jerusalem or something. Anyway, he has convinced himself that that implies the earth is flat, and has hopped on the flat earth bandwagon to prove it. I always find it interesting when he claims that he is "woke" on his facebook feed.

The absolutely most devastating part of this is he has a young family, two children, that they don't vaccinate and are home schooling.

Another issue is how much the mediocre reproduce.....

 

[Engineer]

Another issue is how much the mediocre reproduce.....

Terrible movie but interesting premise: idiocracy

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Terrible movie but interesting premise: idiocracy

I love Judd so I disagree that the movie is terrible