Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
90% reduction in population is mandatory, within 60 years and there's a way to get it. Just sterilize all women of childbearing age, everywhere, for 20 years. Skip an entire generation. Then, by lottery, let 10% of women have one kid, before sterilizing them, too. in 60 years, you'll have the populaiton reduced to the point that the Earth MIGHT be able to give them all a decent life
currently, 1/4 of the world tries to live on $1000 USD per year. half on 2k US per year, 3/4 on 4k per year or less and 90% on 10k US per year. Try that sometime! even in the third world, 10k a year is nothing.
There is no such thing as a "highly advanced climate change computer model". They do not exist.
Have you studied the exact parameters of this particular model on exo-civilizations? Then it is hard to say how right or wrong it is, nevertheless, it comes to one very valid conclusion: the dangers of overpopulation and the role it creates in ravaging resources and long-term viability of the people. Is there a better model? Is this the best we have so far? If yes, and I think so, then it IS high-advanced since there is nothing out there more advanced than it. Many places around the globe are already at the point where their populations are unsustainable and many people are starving, dying or moving.
But don't be muddying the waters with stuff about exo-civilizations, that is way out there and forecasts based on pure conjecture are not going to be seriously taken.
Don't muddy the waters? That is the topic of the thread!If you read the book rather than just bitch, whine and dismiss, you'll understand that the model has the best underlying data to go by, our own civilization and our own planet. If we want to understand how another planet LIKE EARTH might fare with another civilization LIKE US, with the variable being how we address the issues of resource utilization and population growth, I can't think of a better place to start.
UNDOUBTEDLY, unchecked, humanity faces a major crisis within the next 100 years that will decide our long term survival.
There is no such thing as a "highly advanced climate change computer model". They do not exist.
Have you studied the exact parameters of this particular model on exo-civilizations? Then it is hard to say how right or wrong it is, nevertheless, it comes to one very valid conclusion: the dangers of overpopulation and the role it creates in ravaging resources and long-term viability of the people. Is there a better model? Is this the best we have so far? If yes, and I think so, then it IS high-advanced since there is nothing out there more advanced than it. Many places around the globe are already at the point where their populations are unsustainable and many people are starving, dying or moving.
No, I haven't, but I can tell you that no one in the field is capable of building a complex Model. They simply aren't. Computer models, when developed by the right people can be useful instruments, but those models are incredibly expensive to buy, and operate, think tens of millions of dollars. That's why I can guarantee you that this model is not "highly advanced".
But let's ignore that subject for just a moment and look at actual demographic studies. Their endeavors tell us that the global population will peak at around 9 billion, we are already seeing a massive slowdown in global birth rate. In the 1960's the birth rate was 2.61 to 1. Now it is below 1.6 and that includes the Third World. Thus demographers are now calculating that after peaking at 9 billion, the global population will then fall back to around 6 billion and level off at that point.
Still well below the carrying capacity of this Earth of ours.
Hope you're right in what you're saying about birth rates and demographic studies. I've seen some estimates that say the carrying capacity is somewhat lower than 9 billion, and if we blow through that then there could be serious consequences.
The problem with computer models for climate change and anything else is that you write the algorithms and determine the parameters and write the code, debug it, and test it out, and then you present your findings to whoever is paying for it. They take one look and say that ain't right, change it so that the result is what I want it to be.
One other thing, the planet will do just fine thank you, it's mankind that is could have a big problem.
The carrying capacity WITHOUT technological advance is 11 to 12 billion. Right now thirty three percent of all the food produced globally, is wasted. It is allowed to rot, or is lost in transit etc. Add to the losses the corruption of governments that use food to control their populations and just with what we have now, we can support 10 billion. Get rid of the waste, and simplify the production and transport, and we would get an increase to allow the 11 to 12 billion. Add technology to the mix and the low estimate is 20 billion, the high estimate is 40 billion.
These are well thought out and reasoned numbers. They have been working on the data sets for decades, their methodology is well proven, and accepted.
You are correct about the computer models. They are only as good as the people writing them, and the people writing the global climate models are terrible at best.
But don't be muddying the waters with stuff about exo-civilizations, that is way out there and forecasts based on pure conjecture are not going to be seriously taken.
Don't muddy the waters? That is the topic of the thread!
UNDOUBTEDLY, unchecked, humanity faces a major crisis within the next 100 years that will decide our long term survival.
I know what the topic of the thread is, but the underlying point you are not so subtly trying to make is about our planet and mankind in general rather than some other planet that we don't even know exists yet. And what I'm trying to tell you is that disguising your point talking about exo-civilizations does not help you convince anybody of your conclusion, which may be valid but no one is going to buy it the way you are selling it.
There is no such thing as a "highly advanced climate change computer model". They do not exist.
Have you studied the exact parameters of this particular model on exo-civilizations? Then it is hard to say how right or wrong it is, nevertheless, it comes to one very valid conclusion: the dangers of overpopulation and the role it creates in ravaging resources and long-term viability of the people. Is there a better model? Is this the best we have so far? If yes, and I think so, then it IS high-advanced since there is nothing out there more advanced than it. Many places around the globe are already at the point where their populations are unsustainable and many people are starving, dying or moving.
No, I haven't, but I can tell you that no one in the field is capable of building a complex Model. They simply aren't. Computer models, when developed by the right people can be useful instruments, but those models are incredibly expensive to buy, and operate, think tens of millions of dollars. That's why I can guarantee you that this model is not "highly advanced".
But let's ignore that subject for just a moment and look at actual demographic studies. Their endeavors tell us that the global population will peak at around 9 billion, we are already seeing a massive slowdown in global birth rate. In the 1960's the birth rate was 2.61 to 1. Now it is below 1.6 and that includes the Third World. Thus demographers are now calculating that after peaking at 9 billion, the global population will then fall back to around 6 billion and level off at that point.
Still well below the carrying capacity of this Earth of ours.
Hope you're right in what you're saying about birth rates and demographic studies. I've seen some estimates that say the carrying capacity is somewhat lower than 9 billion, and if we blow through that then there could be serious consequences.
The problem with computer models for climate change and anything else is that you write the algorithms and determine the parameters and write the code, debug it, and test it out, and then you present your findings to whoever is paying for it. They take one look and say that ain't right, change it so that the result is what I want it to be.
One other thing, the planet will do just fine thank you, it's mankind that is could have a big problem.
The carrying capacity WITHOUT technological advance is 11 to 12 billion. Right now thirty three percent of all the food produced globally, is wasted. It is allowed to rot, or is lost in transit etc. Add to the losses the corruption of governments that use food to control their populations and just with what we have now, we can support 10 billion. Get rid of the waste, and simplify the production and transport, and we would get an increase to allow the 11 to 12 billion. Add technology to the mix and the low estimate is 20 billion, the high estimate is 40 billion.
These are well thought out and reasoned numbers. They have been working on the data sets for decades, their methodology is well proven, and accepted.
You are correct about the computer models. They are only as good as the people writing them, and the people writing the global climate models are terrible at best.
The people writing climate and civilization models are terrible at best, but those who theorize the Earth can "carry" 40 billion are well proven and accepted? PLEEEEEEEZE.
Your theories about what the Earth can carry if only we can eliminate waste from food handling, "fix" government to be more efficient and altruistic and optimize this or that technology are just that: THEORY. GUESSES. They are no better rooted in fact than any of the other theories and models you lambast. The very nature of government precludes efficiency. Whole populations are already on the brink of catastrophe. Resources and ecosystems are stretched to the limit. Mankind will not change until nature FORCES him to change by pulling the plug on his ability to overpopulate the planet. The only question then as the models ask are: will mankind level off and survive or not.
But don't be muddying the waters with stuff about exo-civilizations, that is way out there and forecasts based on pure conjecture are not going to be seriously taken.
Don't muddy the waters? That is the topic of the thread!
UNDOUBTEDLY, unchecked, humanity faces a major crisis within the next 100 years that will decide our long term survival.
But don't be muddying the waters with stuff about exo-civilizations, that is way out there and forecasts based on pure conjecture are not going to be seriously taken.
Don't muddy the waters? That is the topic of the thread!
UNDOUBTEDLY, unchecked, humanity faces a major crisis within the next 100 years that will decide our long term survival.
demographers have an actual track history of being good predictors of population, and population trends. Climatologists have an exceptionally poor record of predictions. So bad that well known charlatan sylvia browne, of psychic fame, had a better record. Far better in point of fact. Demographers actually use real numbers. Numbers that have been VERIFIED. Climatologists don't.
The models that the climatologists use ignore vast amounts of real data to support their theories. They always have. They have also ignored vast amounts of real historical fact, that is readily available, because the historical fact refutes their pet theories. They claim that warmth is bad. Historical fact tells us that that belief is false. All of the great periods of mans history, his development of culture, and science, and philosophy, have ALL come when the world was warmer than it is now. Every single one of mans major advances has happened when he was able to bask in the warmth of a warmer planet. This is simple historical fact that the climatologists have tried to hide.
But don't be muddying the waters with stuff about exo-civilizations, that is way out there and forecasts based on pure conjecture are not going to be seriously taken.
Don't muddy the waters? That is the topic of the thread!
UNDOUBTEDLY, unchecked, humanity faces a major crisis within the next 100 years that will decide our long term survival.
demographers have an actual track history of being good predictors of population, and population trends. Climatologists have an exceptionally poor record of predictions. So bad that well known charlatan sylvia browne, of psychic fame, had a better record. Far better in point of fact. Demographers actually use real numbers. Numbers that have been VERIFIED. Climatologists don't.
The models that the climatologists use ignore vast amounts of real data to support their theories. They always have. They have also ignored vast amounts of real historical fact, that is readily available, because the historical fact refutes their pet theories. They claim that warmth is bad. Historical fact tells us that that belief is false. All of the great periods of mans history, his development of culture, and science, and philosophy, have ALL come when the world was warmer than it is now. Every single one of mans major advances has happened when he was able to bask in the warmth of a warmer planet. This is simple historical fact that the climatologists have tried to hide.
Yes, yes, yes, I know all that. But how do you know that the demographics, real numbers, real historical fact, et al, are not all part of the predictive model being relied upon in this man's book? His model is about US, people, civilization as much as it is about the planet. As to warmer periods being times of greatest cultural advancement, no one knows that better than me, it is a part of the historical record.
Man's entire modern civilization has been built upon the warming that followed the Younger Dryas cooling, and especially since the last 5,000 years, beginning with Sumeria, the Iron Age, the Roman Republic, the Greeks, right into the Medieval Warm Period and the Renaissance, Common Law, the Ottoman Empire, and the great enlightenment beginning in the 18th century. Ironically, some of our worst events such as the Black Death, the Great Famine, and the Plague all centered around the Little Ice Age between the 14th and 17th centuries! In all cases, both plants and animals flourish better in a warmer climate than they do a cooler one.
Not going to waste my time on pure fantasy and conjecture.. If I want something to read I'll buy something I like to read in science fiction...Where did you OBSERVE these civilizations to obtain the empirical evidence necessary for any model to work?Have you studied the exact parameters of this particular model on exo-civilizations? Then it is hard to say how right or wrong it is
Buy the author's book and read it.
But don't be muddying the waters with stuff about exo-civilizations, that is way out there and forecasts based on pure conjecture are not going to be seriously taken.
Don't muddy the waters? That is the topic of the thread!
UNDOUBTEDLY, unchecked, humanity faces a major crisis within the next 100 years that will decide our long term survival.
demographers have an actual track history of being good predictors of population, and population trends. Climatologists have an exceptionally poor record of predictions. So bad that well known charlatan sylvia browne, of psychic fame, had a better record. Far better in point of fact. Demographers actually use real numbers. Numbers that have been VERIFIED. Climatologists don't.
The models that the climatologists use ignore vast amounts of real data to support their theories. They always have. They have also ignored vast amounts of real historical fact, that is readily available, because the historical fact refutes their pet theories. They claim that warmth is bad. Historical fact tells us that that belief is false. All of the great periods of mans history, his development of culture, and science, and philosophy, have ALL come when the world was warmer than it is now. Every single one of mans major advances has happened when he was able to bask in the warmth of a warmer planet. This is simple historical fact that the climatologists have tried to hide.
Yes, yes, yes, I know all that. But how do you know that the demographics, real numbers, real historical fact, et al, are not all part of the predictive model being relied upon in this man's book? His model is about US, people, civilization as much as it is about the planet. As to warmer periods being times of greatest cultural advancement, no one knows that better than me, it is a part of the historical record.
Man's entire modern civilization has been built upon the warming that followed the Younger Dryas cooling, and especially since the last 5,000 years, beginning with Sumeria, the Iron Age, the Roman Republic, the Greeks, right into the Medieval Warm Period and the Renaissance, Common Law, the Ottoman Empire, and the great enlightenment beginning in the 18th century. Ironically, some of our worst events such as the Black Death, the Great Famine, and the Plague all centered around the Little Ice Age between the 14th and 17th centuries! In all cases, both plants and animals flourish better in a warmer climate than they do a cooler one.
Because any model that predicts mans destruction because of warmth is provably wrong. The scientific method is very consistent. One of the fundamental principles of science is called Uniformitarianism. That which is happening today, happened in the past, and operated the same back then, as it does now. Waves, and how they interact with beeches is well known. That is how they have ALWAYS worked. The same holds for any natural phenomena that you wish to point to. It is only in the field of climatology that all of a sudden the world no longer operates by well known principles.
We KNOW that the Medieval Warming Period happened, and we KNOW that the global temperature was at least 1.5 degrees C warmer then, then they are today. We Know this. We also KNOW that it was a global event. There are over 100 peer reviewed papers that describe the warming, its extent, and its duration, for both the northern and southern hemispheres. It is only the climatologists who claim that the MWP was somehow, magically, limited to the European region. They have no way to explain how a hot bubble of air was somehow anchored to a spinning globe, for hundreds of years, but that is their claim.
Whenever I see one of these claims I merely refer back to the historical record and ask if the claim is plausible based on what we actually KNOW occurred. No claim, as this man has made, has ever passed that simple test.
But don't be muddying the waters with stuff about exo-civilizations, that is way out there and forecasts based on pure conjecture are not going to be seriously taken.
Don't muddy the waters? That is the topic of the thread!
UNDOUBTEDLY, unchecked, humanity faces a major crisis within the next 100 years that will decide our long term survival.
demographers have an actual track history of being good predictors of population, and population trends. Climatologists have an exceptionally poor record of predictions. So bad that well known charlatan sylvia browne, of psychic fame, had a better record. Far better in point of fact. Demographers actually use real numbers. Numbers that have been VERIFIED. Climatologists don't.
The models that the climatologists use ignore vast amounts of real data to support their theories. They always have. They have also ignored vast amounts of real historical fact, that is readily available, because the historical fact refutes their pet theories. They claim that warmth is bad. Historical fact tells us that that belief is false. All of the great periods of mans history, his development of culture, and science, and philosophy, have ALL come when the world was warmer than it is now. Every single one of mans major advances has happened when he was able to bask in the warmth of a warmer planet. This is simple historical fact that the climatologists have tried to hide.
Yes, yes, yes, I know all that. But how do you know that the demographics, real numbers, real historical fact, et al, are not all part of the predictive model being relied upon in this man's book? His model is about US, people, civilization as much as it is about the planet. As to warmer periods being times of greatest cultural advancement, no one knows that better than me, it is a part of the historical record.
Man's entire modern civilization has been built upon the warming that followed the Younger Dryas cooling, and especially since the last 5,000 years, beginning with Sumeria, the Iron Age, the Roman Republic, the Greeks, right into the Medieval Warm Period and the Renaissance, Common Law, the Ottoman Empire, and the great enlightenment beginning in the 18th century. Ironically, some of our worst events such as the Black Death, the Great Famine, and the Plague all centered around the Little Ice Age between the 14th and 17th centuries! In all cases, both plants and animals flourish better in a warmer climate than they do a cooler one.
Because any model that predicts mans destruction because of warmth is provably wrong. The scientific method is very consistent. One of the fundamental principles of science is called Uniformitarianism. That which is happening today, happened in the past, and operated the same back then, as it does now. Waves, and how they interact with beeches is well known. That is how they have ALWAYS worked. The same holds for any natural phenomena that you wish to point to. It is only in the field of climatology that all of a sudden the world no longer operates by well known principles.
We KNOW that the Medieval Warming Period happened, and we KNOW that the global temperature was at least 1.5 degrees C warmer then, then they are today. We Know this. We also KNOW that it was a global event. There are over 100 peer reviewed papers that describe the warming, its extent, and its duration, for both the northern and southern hemispheres. It is only the climatologists who claim that the MWP was somehow, magically, limited to the European region. They have no way to explain how a hot bubble of air was somehow anchored to a spinning globe, for hundreds of years, but that is their claim.
Whenever I see one of these claims I merely refer back to the historical record and ask if the claim is plausible based on what we actually KNOW occurred. No claim, as this man has made, has ever passed that simple test.
All fine and good but I do not know that the author in the OP ever claimed that the Earth was going to warm or that its warming would lead to his destruction.
Every over populated life form experiences a huge die-off at some point.
Despite any incorrect, agenda motivated climate prognostications, it is undeniable that a catastrophe is in the making with mankind's mismanagement of earth's resources. The profit motive has gone off the charts toward disaster. We need a beauty and creativity motive to balance merely making money. Anyone, for instance, claiming to be pro-life must be for measures that assure livable environmental levels.
Despite any incorrect, agenda motivated climate prognostications, it is undeniable that a catastrophe is in the making with mankind's mismanagement of earth's resources. The profit motive has gone off the charts toward disaster. We need a beauty and creativity motive to balance merely making money. Anyone, for instance, claiming to be pro-life must be for measures that assure livable environmental levels.
A recent highly advanced computer using state of the art climate models for how an exo-civilization might evolve lead to some surprising results that civilizations tend to fall into one of three outcomes and that sometimes it did not matter what they did to try to change the consequences. You have to read pretty far down into the article, but a summery of what the models showed was that they saw three distinct kinds of civilizational histories. The first—and, alarmingly, most common—was what we called “the die-off,” which parallels what I have been thinking and saying for 40 years. As the civilization used energy, its numbers grew rapidly, but the use of the resource also pushed the planet away from the conditions the civilization grew up with. As the evolution of the civilization and planet continued, the population skyrocketed, blowing past the planet’s limits. The population, in other words, overshot the planet’s carrying capacity. Then came a big reduction in the civilization’s population until both the planet and the civilization reached a steady state. After that the population and the planet stopped changing. A sustainable planetary civilization was achieved, but at a high cost. In many of the models, we saw as much as 70 percent of the population perish before a steady state was reached. In reality, it’s not clear that a complex technological civilization like ours could survive such a catastrophe.
In many ways we were seeing a kind of cosmic Easter Island play out. There may have been as many as 10,000 people living on Easter Island at the peak of its stone-head-making heyday. But by cutting down all the trees to roll the stone heads around, that civilization seems to have mucked up its ecosystem and sealed its own fate. When the Dutch arrived in 1722 only a few thousand folks, living greatly reduced lives, were left.
The second kind of trajectory held the good news. We called it the “soft landing.” The population grew and the planet changed but together they made a smooth transition to new, balanced equilibrium. The civilization had changed the planet but without triggering a massive die-off.
The final class of trajectory was the most worrisome: full-blown collapse. As in the die-off histories, the population blew up. But these planets just couldn’t handle the avalanche of the civilization’s impact. The host worlds were too sensitive to change, like a houseplant that withers when it’s moved. Conditions on these planets deteriorated so fast the civilization’s population nose-dived all the way to extinction.
You might think switching from the high-impact energy source to the low-impact source would make things better. But for some trajectories, it didn’t matter. If the civilization used only the high-impact resource, the population reached a peak and then quickly dropped to zero. But if we allowed the civilization to switch to the low-impact energy resource, the collapse still happened in certain cases, even if it was delayed. The population would start to fall, then happily stabilize. But then, finally and suddenly, it rushed downward to extinction.
The collapses that occurred even when the civilization did the smart thing demonstrated an essential point about the modeling process. Because the equations capture some of the real world’s complexity, they can surprise you. In some of the “delayed collapse” histories, the planet’s own internal machinery was the culprit. Push a planet too hard, and it won’t return to where it began. We know this can happen, even without a civilization present, because we see it on Venus. That world should be a kind of sister to our own. But long ago Venus’s greenhouse effect slipped into a runaway mode, driving its surface temperatures to a hellish 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Our models were showing, in generic terms, how a civilization could push a planet down the hill into a different kind of runaway through its own activity.
Bottom line: instead of blaming man and calling for all kinds of draconian sacrifices to save the planet, these studies along with my own thinking for a very long time is that the real key to saving humanity and the planet lies less in how mankind lives and works, and much more so in how well we control our population. If we want to save the planet and mankind, I think we need to work towards cutting world population down by about 33% from what it is today.
How Do Aliens Solve Climate Change?
A recent highly advanced computer using state of the art climate models for how an exo-civilization might evolve lead to some surprising results that civilizations tend to fall into one of three outcomes and that sometimes it did not matter what they did to try to change the consequences. You have to read pretty far down into the article, but a summery of what the models showed was that they saw three distinct kinds of civilizational histories. The first—and, alarmingly, most common—was what we called “the die-off,” which parallels what I have been thinking and saying for 40 years. As the civilization used energy, its numbers grew rapidly, but the use of the resource also pushed the planet away from the conditions the civilization grew up with. As the evolution of the civilization and planet continued, the population skyrocketed, blowing past the planet’s limits. The population, in other words, overshot the planet’s carrying capacity. Then came a big reduction in the civilization’s population until both the planet and the civilization reached a steady state. After that the population and the planet stopped changing. A sustainable planetary civilization was achieved, but at a high cost. In many of the models, we saw as much as 70 percent of the population perish before a steady state was reached. In reality, it’s not clear that a complex technological civilization like ours could survive such a catastrophe.
In many ways we were seeing a kind of cosmic Easter Island play out. There may have been as many as 10,000 people living on Easter Island at the peak of its stone-head-making heyday. But by cutting down all the trees to roll the stone heads around, that civilization seems to have mucked up its ecosystem and sealed its own fate. When the Dutch arrived in 1722 only a few thousand folks, living greatly reduced lives, were left.
The second kind of trajectory held the good news. We called it the “soft landing.” The population grew and the planet changed but together they made a smooth transition to new, balanced equilibrium. The civilization had changed the planet but without triggering a massive die-off.
The final class of trajectory was the most worrisome: full-blown collapse. As in the die-off histories, the population blew up. But these planets just couldn’t handle the avalanche of the civilization’s impact. The host worlds were too sensitive to change, like a houseplant that withers when it’s moved. Conditions on these planets deteriorated so fast the civilization’s population nose-dived all the way to extinction.
You might think switching from the high-impact energy source to the low-impact source would make things better. But for some trajectories, it didn’t matter. If the civilization used only the high-impact resource, the population reached a peak and then quickly dropped to zero. But if we allowed the civilization to switch to the low-impact energy resource, the collapse still happened in certain cases, even if it was delayed. The population would start to fall, then happily stabilize. But then, finally and suddenly, it rushed downward to extinction.
The collapses that occurred even when the civilization did the smart thing demonstrated an essential point about the modeling process. Because the equations capture some of the real world’s complexity, they can surprise you. In some of the “delayed collapse” histories, the planet’s own internal machinery was the culprit. Push a planet too hard, and it won’t return to where it began. We know this can happen, even without a civilization present, because we see it on Venus. That world should be a kind of sister to our own. But long ago Venus’s greenhouse effect slipped into a runaway mode, driving its surface temperatures to a hellish 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Our models were showing, in generic terms, how a civilization could push a planet down the hill into a different kind of runaway through its own activity.
Bottom line: instead of blaming man and calling for all kinds of draconian sacrifices to save the planet, these studies along with my own thinking for a very long time is that the real key to saving humanity and the planet lies less in how mankind lives and works, and much more so in how well we control our population. If we want to save the planet and mankind, I think we need to work towards cutting world population down by about 33% from what it is today.
How Do Aliens Solve Climate Change?
The entire population of the earth could fit comfortably in the state of Texas, with plenty of living space and parks.
Over population is a myth that failed in the 1970's.
