www.ditl.org

Lazar wrote:on your level of technology.

May I interject that this is sometimes as much the problem as the solution: medicine and other technologies remove the natural barriers that tend to rein in the growth of a particular species and keep the ecosystem in balance. Human growth simply upsets the global ecosystem, which is as bad for us in the long run as the critters and flora we displace. As much as it may seem distasteful to forcibly curtail growth, it is necessary for the greater good of all people and other life.

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:

Lazar wrote:on your level of technology.

May I interject that this is sometimes as much the problem as the solution: medicine and other technologies remove the natural barriers that tend to rein in the growth of a particular species and keep the ecosystem in balance. Human growth simply upsets the global ecosystem, which is as bad for us in the long run as the critters and flora we displace. As much as it may seem distasteful to forcibly curtail growth, it is necessary for the greater good of all people and other life.

Exactly.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Aha. And what level is that?

We can at least buy some time for technology to advance enough to start moving people off of this rock by limiting the growth of the population.

There is no reasonable predictable future in which we are ever going to be able to move a large chunk of the population off the Earth.

Overpopulation is a problem across the board; there are dozens of reasons why it should be avoided.

I'm asking what they are.

Like I said, we can't pave the whole planet. We're reaching the limit of how much humans can intrude on nature without completely screwing up the planet's habitability.

On what do you base that assertion?

I'm not just trying to be difficult here. It's just that I've been hearing people tell me that the world is close to a global population collapse for over thirty years now, and it's not happened. We could, comfortably, feed everyone alive with the resources we have to hand. There isn't a single natural resource that we have run out of that I know of; in fact as far as I have been able to tell every natural resource there is, is more abundant now than it has ever been. I hear lots of predictions that we will run out of oil in so many years, or copper, or water, or whatever. I've been hearing such things since I was old enough to listen and read, and it has NEVER happened.

Not that I claim there must be an infinite amount of oil, or copper, or whatever. The planet is indeed finite. But humanity got along without these things once. It will surely get along somehow if and when they are gone. I am confident that we will find alternatives, of some sort - an act of faith on my part, I know, but no more so than your faith that we won't. And to my mind, more people just means more creative minds to solve those problems.

There is a simple solution to the problem; Carousel!

I basically agree with CPH. My point is, basically, that the world will be fucked if we just experience limitless growth and pave over everything. In a healthy ecosystem, any other animal would settle into a basically stable population that's balanced with all the other species.

GK - the main problem is the amount of space needed for nature to function properly. We may already be at the verge of what the biosphere can handle; dozens of species go extinct daily, and hundreds of acres of forest are destroyed. The sea is being polluted and swept clean of life by overfishing. Surely you see the problem with that?

GrahamKennedy wrote:I'm not just trying to be difficult here. It's just that I've been hearing people tell me that the world is close to a global population collapse for over thirty years now, and it's not happened. We could, comfortably, feed everyone alive with the resources we have to hand. There isn't a single natural resource that we have run out of that I know of; in fact as far as I have been able to tell every natural resource there is, is more abundant now than it has ever been. I hear lots of predictions that we will run out of oil in so many years, or copper, or water, or whatever. I've been hearing such things since I was old enough to listen and read, and it has NEVER happened.

You see the abundant resources, but I see soil degradation, rainforest destruction, and the collapse of fisheries. These are all problems that are happening right now, at alarming rates.

Also: We have the ability to feed everyone on earth at present, though we don't in practice due to economic reasons. I know Graham surely knows this as well, but this is something else to be considered: that a thing is theoretically possible doesn't mean it will happen.

Tsukiyumi wrote:GK - the main problem is the amount of space needed for nature to function properly. We may already be at the verge of what the biosphere can handle; dozens of species go extinct daily, and hundreds of acres of forest are destroyed. The sea is being polluted and swept clean of life by overfishing. Surely you see the problem with that?

The amount of space? I don't understand. There's as much space in the world as there ever has been or ever will be.

Where do you get that dozens of species go extinct daily? I'd like a source for that, please.

Incidentally people might find this article interesting.

GrahamKennedy wrote:The amount of space? I don't understand. There's as much space in the world as there ever has been or ever will be.

Per person? Most definitely not. The average citizen of a developed country takes up a gigantic amount of space due to food, energy and other resource requirements, and this results in problems like deforestation. As deforestation and human sprawl increase, the amount of wild space steadily decreases, and eventually ecosystems will collapse.

Where do you get that dozens of species go extinct daily? I'd like a source for that, please.

It's pretty well accepted that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of extinctions due to human activities, approaching the level of a mass extinction event. Look at rates of rainforest destruction.

Lazar wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:The amount of space? I don't understand. There's as much space in the world as there ever has been or ever will be.

Per person? Most definitely not.

That's not what he said. I'd prefer we not keep changing the goalposts please.

It seems to me that there is very little lack of living space in the world, certainly. Nor any great lack of farming space.

The average citizen of a developed country takes up a gigantic amount of space due to food, energy and other resource requirements, and this results in problems like deforestation. As deforestation and human sprawl increase, the amount of wild space steadily decreases, and eventually ecosystems will collapse.

Then why has this never, ever happened despite frequent predictions that it was about to?

Where do you get that dozens of species go extinct daily? I'd like a source for that, please.

It's pretty well accepted that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of extinctions due to human activities, approaching the level of a mass extinction event. Look at rates of rainforest destruction.

Which species have gone extinct? How do they know? The article you linked makes many claims but says nothing about how the data were collected, or even whether the claims are based on data at all.

GrahamKennedy wrote:It seems to me that there is very little lack of living space in the world, certainly. Nor any great lack of farming space.

Have you never heard of deforestation?

Then why has this never, ever happened despite frequent predictions that it was about to?

What are you talking about? It happens all the time, whenever a large area is cleared and developed for human use and most of the wildlife dies off. I'm not talking about a single global collapse, I mean the collapse of local ecosystems. It's the reason why species like wolves, bison and grizzly bears have been extirpated from most of the United States.

Which species have gone extinct? How do they know? The article you linked makes many claims but says nothing about how the data were collected, or even whether the claims are based on data at all.

The dodo, the carrier pigeon, the great auk, the auroch, the moa, the Tasmanian tiger, the Atlas bear, the Caspian and Balinese tigers? That's just off the top of my head. And then all the cases of extirpation (local extinction) and near extinction, as with numerous cat and ape species. The scientific consensus is that we're in the middle of a human-induced mass extinction.

Here's a study on bird extinctions. Here's an article on Amazon deforestation rates. Here's a study on declining ape populations. Here's an article on the harmful effects of fertilizers on frog species. Here's an article on fishery collapses. And another one. And these are just a sampling - I can use an academic search if you want more. You can't seriously argue that humans haven't significantly damaged the environment in the modern era. Maybe you're okay with turning the entire planet into one giant deforested dump with no biodiversity in order to sustain a population of twelve billion people, but I'm not.

I truly understand the issue people have with continuing extinction, deforestation, and the like. But one of the key argumetns I've been hearing is that modern technology has enabled humanity to "get around" natural selection. Surely, our ability to produce the technology we have is a product of natural selection?

Lazar wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:It seems to me that there is very little lack of living space in the world, certainly. Nor any great lack of farming space.

Have you never heard of deforestation?

Sure I have. But he didn't say we were running out of forest, he said we were running out of SPACE. As I asked before, stop changing the goalposts.

What are you talking about? It happens all the time, whenever a large area is cleared and developed for human use and most of the wildlife dies off.

I'm referring to a HUMAN mass die off. The kind that has been confidently predicted for over thirty years now, but which has never actually happened.

And here's a prediction for you. It never will. No matter what level the Earth's population reaches, there will never be a point where there is a mass die off of Human beings which crashes the population numbers again. NEVER.

The dodo, the carrier pigeon, the great auk, the auroch, the moa, the Tasmanian tiger, the Atlas bear, the Caspian and Balinese tigers? That's just off the top of my head.

That's nine, and for some of them you had to go back centuries. We're allegedly losing tens of thousands of species per year. I want to know if these species have been observed to go extinct, or if this is some theoretical number. The article I linked to earlier indicated that they used to calculate alleged extinction rates by using the idea that "1% of the world have been paved over this year so 1% of the world's species must have gone extinct in that process."

If tens of thousands of species are going extinct each year, and this is an actual observed fact rather than a projection, then I would like to see the list of those species which have gone extinct and how we know this. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

And then all the cases of extirpation (local extinction) and near extinction, as with numerous cat and ape species. The scientific consensus is that we're in the middle of a human-induced mass extinction.

And that's what I am talking about. The very link you posted says in the first line "Significantly, the rate of species extinctions at present is estimated at 100 to 1000 times "background" or average extinction rates in the evolutionary time scale of planet Earth." It also doesn't help that the section you linked to is tagged as lacking citations for verification.

I am asking what is the OBSERVED rate of extinction. How many species have we actually seen go extinct? Which ones? How was this determined?