In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come. The climate changes over time, that’s just how it is. The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary when viewed over the course of the Earth’s history. The current climate has no intrinsic value and will be long gone in a billion years, regardless of what we do.
You realise of course for most of earths history earth was inhospitable to humans
Correct, that’s backwards, all value derives from the current climate.
We had better get a move on, large scale crop failure could destroy civilization as we know it, and I'd much rather my children live in a utopian garden of Eden rather than some dank dungeon eating cockroaches and algae.
The extraordinary part is the degree of climate change directly attributable to a biological organism over the course of a century (with the greatest increase in atmospheric insulation happening on a shorter timeframe still).
Are there many examples you can cite of greater change due to biological activity in shorter timeframes that make this current AGW change seem ordinary?
> In general I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to preserve the current climate as is, and too little on trying to make this planet a good place to live for generations to come
This is on the money.
> The climate changes we are seeing now are not extraordinary
The rate of change is extraordinary, and makes it expensive/different to adjust.
We're not all going to die, but my point stands.
It's not about the earth shifting, it's what happens to all of the human processes, trade, infrastructure, farm production, and human lives along the way.
Imagine a snowball rolling down the mountain that turns into a basketball sized ball, that into a mountain sized ball, that turns into a planet sized ball.
There are numerous periods throughout human history where we have almost gone extinct, and several where we have had under 10,000 people worldwide.
The pandemic demonstrated that the global economy is a finely tuned machine. It doesn't take much to upset the operation of such a beast, and a big interruption could have massive unforseen consequences.
Think about it like a complex, mission critical software system. Are you going to make big changes in many key areas and rush them out to prod? Or do you want to release them individually over time.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2024/09/22/new-stu...
Well, the easiest way to "make this planet a good place to live for generations to come" is to preserve the current climate (or, arguably, make it cooler).
It would be better if people in poor, warm places have less kids than people in cooler, richer. But it is not the case. Long term solutions involve better education and status for women (so having children is not the main, or only, be a part of society) and better economy and social security network (so children are not used as free labour in the field, or care of the elderly. There are no short-term solutions, population growth won't change overnight, and even if it did -well over a billion of people leave in such places right now.
And nope, I don't think it is OK to say that these people should suffer the climate change. Especially as is not them who burn fossil fuels!
Gustomaximus•7mo ago
pixelfarmer•7mo ago
Personally, I doubt the any "near" to "mid" term population decline will have larger effects on the climate change we are seeing. It is just too slow. Meaning that we certainly get (much!) larger effects about climate change done with other stuff, no doubt about that.
However, using that as an inverse argument to foster population growth is a stupid idea, because more people means more resources needed for everything, starting with food and water, climate change resistant shelter, and all the other stuff that is needed for actual living. All of that isn't created out of thin air. Considering that there is increased pressure just to provide food and water already (climate change anyone?!), the lower the population in the long run is, the better. Also, food supply destroys a lot of our environment, alone the meat industry is a planet wide killer because of that.
If I add all this up, population decline is a good thing. And if I read something like "Meanwhile, a smaller population slows the non-rival innovation that powers improvements in long-run productivity and living standards" I start to question the sanity of the people writing something like that.
willvarfar•7mo ago
Most countries in the global north (who happen to be the big contributors to climate change) are facing an aging and declining population.
Many of those countries over the last few decades have been steadily outsourcing manufacturing abroad and other things that shift where the pollution happens and gets accounted.
Over the last decade or so in response to public pressure many of their governments have been pursuing national green policies that really further offshore their contribution to climate change rather than reduce it. Its a kind of frustrating greenwashing that isn't what the voters imagine is happening. Cue rant.
p2detar•7mo ago
That’s my view as well but if I voice it to friends and acquaintances in Western Europe I get angry faces looking back at me. All this talk about green policies whilst electronics waste is burned in Pakistan and India or China dumps huge amount of chemical waste in order to produce the resources for phones and gadgets. Go figure.
DrScientist•7mo ago
For all the talk of net zero the rate of emissions is still going up - ie year on year we are pumping out more than we did the last.