Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?  (Read 27809 times)

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #50 on: June 29, 2014, 04:15:45 PM »
CCG, we're in agreement.

Ice, regarding the monetary system, it's the matrix we live in, whether or not it seems 'real'.

It may be the matrix we live in but just like any illusion, it can be instantly stripped away by the individual by simply opening up your eyes and seeing it for what it is. We are mesmerized by its logic and allow it to drive our very personal decisions which only serve to bolster the illusion. This is the purpose of the matrix, to keep us hard at work to perpetuate its existence into the indefinite future. It's growth is dependent on that. As with any system, its strength is its Achilles heel. Pull away the veil, see the illusion and make choices that are no longer driven by its logic and this matrix, this illusion, this growth system will collapse. It will fight you if you choose to do this. Our future depends on us doing it. It is and always will be a personal choice.

The difficulty in making such a choice is also personal. It is as if we are in a deep slumber, a comfortable restful state but we are being roused from our slumber by a growing unease. We wish to shake this unease off and slip back into this peaceful slumber. We need to wake up, shake the sleep from our lives and choose to embrace reality.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 04:35:08 PM by Shared Humanity »

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #51 on: June 29, 2014, 04:42:03 PM »
I believe that waking ourselves from this slumber is our only chance to avoid us racing to our destruction. So long as we operate within the logic of the matrix, this illusion, the system will take us there.

We simply cannot expect our leaders, our existing institutions to take the lead in this effort. They owe their very existence to the system that they support and benefit from. The leadership must come from the trenches. We must wake all that we can from their slumber, including ourselves first. We then must fashion a new construct, a paradigm that guides our every choice. That serves to transform the system and its behavior.

Lynn Shwadchuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #52 on: June 29, 2014, 06:45:20 PM »
Great Laurence Fishburne imitation, Shared!

Intellectually I agree, but practically, I'm only willing to go so far. We can set an example or storm the ramparts. I set an example of 'Make it yourself, make do, or do without'. But I'm not about to cash in my boring dividend-paying retirement investments and buy gold bars or refuse the money the Canadian Government gives us 'poor' seniors.

We live in a rural area that could be fairly resilient if things collapsed much worse than 2009. Myself, I have lots of skills and barter some now.

Unfortunately the minority of Westerners that think like this are pretty divided. I talked to a youngish neo-sharecropper yesterday who believes that GMO food is a plot to cull the world population. Two of my peers who are quite self-sufficient via gardening and preserving believe in chemtrails. I know an extremely knowledgeable 75 year old software developer who hates the idea of hunkering down and living cheap. He's counting on technology to save us.
Still living in the bush in eastern Ontario. Gave up on growing annual veggies. Too much drought.

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #53 on: June 30, 2014, 10:04:47 AM »
Been away for the weekend. Overwhelmed by amount of replies. Will try to read all and address some when i'd have some time.

For now, only one remark: i see few people saying this is a disqusting topic. My message to anyone who thinks so: it is no more disqusting than
 - killing more than half of this planet's forests (which mankind did),
 - killing more than a half of corals (which mankind nearly did, according to some reports, - even if not, this will be done by ~2030 for sure), and in general,
 - driving majority of species of this planet to a complete extinction (which mankind nearly did already, if to start counting from the point in time Homo Sapiens started to walk the planet - all mega-fauna long gone, and 6th major extinction is going on right now at an unprecedented pace; there is no doubt that in a few decades, Earth will have less than a half species in compare even to year 1900).

You people need your "king of nature" crown removed, i suspect (note - i am not sure; i just suspect it, not sure about it). Mankind proved time and time again how eagerly ready it is to kill other life forms, - genocide them, eliminate them completely. And why? For reasons often less important than our own survival. Yet now, when the question about our species survival rises, and consideration of killing of part of our own population (in order to save the rest) becomes rational question, - you people say it's "disqusting"? Well, i could understand it if you'd be living in a way which does not contribute to ongoing massacre of other life forms - but i bet nearly everyone here (possibly literally everyone) does not live so. Because it'd mean not driving, not using _grid_ electricity (majority of which is fossil-fuel based), not living in any building built while using modern machinery and matherials, and not eating food grown and transported by modern machinery and vehicles.

Anyone here qualifies? No? Then please, do me a favor and be fair with yourself and with everyone else, and reevaluate your opinion. Because, as demonstrated above, this topic is nothing special in terms of how disqusting it is, - in principle, it's as disqusting as nearly all our daily activities are, in modern world. So if you chose to close your eyes and pretend "everything's ok" while chewing your cheeseburger (which took lots of resources to be made and delivered to you, most of those resources spent wastefully, and most of them not renewable at the rate mankind is consuming them nowadays), - then please do the same towards this topic as well.

Or, if all the above is not about yourself, - then i ask you to do like i do. Me, i chose to stay silent about how disqusting things are, to not show off my embarassment about both myself and mankind as a whole. I see no use mentioning it every time i get a chance to do so. It won't help. It could only promote feeling of guilt, - which, again, i don't think is correct thing; again, i believe we shouldn't blame anybody. There are forces of nature which are much stronger than we are, and we are where we are largely because of such forces. We need to find solutions, like it or not; whomever won't find any - will definitely extinct (as a family, as a region, as a country, - and ultimately, as a mankind, if no solutions would be found even on this scale). And up to date, i have not seen any reliable solution to AGW. I repeat, i haven't seen any _reliable_ one. And obviously, decreasing global population dramatically and quickly - will result in a reduction of AGW (both its speed during next 10+ decades, and its maximum strength). And, unlike mentioned earlier proposition to reduce consumption levels much (which, as i have shown, is impossible), - forced depopulation can be done, in principle, since even small group of devoted scientists and (proper) leaders can arrange one. If anybody here has a reliable solution to AGW, which can demonstrably ensure that AGW can be limited to never exceed +2 degrees C above pre-industrial, and which would not require massive forced depopulation, - then please, show it to me. I'd be the 1st to sigh with relief, to start working towards it. But, as long as we don't have such a solution, this topic has meaning and importance. It is survival of our SPECIES we are talking about.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 10:51:53 AM by F.Tnioli »
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #54 on: June 30, 2014, 12:01:15 PM »
Well, this is one easy thing. Not a question to me, at all. Nobody - and i mean, _nobody_ - should have an opportunity to "select" who'd die and who'd live. If we go for it, then it must be done by the only fair, good old method: random selection. Soldiers at war are picking matches - whomever gets the long one, goes to suicide mission; same thing. And if i'd happen to get a "losing" ticket, then so be it. I'll die content, knowing it has a meaning, and it gives a hope to my kind.

I'd be more with wili - and targeting by consumption/net harm done. Why should one randomly be selected and effectively punished for less or no guilt or harm being done? Should there be no merit to good behaviour? Not that either attempt is ever likely to be made - people are easily aroused into hatred against other groups, not so easily persuaded that their own group should make any sacrifice (the root of our damn problem in the first place in this case!).

By the way, Pianka, iirc, pointed out more than once that one of suitable features of Ebola - is that it's random; who dies and who lives, - nobody knows. Some perish extremely fast, few have immune systems which are able to manage well enough for the person to live on.

But it's not likely to be entirely random? With most diseases there are predictors that give at least some statistical slant on the mortality effects - those with weaker immune systems tend to be either old or young, less well nourished, under greater general stress, etc. So diseases will tend to discriminate to at least some extent by both age and affluence (usually quite a big extent but I don't know about Ebola specifically).
p1. Randomly, because of several reasons:
 - only then it won't be a planetary-scale genocide. Genocide definition in wikipedia says: "Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a ... group". As soon as some people are selected to live while others are "sentenced" to die - it is genocide. No matter what the criteria is, ihmo. As soon as you designate some particular people as "those will die" - you're doing genocide. If it's random, you are not - as long as you yourself are also ready to take chances with all others (and i am);
 - practical tremendous difficulty to prevent "unfair play". I'd say, impossibility. Nobody argues that rich elites rule the Earth at this time. Do you honestly think they won't find a way to join those who are selected to live? Do you realize all the power which bribery, loyalty (of their "watchdogs") and, most importantly, real control over industrial, trade and real service rich people have? Do you think many people would be able to stand against them, when threatened with serious injury or death of their family members (which is one of favorite rich people's methods to corrupt an unwiling opponent)?
 - this is not about punishment at all. I repeat once again, i do not see anybody being actually guilty. Given specific conditions individuals are born into (their family background and culture, education, religion and so on and so forth), and specific genes, and all the past events and obligations one's family had (and possibly has), etc, - most people had no choice but to become what they are now. Same deal with past generations. Yes, humans have freedom of choice, - but it's minor part; most events and actions are not a result of really free choice. Plus, quite very few are bright enough to actually realize (understand, grasp, fathom) truly _big_ choice which they actually have. The main mass of the population lives oblivious to such choices;
 - reward for good merit? You think it'd be a "reward" to live on, after a massive forced depopulation? Really? Man. May be your imagination was sleeping, or something. Let me tell you, if some ~90% of world population dies in a matter of few weeks, - random individuals, - then those who'd live through would be jealous to those who died. It would still be massively better than a cascade failure of global civilization forced by accumulated stresses (climate, economies, wars, resource axhaustion, etc), which is likely to happen at the end of "business as usual", - because in this case, FULL world population will end up competing for left-overs, consuming what little remains of local nature, etc; times more ugly, times less good things left after agony is over. Note, i mainly meant urban dwellers here. Those relatively few who are rural (in western world) - will definitely have much higher (possibly 100%) chances to survive through most possible types of forced depopulation, - exactly because they are far from any population centers. After global civilization collapse (whichever way it happens), most rural communities will have to deal with massive waves of refugees from cities, though, and, of course, it will be "good bye" to all the industrial ways of doing agriculture, too. Ain't no easy times either;
 - besides, the only ultimate reward in the mankind's current circumstance, - is for the individual to see how he helps to increase chances of human species survival. In dying, i'd increase it by stopping consuming resources, which mankind does not have enough (anymore, and as along as it is some 2+ billions souls in size). In living, i'd try to increase it by actions and by communicatingrelevant thoughts with others (this topic is an example). That's how if there is a reward at all - then both those who'll happen to die, and those who'll happen to live would get a reward. All for the same goal, don't you see?
 - diversity. The only way to ensure maximum possible diversity of surviving individuals, - is some random depopulation method. Max diversity with remaining human populations - is quite importnat. We never fully know what future may bring. Let's say, for example, that by such a forced depopulation a recently released from prison criminal - killer, bandit, drug dealer, - was spared (by chance). You'd say, it's bad? Well, how do you know? May be this particular criminal - with all his unpleasant personal features, - will end up being the only leader possible to organize local community against roaming bands of looters/criminals, because his newly found love (a girl) was living in that community? His protecting instincts waking up, and his before-then-dormant talent to lead and unite people shines - can that be? Why not. Etc etc. What i mean here - the past does not _define_ the future. You can't select "some" people and expect they'll doo as good (or, as bad) as before. Especially in dramatically changed circumstances.

p2. Ebola is significantly special in this regard. There are solid reasons to believe (3-years serological study of Ebola in Gabon) that several percents of human population quickly develop immune response to Ebola virus when 1st infected, preventing any massive Ebola virus multiplication within their bodies, not developing any sympthoms (remaining practically healthy), and keeping developed Ebola-specific anti-bodies in their immune systems for at least several years. Quote from one article about said serological study in Gabon: "The high immunity rates are the biological proof that populations have been in contact with the Ebola virus. In order to develop antibodies, these healthy carriers must have been exposed to the virus in the past. They report that they have never suffered from the disease or in any case live in a non epidemic area. Ebola does not always provoke haemorrhage, but it triggers high fever, diarrhoea and vomiting, with a 90% mortality rate. It is highly unlikely that such symptoms had gone unnoticed. The researchers therefore deduce that the people with antibodies probably developed a mild form of the disease or an infection which did not produce symptoms".

This makes me think that even some of generally weak (old) people have a chance to survive ebola (even without developing any percievable sick state), as well as kids. Young enough babies (few months/years old) are indeed victims to this, though - i am not sure at what age immune system becomes able to resist Ebola (in some few individuals). But then, Pianka also pointed out that Ebola kills rather quickly and mercifully (at least in compare to what those babies would have to go through - before likely dying - in case of collapsing global civilization "full of people" way). Yes, Ebola brings in few days of pain and suffering (even bleeding to some) of its victims. But in compare to many months of even years of critically low levels of nourishment, lack of all the medicines and services modern people take for granted, etc, - Ebola _does_ seem merciful. To have a slight idea how exactly people would have to live after collapse of global civilization, i invite you to watch 2nd ~half of this excellent (in its fairness) film:

Please do come back and tell me what you think. I hope i answered your questions to the best of my ability.
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3151
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 373
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #55 on: June 30, 2014, 02:33:51 PM »
"obviously, decreasing global population dramatically and quickly - will result in a reduction of AGW"

Not necessarily by very much at all, depending on which populations you "decrease."

Taking out the poorest billion or two will affect CO2 emissions hardly at all. Taking the top billion or two will stop nearly all of the CO2 emissions.

And it is rather absurd to complaint that other means are not reliable, when you have not presented a reliable means to implement your glorious 'solution.'
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Lynn Shwadchuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #56 on: June 30, 2014, 03:13:38 PM »
Right-wing deniers' worst fear of what climate change scientists and activists want is a scaling back of the economy. Until now. This sort of talk gives us all a bad name.
Still living in the bush in eastern Ontario. Gave up on growing annual veggies. Too much drought.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #57 on: June 30, 2014, 03:56:52 PM »
Sorry...still disgusted by this topic and no amount of labeling or projection to explain my disgust will be useful in eliminating it. Let's just say that I am supremely aware of the true brutal nature of my species. We are capable of evil on a massive scale and history is replete with examples of this. This brutality manifests itself not only against fellow humans but all of "creation". I see mountain top removal in West Virginia, stripping land to get at shale oil and mass extinctions as our species willingness to rape the planet for personal gain.

Just to be clear, I use the term "creation" not because I am religious (I am not). I use it because of a clear understanding that I am part of this planetary environment and that our fates are inextricably linked. "Creation" is a label that all of us understand.

This conversation disgusts me because we already routinely make these decisions and have for thousands of years. The choice of target and the method used has never changed. We have and will continue to decimate, eliminate the weak. Our past includes and our future will include the complete elimination of entire ethnic groups and regions. We will do this just as efficiently as we clear cut a forest and without any sense of the ethical dilemma it should present.

This thread consists of a bunch of wealthy westerners discussing the method for choosing. This is no accident. We see ourselves as the decision makers, always have and always will. Sure, we will throw out rational arguments about maintaining a diverse population to ensure the health of the species but I harbor no illusions. We will include ourselves disproportionately because (progress, freedom, civilization, exceptionalism). I live in the U.S. and we use these words and have these kinds of discussions in our public discourse routinely. I have never been to Europe but do not doubt that Europeans do the same. Having established our superiority, we then formulate policy to kill the weak for our gain.

I used the health analogy of "cancer" to describe the illness that infects the planet. I chose this analogy deliberately. Do you want to discuss rationally the culling of humanity then let's have a go at it. We have cancer. The tumor is at the very core of the growth system that is human civilization. This tumor has now metastasized and is spreading across the planet. To save the planet we need to act now and quickly. We first must cut out the tumor, cull everyone living in the fully developed world. This will include everyone living in North America and Europe. We need to get every last one because you do not want to leave any cancer cells that might grow quickly back. Oh....as we cull these populations, we need to employ our wonderful technology to level these built up areas. we must remove every last vestige of the system, buildings, factories, roads and sewers, every dam and power plant. We need to get working on this as it will take some time.

The developed world is not exceptional. The developed world is a disease. It needs to be killed. What about those developing regions? Why should they be spared? These developing regions are metastasis. They exist to feed the tumor and they will wither and die when those who live in the developed world (everyone here I would imagine) voluntarily go to our deaths.

Get in line. Oh...if you're British, queue up. The extermination chambers are ready.

It is, by the way, both the rational and ethical thing to do.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 04:43:38 PM by Shared Humanity »

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #58 on: June 30, 2014, 04:27:49 PM »
"obviously, decreasing global population dramatically and quickly - will result in a reduction of AGW"

Not necessarily by very much at all, depending on which populations you "decrease."

Taking out the poorest billion or two will affect CO2 emissions hardly at all. Taking the top billion or two will stop nearly all of the CO2 emissions.

And it is rather absurd to complaint that other means are not reliable, when you have not presented a reliable means to implement your glorious 'solution.'
The word "dramatically" is there not for fun. It has meaning. The meaning is: removing _most_ of human population, i.e. some 4+ billions souls. This will have a big impact on AGW, reducing it for generations to come. If i'd mean poor citizens of India and China, i'd say so. Besides, i do not dicriminate, - random is random, India and UK, SA and USA - all alike. Last but not least, billions or two of people in poorest countries do not emit lots of _industrial_ CO2, true, - but they emit lots of CO2 by deforestation, soil erosion, peat burning, etc.
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #59 on: June 30, 2014, 04:50:45 PM »
"obviously, decreasing global population dramatically and quickly - will result in a reduction of AGW"

Not necessarily by very much at all, depending on which populations you "decrease."

Taking out the poorest billion or two will affect CO2 emissions hardly at all. Taking the top billion or two will stop nearly all of the CO2 emissions.

And it is rather absurd to complaint that other means are not reliable, when you have not presented a reliable means to implement your glorious 'solution.'
The word "dramatically" is there not for fun. It has meaning. The meaning is: removing _most_ of human population, i.e. some 4+ billions souls. This will have a big impact on AGW, reducing it for generations to come. If i'd mean poor citizens of India and China, i'd say so. Besides, i do not dicriminate, - random is random, India and UK, SA and USA - all alike. Last but not least, billions or two of people in poorest countries do not emit lots of _industrial_ CO2, true, - but they emit lots of CO2 by deforestation, soil erosion, peat burning, etc.

Sorry...you are still submitting an argument regarding your exceptionalism. There is nothing exceptional about you (or me) and the culling should not be random. The developed world needs to be culled. The deforestation and soil erosion is largely due to the developed world's appetite for palm oil and mahogany furniture. The only culling that makes sense is the complete elimination of the developed world and all of its physical plant.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3151
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 373
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #60 on: June 30, 2014, 06:08:52 PM »
I would say that most people would define wiping out one to two billion people as pretty freakin' "dramatic"!

But OK, FT, I'll do you one better.

If the poorest 80% of the world's population (nearly 6 billion people) were somehow immediately eliminated, it would have little effect on CO2 levels. Is that 'dramatic' enough for you?

See chart on page 11 of the following document: http://www.unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Global_Inequality.pdf

The top quintile of world population accounts for about 83% of income, which tracks very closely with CO2 emissions.


Or see: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=57
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 06:36:07 PM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #61 on: June 30, 2014, 06:47:07 PM »
Well, this is one easy thing. Not a question to me, at all. Nobody - and i mean, _nobody_ - should have an opportunity to "select" who'd die and who'd live. If we go for it, then it must be done by the only fair, good old method: random selection. Soldiers at war are picking matches - whomever gets the long one, goes to suicide mission; same thing. And if i'd happen to get a "losing" ticket, then so be it. I'll die content, knowing it has a meaning, and it gives a hope to my kind.

[snip]

 - practical tremendous difficulty to prevent "unfair play". I'd say, impossibility. Nobody argues that rich elites rule the Earth at this time. Do you honestly think they won't find a way to join those who are selected to live? Do you realize all the power which bribery, loyalty (of their "watchdogs") and, most importantly, real control over industrial, trade and real service rich people have? Do you think many people would be able to stand against them, when threatened with serious injury or death of their family members (which is one of favorite rich people's methods to corrupt an unwiling opponent)?

You just contradicted yourself, by firstly saying nobody should select who lives and who dies, and then by saying it would be impossible to stop the existing elites from doing exactly that (pretty much the current state of affairs, where the selection strategy is heavily based on poverty).

If the existing elites survive (or more precisely the ideology they preside over and dominate through as the people merely carry the ideology like a disease) then our species is doomed. Removing people is just an exercise in murder that could achieve nothing while the ideological leadership drives us towards ruin (ie the whole system itself is the problem, not just the population).

I have some questions above and beyond that though - mostly simple ones:

  • You seem to be positing this as a way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Why not do that the obvious way, by, er, actually reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Isn't that easier/better to sell than general slaughter?
  • What is so wrong about just letting nature take it's course? Are we not animals the same as any other? Nothing about human achievements to date makes me think we can yet improve upon nature in the big picture view.
  • There is no guarantee that you avoid +2C of warming if you remove 100% of people, do you agree? (consider the loss of sulphate aerosols + natural positive feedbacks)
  • There is no way you could possibly identify a given number of people as being sufficient but not excessive to achieve any given goal, is there? (we don't even know what the climate outcome will be even if only climate change is taken in isolation)
  • If it turns out the proportion of people you would need to remove (presuming such a strategy could avert the worst of climate change, which is a questionable assumption in itself) is so high that it would essentially destroy global civilisation anyway, then what did you achieve? (I assume your goal is to preserve something...?)
  • If there is any hope at all of technological miracle(s) to save us from our default future, would you agree that high population actually essentially correlates to a high rate of innovation (subject to other factors such as education) and therefore the existing populace is more likely to manage this than a reduced one?
  • And given all the above - why not focus instead of how to build a civilisation for the future that attempts to solve the problems that destroyed this attempt? Rather than widespread genocide just tackle the question of how to ensure that civilisation can be sufficiently successful to outcompete shorter term destructive ideologies such as those that dominate today (and that may persist or re-emerge post collapse).

To everyone who says it's disgusting - I fail to be disgusted merely by the idea itself. Perhaps that's because I've dwelt in the world that we live in too long, and not lived enough time in the fantasy most inhabit (I've also read enough history to know what people have already done to each other in some measure). However, I certainly would not advocate for such a strategy myself - even setting aside moral objections (and hypocrisy, because there is no way I would agree to be culled myself, thus I cannot advocate it for others) - because I don't see the rational basis for such a strategy.

Besides, if there is one legacy we should still be trying to leave to the future - it should be of ways to do better, to get past the ugly side of human nature.

I personally care not one jot if 100% of people die, if the only alternative is that some portion of people continue to go forwards in the vein that they have to date. I firmly believe we need to do better if we are to have a future at all.

ccgwebmaster

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1085
  • Civilisation collapse - what are you doing?
    • View Profile
    • CCG Website
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #62 on: June 30, 2014, 06:57:51 PM »
Having said I don't find mere discussion of the idea disgusting, I do want to say I think it far more valuable that we have people doing real things - eg Bruce Steele with his experiments in solar powered farming, Lynn Shwadchuck (and others) with their smaller scale gardening to grow fruit and vegetables (and presumably build local resilience), and so on.

And on that note, I should probably stop participating in the discussion myself.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3151
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 373
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #63 on: June 30, 2014, 09:36:26 PM »
The Indian subcontinent is one area that seems to be about to depopulate itself rather rapidly, either through a nuclear arms exchange, shifting monsoon rains, loss of ground water, or a combination of those and any number of other looming crises:

Quote
Groundwater serves as a vital buffer against the volatility of monsoon rains, and India’s falling water table therefore threatens catastrophe. 60 percent of north India’s irrigated agriculture is dependent on ground water, as is 85 percent of the region’s drinking water. The World Bank predicts that India only has 20 years before its aquifers will reach “critical condition” – when demand for water will outstrip supply – an eventuality that will devastate the region’s food security, economic growth and livelihoods.

I’m guessing the “20 years” is with normal monsoons.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/indias-worsening-water-crisis/

But, again, even a loss of the those 1.5 billion or so souls would amount to only a minor reduction in CO2 emissions.

(At the moment, of course, India's birthrate per minute is the highest in the world: http://www.breathingearth.net/)
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 09:58:54 PM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #64 on: July 01, 2014, 08:28:59 AM »
...
You just contradicted yourself, by firstly saying nobody should select who lives and who dies, and then by saying it would be impossible to stop the existing elites from doing exactly that (pretty much the current state of affairs, where the selection strategy is heavily based on poverty).
...
No, i didn't. Please read in context. I was replying to a proposition to "select" some people, and eliminate others. _if_ this is done, _then_ elites will most certainly sneak in to the "gotta live" group. If the depopulation is random, then their chances to do so are zero, since there is no such group in the 1st place - nowhere to sneak in, you see.

I understand it may take long time to read everything, but this is no easy topic we are discussing. Please refrain from making any conclusions before reading whole discussion.
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #65 on: July 01, 2014, 08:53:31 AM »
"obviously, decreasing global population dramatically and quickly - will result in a reduction of AGW"

Not necessarily by very much at all, depending on which populations you "decrease."

Taking out the poorest billion or two will affect CO2 emissions hardly at all. Taking the top billion or two will stop nearly all of the CO2 emissions.

And it is rather absurd to complaint that other means are not reliable, when you have not presented a reliable means to implement your glorious 'solution.'
The word "dramatically" is there not for fun. It has meaning. The meaning is: removing _most_ of human population, i.e. some 4+ billions souls. This will have a big impact on AGW, reducing it for generations to come. If i'd mean poor citizens of India and China, i'd say so. Besides, i do not dicriminate, - random is random, India and UK, SA and USA - all alike. Last but not least, billions or two of people in poorest countries do not emit lots of _industrial_ CO2, true, - but they emit lots of CO2 by deforestation, soil erosion, peat burning, etc.

Sorry...you are still submitting an argument regarding your exceptionalism. There is nothing exceptional about you (or me) and the culling should not be random. The developed world needs to be culled. The deforestation and soil erosion is largely due to the developed world's appetite for palm oil and mahogany furniture. The only culling that makes sense is the complete elimination of the developed world and all of its physical plant.
Can you please clarify what you mean by "your exceptionalism". I am not sure what are you talking about. I do not feel any exceptional personally.

Developed world needs to survive as well, though. Please see above where i wrote about requirement for future mankind to stay much scientific, much technologically advanced, in order to survive the AGW peak. I doubt you'd disagree - it's hardly possible to imagine a bunch of no-tech, hunter-gatherer (or alike) communities to survive unprecedentally high tempratures and breakdown of most ecosystems in their area.

So you see, it's a dilemma. We need to get rid of negative manifestations of developed world ASAP, and usual means (international negotiations, UN, etc etc) - are obviously not enough by far (global CO2 emissions still grow last time i checked - few countries managed to achieve a modest reduction, which is totally overwritten and negligiblied by massively growing emissions of other industrially-developing (or already developed) countries); yet in the same time we _need_ technological civilization to still exist, for the sake of our children and following generations.

To date, i do not see any other solution to this dilemma other than dramatic reduction of populations around the world (both developing and developed countries alike, some 70%...90% reduction). With this technological civilization would still have enough people to maintain it onwards, while negative effects will be greatly reduced.

Obviously, rich class is much against, since any downscaling is a direct and massive hit to their profits. That's why i suspect that if such a depopulation will ever be done, - it'll be done in secret, by relatively small group of specialists, without letting public know about it being done, and probably disquised as something naturally occuring.

Also, keep in mind that _complete_ elimination of the developed world will inevitably bring planetary catastrophe: there are thousands of nuclear reactors in operation (hundreds of which are large commercial power plant reactors), and quite many of them (not all, but many) are constructively unable to contain radioactive matherial inside the reactor itself in the event of long-term absent grid power (their reserve generators are usually diesels, which means they will run out of fuel eventually - even if there will be someone to start them). Grid electricity is the backbone of modern western civilization. If you shut it down completely, then you'll get lots of Europe, North America and Asia contaminated with radiation in a matter of a few months, and nobody can tell which parts exactly - it depends on directions of winds blowing at the time of stations' popping. So you can't really turn off the whole grid; but if you don't, then you can't consider western civilization destroyed, also. Mainly this is about older generations of nuclear power plants (last generation designs all include passive - "on its own", - halt of reaction and indefinite conservation of reactor core in an event of a grid power loss ("dropping down" rods, held in place by electromagnets, above the reactor core - turn off the power, and things drop down into the core simply by gravity, stopping the reaction). Older designs don't have this safety feature, though, and some can't even be stopped, - they just _have to_ complete the full fuel cycle before they can actually be safely deactivated.
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #66 on: July 01, 2014, 10:30:39 AM »
Having said I don't find mere discussion of the idea disgusting, I do want to say I think it far more valuable that we have people doing real things - eg Bruce Steele with his experiments in solar powered farming, Lynn Shwadchuck (and others) with their smaller scale gardening to grow fruit and vegetables (and presumably build local resilience), and so on.

And on that note, I should probably stop participating in the discussion myself.
I disagree (i wish i could agree, but facts are facts...). Thing is, those "real things" you mentioned, and most things of the sort, - are unable to solve AGW. Here's why. People who do those "real things" - are a small fraction of undustrial and/or economic power, and they will remain so. The mainstream economic power of the world does not bother, and will not bother, to join that "real effort" in any significant scale. For a simple reason: lower and/or much longer term profits possible within those "real things" sectors (only monetary, of course - but monetary gain is pretty much everything the mainstream cares about).

And it is the economic mainstream which defines effects and consequences of modern technological civilization, of course.

Imagine yourself being some big investor, some Rotschild-like figure, a guy who considers where he wants to invest few dozens billions dollars "this year". Will he invest most/all of such a big sum into solar powered farming? Into smaller scale gardening? Into anything similar? Nope. He won't, because those activities can't bring as much (monetary) return and to bring it as soon - in compare to activities which produce products of most wide demand. Industrial agriculture is polluting, ugly, environmentally deteriorating and unhealthy for consumers, - but it is so widespread (and still growing) exactly because it can make so much more product per unit of time, it can add much more "extra value" (in monetary terms) than any other agriculture method. That's why it keeps getting lion share of investments, and this won't change as long as industrial agriculture is around (read - as long as there are several billion people on the planet). That's why alternate - cleaner, - means of production will _remain_ alternate, minor, tiny-fraction-of-the-world production sources of food; they will remain to be unable to change the main picture substantially. They are and will be unable to solve overuse/overpopulation problem. They are MOST useful for diversity and survival post-collapse, that's true, and they need all the support they can get. But they won't solve the planetary crisis, not in a global capitalistic system of present days, at least.

In other words, it is most profitable (monetary terms) to do business dirty and in over-exploiting manner, and that's what was done by modern civilization as well as by many civilizations before it, still being done, and will remain being done, as long as private property is allowed. And it has to be allowed, - the other way, Russia tried to go after the revolution of 1917, making private property (and any "ownership", actually) simply prohibited. Turns out, this simply doesn't work (private property was "allowed once again" in the early days of USSR - some time in 1920s, - and since then, USSR becames capitalistic society, - mainly state capitalism, not citizens' capitalism, but still capitalism; and even with that, USSR didn't end well, as you know - it died in 1991, and  its rules and ideology died with it).

A bit of data. During 4 months of 2014 (January to April), international investment report demonstrates ~240 BILLIONS of dollars announced to be spent in just 10 largest merging (if i get it right) investment deals. The table at the top of the page 26 of this document ( http://unctad.org/en/PublicationChapters/wir2014ch1_en.pdf ) - lists companies and industries involved. That's where you spend money if you are really rich people, - pharmaceuticals, communications (Vodaphone etc), car makers (like VW), oil and gas industry, and sometimes heavy machinery (turbines, etc). Because it's the most profitable - it's what most people _need_. Modern pharmaceuticals can treat lots of conditions otherwise uncurable, and are in high demand everywhere; telephones are in wide demand everywhere; cars and vehicles are always needed in large numbers - objective needs of people are a substantial part of the total market demand; oil and gas still powers nearly half of critically important industrial processses (other ~half being coal); heavy machinery is darn cost-efficient in doing economy of scale, thus always profitable.
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #67 on: July 01, 2014, 11:54:07 AM »
... Then, if the population has to be reduced faster than birth control allows, I would consider it most fair to simply lower the food production to a sustainable level and then distribute the food equally on those who work (assuming that most, if not all, work in such a society serves the common good) and perhaps to some extent those who don’t. It would not be fair, but it would be the least unfair because it would ensure natural selection over human selection and I think it would be, as CCGW mentions, more executable than other kinds of depopulation schemes, many of whom would border to barbarism as they are both unjust and unnecessary. 
...
Rubikscube, i agree with most of the rest of your post, but the quoted part, i can't fully agree with. I haev a feeling that you, and quite many of other people here, do not fully realize the circumstances this planet is at, at this time, and consequences of those cicumstances.

This is due to massive and ongoing campaign of disinformation, which is being done in mass media (including internet) by several powerful and involved parties; the one most often named party of the sort - is oil and gas industry (with their lobbyists, "pocket" (aka "pet") scientists, and such). But there are few others, too.

Generally, as far as modern fair and proper science knows, AGW will reach at least +4 degrees celcius above pre-industrial during 21st century, possibly by ~2050 or so. There are relatively simple physical reasons to this:
1. Earth demonstrates amazingly permanent correlation between amount of CO2 and temperature, as evident from ice cores research;
2. Amount of CO2 currently in the athmosphere is corresponding to much higher than +4C above pre-industrial warming;
3. There is a time lag, estimated to be some 30...40 years, between increase of CO2 in the athmosphere and actual realization of more than a half of expected land surface temperature rise, caused by the huge thermal capacity of the world ocean (mainly). As such, present days temperatures correspond to ~1970s athmospheric concentrations, at best, and as such, huge CO2 emissions since 1970s are largely not realized yet in form of the temperature rise, - but in a few decades, most of it will be realized;
4. There is a huge amount of aerosols in the athmosphere presently, causing the effect known as "global dimming", which masks (for many regions of the world) the true extent of the AGW. As long as mankind continues to increase aerosol output (read about air pollution in China to see what i mean, for example), - global dimming will continue to temporarily negate much, or at times, even all, of temperature increase caused by AGW. However, aerosols do not stay in the air for more than several months or few years (unlike CO2, which stays for many centuries, and CH4, which stays for several years). As such, any significant decrease in aerosol output (or stopping it altogether), - will cause a massive jump in temperatures in a matter of very few years. Estimates i've seen in a few papers about this - are some _additional_ +1,8...4,2 degrees C for average world surface temperature (means, even higher jump than that for land surface);
5. Methane content of permafrosts. Hopefully, most people here are aware - annual methane emissions in Arctic are already increasing massively every year, since ~2010, and there is no sign this process wouldn't accelerate further;
6. All the other positive feedback, like dropping albedo positive feedback, higher-temperatures = more_burning_forests = more GHGs = higher temperatures positive feedback, and so on and so forth.

There is, of course, some negative feedbacks in the system, and "shock absorbers", too; the big "shock absorber" is the ocean, with its already mentioned enourmous thermal capacity. The main negative feedback is, of course, the Stefan-Boltzman law (the hotter Earth gets, the more energy it emits into space per second, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law ), which limits possible AGW on Earth to some ~ +15...+20C in very worst circumstance (probably much less than that), because Sun's energy output is practically constant. Still, even +6...+8C of AGW spells disaster to mankind and to the biosphere (given the speed of it - happening within ~1...2 centuries, not during several thousands of years and on a lower scale, which was the case with glacial periods), as far as i know; and +3...+4C is said to be the amount which triggers several massive additional positive feedbacks, thus initiating further warming to some +6C or higher above preindustrial.

In those circumstances, CO2 content remains very important "catalyst". Generally, the higher it is, the faster and further AGW will end up going. Nowadays, we add ~3 ppm of CO2 to the athmosphere (i mean the mankind). A single decade is +30ppm or so. This is very substantial.

I've already mentioned that non-destructive attempts to reverse the trend - proved to be unsuccessful. Kyoto, IPCC, all the UN activities, individual countries (rather humble) achievement in reducing CO2, - all those didn't even slow the trend of rising CO2, least stopped it. While in reality, mankind needs to reduce CO2 emissions extremely very fast as a very minimum measure (in fact, to exclude risk of planetary-scale catastrohpe, CO2 levels in the athmosphere needs to be reduced - an equivalent to "negative" CO2 emissions: instead of releasing 30+ gigatons of carbon in CO2 form into the athmosphere every year, to be truly safe, mankind needs to _capture_ dozens of gigatons of CO2 from the athmosphere. Right now, we're at 400 ppm, while historical normal is ~280 ppm, and long-term safe limit, by all means, can't be higher than 350 ppm. Adding CO2 into the oxygen-rich athmosphere - is a process with _generates_ energy, and tremendous amounts of it, too; removing CO2 from oxygen-rich athmosphere - is the opposite: it requires energy, and even much more energy than we get by burning carbon (since there are losses in both processes). I've paid special attention to CO2-removal technologies - they exist, the most promising one is high-tech bio technology, based on tiny green aquatic plants in a controlled environement - large transparent tubes, - under the sun; then there is CO2 capture and storage, and few others; still, none of those promise any chance of any large-scale implementtion, for various reasons such as resource limits, poor investment viability (if any), dangers of catastrophic release of vast masses of stored CO2, too high energy requirements, etc). Therefore, the real choice mankind has, imho, is this: either sit idle and go business as usual, emitting even much more CO2 from fossils than was emitted up to date, total, and use technology and remaining resources to keep prolonging its existance on a short-term basis, - the end result being a planet seriously uninhabitable by humans, except very few high-elevation continental areas (cold enough and far-from-oceans enough to not have regular cataclismic weather events, and elevated high enough to stay above vast majority of various pollutants global civilization will leave behind, including radioactive ones); or, do the forced depopulation soon, reducing its numbers to 0,5...2 billions, and then do its best to mitigate effects of (eventually much weaker than in the 1st case) AGW. The former scenario will result in nearly dead planet by 2100. The latter scenario gives some chances to keep much of Earth alive (in terms of other species, as well as humans, that is).

The time here is of the essense, though. Given current athmospheric GHGs content, aerosols content, Arctic situation, and resource consumption levels, if the massive forced depopulation won't be done within next 10...15 years, - then there won't be much left for global civilization (whatever it'd be) to work with. Mitigating AGW requires large industrial power sustained for centuries (for at least 4 centuries as far as i can tell), and this requires substantial reserves of resources left. Won't be the case if 7+ billions world will keep doing business as usual for 3+ decades.

And this was only about CO2 and a bit about CH4, only. There are in fact other problems of fundamentally important nature ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries is a good start), and some of those problems are already beyond critical. Others are close to critical, and worsening. Any much more of "business as usual", and we can kiss even faint hope of "barely inhabitable" Earth goodbye: it'll really go berserk on us after a few decades (thermal lag is not the only lag - ecosystems have their own substantial reserve of resilience, which, once exhausted, leads to very ugly things, like insects multiplying dramatically and eating pretty much all green plants in a region during a single season, bugs destroying forests, widespread epidemies of humans and/or animals and/or plants - yep, green plants have their own epidemies if things go much wrong, etc). Because the current situation is created by merely some ~50 years of most intense usage of Earth by mankind; few more decades like that, and we'll kill her for good.

That's why there is NO TIME for any methods which do not involve killing humans. Simply allowing everyone alive to live - is a death sentense to Earth (and quite likely, to human species as a whole).

This is a very, very unpleasant truth. We are in a desperate situation. But pretending this is not the case - is one of most DISQUSTING behaviours possible for a sentient being, in my humble opinion. Not knowing about it - is understandable, which this post hopefully helps to address. Honestly, i'd never ever start this topic if there could be any much hope for "soft" - i.e., without killing, - depopulation methods to suffice. But afaik, there is not.


Still, the question is: is it barbaric more than it's nesessary, or is it more nesessary (to save much life - human and non-human, - on most of land surface of Earth, and life in oceans) than barbaric? I am genuinely interested in the answer, and i am unable to find the answer myself with certainty. My personal _guess_ is that it's more nesessary than barbaric; but, of course, being only a guess, i am ready for it to end up being wrong.

P.S. I would be most grateful if anybody could convincingly demonstrate that i am wrong, - with facts in hand.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 12:46:48 PM by F.Tnioli »
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #68 on: July 01, 2014, 12:25:44 PM »
I am afraid you may be right...but I won't do and agree with something like that if only a bunch of scientist and well informed people are aware of the situation. For that we need education, at least 80% of the population must realize where we are and also we should try some other methods to absorb the CO2 or at least try. Very few has been done yet...I think with 480 ppm of CO2eq we are in for 6°c...so let's educate people around us...Even that will be hard, I met some people in charge of preserving the wild life in Limousin (France) and they still think the climate change will happened in thousands of years...

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #69 on: July 01, 2014, 01:07:49 PM »
Don't count on educating masses. Corporate world and state power are both critically dependant on "proper" brain washing in order to continue functioning. Result being, majority of population in "developed" countries, - are indoctrinated. It is hard not to be, when vast majority of TV programs, internet sites, one's own peers, advertisement and school education - are all telling you how cool and proper and OK things are, you know. To win minds of most people, you'd need to break this indoctrination, this "consumer and obedient citizen" constant mind washing.

Which you and me and few others like us can't do. Let's be honest, we'd be going against a huge system, powered by work and product of billions of people (nowadays it's quite global) - and the system wouldn't sit idly and watch as we "convert" people to our "faith" (even if we could find a way to do so on any large scale) - nope, the system would fight back. That's why we can discuss things here, on a forum quite few people visit, without doing any mass-media ads and such; we here are small enough not to be a substantial theat. If this changes, this website will most likely be destroyed. This has happened before, - i've been participating in "theenvironmentsite.org" (iirc), which had quite very honest and open forum, where everyone had a say; sadly, owners went much public about it, trying to bring attention of large number of people to it. After a few months of hacker attacks, old theenvironmentsite.org simply died. It wasn't there for quite a large time, all of its contents (including the forum).

And don't forget, while cyberwarfare of nation states is quite known and established ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare , etc), - most of top-100 trans-national corporations have their own cyberwarfare forces which are way, way less known - yet often even more powerful than states' ones. I do not see a way to defeat all those rich people's troops in terms of "educating people". If you do, then please let me know how.

edit: oh, and it's also about people's psychology. Most folks around simply are unable to accept real bad news; psychological block. Some of most important videos about AGW and global dimming and pollution and resource exhaustion - barely have few thousands views, yet in the same time, PSY's "Gangnam Style" has 2 BILLIONS of views already ( ), and counting. If you take, say, a hundred people who actually know that AGW is important, and give them this link to PSY's song and another link to, say, similar-length AGW-related video - something like this one - which one you think most people will watch 1st, and which one they'll watch repeatedly? As you can see, this Paul Ehrlich video is there for 4+ years already, and it still doesn't have even 10k views. Despite the fact that in this video, he says quite very important things, obviously.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 01:30:16 PM by F.Tnioli »
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #70 on: July 01, 2014, 01:19:51 PM »
I am thinking of "advertising" climate change in front of my house so anyone passing by (few) will see. Internet is cool for information, but the action must be locally...I'll post a photo when ready.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7751
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1128
  • Likes Given: 512
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #71 on: July 01, 2014, 01:24:58 PM »
Simply allowing everyone alive to live - is a death sentense to Earth (and quite likely, to human species as a whole).

What is that faint laughing I hear in the background? Must be the Earth.

For me, killing people (by whatever method) as a solution to AGW amounts to the same as billions of people dying because of AGW. It's exactly the same thing. And so it's better to not kill billions of people - as desperate as things may seem (we don't know for sure, they seem desperate) - because something might come up that changes things. We can't predict the future.

And if not, then human civilisation collapses, perhaps the human species goes extinct. So effing what? Either our species evolves beyond its limitations, or it doesn't. The depopulation you propose, F. Tnioli, guarantees that it won't. So might as well go extinct.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #72 on: July 01, 2014, 02:00:35 PM »
Simply allowing everyone alive to live - is a death sentense to Earth (and quite likely, to human species as a whole).

What is that faint laughing I hear in the background? Must be the Earth.

For me, killing people (by whatever method) as a solution to AGW amounts to the same as billions of people dying because of AGW. It's exactly the same thing. And so it's better to not kill billions of people - as desperate as things may seem (we don't know for sure, they seem desperate) - because something might come up that changes things. We can't predict the future.

And if not, then human civilisation collapses, perhaps the human species goes extinct. So effing what? Either our species evolves beyond its limitations, or it doesn't. The depopulation you propose, F. Tnioli, guarantees that it won't. So might as well go extinct.
I disagree it's the same thing. I made arguments earlier in the topic which demonstrate why it's not the same. Since you do not make effort to address those arguments, i see no need to make effort and repeat them.

I agree that we do not _know_ the future. I said that in the 1st page myself. Still, it's not that we'll get a second chance if we'd make a wrong decision here. Rationality distaces to act based on most likely future - even when it's not precisely known one (which it can't be, yes).

I disagree with "so effing what". Your parents, their parents, all our ancestors - did quite an effort to stay alive and keep our species going. If you do not respect their effort, - your problem; people without the past don't have a future. But i respect my past. If only for them, it matters to me if humans would go extinct, or not. Not to mention unique potential our species have about interstellar travel (some distant day). No other species on Earth are capable of that even potentially. It'd be a shame if we'd go extinct - more shame than any other species on this planet. Because i respect life, and we humans have this distant chance of spreading it to other stars. Call it a dream, if you want; it's a dream i like, and i'd do much for it to be realized some day.

Evolution is not a panacea. It's blind. Species come and go. We are sapient, and we can do better than evolution can, if we really try. This includes work on ourselves. A tiny part of such work - is this topic.

Depopulation i _consider_ (not "propose"), - does not guarantee that humans won't develop beyond their natural limitations. Excuse me, but for vast majority of recorded history, human population of Earth was below 1 billion, yet this in no way prevented development of human species (modern man is definitely more developed even in biologic terms than our pre-historic caveman ancestors, easily confirmed by archeological research on subject). Since ~shumers, human culture, sciences and art developed incredibly - most of it during times when Earth had less than 1 billions humans alive at any given time.

It seems to me that you have some agenda here, and/or that psychological block which prevents quite many people from agreeing with bad news and unpleasant perspectives, Neven. It is your own business, and i should only mind my own, as you'd probably point out. And it is. Just note, please, that i do understand that your expressed opinion may well be not your fault at all - not _any_ fault, in fact (despite being, imho, wrong). In any case, i am ready to respectfully agree to disagree, if you're OK about it.

Sir.
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

Laurent

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2537
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 35

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #74 on: July 01, 2014, 02:13:10 PM »
I am thinking of "advertising" climate change in front of my house so anyone passing by (few) will see. Internet is cool for information, but the action must be locally...I'll post a photo when ready.
Noble intent. But be warned: quite likely, this would result in quite a "nuts!" reputation for you in the local community, and/or some degree of ostracism. I bet this perspective wouldn't stop you, - but it helps to be ready for such... inconviniences.

The action must be at least regional, imho (under "regional", i mean "larger than local, but lesser than state's") for any substantial hope to see some communities being able to survive through and beyond AGW's thermal maximum, imho.
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #75 on: July 01, 2014, 02:15:11 PM »
Can you please clarify what you mean by "your exceptionalism". I am not sure what are you talking about. I do not feel any exceptional personally.

You know exactly what I mean. My previous posts addressed this issue. The western developed world thinks its exceptional.  It thinks its gifts to humanity are unparalleled. There is nothing exceptional about the western developed world, nothing save one thing. We have created a system that is devouring the planet and we are the ones devouring it. I suspect you are a citizen of one of these western nations. When we ran into developed cultures (China, Japan) that resisted embracing ours, we forced it on them at the point of a bayonet. We sent troops and warships to force these countries to open up their borders and allow us to exploit them. When we encountered weak nations, we simply invaded and overran them, stealing their resources. We now treat any country that would be so insolent as to resist our domination as dangerous enemies and we attack and kill their people with abandon.

You argue for a nondiscriminatory culling of the human race which is bullshit. The developed world is a plague. The culling needs to be decidedly non random. The problem, this cancer on the planet, needs to be eliminated. For the benefit of humanity and the future of the planet, the western world needs to voluntarily be culled. Culling 1 billion, perhaps 2 billion people in the developed world will eliminate 90% of CO2 emissions and this greedy system that is devouring all of the planets resources. I know you are a bright person, you know this is true.

You resist, all of the western world resists the fact that we are the problem, the reason the planet is dying. When you have a problem, any problem, you need to attack the root cause. The root cause is this growth system and this system is ours and we refuse to give it up. Nations, western nations refuse and their citizens refuse.

Whenever I bring this topic up or others like it, replies always make sure I understand I am no better than the rest of the western world, that I am, despite my high sounding writing, a part of the problem as well.  I understand this. My CO2 footprint is untenable. If we are talking about culling, I and my children need to be included in this.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 02:32:21 PM by Shared Humanity »

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #76 on: July 01, 2014, 02:22:33 PM »
Seven good reasons to be an apocaloptimist
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/01/seven-good-reasons-to-be-an-apocaloptimist
Not bad in general. #6 it not entirely correct though - at very least. We do know pretty well that there were at least five (not one or two - five) great extinctions in the past of Earth, when more than a quarter of all species disappeared during relatively short time (nearly instantly in geological terms). Presently ongoing, unprecedentally fast 6th great extinction is, therefore, a known deal in at least some regards. And no, we can't "solve" it. Few species, we may be will be able to restore, with great effort and high-tech genetics. But whole biomes, whole continents of life, with millions of microscopic species long gone? Nope. It won't happen. Basically, nearly every species we lose nowadays, - is gone for good for at least thousands of years into the future, if not forever (genetic information deteriorates over time even in most well-preserved bodies, and becomes unreadable after some few dozens thousands years, if memory serves).

Still, not bad for a start to developing a worthy attitude towards current situation, yes. Thanks for posting!
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7751
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1128
  • Likes Given: 512
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #77 on: July 01, 2014, 02:24:33 PM »
Quote
It seems to me that you have some agenda here, and/or that psychological block which prevents quite many people from agreeing with bad news and unpleasant perspectives, Neven.

If we're going to speculate about why others do what they do (all in good jest, of course, I don't feel offended): Could it be that you are subconsciously so afraid of death that you identify with the entire human species, and that's why it has to be saved at all costs?

If the human species is not good enough, it dies out. Simple. And no forced depopulation can prevent that.

If the human species is good enough, it should also be able to manage without forced depopulation.

Quote
I disagree with "so effing what". Your parents, their parents, all our ancestors - did quite an effort to stay alive and keep our species going.

But they didn't do that for the species. They did it because they wanted to get laid.  ;)

I don't care about the past. The past is what has conditioned me. My conditioning is the problem.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #78 on: July 01, 2014, 02:38:57 PM »
Can you please clarify what you mean by "your exceptionalism". I am not sure what are you talking about. I do not feel any exceptional personally.

You know exactly what I mean. My previous posts addressed this issue. The western developed world thinks its exceptional.  It thinks its gifts to humanity are unparalleled. There is nothing exceptional about the western developed world, nothing save one thing. We have created a system that is devouring the planet and we are the ones devouring it. I suspect you are a citizen of one of these western nations. When we ran into developed cultures (China, Japan) that resisted embracing ours, we forced it on them at the point of a bayonet. We sent troops and warships to force these countries to open up their borders and allow us to exploit them. When we encountered weak nations, we simply invaded and overran them, stealing their resources. We now treat any country that would be so insolent as to resist our domination as dangerous enemies and we attack and kill their people with abandon.

You argue for a nondiscriminatory culling of the human race which is bullshit. The developed world is a plague. The culling needs to be decidedly non random. The problem, this cancer on the planet, needs to be eliminated. For the benefit of humanity and the future of the planet, the western world needs to voluntarily be culled. Culling 1 billion, perhaps 2 billion people in the developed world will eliminate 90% of CO2 emissions and this greedy system that is devouring all of the planets resources. I know you are a bright person, you know this is true.

You resist, all of the western world resists the fact that we are the problem, the reason the planet is dying.

Whenever I bring this topic up or others like it, replies always make sure I understand I am no better than the rest of the western world, that I am also, despite my high sounding writing are a part of the problem as well.  I understand this. My CO2 footprint is untenable. If we are talking about culling, I need to be included in this.
Your suspicion about me being a citizen of a western nation - is incorrect. I am a citizen of Russian Federation, formerly a citizen of Soviet Union, and i never had any other citizenship. I never lived outside of USSR territory, too. I probably mentioned that i am a russian somewhere in this forum in the past, possibly a few times. If not, i definitely mentioned that in the past in some other places in the internet.

You see lots of flith of western culture, and yes, it's there. But it's not the only thing there. There are amazing mathematicians, scientists, great artists and genius engineers abundant in western culture. mr. Einstein, mr. Newton, mr. Plank, mr. Watt, mr. Nash, mr. Michelangelo - i'm sure you can continue with dozens of great names most of which we all know. Truth is, there are thousands similarly great folks whos efforts just didn't happen to be so much popularized, - but were no smaller. You want to kill all of that too (i mean, entirely, as a part of western civilization which you'd eliminate as a whole)? I don't.

You also see some nice features of eastern civilizations. Yes, those exist. Nice calligraphy, too. However, they have lots of their own filth, too. Those folks are quite cruel, if you didn't know. Throwing their old off a cliff was a normal practice in some parts of old-style east. Even today, inflicting major pain to animals for a very, very long time in order to get a profit - is an "OK" practice for most of folks there (google for "china bile bears", for example). And they eat dogs (OK, not all of them, but some certainly do), too. Reading some history about "deeds" of old asian empires - makes one's hair stand, so cruel they were.

Oh, and by the way, China is presently emitting lots of CO2, iirc more than 10% of global output, alone. Yes, much (most?) of it - to make products for western markets. Destroy western markets, and it'd be reduced somewhat, yes, - but don't you doubt. chinese people will happily find new markets for their products, keeping most of industries going, and most of CO2 output continuing. A little (or not so little) drop in prices (and worker wages), and whole thing will go on without USA nor western Europe present, i am sure.

Have no more time today; and going to vacation soon. I leave this topic at your mercy, gentlemen. Please don't make it a total mess, ok?
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7751
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1128
  • Likes Given: 512
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #79 on: July 01, 2014, 02:46:28 PM »
Have no more time today; and going to vacation soon. I leave this topic at your mercy, gentlemen. Please don't make it a total mess, ok?

We won't, don't worry.  :)
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #80 on: July 01, 2014, 02:49:35 PM »
Quote
It seems to me that you have some agenda here, and/or that psychological block which prevents quite many people from agreeing with bad news and unpleasant perspectives, Neven.

If we're going to speculate about why others do what they do (all in good jest, of course, I don't feel offended): Could it be that you are subconsciously so afraid of death that you identify with the entire human species, and that's why it has to be saved at all costs?

If the human species is not good enough, it dies out. Simple. And no forced depopulation can prevent that.

If the human species is good enough, it should also be able to manage without forced depopulation.

Quote
I disagree with "so effing what". Your parents, their parents, all our ancestors - did quite an effort to stay alive and keep our species going.

But they didn't do that for the species. They did it because they wanted to get laid.  ;)

I don't care about the past. The past is what has conditioned me. My conditioning is the problem.
Subconsiously, - not likely. I've seen death "in the face", it's not that scary. The condition i developed in some point of my life has ~70% mortality rate. Was long ago, though - obviously, i survived, against odds. Still. Besides, as mentioned above, i'm rather ready to die, personally. In fact, it opens quite a new dimension of freedom, such a readiness. It's quite a pleasant feeling to say "naaah, i don't care, kill me if you want" whenever you are threatened, you know. And to say it honestly (somehow, people really feel it when one really doesn't care). It unties one's hands, if you know what i mean.

Your primitive logic about "if we're good enough" - is easily demonstrable to be incorrect, Neven. Because survival depends on other factors as well as on how good species are. If you drop a few horses into a lake which is located on some distant island which never had any horses - will they survive? They swim well enough to reach a shore. So your answer is "yes"? Well, bad luck, 'cause that particular lake, i've put few hundreds of crocodiles into few days prior, and they grew rather hungry.

See, it's not only how good we are; it's how deep in s#$t we are as a result of a very unique and particular path of development modern global technological civilization happened to take. This includes present number of humans alive and many other problems (yet few of those other problems are as serious as the overpopulation thing).

Evolutionary theory describes it very well: called "overshoot". Seems to be inherent property of ANY species in certain circumstances. Doesn't tell anything about how good/bad any species are "made".

Say, you're an interesting person, Neven. Perhaps we'll talk more in PMs some day. Some of your words, i didn't really udnerstand, and it doesn't seem much like you were trying to be cryptic on purpose. Anyhows, later!
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7751
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1128
  • Likes Given: 512
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #81 on: July 01, 2014, 02:59:22 PM »

Your primitive logic about "if we're good enough" - is easily demonstrable to be incorrect, Neven. Because survival depends on other factors as well as on how good species are. If you drop a few horses into a lake which is located on some distant island which never had any horses - will they survive? They swim well enough to reach a shore. So your answer is "yes"? Well, bad luck, 'cause that particular lake, i've put few hundreds of crocodiles into few days prior, and they grew rather hungry.

Maybe a forced depopulation of the horses will increase the chances of the few remaining of reaching the shore?  ;D

Quote
Say, you're an interesting person, Neven. Perhaps we'll talk more in PMs some day. Some of your words, i didn't really udnerstand, and it doesn't seem much like you were trying to be cryptic on purpose. Anyhows, later!

No, I'm not being cryptic on purpose. I'm just a bit obtuse. Have a nice holiday, beware of crocodiles.

Seven good reasons to be an apocaloptimist
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/01/seven-good-reasons-to-be-an-apocaloptimist

Very nice, Laurent, thanks for sharing. I'm definitely an apocaloptimist, which is why I bought Andrew Simms' book a few weeks back. All I need now is time to read it.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

F.Tnioli

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 148
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #82 on: July 01, 2014, 03:06:58 PM »
....
Maybe a forced depopulation of the horses will increase the chances of the few remaining of reaching the shore?  ;D
...
Was just an example to demonstrate your logic wrong. But if you want to extend the example to our real situation - no problem. Thing is, we are not horses - we are crocodiles-like, but worse. Crocodiles are unable to destroy biota as well as we can (and do). Yet, just like crocodiles, we are totally dependant on biota for any long-term survival. Do the math, and let me go already, you bad boy. :D
To everyone: before posting in a melting season topic, please be sure to know contents of this moderator's post: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3017.msg261893.html#msg261893 . Thanks!

Lynn Shwadchuck

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #83 on: July 01, 2014, 03:17:55 PM »
Thanks, Laurent, for alerting me to Andrew Simms. He articulates exactly the psychology of my position, which until now I thought was sort of hypocritical. Maybe make it a new thread?

"Being positive about the possibility of overcoming seemingly insuperable odds has history on its side: abolition, suffrage, civil rights, ozone depletion, universal healthcare (surprises are everywhere, in spite of all you read to the contrary. For example, the NHS is, objectively, the world’s best health system). And, regardless, you really never know how big, complex problems are going to work out."

And now I'm going to unfollow this topic.
Still living in the bush in eastern Ontario. Gave up on growing annual veggies. Too much drought.

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 474
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #84 on: July 01, 2014, 06:22:25 PM »
Quote from: ccgwebmaster on June 30, 2014, 06:57:51 PM
Having said I don't find mere discussion of the idea disgusting, I do want to say I think it far more valuable that we have people doing real things - eg Bruce Steele with his experiments in solar powered farming, Lynn Shwadchuck (and others) with their smaller scale gardening to grow fruit and vegetables (and presumably build local resilience), and so on.

And on that note, I should probably stop participating in the discussion myself.
F.Tynioli
"I disagree (i wish i could agree, but facts are facts...). Thing is, those "real things" you mentioned, and most things of the sort, - are unable to solve AGW. Here's why. People who do those "real things" - are a small fraction of undustrial and/or economic power, and they will remain so. The mainstream economic power of the world does not bother, and will not bother, to join that "real effort" in any significant scale. For a simple reason: lower and/or much longer term profits possible within those "real things" sectors (only monetary, of course - but monetary gain is pretty much everything the mainstream cares about). "
 It bothers me that we can't feed ourselves without large doses of ff. Even if there were many fewer of us we still couldn't feed ourselves without ff. So efforts to address our dependence on oil and it's vast potential to do harm should IMO start with figuring out how to live without the stuff.  I think of zero carbon farming as a " going for the brass ring " kind of project. I have no illusions about saving civilization but feeding ourselves is important with or without modern civilization. If there is to be a floor to our descent . That is I think human population will begin to shrink and JimD's idea about 30-50 timeframe seems about right. Food is in my opinion what will be a problem as temperature and fossil fuel cost rise. I have my little soapbox and it's not so tall I can't crawl up on it . People do tend to listen more carefully when your personal response to this impending disaster matches somehow the fear that goes along with the subject. This subject is very scary.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Forced depopulation: solution or barbarism?
« Reply #85 on: July 02, 2014, 03:52:16 PM »
So,  now that I have argued that any culling must be made to eliminate the root cause of our problem which is the western developed world, I am done with this conversation as I do not believe culling is the answer, rationally, ethically or practically. I am done with the conversation. It is still a waste of time.