Author Topic: How to live more environmentally friendly, from a scientific point of view?  (Read 2658 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7148
(click to show/hide)

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
- Margaret Mead

You mean


All this fetishizing of the French Revolution seems ignorant of the actual history. It was a failed revolution that only succeeded in replacing one oppressive regime with another.

Nice mansplaining there, we obviously have no idea about the French Revolution and  forcefully inserting your intellectual superiority into the conversation is always the best possible response to a joke.

If I may ask, how does mansplaining enter into it?

It's wholly inappropriate.

I can only assume that Rai tossed out a word like "mansplaining" because he derives a warm glow of self-righteousness from projecting bigotry onto those who challenge his opinions .
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 04:27:52 PM by John Albert »

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5037
Vasectomy, home grown food, recycling/upcycling, and minimising air travel.

"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3097
I agree with the rest, but home grown food isn't necessarily better, if you still have to transport things like fertilizer and soil, and depending on how efficiently you're using the land.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12480
Vasectomy, home grown food, recycling/upcycling, and minimising air travel.
Those things could survive  in some places after the GWA (Global Warming Apocalypse) but they do nothing to stop it.


Except the vasectomy thing. We may need kids again one day
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline AllanGuldager

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 33
I eat less meat and do not buy organic (unless it's a better product overall, ie if the best brand of fresh pasta or ice cream is organic, I will buy those), but I have also just bought a car...which I will try only to use when necessary.

I do believe it helps doing something and talk about, because it will make people more aware,and perhaps they will vote for parties with a green agenda.

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3097
Except the vasectomy thing. We may need kids again one day

We need some reproduction, but we don't need nearly as much reproduction as there is now, so we could have a lot of success with people opting out of reproduction before we need to start worrying if we're going too far with it.

The pre-Black Death population was estimated to be 450 million, and people were doing better after the plauge than they were before for having land and resources freed up.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12480
Except the vasectomy thing. We may need kids again one day

We need some reproduction, but we don't need nearly as much reproduction as there is now, so we could have a lot of success with people opting out of reproduction before we need to start worrying if we're going too far with it.

The pre-Black Death population was estimated to be 450 million, and people were doing better after the plauge than they were before for having land and resources freed up.

Post apocalyptic event we may need as many pregnancies and children as we can bear, if the species is to survive.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3097
Only if we drop down to a thousandth or less of current numbers, and that point the suffering that we're trying to avoid by preventing the destruction of human civilization has already happened.

I don't really care about the survival of the species, it's about quality of life. Some of the rats might make it, they're close enough to humans if replicating DNA is what it's about.

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10838
Even if the majority of men got vasectomies, we could still rebound our numbers in a generation—with the proper breeding techniques, and a ratio of ten females to each male.

Offline Zelda McMuffin

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 30
This conversation is getting creepily Strangelovian.


Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12480
This conversation is getting creepily Strangelovian.

Now you're talking
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2458
Except the vasectomy thing. We may need kids again one day

We need some reproduction, but we don't need nearly as much reproduction as there is now, so we could have a lot of success with people opting out of reproduction before we need to start worrying if we're going too far with it.

The pre-Black Death population was estimated to be 450 million, and people were doing better after the plauge than they were before for having land and resources freed up.

Perhaps there isn’t enough reproduction currently?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

The important number is the replacement fertility rate (the average number of children each woman has in her lifetime), which is 2.1.  Anything less, and the total population of a country will inevitably decrease (it might increase in the short term owing to the particular age distribution if there are a disproportionate number of the young who haven’t had their children yet).

For most developed countries, the total fertility rate is significantly below 2.1, and they’re only maintaining or increasing their populations as a result of immigration, which is taking population from elsewhere.

The global total fertility rate is estimated to be 2.42, skewed by the very high rates in developing countries (I won’t use Donald Trump’s word describing these countries), which would be expected to cause an increasing global population, provided it's not balanced by increased mortality, particularly childhood mortality.

But the point is is that reducing the fertility rate in the countries containing the readers of this forum isn’t really necessary for protection of the environment.  It’s the level of consumption that’s the problem.

By the way, the Black Death might have been one of the factors leading to the Little Ice Age.  Depopulation, and reversion of much poor agricultural land to forests, might have drawn down so much atmospheric CO2 that it caused global cooling.  I recently visited Amsterdam in summer and I froze.  Imagining Holland during the Little Ice Age made me wonder whether they conquered the Dutch East Indies in order to escape the frigid conditions.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline 2397

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3097
Perhaps there isn’t enough reproduction currently?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate

The important number is the replacement fertility rate (the average number of children each woman has in her lifetime), which is 2.1.  Anything less, and the total population of a country will inevitably decrease (it might increase in the short term owing to the particular age distribution if there are a disproportionate number of the young who haven’t had their children yet).

For most developed countries, the total fertility rate is significantly below 2.1, and they’re only maintaining or increasing their populations as a result of immigration, which is taking population from elsewhere.

The populations should be decreasing, that's the point. Replacement fertility is too high, without dramatic cuts in other ways. We've had a global population increase for nearly 700 years, we can stop now, and then some. If we don't, we'll barely last another 100.

Quote
The global total fertility rate is estimated to be 2.42, skewed by the very high rates in developing countries (I won’t use Donald Trump’s word describing these countries), which would be expected to cause an increasing global population, provided it's not balanced by increased mortality, particularly childhood mortality.

But the point is is that reducing the fertility rate in the countries containing the readers of this forum isn’t really necessary for protection of the environment.  It’s the level of consumption that’s the problem.

Population is consumption. You can either half your per capita consumption or half your population, for the same result.

It's better to reduce births by 1 in a high consumption country than reducing them by 1 in a low consumption country. But it should be easier to reduce the birth numbers by a lot more in a country with a currently much higher fertility rate, which would help reduce immigration to countries where they would've ended up having that higher consumption. Although they also probably deserve to have a higher standard of living in their own countries, which is difficult to achieve without increasing consumption and emissions. So the less reproduction they have, the better.

Quote
By the way, the Black Death might have been one of the factors leading to the Little Ice Age.  Depopulation, and reversion of much poor agricultural land to forests, might have drawn down so much atmospheric CO2 that it caused global cooling.  I recently visited Amsterdam in summer and I froze.  Imagining Holland during the Little Ice Age made me wonder whether they conquered the Dutch East Indies in order to escape the frigid conditions.

If we had a Little Ice Age now, we'd be back to the pre-industrial average. So that should be exactly what we want. Except volcanic eruptions and a deep solar minimum could've been the bigger factors, which would be quite temporary, and acidification would continue to be a problem if the reduced temperature is from reduced solar radation.

200 years after the Black Death the population had recovered. And then in 200 years, we grew from 1 billion to 7, then to 8 billion in about 20 more years, and we're still set to continue to grow after that. It's ridiculous. There's no point to creating so many humans, it doesn't make anything we're trying to do easier to accomplish. Other than for the wealthy elite to exploit the struggling masses.

As long as there are still poor people in the world, we have plenty of people who could be out of poverty and into education and skilled labor. Meanwhile, technology continues to advance and we continue to be able to do more with less human input.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 05:04:32 AM by 2397 »

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5037
I agree with the rest, but home grown food isn't necessarily better, if you still have to transport things like fertilizer and soil, and depending on how efficiently you're using the land.

Nearly all inputs here are from the sun and rain for the last three decades (we do apply some minerals when required).  We never apply any soluble N,P or K.  I guess there is a bit of electrical power (for the fences) and diesel to get us out to the hills for recreation.

Wilson (as I recall) thought about 500 million people are a sustainable population at a developed level.  Probably need more than vasectomies to get to that level.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7148
Nearly all inputs here are from the sun and rain for the last three decades (we do apply some minerals when required).  We never apply any soluble N,P or K.  I guess there is a bit of electrical power (for the fences) and diesel to get us out to the hills for recreation.

This is all based on the assumption that your own personal lifestyle is the epitome of environmental responsibility.

In reality, rural New Zealand is a pretty remote place and the world is very big and diverse. Any global solution would have to be diverse, and not everybody can (or wants to) live the same way that you do.

 

personate-rain