Human extinction ... The Global Footprint Network estimates that current activity uses resources twice as fast as they can be naturally replenished

Squire

Active member
Is the human race doomed by multiple causes including AGW climate change and the sixth extinction of animal and insect life.

Surely the eventual scarcity of resources from overuse will lead to massive conflicts and global war.

Don't worry, the Australian Open tennis is coming up in January and that will take your mind off it if beer doesn't do the job.

Perhaps Covid19 was natures way of adjusting the earth's population and stopping Covid19 is unnatural.

Don't worry. Be happy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_extinction

... Overpopulation: The Global Footprint Network estimates that current activity uses resources twice as fast as they can be naturally replenished, and that growing human population and increased consumption pose the risk of resource depletion and a concomitant population crash.[21] Evidence suggests birth rates may be rising in the 21st century in the developed world.[22] Projections vary; researcher Hans Rosling has projected population growth to start to plateau around 11 billion, and then to slowly grow or possibly even shrink thereafter.[23] A 2014 study published in Science asserts that the human population will grow to around 11 billion by 2100 and that growth will continue into the next century.[24]
Population decline through a preference for fewer children.[25] If developing world demographics are assumed to become developed world demographics, and if the latter are extrapolated, some projections suggest an extinction before the year 3000. John A. Leslie estimates that if the reproduction rate drops to the German or Japanese level the extinction date will be 2400.[a] However, some models suggest the demographic transition may reverse itself due to evolutionary biology. ...
 

DonDeeHippy

Active member
If developing world demographics are assumed to become developed world demographics, and if the latter are extrapolated, some projections suggest an extinction before the year 3000. John A. Leslie estimates that if the reproduction rate drops to the German or Japanese level the extinction date will be 2400.[a] However, some models suggest the demographic transition may reverse itself due to evolutionary biology. ...

So they really have no idea.........
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
If first world countries had decent foreign aid some countries would be at a standard family sizes would shrink and that is good. Neoliberalism has killed that.

But I have hope. Wailing we are gunna die is not something I am into. If I was I would never have rescued my first business after the departure of my business partner.

Economics, of power, of EVs over FF vehicles etc will drive the move that will see us avert disaster.

We here can do our little bit: read and pass on information e.g. about plastics and change our way to reduce harmful products/practises.
 

MilesAway

Bongalong
Market forces aren't completely free to move: the more government intervention into the market place there is the more difficult it becomes to take it away.

Seeing that governments are designed to work slowly means that heavily intervened markets will work slowly.

Planting a million trees can't solve this: it's government intervention that shapes the market place!
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
Need to plant a trillion trees. And stop deforestation here, Indonesia and Amazon! That won’t happen. Plant some trees!
 

Squire

Active member
Need to plant a trillion trees. And stop deforestation here, Indonesia and Amazon! That won’t happen. Plant some trees!
It is not enough.

It would take a trillion trees plus a 90% reduction in energy consumption.

There is an argument that trees in plantations are not as efficient at CO2 sequestration as natural forest possibly because trees in natural forests communicate with each other.
 
Last edited:

Squire

Active member
It is not enough.

It would take a trillion trees plus a 90% reduction in energy consumption.

There is an argument that trees in plantations are not as efficient at CO2 sequestration as natural forest possibly because trees in natural forests communicate with each other.

"A memorable book written by a German forester called The Hidden Life of Trees makes a strong case that trees growing naturally in a native forest communicate with one another, offer help to individuals that are struggling, and warn their neighbors about predators. Plantations, on the other hand, appear to be much less robust, communicative, and, as the Stanford researchers found, efficient at sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikko...trillion-trees-is-not-enough/?sh=623fb3d82747

One Trillion Trees Is Not Enough
Erik Kobayashi-Solomon

In January of this year – precisely one Covid-19 lifetime ago – I wrote about the power of trees to sequester carbon in my article entitled, The Premier Technology For Sequestering Carbon.

This train of thought led me to learn more about the carbon credit market and innovative firms like Pachama – a YCombinator-supported venture applying AI algorithms to satellite imagery of forests to estimate carbon sequestration – Bluesource – the largest carbon credit developer in the U.S. – and South Pole – a Swiss firm that develops carbon credit projects internationally.

I was originally drawn to the ideas of trees as cheap and easy-to-implement carbon sequestration tools by the work of Thomas Crowther and colleagues at ETH Zurich. The Swiss researchers published a paper estimating that planting 1.2 trillion trees has the capacity to reverse the last decade’s worth of carbon emissions.

From a politician’s perspective, a call for a vote on planting more trees is one of the easiest imaginable. It’s no wonder that in this year’s State of the Union Address, President Trump promised support for the One Trillion Tree Initiative.

But research from Stanford University published today in the prestigious journal Nature Sustainability, suggests that the success of a tree planting program is highly dependent on politicians skillfully designing and implementing a sensible framework of rules to shape the incentives of would-be tree planters.

“If policies to incentivize tree plantations are poorly designed or poorly enforced, there is a high risk of not only wasting public money but also releasing more carbon and losing biodiversity,” said study co-author Eric Lambin, the George and Setsuko Ishiyama Provostial Professor in Stanford’s School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences.


The problem identified by Lambin and his co-authors relates to replacing complex, multi-species native forest land with monoculture plantations. In the research, Lambin and his team analyzed data from an actual afforestation project implemented by the Chilean government between 1974-2012.

The Chilean project subsidized 75% of the costs of afforestation and provided support to plantation owners for ongoing management costs but did not establish an appropriately funded oversight and enforcement structure.

Weakness in oversight meant that the afforestation policy led to cases of native forests being cut down and replaced with non-native monoculture plantations. Monoculture stands did not sequester as much carbon dioxide as complex native forests did, so while area covered by trees was greater after the project, net carbon storage actually dropped and biodiversity fell.*

A short documentary film by the Economist points out that the incentives of countries struggling to meet Paris Agreement carbon dioxide emission targets by tree planting campaigns look suspicious. Ireland, for example, has promised to cut emissions by 20%, but has only reduced them by about 5%. Planning a large-scale tree planting campaign would allow Ireland to immediately book expected future emission reductions — thereby helping the country get closer to its stated goal — even if the plantings were a monoculture whose growth was enhanced by fossil fuel-based fertilizers.

Unsurprisingly, the Irish campaign has resulted in community push-back.

In this column, my overarching theme is that capitalism – the economic manifestation of humans’ amazing capacity to adapt – can save our species and other species on which we rely from the 100% certainty of climate change.

In my view, capitalism is a natural process in that it is an outgrowth of natural human tendencies. However, these natural tendencies are necessarily shaped by rules governing our societies.

Governments can decide that fracking firms with a broken and unworkable business model can be propped up directly with generous tax incentives and indirectly by central bank actions to remove price signals from bond markets. Governments can decide that the political importance of an economically unviable industry should be prioritized over questions of the public health while in the midst of a once-in-a-century health crisis.

Alternatively, governments can establish frameworks that create valuable incentives for producers and users to reduce their carbon footprints or to provide capital to projects promising carbon sequestration benefits.

These rules make a big difference to the execution of the programs put in place as the Stanford researchers saw very clearly in their data.

There is no time left to embark on ineffectual policies that are politically easy, but which offer no real solutions to the issues brought about with absolute certainty by climate change. To put the awesome power of capitalism to work, we must create a framework that allows its efforts to be directed in a genuinely productive way.

* Plantations are to trees roughly similar to what CAFOs are to cattle. A memorable book written by a German forester called The Hidden Life of Trees makes a strong case that trees growing naturally in a native forest communicate with one another, offer help to individuals that are struggling, and warn their neighbors about predators. Plantations, on the other hand, appear to be much less robust, communicative, and, as the Stanford researchers found, efficient at sequestering atmospheric carbon dioxide.
 

pinkeye

Wonder woman
.......................................

But I have hope. Wailing we are gunna die is not something I am into. If I was I would never have.......................

Economics, of power, of EVs over FF vehicles etc will drive the move that will see us avert disaster.

We here can do our little bit: read and pass on information e.g. about plastics and change our way to reduce harmful products/practises.

Well of course

1. we are all going to die Monk.
2. it doesn't matter how many EV's or economic policies are announced, we cannot AVERT DISASTER.
3. much more than our little bit to reduce plastics e.g. is required of all of us, but it is much too little and much too late.

In summary, I admire your optimism, but I do not share it.
 

DreamRyderX

Active member
Each & Every Human was Born To Die.........
No Matter What We Do, We're All Going To Die...........
So Laugh, Live, & Enjoy While We Still Can......

 
Top