4000 cycle 21700?

[Cool_Breeze]

Everyone seems to be looking for technological solutions to environmental concerns. I fear some of that may lead to geo-engineering of the climate, regulation there of and thus politization of weather and such.

Ignored in most environmental discussions I see is the magnitude of the human population on the face of the earth. Emerging populations and desires for higher standards of living and thus increased consumption may continue to fuel the human contribution to environmental problems.

Less human beings is a one stop shopping solution to much of what ails us.

 

[madstabber]

Everyone seems to be looking for technological solutions to environmental concerns. I fear some of that may lead to geo-engineering of the climate, regulation there of and thus politization of weather and such.

Ignored in most environmental discussions I see is the magnitude of the human population on the face of the earth. Emerging populations and desires for higher standards of living and thus increased consumption may continue to fuel the human contribution to environmental problems.

Less human beings is a one stop shopping solution to much of what ails us.

I think it’s avoided because there is no good answer for this problem. Who do you tell they don’t get a higher standard of living or stop having kids. I agree this is a huge part of the equation and there is no viable solution that doesn’t trample on people’s rights. Usually Mother Nature comes up with the solution via an outbreak of disease when an area’s carrying capacity is exceeded. Problem is humans keep interfering with vaccines and quarantines to limit the effect. So either Mother Nature is gonna come up with a virus we can’t stop or a select few humans with come up with an engineered virus only they have the vaccine for or we will continue on procrastinating until there is so many people on the planet their combined weight is so much it throws the earth out of orbit. Personally I want to see the last one happen but the first one is most likely.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

I think it’s avoided because there is no good answer for this problem. Who do you tell they don’t get a higher standard of living or stop having kids. I agree this is a huge part of the equation and there is no viable solution that doesn’t trample on people’s rights. Usually Mother Nature comes up with the solution via an outbreak of disease when an area’s carrying capacity is exceeded. Problem is humans keep interfering with vaccines and quarantines to limit the effect. So either Mother Nature is gonna come up with a virus we can’t stop or a select few humans with come up with an engineered virus only they have the vaccine for or we will continue on procrastinating until there is so many people on the planet their combined weight is so much it throws the earth out of orbit. Personally I want to see the last one happen but the first one is most likely.

I was awake and paying attention the day I was taught in design class that the 1st step in solving a problem is to correctly define it. It seems we agree on that.

One of the reasons 'there is no solution' it that it doesn't seem any effort is being put in that direction. We spend billion$ on new creating new technology, refining it and such as outlined previously, or at least hinted at earlier in this thread. I think an arguable point can be made for this being the tail wagging the dog.

Okay...so there are billion$. There are people with aspirations. In several political realms there is talk of a 'guaranteed minimum wage.' I think the circumstnaces exist for some tradeoff.

No solution..? There's certainly no solution if 1) the problem is ill-defined, 2) effort is being put into the tail to wag the dog (an inefficent process at best), and 3) no effort in being put in to address the true problem.