The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Oh? You have spare habitable planets handy? And cheap interstellar space travel?

Even if you're one of those Dr. Pangloss types who manage to delude themselves into thinking that AGW won't render the whole Earth uninhabitable (see Permian-Triassic extinction), why do you think the people already living in those more habitable areas are going to passively accept a massive influx of newcomers?

Clearly a false dichotomy. It's like the salesman saying, "How much did you spend on your motorcycle? You would be crazy not to spend $50 on the best wax for your expensive bike." How do I know it's the best wax? How do I know it will deliver more than $50 in value to the bike? In the same way, how do I know spending trillions of dollars to "fight global climate change" will be effective? How do I know it will deliver more than trillions of dollars worth of value?

Sure, the Earth has incalculable value, but a 2 degree rise in temperatures won't eradicate human life. It won't even make it noticeably less habitable for most people.

The migration of people away from flooded cities won't be a big deal because it will happen slowly over time, over many generations. Land won't simply vanish leaving people stranded, rather the value of land being encroached upon will slowly devalue. Other land will then increase in value. Heck, most of the U.S. is still uninhabited land.

Originally Posted by sendler

Eventually the rest of the entire world must realize that there are too many people here already and we must transition to negative growth worldwide.

I see no evidence of there being too many people, only an unequal distribution of resources and opportunity. In the not too distant future, perhaps in 100 years, we will have the opposite problem of a population in decline. When VR porn becomes mainstream, men will have little interest in real women. That might partially explain Japan's declining population.

The rate of population growth has been in decline since the 70's, and it is predicted to continue this trend for the foreseeable future.

Originally Posted by freebeard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_by_sex_ratio


Sex ratio by country for total population. Red represents more women, blue more men than the world average of 1.01 males/females.



Sex ratio by country for population aged below 15. Red represents more girls, blue more boys than the world average of 1.06 males/females.

Helloooo Finland!
...and I knew there was something I liked about Russia.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Xist

...people who may eat enough, but still lack proper nutrition...

Not to mention the large numbers in the developed world who obviously eat more than enough, and have rejected proper nutrition even though it's readily available - and in my experience, at less cost than what they do eat.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Now China has a generation of up to 3 or 4 men to one woman.

So why would this be a major problem? It would obviously cut the birth rate in the next generation. As for the social issues, men would just have to learn to share :-)

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

As for the social issues, men would just have to learn to share :-)

Have you never seen an episode of The Bachelorette?

[Xist]

Supposedly India and China are not expected to contribute to the Paris Accord because they are a developing countries, so developed countries are supposed to help finance them reducing their emissions.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I see no evidence of there being too many people

That is only because we are currently awash with fossil fuel energy.
.
Do you really think we will have replaced the necessary infrastructure in time to feed 11 Billion people in 100 years with past peak crude oil prices spiking to $2-300/ barrel. Watch Nate Hagens excellent discussion on the relation of fossil fuel and economy/ standard of living.
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg?list=FL...6MJ9BFAJVTjvSw
.
He euphemistcally refers to "a few speed bumps" along the way. I would rather we call it like it is. World wars until we run out of fuel for the last bomber, centuries long famine, and a centuries long mass depopulation event of humans and all food species that is unfathomable to 99.999% of the general public today.
.
Sorry. We have our head in the sand.
.
We need to pull out all of the stops now and use our current fossil fuel wealth to craft a new way. It takes a massive effort of 100 years using fossil fuel to save the disaster that is coming in 100 years.

[sendler]

10 Billion by 2050.
.
United Nations News Centre - World population to hit 9.8 billion by 2050, despite nearly universal lower fertility rates &#8211 UN
.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

So why would this be a major problem? It would obviously cut the birth rate in the next generation.

Consider the population pyramid.

Types of population pyramids

Each country will have different or unique population pyramids. However, most population pyramids will be defined as the following: Stationary, expansive, or constrictive. These types have been identified by the fertility and mortality rates of a country.

"Stationary" pyramid
A pyramid can be described as stationary if the percentages of population (age and sex) remains constant over time. Stationary population is when a population contains equal birth rates and death rates

"Expansive" pyramid
A population pyramid that is very wide at the younger ages, characteristic of countries with high birth rate and low life expectancy. The population is said to be fast-growing, and the size of each birth cohort gets larger than the size of the previous year.

"Constrictive" pyramid
A population pyramid that is narrowed at the bottom. The population is generally older on average, as the country has long life expectancy, a low death rate, but also a low birth rate. However, the percentage of younger population are extremely low, this can cause issues with dependency ratio of the population. This pyramid is more common when immigrants are factored out. This is a typical pattern for a very developed country, a high level of education, easy access to and incentive to use birth control, good health care, and few negative environmental factors.

I would add a fourth type, the hourglass, caused by war or famine with recovery.

As for the social issues, men would just have to learn to share :-)

Well, thanks for sharing, I guess...

[oil pan 4]

In post peak crude oil there will still be no shortage of coal or fissile fuel.

[sendler]

Can't very easily put either one of those in a tractor to grow food. But we must figure out a way. It takes multiple decades to change everything to a post crude oil way of life. We need to go all in with Nuclear and build them like cars coming off a production line to keep up with growth which puts us at 30 TW for world average consumption by 2100.

[Xist]

My understanding is that China's population control resulted in the situation described in a "constrictive" pyramid and they feel they need more people to support the elderly.