What's Really Warming the World? Nice Bloomberg graph

[niky]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Population growth is strongly correlated to poverty. Once people are rich enough to spoil their kids they quickly learn to control their breeding prowess.

Or maybe it is because once rich they start polluting with a vengeance and have less time on their hands to breed?

Basically, when you've been elevated to middle class, you either become that one-in-a-million who chances upon the opportunity to start a business and become stinking rich, or you become one of the other 999,999 stuck on the financial treadmill, trying to maintain a middle class lifestyle on thinner and thinner marginal income, with no time or extra income to dedicate to having children.

For many, having children is a sure way to become poorer again (at least for the twenty or so years before you can kick them out of the house so they can find collegiate level employment).

-

When you're poor, having more children so you can crowd out the rich isn't some long-term survival strategy. You have more children because: 1.) you've got more time on your hands and less hobbies, 2.) because you don't know better, and 3.) because children, within four or five short years, become useful economic units (whereas children in middle class families take decades to give you a return on investment).

[P-hack]

basically that is a load of B.S. and completely irrelevant to the subject at hand and the current situation. Because you are looking to assign fault for the environment, hoping for a blank check to "fix it", and you would have the middle class pay for it all, like the rich do, and like the poor do. Constant pummeling of the middle class is exactly why we have such an uneven distribution of wealth. (Yay, we sucked the middle class dry, lets blame it on one extreme or the other!!!)

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by P-hack

how fast? well according to gore the sky should be in flames already.

Didn't ask about gore .. Don't care how fast would satisfy gore .. Data shows sky is not in flames.

I asked about you.

Obviously the progress (in the right direction) over the last 60 years on human population has not been fast enough for you ... soo .. how fast of a correction would satisfy you ??

For example:
If we had made this same progress of the last 60 years in just 30 years would that have been fast enough to satisfy you ? .. If not how fast would be fast enough rate of progress to satisfy you ?

[P-hack]

I never passed judgement on how fast or slow it should have been, nor claimed to be anything more than an observer.

[Xist]

So, ecomodding is cool, right?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Xist

So, ecomodding is cool, right?

Yes, for whatever reason you prefer.

Go in peace kids.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by IamIan

Didn't ask about gore .. Don't care how fast would satisfy gore .. Data shows sky is not in flames.

I asked about you.

Obviously the progress (in the right direction) over the last 60 years on human population has not been fast enough for you ... soo .. how fast of a correction would satisfy you ??

For example:
If we had made this same progress of the last 60 years in just 30 years would that have been fast enough to satisfy you ? .. If not how fast would be fast enough rate of progress to satisfy you ?

Wait, what "progress" on population? In the time since my parents married 45 years ago, we've added more humans to our population than there were on earth on their wedding day. Global emissions have increased every decade since we started measuring them. And, the US is one of the worst offenders, with an emission rate per person of nearly 18 tons/year, almost 3x higher than China and in the top 10 highest in the world.

[Arragonis]

Look at the trend on the trend. Experts have.

Hans Rosling: Global population growth, box by box | TED Talk | TED.com

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by Vman455

Wait, what "progress" on population?

Net global population growth rate has reduced (slowed) to ~1/2 of the rate of growth it was .. including a ~30% increase in life expectancy over the same time period .. If not for the increased life expectancy .. the rate of growth would have been about ~1/4 of the rate is was previously .. this well documented slowing is progress in the correct direction.

Weather it is a 'fast enough' rate of progress .. or weather this type of progress will continue 'long enough' ... only time will tell.

- - - - - - - -

Originally Posted by P-Hack

I don't know of any reliable answers aside from conflict.

Originally Posted by P-hack

I never passed judgement on how fast or slow it should have been, nor claimed to be anything more than an observer.

I'm confused!

If you didn't judge conflict to achieved any faster progress than the rate we have already seen in the last ~60 years ... why would you prefer conflict????

For example:
In the last ~40 years .. reduced growth rate as resulted in about ~2 Billion less people today ... if instead the growth rate had not reduced .. and conflict was used instead to remove / kill the same ~2 Billion people .. we would still either way have the same total number of people today .. I don't see how the conflict method (if not being judged preferentially faster) .. is any better .. if anything it seems vastly inferior to the reducing growth rate we have been doing instead.

It seemed to me (my interpretation of your posts);
You had passed judgement on the rate of progress .. you decided the rate of progress in the last ~60 years was too slow .. and you wanted a 'faster' rate of progress .. your chosen method was conflict .... Thus why I ask ... How fast does the non-conflict progress have to be , to satisfy you ?

FYI ... This interpretation of mine (of your posts) was also based on your previous comments when we last discussed human population growth rate last year.

For example:

Originally Posted by P-Hack

well the population is still growing, and aside from hockey stick type theories, there isn't much reason to think that it will stop in time

"stop in time" ... really strongly read to me that a major part of your objection is you judging that the progress of the last ~60 years has not been fast enough .. thus my question now ... How fast is fast enough to satisfy you ?

If the rates are the same .. I don't see how conflict is a better answer ??

[P-hack]

I like ecomodding too, good way to save money and gain some skills.

People pulling the fire alarm and expecting the middle class to write blank checks for invisible flames, not so much.