Wind Farms cause global warming

[choff]

I was taught long ago that the reason poor people in the third world have large families is so the children will care for the parents in old age. Even educated children are expected to care for the elderly. Therefore, if the standard of living can be raised in the third world, people will be able to rely on personal savings and government programs for old age security, and not large numbers of grown children.
There are two ways to raise the standard of living in the third world, one is a compact, inexpensive fusion reactor. The other is to reform the global financial system, that's what I like about Bill Still's greenbacker policies.
The current method of population control is to pile crushing debt on the third world and starve them to death, the international banks prefer this method as it is quite profitable. They either can't or don't see how much more profitable a world would be if every human on the planet could afford the western middle class lifestyle.

[Jccarlton]

Your comments were about climate scientists. Not leaders of the green movement.

Still, I am interested, what population would you see as comfortable for the earth?

since you raise the point, what population would you be comfortable with and how would you plan to get there? How would you "manage the decline?"

I don't think population can be directly managed in an effective and ethical way. It can be indirectly managed downward simply by providing better health care and female education. This (counterintuitively) reduces birth rate because people believe children will survive.

It can be indirectly managed up by making population groups very poor. that tends to incraese birth rate more than the poverty increases death rate.

What would be comfortable? Maybe 1/2 what we have now. Still, given much more use of technology in agriculture we can probably happily live with current and a bit less room.

Does that mean you support programs like this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ap ... tion-india
I swear, Progressives just can't help themselves. They just keep doing their evils, always with a new excuse. First it was eugenics, now its "climate change.'

[choff]

Just thought I'd post some of the more memorable quotes.

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world."
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class - involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing - are not sustainable."
- Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive,
selfish and unethical animal on the earth."
- Michael Fox,
vice-president of The Humane Society

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Human beings, as a species,
have no more value than slugs."
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a
pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor."
- Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man."
- Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells;
the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to
the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many
apparently brutal and heartless decisions.''
- Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history,
but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in
the number of game animals and the need to adjust
the cull to the size of the surplus population."
- Prince Philip,
preface of Down to Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society
at the present North American material standard of living
would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard
of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."
- United Nations,
Global Biodiversity Assessment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"A total population of 250-300 million people,
a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
- Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion."
- Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it's just as bad not to say it."
- Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing."
- Christopher Manes, Earth First!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival
for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species.
Phasing out the human race will solve every
problem on Earth - social and environmental.”
- Ingrid Newkirk,
former President of PETA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
- David Brower,
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

[pbelter]

We con't need any population control. The more people there are, the more brilliant minds and the the better we are off. Historically we have the highest standard of living ever, and that is including third world countries, and the highest population ever. It can take one brilliant guy to invent a blue laser, room temperature superconductor or a portable p-B11 fusion reactor, but what if he was never born because as a society we exercised population control?

I had the pleasure of working in the Netherlands. Very nice country and an agricultural power house. Had the US had the population density sames the Netherlands there would be 4 billion people living here. I saw most of US states and I still find it hard to believe how empty the country is.

It is nobody's business how many children people choose to have.
The key word in population control is "control".

In the first half of XX century there was lively social debate in the Soviet Union whether an owner of a private truck is an "evil capitalist".
There were arguments for and against but the presumption was that a free market system is evil.
Whether we control population through regulation or education or whatever is the same type of discussion, with the wrong presumption that population needs to be controlled.

The Soviet communist party found this type of argument highly beneficial. By taking either position you automatically agreed with the presumption.

Still, I am interested, what population would you see as comfortable for the earth?

Let me answer that with with equally brilliant question:


What is the optimal way of beating a disobedient wife?

[DeltaV]

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class - involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing - are not sustainable."
- Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit

And you, Maury, are of course allowed to retain your meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and hyperurban housing because you're one of the elite saviours of the earth.

The few. The arrogant. The Illuminati.

[pbelter]

I'm not myself a fan of the greens, but nor am I of the right-wing factions who can't see the importance of regulation, and the need to give value to common capital in a way that cannot happen by magic in an unregulated free market.

I am really interested in how regulation works and what impact it has on the economy. We can learn a lot from history here.

Germany is an European economic power house. Although comparable in size with France of Spain it has a much higher standard of living. German engineering is well known around the world.


Here is a medieval map of Germany

http://www.thebreman.org/exhibitions/on ... R_1648.png

You can see that it contains primarily of city state especially in the south. Not so much in the east

In a situation where every town is a separate country you cannot have much regulation. If you want to certify pottery makers and require them to get licensing and insurance, those who don't leave for the town next door will be outcomepeted by those who do. Even after all the time the income in Germany is highest where it was divided the most.

The same thing can be observed in Italy.

Here is a map from before unification:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/picture. ... reid=47195


Now take a look at per capita income in western Europe


http://reluctantapostate.files.wordpres ... =640&h=487

It is not a coincidence that the highest GDP is still there is regions that were most politically fractured, and where regulation was hardest to enforce.

[tomclarke]

I'm not myself a fan of the greens, but nor am I of the right-wing factions who can't see the importance of regulation, and the need to give value to common capital in a way that cannot happen by magic in an unregulated free market.

I am really interested in how regulation works and what impact it has on the economy. We can learn a lot from history here.

Germany is an European economic power house. Although comparable in size with France of Spain it has a much higher standard of living. German engineering is well known around the world.


Here is a medieval map of Germany

http://www.thebreman.org/exhibitions/on ... R_1648.png

You can see that it contains primarily of city state especially in the south. Not so much in the east

In a situation where every town is a separate country you cannot have much regulation. If you want to certify pottery makers and require them to get licensing and insurance, those who don't leave for the town next door will be outcomepeted by those who do. Even after all the time the income in Germany is highest where it was divided the most.

The same thing can be observed in Italy.

Here is a map from before unification:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/picture. ... reid=47195


Now take a look at per capita income in western Europe


http://reluctantapostate.files.wordpres ... =640&h=487

It is not a coincidence that the highest GDP is still there is regions that were most politically fractured, and where regulation was hardest to enforce.

Germany is a very highly regulated country - more than UK

Historical information is not relevant: 2 world war and marshal plan changed things

Italy is in trouble, as you know, I am sure.

The obvious European example of regulation (good and bad both shows) is the scandinavian countries.

It is also possible to argue almost anything from anecdotes (which individual examples tend to be).

It is clear that some regulations are bad, and some are good.

It is clear that NO regulations is disastrous.

[tomclarke]

We con't need any population control. The more people there are, the more brilliant minds and the the better we are off. Historically we have the highest standard of living ever, and that is including third world countries, and the highest population ever. It can take one brilliant guy to invent a blue laser, room temperature superconductor or a portable p-B11 fusion reactor, but what if he was never born because as a society we exercised population control?

I had the pleasure of working in the Netherlands. Very nice country and an agricultural power house. Had the US had the population density sames the Netherlands there would be 4 billion people living here. I saw most of US states and I still find it hard to believe how empty the country is.

It is nobody's business how many children people choose to have.
The key word in population control is "control".

In the first half of XX century there was lively social debate in the Soviet Union whether an owner of a private truck is an "evil capitalist".
There were arguments for and against but the presumption was that a free market system is evil.
Whether we control population through regulation or education or whatever is the same type of discussion, with the wrong presumption that population needs to be controlled.

The Soviet communist party found this type of argument highly beneficial. By taking either position you automatically agreed with the presumption.

Still, I am interested, what population would you see as comfortable for the earth?

Let me answer that with with equally brilliant question:


What is the optimal way of beating a disobedient wife?

You are conflating two separate issues:
(1) is it desirable to have fewer people?
(2) is it moral to force people to procreate (or stop them)?

It is beating a dead horse to argue (2), since no-one here (I think) is saying this.

Further, the evidence from Africa is strongly that good female education, health, contraception will reduce birth rate. So we have the ability (indirectly) to change future population growth.

As for "more people => more progress"

You act as though there can be no inherent material limits to supporting people. Historically the US has been SO FAR from any limits that has been effectively true. Now it is still far from (possible future) limits. But other places not. Of course science can change limits, has done so, will continue to do so (better GM crops, etc). But it only an ideologue with no science would say that in principle there are no limits.

[tomclarke]

Just thought I'd post some of the more memorable quotes.

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world."
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class - involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing - are not sustainable."
- Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive,
selfish and unethical animal on the earth."
- Michael Fox,
vice-president of The Humane Society

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Human beings, as a species,
have no more value than slugs."
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a
pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor."
- Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man."
- Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells;
the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to
the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many
apparently brutal and heartless decisions.''
- Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I don't claim to have any special interest in natural history,
but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in
the number of game animals and the need to adjust
the cull to the size of the surplus population."
- Prince Philip,
preface of Down to Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society
at the present North American material standard of living
would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard
of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."
- United Nations,
Global Biodiversity Assessment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"A total population of 250-300 million people,
a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
- Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion."
- Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it's just as bad not to say it."
- Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing."
- Christopher Manes, Earth First!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival
for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species.
Phasing out the human race will solve every
problem on Earth - social and environmental.”
- Ingrid Newkirk,
former President of PETA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
- David Brower,
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

Well with views as expressed strongly on this thread around there will be no relief from a Malthusian collapse after uncontrolled expansion. The parallel from history (human and animal) are clear. Human civilisations typically expand until they reach material (usually food) limits and then fall.

So given the above facts - a certain apocalyptic turn of phrase is perhaps understandable. You must realise that, for example, Prince Philip is no green, and famous for providing quotes on every subject under the sun which are totally disastrous. As unpolitical as you can get. No-one who knows him would take that as any indication of anything.

Where political opinions come first, and the facts are subsidiary, you get this sort of us and them quote mentality, in which an entrenched position is justified by reviling the opposition. It is a shame.

[choff]

I'm 53 now, when I was very young, I was told that if air pollution continued at the then current level, all life on earth would die within 20 years. Later on, I was told air pollution would lead to a new ice age, there were sf books written and sold on that theme for the longest time. Now the scientists have reversed 180 degrees and say global warming is the threat.
Serious scientists can demonstrate the effects of warming over the last decade or two, but they never put it into the context of the Medeival warming period or mini ice age over the last millenium.
As taught to me in elementary school, the vikings called Greenland by its name because it was in fact green, they could keep flocks of grazing animals on it. The change it climate was sudden, barely one ship got out to Iceland. Iceland itself lost half its population because of the climate shift. The Danes couldn't even get ships past the ice to Greenland for the longest time to find out what happened to the people there.
As to the greens wanting population control, who in hell died and made them god!

[CKay]

I was told air pollution would lead to a new ice age, there were sf books written and sold on that theme for the longest time.

The Myth Of The 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

[Betruger]

The parallel from history (human and animal) are clear. Human civilisations typically expand until they reach material (usually food) limits and then fall.

Not one of these human or animal precedents were equipped with technology as we are beginning to have.

[CKay]

The parallel from history (human and animal) are clear. Human civilisations typically expand until they reach material (usually food) limits and then fall.

Not one of these human or animal precedents were equipped with technology as we are beginning to have.

No guarantee that technological progress will allow us to outrun our problems, or indeed the unforeseen complex problems that result from technological fixes for simple problems.

[Betruger]

Gonna have to qualify that better, cause there's no guarantees in anything. Technology already allows us to shit where we eat to a pretty large extent. What animal or previous (pre-tech) human civilization can say as much?

We aren't outrunning our problems but solving them. Even if only gradually, piece-wise. That is what sci/tech are about. It's not about sweeping problems under the carpet.

or indeed the unforeseen complex problems that result from technological fixes for simple problems.

Any engineer reading this will rejoice. More problems to fix.

You really have no choice but satisfying work as an engineer. If your solution produces more problems, you get to improve what was already an improvement on previous state of things. If your solution solves the problem, you get to move on to the next problem; IE you just made things better by solving that problem, and now get to tackle how to make things... even better still.

"Problems", unforeseen or not, are the spice of life. Peril sets the stage for genuine accomplishment and satisfaction - coming out stronger from some adversity. It's "not really" adversity if you know the outcome, if there is no fog of war, no risk, if you are going by the fully detailed answers at the back of the book without spending one iota of time problem-solving yourself.
This maxim (Einstein paraphrased) is almost not an analogy: "Time is so everything doesn't happen at once" -- without problems and the work that must occur to realize their corresponding solutions, life is a void. "Work" is activity.. Without activity, without content to fill passing time, it makes no difference whether one or many units (any unit) of time has passed. You are compressing a null set of data. Everything can happen at once because nothing is happening.

Unforeseen problems as we have and will have are not valid reason to stop and sit on our asses this far into technological path to post-scarcity and to the stars, and to whatever might be beyond. Either we go back to caves and "symbiosis" with Gaia, or we go all the way. Either we are to Earth as bacteria to petri dish, or we make our environment a product of us.
"Sint ut sunt, aut non sint"

Of course developing the tech to efficiently exploit the environment and become self-sufficient, to get past scarcity and get off this rock into astronomically larger petri dish, that doesn't happen overnight. Of course there'll be "problems" on the way.

[tomclarke]

I'm 53 now, when I was very young, I was told that if air pollution continued at the then current level, all life on earth would die within 20 years. Later on, I was told air pollution would lead to a new ice age, there were sf books written and sold on that theme for the longest time. Now the scientists have reversed 180 degrees and say global warming is the threat.
Serious scientists can demonstrate the effects of warming over the last decade or two, but they never put it into the context of the Medeival warming period or mini ice age over the last millenium.
As taught to me in elementary school, the vikings called Greenland by its name because it was in fact green, they could keep flocks of grazing animals on it. The change it climate was sudden, barely one ship got out to Iceland. Iceland itself lost half its population because of the climate shift. The Danes couldn't even get ships past the ice to Greenland for the longest time to find out what happened to the people there.
As to the greens wanting population control, who in hell died and made them god!

What you are told is journalists writing good copy.

For example, the scientific consensus was never for an ice age. there was one paper, critiques by otehrs, that got blown up by journalists, and then propagated as an internet myth.