logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

The Golden Rule versus Musical Chairs
Dingo
#1 Posted : Monday, April 20, 2015 4:58:26 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 6/10/2012(UTC)
Posts: 101
Location: California

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
The Golden Rule states "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or the negative "Don't do ........" which I prefer. I also call it 'The Law of Nonimposition'. You live your life as much as possible so you don't impose on others. Well overpopulation imposes scarcity and war the opposite of the Golden Rule's bias toward nonimposition.

Perhaps folks remember the parlor game, Musical Chairs. You have like 9 chairs and 10 people and you circle the chairs until a signal is given and then you rush to sit in a chair not wanting to be the one chairless person who is then eliminated. You keep the progression going until you have one chair and two people. Last person in the chair wins. You notice how the actions of the members become progressively more desperate as the numbers dwindle(Because the proportion of people to chairs increases).

If you look at society as a whole, much of what we see going on is a game of odd man out. Who those odd folks are can be very arbitrary but desperately real as far as the consequences. We call them the enemy or scapegoats depending on our perspective. In any case it is at the root of so many of our problems.

Bucky Fuller once said something like the essence of the human project was to go from you OR me to you AND me. The core to dealing with that is addressing the Malthusian dilemma.
Val
#2 Posted : Wednesday, April 29, 2015 1:25:41 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 8/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 136
Location: NW Kansas

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
The Golden Rule is sure not being followed by most, is it? I agree that overpopulation leads to scarcity and war.
The Musical Chairs metaphor is also good. More like the good sustainable level was 1 billion in 1992 and 1/2 billion today. Eventually it reaches zero.
For intelligent civilized people it seems easy for society to change over to good Earth steward morals and ecological teaching, along with strict government and religious rules against polluting or over-populating.
It would have been nice 100 years ago, now it is far too late to stop the dreadful crash, and even before that, cross the line to extinction.
We followed the Golden Rule, but there has been far too little change away from pollution, depletion, and grosser overpopulation. You and I have tried for years to have an effect on this overpopulation and now CAGW monster. How many have decided against children or more than one because of us? Probably not too many.
How can we really deal with the Malthusian Dilemma? If everyone had our understanding then it wouldn't have happened. The only answer to the "stimulated mammal population curve" is the near vertical drop called 'the crash'.
You and I don't want to go out and mass murder, but many others would for greed and lust, cult or politically motivated, or selfishness. 15 years or so to hell on Earth. No fair play, no morals, just theft and worse. Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten. Then it gets hotter and hotter with more fires.
Malthus NEVER saw GTE coming from overpopulation's pollution.
Dingo
#3 Posted : Friday, June 19, 2015 4:38:44 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 6/10/2012(UTC)
Posts: 101
Location: California

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Val, unless we get our head straight on population I really don't see a disaster as any kind of answer. Imagine we lose 90% of our population. At a one percent increase from then on (That's doubling every 70 years) in roughly 260 years, I estimate, we will be right back to where we started.

Perhaps we ought to look at branding. Folks are sensitive to that sort of thing. I call so called right-to-lifers 'forced birth fascists'. Maybe folks who have more than 2 children except under special circumstances should be called 'environmental terrorists'.

Sure that would make a lot of people angry but at least they might be forced to think about the matter for a change.
Val
#4 Posted : Monday, June 22, 2015 11:16:51 AM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 8/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 136
Location: NW Kansas

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
The population will crash in the 2040s, early, and nothing can stop it. 4-500M deaths per year. There is a 50% chance of stopping thermageddon with a 95% drop in HGHGs yearly by the end of 2023.
To get that 95% HGHG drop, a lot of people have to die. There is no way around it with the little time left. So an "early" crash would help the entire biosphere to survive through a bottleneck phase.
It could happen with geologic or economic disasters, or both together. It could happen with a nuclear war. A pandemic that is effective for that large a portion of humanity is very unlikely.
It has to be below zero on true birth rate, now, to stop the population crash disaster. Two child families went mathematically out in the mid 1980s, and below 1 in the late 1990s. Now, well below 0.
Conspiracy theories have the rich elite poisoning us with chemicals, and other means to achieve rapid depopulation. Partly true.
Without the HGHG reductions necessary, the crash survivors will have to deal with temperatures going up 1 degree per year then more. Most life will go extinct at a global average +10*F, let alone the end result of a 200*C surface.
Perhaps, because life forms CH4, and it seeded the early planet.....life increases CH4 to the point of easy runaway to a Venus. Is life itself self-eliminating?
Dingo
#5 Posted : Tuesday, June 23, 2015 11:05:12 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 6/10/2012(UTC)
Posts: 101
Location: California

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Val you keep peddling your disaster scenario but you don't deal with the rebound. As long as you have subsequent exponential growth you are, within 100s of years, right back in the soup again. The challenge is to get to a no growth mindset.

Also no Venus runaway is in the offing. This planet has sustained life at much higher temperatures; the period of the dinosaurs for instance. The problem is the rapidity of the change, not affording the probability of most species being able to adapt quickly enough. Rising 6 degrees C over a period of 10,000 years would still be a challenge but a lot less than our present course of 100 to 200 years.

In general I've read enough of the science to doubt any serious runaway, even below the Venus level, is in the cards. Still the continued incremental additions by humans of ghgs could send us into a 6th major extinction event. If we stop adding CO2 and related carbon gasses to our environment now we should expect that temperatures within a few years should at least level out. However I'm not under any illusions that we are presently prepared to do that.
Val
#6 Posted : Friday, June 26, 2015 3:25:35 PM(UTC)
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered, Approved
Joined: 8/18/2011(UTC)
Posts: 136
Location: NW Kansas

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Mammal populations generally waiver around long term sustainability, and only when stimulated do they go exponential to a crash. The rebound would be like Toba, taking many thousands of years until the awful use of fossil fuels stimulated the human population. Of course there are many other factors that added to the stimuli, but it basically looks like the St. Matthew Island Reindeer Herd. Except for the global thermal effects.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 1.9.5.5 | YAF © 2003-2011, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.134 seconds.