Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
But that is not the topic is it. Just like how to stop aliens from probing us is not the topic.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How to limit climate change
- Thread starter Clizby Wampuscat
- Start date
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Interesting. It does sound a little scary with maybe some unintended consequences.
I'm anti-organic. It's by in large a marketing scheme that just creates more food loss to insects so people can think they're healthier when the nutritional difference is zero but the price is arbitrarily inflated.
Do you know what drains our aquifers *far* more than residential zones? Growing water intensive non-native plans like rice, almonds, avocados and alfalfa. Like twice as much as even the most posh green grass cities around LA.
There's also plenty of native nuts, grains and fruit that you could use. And most of aforementioned non-native crops are exported anyway.
Do you know what depletes our topsoil the most? (No joke) Christmas tree farming. (Followed by the cattle industry from impaction and erosion on grazing lands)
Do you know what adds to topsoil health? Nitrogen low water cover crops like peas.
Do you know what clears the most rainforest? Rich nation's ungodly amount of meat in their diet. Followed by the myriad of fast food companies and their many, many, many palm oil products.
Again, these are all industry problems, not population problems. And certainly not populations where there is large population growth, which aren't the biggest polluters and most consumer of resources like US is.
The only natural resources which are depleting rapidly and alarmingly that couldn't be addressed through infrastructure change are ones people you and me use to further our cushy middle income life. Rare earth minerals in our electronics. Much higher energy consumption and thus fossil fuel per capita. Suburban sprawls which have higher carbon footprints than high density housing.
Sounds more like we should stop trying to accommodate middle income lifestyles.(and of course rich lifestyles too, which just compound the lavish waste.)
exchemist
Veteran Member
Interesting comments about A/C in public spaces.
What I mean by self-sustaining in the context of the electricity industry is that the cost of wind turbines and solar panels is now market-competitive with other forms of generation, and the regulatory regime is in place to drive incentives. The UK is now up to 38% renewable. Five years ago it was 25%, and ten years ago less than 10%. Some other European countries are ahead of the UK. But perhaps the US is behind the curve compared to Europe.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What are yre you trying to do, undermine the sweater/jumper industry?
Almost all problems facing the world are a result of our numbers, directly or indirectly.
Children are traditionally are old-age insurance policies and family/village muscle.
When you live at or beyond your region's carrying capacity, interpersonal predation, exploitation, raiding and war become viable social strategies.
Lower population = adequate resources for everyone, with concomitant increase in safety and security.
When large-family traditions and social pressure fade, as has happened in China; or if safety and security increase through social policies or increased government monopoly on power and law enforcement, as has happened with more centralized government, families do voluntarily have fewer children. Children become financial burdens and hindrances to opportunity, with no more mitigating benefits.
Add tax breaks, financial and social incentives, education and small-family propaganda, and I'd expect population to drop rapidly and voluntarily.
Our economies and social systems are tailored to perpetual growth. On a finite planet, this is obviously unsustainable. Social systems will have to be re-organized to care for a surfeit of elderly people, and reduced consumerism, till a new, low-population equilibrium is reached.
I'm anti-pesticide, herbicide, what-ever-icide.
If we take the great plains as an example, they grow a lot of wheat and corn, right. And the massive, big-as-a-state Ogalala aquifer is almost empty. Not because of almonds and avocados. I think where we might agree is that a LOT of the corn they grow there is used to fatten up cows, and I agree that humans ought to cut their meat consumption by maybe 90%?
I think you'd have to add mono-culture, straight line tilling and retilling and reretilling to the list of things that deplete the topsoil.
Indeed, but at a fraction of the rate we're depleting it.
I partially agree. All the the factors you list exacerbate the problem, no doubt. But most farming done around the world is unsustainable.
Partially agree. Again the things you mention are all problems.
That said, what I infer from your posts in this thread is that you're advocating for us all to live under significant austerity constraints. No doubt that could solve some of our immediate problems, but again, I think we'd be better off with a billion people living great lives, with wide open spaces, and a biodiverse environment, than with 8 billion people living harshly austere lives in a eco-disaster. Perhaps all eating some sort of sustainable, gray gruel?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
In slang terminology, yes.
But today it was too cold for me to do any
outdoor carpentry with bare hands. 10F
is too low. Now @Wu Wei will chime in
about what a sissy I am.
I understand that he can maul people
even at minus 50F.
Your and my idea of austere are likely very different, since I grew up on a subsistence farm. But yeah, I do think a level of humility is needed in American society as they are, as I said, looking to reinvent 'A Modest Proposal' for the poors that are birthing the most children when in fact middle and high income America is wasting way more by orders of magnitudes, and limiting birth rates will do diddly squat by comparison as US middle and high income houses are already in birth decline.I'm anti-pesticide, herbicide, what-ever-icide.
If we take the great plains as an example, they grow a lot of wheat and corn, right. And the massive, big-as-a-state Ogalala aquifer is almost empty. Not because of almonds and avocados. I think where we might agree is that a LOT of the corn they grow there is used to fatten up cows, and I agree that humans ought to cut their meat consumption by maybe 90%?
I think you'd have to add mono-culture, straight line tilling and retilling and reretilling to the list of things that deplete the topsoil.
Indeed, but at a fraction of the rate we're depleting it.
I partially agree. All the the factors you list exacerbate the problem, no doubt. But most farming done around the world is unsustainable.
Partially agree. Again the things you mention are all problems.
That said, what I infer from your posts in this thread is that you're advocating for us all to live under significant austerity constraints. No doubt that could solve some of our immediate problems, but again, I think we'd be better off with a billion people living great lives, with wide open spaces, and a biodiverse environment, than with 8 billion people living harshly austere lives in a eco-disaster. Perhaps all eating some sort of sustainable, gray gruel?
You do not, in fact, need avocados and salmon every day when you live where legumes would give you the same benefits. Nor hundreds of fleets of instant-gratification transportation of goods. Nor (and we seem to agree on this point) cattle, especially beef, every day.
Limiting birth rates will not, in fact, make things more sustainable when the people in the minority group/majority consumption just upscale up the waste.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I’ve no idea what polar bear is in slang terminology, nothing sexual I hope.
I just converted 10 degrees Fahrenheit to Celsius. No one is having sex in that
Last edited:
Nothing sexual going on....here, anyway.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Make sure it's bacon flavor!
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's only 8° f now outside with additional wind chill. For you Canucks, it's -13c
Hey! You did a steelman (beef)! thanks!
I agree that legumes are good for you, but high carb diets are not, so you can eat only so many beans in a day for optimum health. And sorry, legumes do NOT provide the same nutritional benefits as salmon.
I thought I'd already agreed to the idea that not-poor people in the west consume far, far too many resources per capita. If not, I hereby agree.
But it's not binary. I can eat salmon once or twice a week and still be using a small fraction of resources that the wasteful among use. It's also not binary that all salmon eaters are also consumers of instant-gratification goods. I know I didn't specifically enumerate this earlier, but of course I agree that we should produce locally as much as possible and limit transportation of goods. But if we're careful overall, we can also transport those healthy foods that simply will not grow local. I'm a de-centralist, I'm with you. But if we zoom out, we can handle some wisely executed food transporting.
As for limiting birth rates, did you somehow imagine that my idea about menopause grants didn't apply to westerners?
Wu Wei
ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
Why bother...you already admitted it...there you go....ruining my fun again...currently 2F here.... and yes, temperature is no concern when it comes to.a good ole fashion mauling
Nah, for him, it'll be aubergine flavored.
About 10F & falling here.
Good weather for a walk though.
Snow not slippery.
No wind.
Sunny.
Last edited:
Wu Wei
ursus senum severiorum and ex-Bisy Backson
-5F with a whole lot of wind here
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Or maybe eggplant flavored instead.