my now-former close friend

Candid wrote: Ironically, I'm the one who's concerned about the future of the planet as we keep increasing our number, while my friend with four children appears to be happy as a sparrow all day long. You'd think it would be the other way round, wouldn't you?

And who’s fault is that? You’re the one living in some mental simulation of a dystopian future. She isn’t. I wonder why?

You have no idea what the future will bring. Neither do I. No one can predict, but we sure do try. And we allow these future fantasies to influence our decisions (anticipatory thinking).

That people are living longer with lower quality of life is not caused by overpopulation. People without access to food/water is also not caused by overpopulation.

Any issues caused by overpopulation, e.g. overfishing, melting ice caps, etc. result in speculation about the future. And this future NEVER happens. Why? I’m not sure. Based on predictions humanity has ended a hundred times over.

The evidence is clear. Humans are really, really, really bad, including the “experts” at predicting the future. We are great at speculating though. We have that ability in spades. Just look at this thread.

I’m skeptical...very skeptical...about our ability to even remotely predict the human condition 10 years from now let alone 100 years. You disagree? You believe humans are great at predicting the future? You are great at predicting the future?

I acknowledge I don’t know what will happen in the future. I choose to frame the future by pointing to all the ways humanity has adapted over hundreds of thousands of years. It’s a choice that results in colonizing other planets, sustainable mega cities, ocean farming, etc.

It’s not that I don’t find some value in the doom and gloom speculation. That can be a healthy exercise. What I don’t find necessarily healthy or productive is making meaningful decisions today based on speculation about the state of humanity a generation from now.

Global warming wasn't the reason I didn't add to the world's population, but yes, had I in the Seventies or Eighties had a glimpse of life in 2020, I would have considered it a dystopian vision. It's the slippery slope, frog-in-the-pot thing, and your plan to farm the seas and build megacities is truly fanciful, continuing the uglification of the planet and wholesale biodiversity loss. Do you believe that at some stage we'll be able to create water? A lot of species, including Homo sapiens, would applaud that now.

Space exploration has already established that there is no other habitable planet anywhere near us. TOI 700 d may or may not have water, and at just over 100 lightyears away from us, would take a probe launched now about 500 years to have a look-see, then another 100 years for the probe's video/image radio signal to make it back to Earth. That would have to be a multinational project with the commitment of unborn generations plus the tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars needed to develop the system.

I don't think there's any "fault" in being concerned about coral reefs dying, rainforest being turned into palm oil plantations and the disappearance of other species. As to the comparison with Happy Mum of Four, I can only cite one of my childfree sisters on the subject of giving birth: "They open their legs and their brains drop out."

Candid wrote: Do you believe that at some stage we'll be able to create water?

I believe there is no danger of a global water shortage anytime soon. Access to potable water has been a regional problem humanity has faced for hundreds of thousands of years. It is nothing new.

Candid wrote:...your plan to farm the seas and build megacities is truly fanciful, continuing the uglification of the planet and wholesale biodiversity loss.

Fanciful? Fair enough. I prefer a positive future to the doom and gloom you choose to believe in. As I pointed out, neither of us has any claim of truth. We both are speculating. I fancy positive, while you fancy negative.

Candid wrote:Space exploration has already established that there is no other habitable planet anywhere near us.

And it has already been established sailing around the world, flying in a metal tube like a bird, and running under a 4-minute mile are impossible. Whoops. Guess we got those wrong. What have we gotten wrong about space travel? What will we learn, what will change in the next 50 years?

With more people comes more research, so thank goodness we are no longer in the 70's with no Internet and only 3.6 billion brains to think about how to solve, among other things, space travel.

Candid wrote:I don't think there's any "fault" in being concerned about coral reefs dying, rainforest being turned into palm oil plantations and the disappearance of other species.

Agreed. I said it can be healthy to identify issues and then speculate about potential doom and gloom scenarios. There is value in discussing these things. But, I disagree with dismissing the other side of the coin. I don't agree with making major life decisions today based on speculation about the condition of humanity and the world 10-20-40 years from now.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

Candid wrote:...because (and I think you know this about me) to put it baldly, the world is way too populous. It's unsustainable....That's just maths, isn't it?

I do know this, but don't fully understand why you believe that humanity will not adapt.

You misunderstand me. Only a madman would say we can go on increasing our number indefinitely. Our planet and its resources are finite. It isn't about adaptation—and that's coming from a confirmed Darwinist.

What Stanley Johnson wrote in the Seventies was that regrettably, the birth rate was not decreasing, that modern medicine was able to keep practically everyone alive, and that there wasn't a spare Other Planet spinning nearby; therefore, that Something had to start knocking people off more or less indiscriminately.

Elsewhere in cyberspace I've been called racist, simply because as societies become more sophisticated the birth rate drops, and it's the developing nations that are increasing their number despite, of course, a death rate that would be unacceptable to those of us free to pontificate online. And yes, it's the world's poorest who are hacking rainforests down in favour of cash crops, but who can blame them? Not I.

You have no idea what the future will bring.

I do know that quality of life in the UK has declined considerably during my lifetime and that the climate here has changed.

That people are living longer with lower quality of life is not caused by overpopulation.

More people, same resources? You're kidding me.

What I don’t find necessarily healthy or productive is making meaningful decisions today based on speculation about the state of humanity a generation from now.

A UK generation from now will still be paying (via taxes) a colossal bill for what's being spent now on useless track-and-trace technology, payments to all those whose livelihoods have disappeared, and 'furloughs' to give businesses the idea they can make a comeback some fine day. I will never regret being childfree. Reading the things teens and 20-somethings write here, I feel nothing but sorrow for a generation that has only ever lived online. What we don't see here, but I see every day in the course of my work, is the many teenaged girls who 'meet' (and 'fall in love with') online predators, and end up in the blink of an eye as #MeToo statistics.

there is no danger of a global water shortage anytime soon.

It's significant that Australia is the exception to your travel CV. So there it is, still under 26 million souls in 7.692 million km². When I lived in coastal Queensland they were trucking drinking water to inland communities every year while hanging on for the Wet. A minority of hardy souls live any distance from the coast in this enormous country, and parts of the coastline are routinely inundated, as I know to my cost. When the icecaps are gone they've had it.

Access to potable water has been a regional problem humanity has faced for hundreds of thousands of years. It is nothing new.

You might not be so cavalier if you were dying of thirst.

... the doom and gloom you choose to believe in.

I'm talking about what I've seen with my own eyes in my more than six decades. What frustrates me most is that I expected to be able to see and write about such wonders of the natural world as still exist. Having been to Galápagos I'd like to see Aldabra, and work on their giant tortoise research team. I'd like everyone to be happy, so no one gets beaten or raped or tortured or murdered ever again. And I think that, the fact that we turned on each other long ago, is the biggest problem we face.

With more people comes more research, so thank goodness we are no longer in the 70's with no Internet and only 3.6 billion brains to think about how to solve, among other things, space travel.

Given a choice I'd be there in a flash! It wasn't optimum (apparently that was in the 20s, which I can well believe) but it was good enough for me.

Everything's escalating. This is a new era. As always, I'm doing my best while watching it unfold.

....That people are living longer with a lower quality of life is not caused by overpopulation...

Candid wrote: More people, same resources? You're kidding me.

I think this point needs clarification. You made a point to talk about stroke victims in nursing homes, ref modern medicine keeping people alive longer. This could result in overpopulation but is not caused by overpopulation. I find many of your points you conflate with overpopulation, e.g. your concern for an online generation. You paint a doom and gloom picture, some of which can be tied to access to finite resources, but then you throw in many observations that have nothing to do with overpopulation.

Candid wrote: Only a madman would say we can go on increasing our number indefinitely. Our planet and its resources are finite.

True. But neither you nor I have any idea of the upper limit. We do not know what the future will bring. And the "experts" also have no clue. Their arguments for an upper limit might be better informed, but it is still throwing a dart blindfolded.

You point to Australia trucking drinking water inland. That is not evidence of global overpopulation. It's only evidence of what has been taking place since man started settlements. Access to potable water has always been an issue and continues to be an issue on a regional basis. It's not a cavalier observation. It's a factual observation. That water must be transported to remote areas is nothing new. It is actually evidence of the opposite of a water shortage. There is so much water available that people have the option of remaining inland where access to water is limited. No worries, we will bring the water to you!

https://www.top100golfcourses.com/golf- ... /australia

The point of the link is that we are not even close to having a water shortage. Not globally, not in Australia. Again, I'm not saying access to potable water is not an issue. It's a huge issue. It's horrible. There are people drinking water full of chemicals, parasites, feces, etc. It is estimated 2 billion people do not have access to clean water.

Water shortage? Nope. Issue of an unsustainable global population? Nope.

It's only evidence that people don't have access to the immense amounts of potable water available for consumption. Again, not cavalier. It's factual. A person living in a desert doesn't have access to water. It doesn't' mean the world is overpopulated because they live in a desert. That we can ship water to them is evidence for, not against an abundant supply.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:... but then you throw in many observations that have nothing to do with overpopulation.

I never did put myself forward for any debating team! and I suspect any f2f discussion I might have with you would end in frustration for both parties.

But neither you nor I have any idea of the upper limit.

I say we've passed it, as do two of my Davids.

And the "experts" also have no clue.

Sir David has presented his testimony, the difference he's seen in his decades of travel and filming. Human activity is responsible for global warming via the burning of fossil fuels, which it's now known the oceans absorb. Like me, Sir David is upset about other species being replaced (never to return) with Us and Animals Useful to Us, and beautiful rainforests being replaced with ugly straight rows of oil palm.

That water must be transported to remote areas is nothing new. It is actually evidence of the opposite of a water shortage. There is so much water available that ...
No worries, we will bring the water to you!

It certainly didn't feel that way when I lived there, with heated argument that the coastal cities couldn't afford to be irrigating the inland, either.

"I heard a story last week of a grazier who had to shoot 100 cattle, and then he shot himself. It’s really tough.” https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 10247.html

See, it's not just people replacing other species; it's our stock, too. Only 4 per cent of animals on the planet are wild. A whopping 96 per cent are being raised in horrible conditions to be butchered for our consumption. That farmer's grazing land had involved the shooting, trapping and poisoning of kangaroos as well as dingoes.

Water shortage? Nope. Issue of an unsustainable global population? Nope.

You, sir, are a science-denier. Faced with this level of fiddling while Rome burns, I must bow out. The Origin of Species by Natural Selection didn't end with Darwin, but nothing to worry about: no species yet has ever actually witnessed its own extinction!

Candid wrote: You, sir, are a science-denier.

Candid, I have not denied a single piece of information that you have presented. I have not denied a single one of your many observations.

I only disagree with the doom and gloom conclusions you are choosing to believe about the future of humanity or the world. Disagreeing with your conclusions doesn't mean denying science.

I agree that many of the observations you have made show the sad, dark, unethical, and morally bankrupt side of humanity. But this doesn't mean your conclusions about the future are accurate.

I think this is an unfortunate part of public discourse today. It is not good enough to agree with the science, you must also agree with the conclusions about the future or you are accused of denial. That is what is truly dark.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:I only disagree with the doom and gloom conclusions you are choosing to believe about the future of humanity or the world.

I know, Richard. It's An Inconvenient Truth—but to me it isn't doom and gloom, it's evolution. I do acknowledge the apparently endless inventiveness of our kind, and obviously don't rule out a new breed of superhumans. I would hope that they more truly deserve to be called sapiens, able to encompass a love of other species as well as their own.

I'm only sorry I won't be here to witness the environment make a comeback and of course new species appear. No one gets to see that, unless the planet itself has eyes. To bring this thread back to its beginning, during lockdown I liked seeing wild animals jumping, trotting or crawling along city streets. So I enjoy this kind of speculation: https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/searc ... tion=click

Candid wrote: So I enjoy this kind of speculation: https://uk.video.search.yahoo.com/searc ... tion=click

You enjoy speculating about what might eradicate our species in the near future. Fair enough. I enjoy speculating about how our species will continue to thrive.

And while I have no issue with engaging in some doom and gloom speculation, I am not of fan of how it is used to spread fear and seize power.

Like many people, I enjoy an apocalyptic fantasy production like an "Inconvenient Truth" for the entertainment value, the same as I can enjoy the various fantasy scenarios you provided. I like a good zombie movie as well.

What I can't stand is treating these fantasies (both links I posted) as indisputable fact in order for a government or group to mandate, for example, a "one-child" policy. It's unfortunate that every generation has people that use fear of the impending doom of humanity to try and control some people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d ... tic_events

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spect ... this-year/

It's unfortunate that every generation has people that use fear of the impending doom of humanity to try and control some people.

They're called governments Richard. The threat from terrorism has been used to increase the power of the state over the people in the name of keeping them safe. Nothing to hide, nothing is the rationale.
The sad thing is, that every generation becomes more accepting of their actions because they choose to believe nothing bad will happen if we agree.

tokeless wrote: They're called governments Richard.

Not only governments tokeless. I said people, because the use of fear for power is used by more than just governments.

And what is your solution tokeless?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

tokeless wrote: They're called governments Richard.

Not only governments tokeless. I said people, because the use of fear for power is used by more than just governments.

And what is your solution tokeless?

I'm not sure what the solution is but I would start with introducing an honest democracy by making manifestos legally binding. If they've costed and assessed what needs to be done if they get in to power then they should back it up. Too many times we are told they will do xyz and then they switch.
Secondly, I would restrict donations because the system at present is rigged and donors get to influence decisions too much. Politicians should be able to 'sell' their visions without the glitzy sets and razzamataz. I want to see honesty not spin and hype over substance. Do we need to advertise democracy? No, we need to hear what they will do for us if they get our vote, not what donors and lobbyists demand. Full transparency. You'll now tell me why we can't have that, so what's Richard's solution?

I suspect Richard likes things as they are, which of course changes drip-by-drip, therefore he acknowleges no need for any solution.

One way I'm the same, an observer with no one to worry about. On the other hand I see a planet overrun with a single animal whose actions threaten every other species, animal or plant. We've barely begun to explore the oceans (and I know Richard will seize on that) but it's clear that toxic emissions and overfishing have wrought havoc already.

Candid wrote:I suspect Richard likes things as they are, which of course changes drip-by-drip, therefore he acknowleges no need for any solution.

It is interesting what you suspect.

No. I don't like things as they are. Isn't it clear that I don't like how peddling the fear of the impending doom of humanity is used to manipulate people? I think it is pretty clear I don't like that. I don't like that this is the way things are.

I'm not sure of the solution though, because fear-mongering is nothing new. Fear-mongering is apparently a Darwinistic evolutionary adaptation. Fear-mongering (I'm speculating) is an adaptive tool used to form tribes and then use various forms of violence to achieve some end.

Candid wrote:On the other hand I see a planet overrun with a single animal whose actions threaten every other species, animal or plant.

You act as if this is a bad thing. You act is if other species have never, or might not ever overrun the planet. You act as if only homo sapiens have ever dared to spread across the globe. You are aware that scientists believe that 99.9% of species that ever existed on earth are extinct?

Is it that we are a species capable of compassion that gives you concern? Is it that we are a species that is self-aware, that knows mortality that gives you concern? Is it the issue of free will? This is why you don't like your own species because we have the capacity to "know better"?

In other words, if another species began to dominant the planet and began to wipe out all other species including homo sapiens you wouldn't have an issue, because it would just be the natural order of things. After all, the other species wouldn't have free will, it wouldn't be intentional, it would just be nature.

I think this is where our thoughts are fundamentally different. I see our free will used in making the conscious effort to conserve other species, to conserve nature. What other species make that effort? What other species feel bad about killing? What other species feel bad about expanding their reach across the globe or using too much of a resource? Ever, in the history of all species, which one ever set aside areas of wilderness on behalf of another species?

It is as if you hate the gift of consciousness. Or at a minimum, you use this gift to bemoan our existence.

We've barely begun to explore the oceans (and I know Richard will seize on that) but it's clear that toxic emissions and overfishing have wrought havoc already.

I'm not sure what you mean by seizing. I do find it fascinating how there is so much more to explore, so much more to learn about the oceans.

I'm aware of overfishing and toxic emissions. I agree "havoc" has been wrought. Is either of these issues a result of global overpopulation? Nope.

It is the same as how humanity drove the American Bison to extinction. It was overhunted. Sad, right? Humanity really decimated wildlife in the USA in the 1700 and 1800s. And humanity has been putting toxins into the environment for thousands of years, ruining the pristine conditions, killing animals, and making them sick.

I guess at this point I'm not sure past Adam and Eve how many people Candid believes would not be too many?

In the world of Candid would other hominids still exist? Would homo sapiens live in harmony with all species and manage disputes between all other species to make sure no one species was dominant? Would that be the role of humanity in Candid's utopia, to balance the resources of the earth to make sure all species flourished (well not flourished, but got their fair share)? Would part of that management be to keep the count of all species stable? You know, two elephants, two parrots, two sharks. No species is allowed to "overpopulate". And what would happen when a new species was discovered? Is there a committee to determine how we share the planet? What do we do if they begin to breed too fast, without our approval?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:This is why you don't like your own species... ?

Stopped reading here.