Hear, hear! Leastwise not everyone needs to multiply. It needn’t be thought of as a right of passage everyone needs to cross. Perhaps those whose natures might be improved by parenthood aren’t the best candidates for the job. We need a limited number of the ones whose nature most befits them to the job to apply. Celebrate them and celebrate those of us who recognize we are not prime candidates who do not contribute to the population.
1 Like
I also think this “dark night of the planet” alarmism is a bit over the top. The concern is certainly warranted, but dealing with pollution and our negative impact on the environment not a new problem, not for our species or many others. The basic logic that releasing all the CO2 from fossil fuels back into the atmosphere which was stored in the transformation of the atmosphere from the primordial one to 20% O2 is irrefutable – no, deforestation has very little to do with it, that is a whole different set of problems. But the natural variations in climate are enormous and biggest threat is not to the earth but primarily to that excessive population and the way of life we are addicted to. I really don’t think the reactionary backwards moving ideas are helpful. We are not going to turn back the clock. Change is the one constant of life and what we need to be seeking is the way forward – using our new knowledge and technologies to answer the arising problems.
Uh… NO! We are the ones responsible. Government and industry is our responsibility – and our children will reap the consequences.
I don’t vote. I only drive a car to get to work which I am forced to do by the current system. Government and industry are not my fault, neither am I able to influence or change them in the slightest.
But if everybody says that, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s like me saying, if I toss my trash out the car window, it makes no difference in the slightest to the community because I can already see a lot of trash in the ditches, and the fact that my little pittance got added to it all (a miniscule difference on the whole after all!) means I need not feel any guilt about whatever little bit I add.
And … because of people thinking just like that, we now have trashy roads. It’s called the “tragedy of the commons”. And in large part it explains why we can’t have nice things (including sane people to elect into government - at least not in both parties). Since people believed the lie that their vote makes no difference, they don’t bother with primaries, and then the nut jobs carry the day. As I’ve heard observed: we get the government we deserve.
It is true, though, that the planet will be just fine (or at least we won’t be doing anything to actually ‘destroy’ it.) But our civilization - our ‘ecological niche’ - that isn’t likely to remain just fine for long if we don’t step up to try to take care of things in much better ways. If we love yours (or other people’s grandchildren, and grandchildren-to-be), then we’ll definitely care what we’re doing to our environment. It’s our own place in it that hangs in the balance and is in question here. The planet itself couldn’t care less.
2 Likes
I agree with your sentiment, Merv, but it’s looking unlikely that the planet will be fine - expect in an “it’ll still be here orbiting the sun sense”. Germany and the UK both reported a 70% and 60% (respectively) reduction in flying insects over the last 20 or so years (sources available on request). Most of these insects are pollinators that we, and most other animals, are dependent on for food. Couple this with poisoned rivers due to sewage and pesticide runoff and plastic at every level of the oceanic food chain the likelihood is the planet is looking at a cataclysmic ecological collapse unless we, collectively, make root and branch changes. And even then we can only hope and pray that it isn’t too little too late for much of the planet’s ecosystems.
5 Likes
Well yes … the planet will be fine. But as for life on the planet, that’s another matter entirely. You’re right. Though I’ll dare say that life tends to find a way. Species die - and some of that has been caused by us in ways by us in ways that we would have been wise not to do. You’ll get no arguments out of me in that regard.
2 Likes
That is not what I am saying at all. I’m not involved in the phenomenon of destroying the planet. I don’t litter. I don’t destroy anything, at all. Anything unnatural I do is because I am forced. Like driving a car. I do not enjoy driving. I have to drive to and from work, however. If I am a part of any system that is destroying the planet, it is not that I am a member by choice.
You know well the issue is bigger than a bit of littering in your local neighbourhood. You know that isn’t what is being discussed. I’m saying that the real issue, is not one you or I can solve. I’m not going to keep cutting down forests and dropping nukes simply because I can’t make a difference… I’m not doing the damaging things in the first place.
As for Humanity… I do not care if we go extinct.
1 Like
Wasn’t there talk of food shortages and mass famine due to growing populations in the 70s? Then chemistry entered the chat.
Hand pollination will become more prevalent or some other scientific advancement will help in this area.
And are these poisoned rivers not capable of being cleaned by water treatment plants? A quarter of the world already doesn’t have access to clean drinking water.
Personally, I would think the next ice age should be the biggest concern for humanity.
1 Like
I commend your hope in science and human ingenuity, however, the reality is that there are food shortages and mass famines happening right now (source). By all accounts, things are set to get worse for most of the world, not better.
I agree, the solution seems obvious, so easy, doesn’t it? And yet, in the UK a large proportion of water pollution is a result of sewage and wastewater plants pumping raw sewage into rivers and oceans. 770,000 times between 2020-2021 alone. Despite reports of profit losses, UK water companies paid almost £1 million in dividends to shareholders and a combined £16 million to their CEOs (March 22) (source). From where I’m sitting, it seems pretty clear what their priorities are and it isn’t cleaning poisoned rivers. Not to mention that cleaning the rivers will not restore the habitats or organisms lost as a result of the pollution in the first place.
3 Likes
Who is causing those? The Government and Bill Gates are. If the ones who could solve the problem are helping to cause it, why should you lose sleep over it? You can’t do anything about it.
But I believe this is just another con. They want you freaking out. Just like with everything else. Covid and the “woke” movement. There’s a nefarious club causing all these “issues” and there’s even more money behind them. It’s not something any Christian should involve themselves in.
And the Wikipedia article leads with:
“The worsening crises in distinct parts of the world were caused by compounding geopolitical and economic crisis. The crises followed food security and economic crises during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
So what is the solution?
I see a parallel to groups calling for racial justice, and yet these groups are unable to acknowledge that not all racial disparities are caused by racial injustice.
To admit the nuance of this variable into their activist equation, seems to dull the zeal of the moment.
1 Like
That should be a slow enough change (10s of thousands of years) as to not be a huge problem, compared to the same level of change in a few hundred years, which is what we’re on track for now. Would it reduce population? Probably yes. Would it reduce population faster than it is thought that it will due to declining birthrates? I’m not sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if human population declined enough by then to not cause any noticeable crash that could unambiguously be tied to the shift in climate.
1 Like
The hope is born out of past observations. But yes, true on all accounts but I am not convinced individual events tie into man-made warming. Not to mention droughts in one area might mean more fertile crops and better nutrition in another. But yes, there are lots of people going hungry in the world today and lots of people without access to clean drinking water (25%?). But people have had to deal with drought, famine, diseases and massively changing climate for the last million years. Changes that dwarf anything even the most staunch climate alarmist might worry about today. The geologists tell me my area was covered in an ice sheet a mile thick during the last ice age. I’ll see that 2 degrees of global warming and raise it a mile thick sheet of ice.
My understanding is also that the earth can provide enough of everything. There is enough food and water for everyone on the planet. Geopolitical boundaries and unequal wealth distribution are the significant problem. Greed and a lack of compassion are the problem, not fossil fuels. People dealing with climate change in the past were isolated and local and had no clue what was going on. We live in a global world where movement across it is easy but people love money and we like to horde wealth and worry about our future. We certainly don’t Being more Christlike is the solution to climate change and many of us certainly don’t live us to Matthew 6:25-30 very well.
I remember when he had that bailout in USE and all the CEOS gave themselves multi-million dollar raises. That is when I despaired and decided the government is complete trash and beyond all repair. In the end, greed and money is the problem, not fossil fuels. Many are profiting off of climate alarmism as well.
Vinnie
Time frame slower but the results much more catastrophic than 2 degree warming. And I would recommend people stop buying houses on the coastline. Plenty of time to deal with that. People will need to slowly move/migrate. Fossil fuels aren’t stopping and we have no business restricting poor countries from using cheap energy to give their citizens a better quality of life.
People have been dealing with storms, natural disasters and droughts for millions of years. This is nothing new under the sun. Expecting ocean levels or climate to remain the same forever is folly. Year to year massive droughts happen and have always happened. We certainly don’t want to increase them if we can help it.
Yes there are lots of poor people in the world that can’t just relocate but they are still going to be poor even if we all switch to electric vehicles. That isn’t solving the real problem that plagues our planet. I am not interested in climate change alarmism that just wants to maintain the status quo. Many people suffering through droughts and starvation right now are very much help-able.
And for what its worth, I am typing this on an apple device that was probable made in a Chinese sweatshop.
Vinnie
This dark night thesis is nonsense. Take a look at the link below to a NASA study showing the earth is greening!! The earth is in better shape than ever. Fewer people hunger; in spite of the Chinese virus, longevity is improving. In spite of Ukraine, deaths by conflict are low. There is no climate crisis. The warming planet…it has warmed by a degree C or so in the last 200 years following a drop of well over a degree during the “little ice age”. The CO2 leads to increased food production…greening. Our God has provided us with the intellect and curiosity to make life better for all, even if it does not go exactly in a straight line.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming
1 Like
Admittedly, caring can be a lot of trouble, entailing worry and disappointment. But indifference has its own affects which impinge on happiness just as much. I used to say happiness isn’t something I will pursue at any cost. That’s fine too but I’d be a fool not to recognize it as a canary in the mine I should pay attention to.
1 Like
It is good that there are positive trends that give hope. Some trends in the statistics about human populations show that humans can improve the global situation if there is will to do it.
At the same time, it is not true to say that the earth is in better shape than ever. The page about the greening you mentioned writes: “The vegetation cooling effect is large from the energy dissipation perspective, but only about 10%-20% compared to the pace of global warming.”.
We are losing a large proportion, possibly most, of coral reefs that are important areas for the production of fish. That leads to less fish available for humans, in addition to the likely thousands of species that will disappear. The reason is increased ocean temperatures and acidification caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Overfishing of populations of large fish makes the situation worse.
Greening is a significant trend in arctic areas as the length of growing seasons increases. These areas are mostly not suitable for agriculture, so the effect is mainly two-fold: species adapted to arctic conditions suffer and disappear, and the areas covered by bushy vegetation suck more sunshine, leading to higher temperatures. Arctic areas will likely warm >4 degrees C in the near future (already warmed >2 degrees C). This is a very conservative estimate, the actual temperature rise may be 6-8 degrees C in the arctic areas.
Local small glaciers have already been doomed, it is just a matter of time they disappear. That matters because large areas are dependent on the melting water running from these glaciers. Large areas in Eurasia will suffer from a lack of water originating from the glaciers. In addition to harming agriculture and availability of drinking water, lack of water will be seen as drying rivers that have been important shipping routes and sources of fish.
Some areas suffer more than others.
Mediterranean areas, California and many more areas will experience even worse droughts than they experience now. It matters, even if you would not like californians.
Sea surface and atmosphere have more heat, which leads to more devastating storms and hurricanes. The amount of water raining may stay the same but it comes down in fewer days. When it rains, there will come down so much water that soil cannot suck it. Lots of water but groundwater reserves do not increase much. This leads to sudden flooding associated with long droughts and lack of groundwater.
These are just few examples of our near future. The consequences will not be bad only for the other animals, humans will suffer. We can mitigate the damage by spending trillions to infrastructure and aid but a more permanent solution demands actions that slows down the climate change. Those suffering are not only living in distant countries. If you have children or young relatives, they will also suffer. How much, that will depend on where they live and how much we can slow down the climate change.
As I wrote, there are also positive trends and humans can affect the trends if there is will. So, there is still much hope but the time is running.
Unfortunately, many Christians just shut their eyes and continue business-as-usual. Maybe they hope to die before the situation is too bad, or calculate that Jesus needs to return before the consequences of environmental changes become too catastrophic. I hope that Jesus returns soon but so have hoped all generations of believers during the last 2000 years. We cannot tell when Jesus returns and there is no justification for the belief that Jesus must return because we have soiled our home.
9 Likes
We are likely facing an increasing amount of crises related to lack of water and possibilities to get sufficient crops because of droughts. Such problems lead to migrations and unrest, which will lead to conflicts and war.
One region that will face problems because of climate change is China. If that leads to serious unrest within China, there is a possibility that the leaders rather face an external than internal threat. As is well known, nothing unites people within a country better than a war against an external threat. If there are unrest within China because of the consequences of climate change, getting rid of a few hundred thousand citizens could be calculated as a benefit.
If there would be a war, against which enemy would it be? It is unlikely that China would attack to Russia. There are conflicts at the border of India but India has even more people to waste, so not a very good alternative. That leaves Taiwan as the most probable candidate. Chinese think of Taiwan as a rebellious region that is an insult to the continental China only because it exists. There have been officially told promises that Taiwan will be joined to continental China within the near future, either peacefully or through a war.
That is a scary scenario, especially if USA and allies keep their promises to protect the freedom of Taiwan. Fights at Taiwan would lead to a major war between China and the alliance led by USA. China would have the advantage that it can easily waste a few hundred thousands of soldiers. Even if the other side would loose less soldiers, the casualties on both sides would be measured in hundreds of thousands of soldiers, dead or seriously wounded.
As can be seen from the above scenario, climate change could lead to very serious indirect consequences. I really hope that climate change do not create such unrest in China that would spark a war. That would lead to an even darker night.
2 Likes
That’s about 60% of the world’s population. Where do you think we should go and who will pay for it? Can you imagine the issues with this? What are naval/submarine bases to do? Somebody else here has suggested that coastal cities should simply move. But I don’t think he was aware of how big coastal cities are or their importance in all kinds of things
We haven’t been around for millions of years. And because we have dealt with natural disasters in the past, that gives us incentive to avoid them in the future, as much as possible.
Has anybody said that?
Bingo!
2 Likes