Thevolunteerwino
Gold Member
- Dec 1, 2020
- 256
- 133
- 143
Not just population growth. I find that somewhat misleading. As I travel the country in my car I find most of it is vacant of human population. Huge swaths of land across the country are void of human life.I don't think your question is well-posed. I presume you are referring to what is good for humans. Yes the flora and fauna can adapt to a wide range of temperatures, but a problem will occur when trying to adapt to a climate changing rapidly within one generation. It will affect farming regions, sea side cities, ocean ecology, invasive species, etc.
The question should be about the rate of change of climate, not which direction it's headed.
We've endured a single degree centigrade temperature rise over the past 100 years ... why would you characterize a single degree centigrade over 50 years as "rapid" ... and that's actually two generations ... the infant born today would be welcoming their grandchildren in 50 years ...
What crops do not grow where 100 years ago they florished? ... which sea side city cannot add two or three feet to their sea walls over 100 years? ... how could a slight increase in temperature stop over-fishing the oceans? ... how does a change in climate cause humans to start releasing their unwanted pets into the wild? ...
"Rate of change" has a very specific definition in this context ... using Newtonian notation: f'(T, P, RH, w, r) [where T=temperature, P=pressure, RH=relative humidity, w=the wind vector, r=precipitation] ... with respect to time ... if all these parameters remain within instrumentation error, then we can conclude climate change cannot be measured ... f'(T, P, RH, w, r) = 0 ...
I'm sorry, environmental devastation better correlates to human population growth ... the more people raping the Earth, the worst off the Earth is ...
Im not saying the population numbers dont contribute to devestation. Im just saying its not at the core of the problem. DDT and other examples show how industrial science mixed with irresponsible marketing and proliferation contribute greatly as well. With only 1/ 4 of the current population we still would have polluted streams and destroyed the ozone. It just would have taken longer to show itself and we would have less people anf scientists to recognize the problem as well.
I was an avid organic gardener for years and had a good instruction from experience on the tenacity of life amd the earth and how well it loves to work in unison. Im not so much sure its too much population as it is irresponsibility of management of our current science.
Even now we are supposed to be solving a misguided warming theory with electric cars which tear up bog ponds in other countries for lithium. The bogs seem unimportant but unknowingly the microbes in the bottom contribute to the ecosystem above.
In the end to the marketing and their paid science its not about the planet we are living on its about profit. And in the end when things get desperate they can always blame the population even though they knew better about their actions from the start. Its not simply the population. Change must start from the top and they must first admit their wrongs and the problems they are causing. In this increasing technological age with nano tech, nuclear tech. Space knowledge. etc.. Even a few people can in theory destroy the planet unawares.
And it looks as if they will make it so if they dont change their perspective very soon.
And yes adapting to a changing planet amd its climate is easy. You learn that from working with your fingers in the earth and observing growing things.
But changing an entire adapting planets environment is like medically trying to treat the symptoms of a disease while ignoring the cause. It becomes very difficult to save the patient.
Last edited: