Humanity has wiped out 60% of animal populations since 1970

green shoots wrote: »

Regardless, we are consuming everything at a totally unsustainable rate and it's only going to get worse.

You don't know that, it depends on how industry develops in general. People said similar things about the contributions to the Ozone hole and that did change.

green shoots wrote: »

Ireland may be able to handle more people but why do we want a growing population?

It's not about whether we should want it, just that it's not the most relevant factor. Ireland is well off its carrying capacity.

Beyond that, your question is hard to answer, what population do you think the country should have? The current one? Less? Why?

What do you think is an acceptable population? Of course less people means less pollution, but reducing the population, especially for Ireland never seems to be suggested as the main solution in scientific sources.

Yes I can see the damage done with the current population, but why is the primary factor the numerical value of the current population as opposed to our lifestyles, waste management and various other factors.

Fourier wrote: »

What do you think is an acceptable population? Of course less people means less pollution, but reducing the population, especially for Ireland never seems to be suggested as the main solution in scientific sources.

Yes I can see the damage done with the current population, but why is the primary factor the numerical value of the current population as opposed to our lifestyles, waste management and various other factors.

Because:
1. The planet's getting hotter and it may be impossible to reverse that.
2. Good for England reducing their carbon emissions. When will they hit zero? The rest of the world? Not so much. And the IPCC's saying carbon emissions need to hit *zero* by 2050 in order to avoid breaking the 1.5 deg. C. 'red line'.
Impossible in my view worldwide as long as population continues to grow until 2050. That's a mere 32 years from now, a generation. *And* that assumes the IPCC got it right. The science does evolve and 30 years is an awfully long time. Maybe the real number is 10 years. Or maybe it's 100. We'll see where we are 32 years from now. If 1.5C is actually 'too warm' (as the models do change), then what?
3. As long as population keeps climbing, demand for food, water and other resources like energy will keep going up.

This isn't just a global warming discussion, it started as one based on extinction of animals due to human activity. More humans, more extinction - through environment change (need more space to live, cultivateable land for food, water for agriculture and humans, more resources spent on living and fighting, etc.) Pollution doesn't help, but I believe that loss of habitat is primary to loss of species diversity, and habitats lost to house, and feed humans.

Stop adding humans, save more animals.

One other thing not mentioned, but human involvement in ecosystems in order to 'preserve' animals, so far has shown many occurrences of it making things worse. The desert hold pupfish is a recent example, besides the yahoos that decided to invade the place, the scientists in charge mis-understanding that an incoming storm was going to be much more intense than they thought (because of...global warming), left some equipment around confident it was safe. Oopsies, it got washed into the tiny habitat and nearly wiped out the fish. They still might not survive, they're doing better than before they were preserved (to protect them from groundwater pumping being used to provide for more habitat for....humans.)

Really, stop adding humans and you'll have done more for the planet than anything else. Nor do you condemn the newly added humans to living in a hotter, more polluted and more desperate, less peaceful world.

As for your question about what's an ideal population - that's a tricky one - there's about 2.7 billion people impacted by some amount of water insecurity, and about 1 billion by food insecurity. Assuming the current arable land loss (about 30% in the last 40 years), with the magical 2050 goal and holding to the same food insecurity rate (13%) we're talking 1.2 billion people food insecure in 2050 if population continues to grow. Food insecurity and water insecurity overlap, since a lot of food insecurity and unrest come from droughts and failed harvests in the areas with the highest growth rates. I'd prefer to get food insecurity to zero, so howabout a population of 5.8 billion by 2050? Surely that's enough people! World population in 1960 was 3 billion, that 'feels' right but I'm being generous assuming there'll be enough food to have zero food insecurity. My number might be high.

Igotadose wrote: »

Because:
1. The planet's getting hotter and it may be impossible to reverse that.
2. Good for England reducing their carbon emissions. When will they hit zero? The rest of the world? Not so much. And the IPCC's saying carbon emissions need to hit *zero* by 2050 in order to avoid breaking the 1.5 deg. C. 'red line'.
Impossible in my view worldwide as long as population continues to grow until 2050. That's a mere 32 years from now, a generation. *And* that assumes the IPCC got it right. The science does evolve and 30 years is an awfully long time. Maybe the real number is 10 years. Or maybe it's 100. We'll see where we are 32 years from now. If 1.5C is actually 'too warm' (as the models do change), then what?
3. As long as population keeps climbing, demand for food, water and other resources like energy will keep going up.

I know all this, but as I said, population reduction is not conjectured to act fast enough to have an effect. I am aware the planet is getting hotter, if I thought it wasn't I'd simply be writing denial pieces. The ability to avoid the 2C limit is more reliant on conversion to alternate energy technologies because population reduction won't happen fast enough. Look at what Britain did, how could that have been done in that time space via population reduction without literally dropping a bomb.

You've just restated the problem and then reasserted your solution will work. Population can't reduce fast enough, conversion to alternate energy sources is the only thing that can act fast enough, which is why it is the major recommendation in most reports. This population reduction argument features far more on the internet than it does in actual scientific studies. And the things is, if we convert to alternate sources, especially fusion, in terms of carbon emissions it won't matter what the population is.

As I said, I would imagine few of the negative commenters here actually read the "60% animal population loss" report, just as deniers won't. You already argued about Britain without reading the statistics. Is it not possible that you are going on intuition rather than a reading of the scientific literature?