Just where do ...
... Republicans think their kids and grandkids are going to live?
(Hint: They don't care)
One of Earth's biggest icebergs ever seen has been discovered by orbiting satellites. The huge freeze-blob was just carved out from Greenland's Jakobshavn Glacier, and slid into the ocean. Greenland iceberg That's enough ice for a lot of gin and tonics The iceberg was formed between August 14 and 16, and was caught on …
What's the point of yet more children or grandchildren? Especially from poor regions? It's somehow a good thing to bring yet more people into the world that we can't feed and who won't have jobs because everyone has been replaced by a shell script or a robot?
If the only hope for that child is to be labour that's just slightly less expensive than that provided by a robot you've consigned that person to a miserable existence. Better to have fewer offspring who can be properly cared for. Or none at all. What makes your genes worth passing on, hmm?
(For the record, I've opted out of procreation in part because my genes are terrible but mostly because there are too damned meany people already.)
And? So what? Human nature means that even if we produce enough food for 10 Billion people we don't and won't redistribute it to those who need it.
Besides, life is about more than mere survival. Being kept alive with no purpose, no hope, no chance of ever being more than another mouth to feed is not being alive. There's an essential piece of humanity to being needed, being wanted. That's something that our radically surplus population are having an increasingly hard time with today; in our fully automated future there is even less room for them.
"That's something that our radically surplus population are having an increasingly hard time with today; in our fully automated future there is even less room for them."
Don't worry, it's only about 35 years to WWIII then a few years later Cochran takes the first warp flight, the Vulcans arrive and we have cheap matter/anti-matter power.
Ah, yes. But those 10 billion people won't live where the food is produced, so significant amounts of effort and resource would have to be expended getting the food to them (and, yes, I'm aware that the UK is a net importer of food).
If you let the population that lives in marginal areas procreate, and keep them alive beyond their locally available means with aid and medical treatment, these areas will become breeding grounds for people who will migrate, attempting to gain access to already populated less marginal areas.
I don't know where you live, but if it is in Europe, you can't help but notice the number of people trying to cross or skirt the Mediterranean. If things continue as they have been this year, we will soon see ghettos and shanty towns spring up around cities in eastern and southern Europe. These will not seem strange to the people who occupy them, after all, what is the difference between a hut with a tin roof in Athens or Lampedusa compared to one in Aleppo, but will severely degrade the lives of the native citizens.
Imagine how that is going to change if clean water becomes a conflict resource, driving ever more people into migration. Current clean water schemes in drought areas are not sustainable, because most of them are either tapping into aquifers and underground rivers, or even worse, into fossil water. The first will cause surface springs and rivers downstream to dry up, denying water to other people, and the second will not be replenished in the lifetime of current generations. This is not free water. Extracting it all has consequences (look up what's happening in California), and one of these could be future conflict.
No. Whilst I don't practice what Trevor is suggesting (I'm aiming for a stable population, with reasonable procreation levels to help pay for my state funded pension), I do agree that there are places on earth where we really should not be encouraging population growth. Trying to cap the population to something only a little above today's level is far, far preferable to driving the population to the point where it takes all of humanities efforts to just sustain the higher population.
I know I hold an NIMBY, elitist and uncomfortable view of the future, but I cannot see any alternative short of having a world government that rations out the worlds resources evenly.
<quote>Trying to cap the population to something only a little above today's level is far, far preferable to driving the population to the point where it takes all of humanities efforts to just sustain the higher population.</quote>
You do realize that in the past, one method of keeping the population in check was warfare. The most recent planet wide exhibition of 'warfare' claimed the lives of 10's of millions, with the resulting destruction of wealth in the BILLION$.
I agree, the overall population of the planet needs to be gradually lowered, and better geographically dispersed, so that population groups are located near resources, but that will take time, and inertia to overcome. Unless you have a better idea?
Yes. a good war with significant collateral damage, followed by famine and pestilence may be a way of keeping the population down, but it's not the one that I was aiming at.
I suspect that even though the 20th century had a number of quite serious conflicts, they did not significantly slow the rise of global population. The global flu pandemic of 1918 may have killed more people than the first and second world wars combined, although you could argue that that disaster would not have happened if large numbers of soldiers returning home after WW1 had not carried it with them.
IMHO, in these days of modern, mobile population and low-manpower warfare, wars are just going to displace more people more quickly, rather than killing them.
"You do realize that in the past, one method of keeping the population in check was warfare"
Every single time the population has dipped through warfare or disease, the numbers have been made up and then some within 1 generation (even the black death population losses were recovered inside 30 years)
The human response to stress (war/disease/poverty) is more sex. If you want to reduce the population then you need to make people better off. Richer people have fewer children.
> "A pity. Look at the results."
I get the impression that you feel your species is essentially lacking and ought be curtailed. Maybe we are guilty of a crime? Do we have Original Sin upon our heads?
No, we're upright monkeys trying to keep a tight grip on this thing we've invented called "civilization." I would not expect perfection any time soon.
As for those "results," well, I'm not signaling you with smoke, mirrors, nor pigeon. Nor am I throwing my spear. Instead, my words are carried to you via magic tubes some others made, and we can discuss the details like civilized monkeys. I call that progress.
I get the impression that you feel your species is essentially lacking and ought be curtailed.
No...I think that we're a superpredator that has largely overwhelmed the ecological niche it evolved to fill. We've compensated with technology for a while, but now we're at the point where that technology is making us largely redundant. That's opening us up for a self-imposed Matthusean catastrophe wherein socially and culturally we have no room for the "extra" people who are no longer needed to provide cheap labour for the rich and powerful.
I am not arguing ethics about this. I am arguing pragmatism. Those in power aren't going to suddenly find a use for the milled masses. They aren't going to invest in training those milled masses, and the cost of training is such that you need to be gainfully employed just to obtain it today anyways.
The skills floor is skyrocketing and the number of skilled workers required dropping. Meanwhile, we just can't stop having fucking babies. We're overpopulating. Not because of what we theoretically could sustain, but because of what we pragmatically and realistically will choose to sustain, based on 10,000 years of recorded human history.
Maybe we are guilty of a crime? Do we have Original Sin upon our heads?
No...that's absurd. That's for religious fuzzy wuzzies or really extreme eco-freaks. That said, we are functionally immune to anything excepting gross evolutionary pressures. if you're born with a handful of really awful conditions you're probably not going to reproduce. Anyone else, however, can. You don't even need to find a long-term mate these days. It can be done as a straight up financial transaction, if you choose.
The end result is that a bunch of fairly bad genes are being passed on. Me, for example. I have a bit of genetic fuckery that means I cannot feel thirst. Instead, I feel an overwhelming (and sometimes unstoppable) craving for carbohydrates. Carbs tend to make me dehydrated, which causes a nasty cycle.
I can, for example, be in the middle of making pasta, telling myself (out loud or in my head) over and over "I shouldn't make pasta, I don't need pasta, I'm fat enough, thanks, I need water, water will solve this" and be entirely unable to use my conscious mind to override my body's actions.
I am also somnambulent. Video exists of me, dead asleep, getting up and just eating bread. Because my body can't tell it needs water.
That's not okay. That's a really bad bit of genetics. There are some others, but you know what, I'm doing humanity a favour by not passing that shit on.
Now, I know, some genetics that appear to be negative can convey benefits. For example, immunity to a plague we haven't encountered yet. That said, our technology is marching on such that the dubious potential genetic benefits of some generally pretty awful genetic traits are less and less relevant.
While I don't look at the "ethics" of how we are inevitably going to treat our "surplus" poor and undereducated, I do think that there is some ethics to examining the genetic inheritance that we might personally pass on to the next generation.
"The people" have fuck all power in the real world to affect how the rich and powerful treat the "surplus" population. Whatever your ethical views (and frankly, I'm not Randian at all in my own personal ethics,) moralizing about how we will treat those people is pointless. They will suffer by the billions, at best eeking out marginal lives living on handouts.
Yes, I know, the optimistic (and, IMNSHO, crazy) believe in the fairy tale that robots and technological advancements will be a "tide that lifts all boats". I do not. There isn't a lot of evidence for that. As our ability to produce increases so does the concentration of wealth.
We don't look set to actually do anything about inequality beyond providing the means for the poorest to eek out those marginal, hand-out lives, and we are decreasing the opportunity for individual self advancement in our societies.
So regardless of one's ethical or moral beliefs I think the pragmatic approach to dealing with human nature is to stop and ultimately reverse the total human population growth. I am not advocating the extinction of humanity, but its reduction over time to levels that allow human nature to allow everyone to leave reasonably comfortably. This has nothing to do with what's possible. it has everything to do with what is.
From an ethical standpoint I think an additional reason to reduce our population is simply that some of what we are - our genetics - needs to end. Normally evolution would take care of this for us, but we've largely cut that out of the equation. If humanity is going to use artificial means to bypass evolution we need to use artificial means to make rational choices about genetic propagation.
That isn't a call for eugenics. It's a call for personal responsibility regarding genetic propagation. We have the technology to choose whether or not we reproduce. Ethically, morally, I feel that means we have a duty to educate ourselves about the consequences of reproduction and make rational choices about whether or not we should reproduce.
Just because our ancestors uses baby spam to overwhelm the planet doesn't mean we should. Humans need to be managed sustainably. Just like any other animal species on the planet.
We just happen to be the only species capable of doing that management consciously. There is nothing ethically or morally wrong with doing so. In fact, in my opinion, doing so is our duty as sentient beings.
I largely agree. I see the biggest single issue to reducing global population is the ridiculousness of the control mechanism called religion. Do we need an new definition of describing the various portions of the world? For instance, we have the developed and undeveloped worlds or the first world and the third world. I'd bet that if we applied developed or first world to less religious regions and undeveloped or third world to more religious regions we be more accurate. In the US, this would cover convert many of the red states to the undeveloped or third world, as much of that area is simply being dragged upward by those with better educations and largely more educated.
No mention of Warming, Ice Sheet Melting, Weather Wierding or Global (it's all our fault) DOOM !
And just a tiny mention of sea level rise doom-a-thon ...
Don't they know that there's a Climate $$$ Jamboree comming up?
At least we can hope the BBC will Big It Up...
>At least we can hope the BBC will Big It Up...
Hope?
Sadly that's as certain as an ursid somewhere defaecating amidst an extensive arboreal ecosystem.
We're domed. Doomed I say. The end is neigh. Unless we take urgent measures stop the developing world developing any further and permanently freeze the global economies in their 1990s positions. It's the carbon I tell you. The carbon is killing us all. We're all doomed. Doomed I say --->
"The iceberg is an estimated 12.5 square kilometers 0.6 milliWales across and has a depth of around 1400 meters 10 brontosauruses, meaning a volume of 17.5 cubic kilometers just under a staggering 7 million Olympic-sized swimming pools. That would equate to enough ice to bury the entire island of Manhattan Wales under 300 metres of frozen water a light dusting of snow."
FTFY! I know it's a bit of fun, but if you are going to compare an area with a presumably well known body of land, why not stick with established precedent and use Wales? Besides, when measuring things in terms of Manhattans, you should also use miles, yards and feet as Americans are notoriously resistant to the use of metric measurements. One of the most important reasons to read The Register is that it is fun to read, at least for me. I can get most of the content elsewhere. It is the quality of the writing that keeps me coming back.
Robert, when measuring things in terms of Manhattans, one should use a standard cocktail glass.
See, that's the sort of thing that results in space probes crashing into the sides of planets: mixing units of volume with units of area. Here, have one on me for spotting that.
"Robert, when measuring things in terms of Manhattans, one should use a standard cocktail glass."
"See, that's the sort of thing that results in space probes crashing into the sides of planets: mixing units of volume with units of area. Here, have one on me for spotting that."
But it was an area of volume; The area of Manhattan, 300 feet deep.
*sip* That's a lot of Manhattans!
land area of Manhattan - 59.1 square kilometres
300 metres
Manhattan cocktail glass - 4.5oz - 0.0001 metre cubed
(Looks at numbers, has mild panic attack)
59100 * 300 = 1730000 / 0.0001 = *Error, limit of liver exceeded!* er, 1,730,000,000 Manhattan Cocktails
DAMN! That's a lot of cocktails!
Caveat: The above was done by a dyscalculiac with a phone app, accuracy not guaranteed.
Given an ice cube of size of approximately 10cc, That would yield some 1.75x1015 ice cubes. At two cubes per drink we could make 8.75x1014 gin and tonics. This means roughly 120,000 drinks per person for the entire population of earth, equating to 32.8 years of partying at 10 drinks per day (modest enough I would say)
A lot of the larger bergs only float at high tide when over the continental shelf
They've also been known to bump up on undersea ridges and get jammed. The fun part is that they melt from the bottom and as a result turn turtle periodically. That results in a mountain of ice sticking quite a long way into the air for a very short period (so short noone's actually managed to film a large one doing it but it's estimated that a 1200 foot thick berg will poke far enough into the air to swat any nearby small aircraft - and people love to buzz bergs in them and helicoptors.
Eh ? ? ?
I thought that icebergs like everything else displaced the same amount of water as their own mass, ie if it melted it would just fill the space it took in the water.
So how do these magic Antarctic jobs break the laws of physics ?
"I thought that icebergs like everything else displaced the same amount of water as their own mass, ie if it melted it would just fill the space it took in the water.
So how do these magic Antarctic jobs break the laws of physics ?"
By falling off land, into the water.
"How does floating ice fall off land ?". Yes that sounds funny indeed, perhaps it should be "ice fell off land and floated, if it fell in the sea that is. Then again there is this popular belief that tree will float without having to prove it. Very confusing, what I have learned is that if I drop an ice cube into my drink and it does not float then some bastard has emptied my glass or it was the bartender who just pretended to fill it. There is lots you can learn from science. Calling an iceberg a bastard is rather amusing/odd, nor am I at ease with the statement that it was formed in two days. Nitpick icon needed.
Melting of sea ice increases the volume (but not the mass) since the ocean becomes less salty and saltier water is denser. This means that the sea levels should rise by melting sea ice (but only marginally). On the other hand, melting sea ice causes the ocean to cool and this makes it denser (again, marginally). This means the water levels decrease. These are both very minor effects which more or less cancel each other but which fanatics on either side of the global warming debate will use to their fullest advantage (in either direction).
The fallacy with that is that Arctic sea ice is salty, so melting it makes little difference (salt ice takes several years for the salt to ooze out)
Glacial ice/icebergs are fresh water and the freshwater plume coming out of greenland is threatening to slow the gulf stream down. This would have the paradoxical effect of making europe cooler, even as global temperatires continue climbing.