• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

So the Pope says AGW must be dealt with, while ignoring the fundamental reason

Elind

Philosopher
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
7,787
Location
S.E. USA. Sometimes bible country
It's commendable that the Pope enters the AGW debate, but sad that he also seems to ignore the most fundamental reason of all, for which the Catholic church has major responsibility. Namely that fossil fuels are not the primary problem, but population growth is.

There are not enough resources on this planet to support the millions of new humans yearly that want access to them, and never will be regardless of what we do, theoretically, about renewable energy.

Indefinite "growth" is what will kill us, along with dogmas like those of the Catholic church, not to mention Islam and other primitive beliefs.
 
So when the population was, say, one tenth of the current number, were we better off or worse off as far as energy was concerned?
 
Let's imagine a future. Ten billion people. All the electricity comes from some combination of solar, wind, water, geothermal, or nuclear. Maybe even some early fission plants. Cars are either electric or hydrogen fuel cell. The entire petroleum industry is down to making plastics.

Is AGW still a thing?
 
It's commendable that the Pope enters the AGW debate, but sad that he also seems to ignore the most fundamental reason of all, for which the Catholic church has major responsibility. Namely that fossil fuels are not the primary problem, but population growth is.

Evidence the Catholic church has major responsibility?

Evidence that population growth is the primary problem to be addressed?

There are not enough resources on this planet to support the millions of new humans yearly that want access to them,

Evidence?

and never will be regardless of what we do, theoretically, about renewable energy.

Evidence?

Indefinite "growth" is what will kill us, along with dogmas like those of the Catholic church, not to mention Islam and other primitive beliefs.

Sometime I fear I am getting lazy, but evidence?
 
I opened the thread expecting something different but agree with the OP. It's not just the RCC, of course -- there are also Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Quiverfull Xians, Mormons, and on and on. Population is the ultimate problem.
 
Let's imagine a future. Ten billion people. All the electricity comes from some combination of solar, wind, water, geothermal, or nuclear. Maybe even some early fission plants. Cars are either electric or hydrogen fuel cell. The entire petroleum industry is down to making plastics.

Is AGW still a thing?

The short answer is probably yes, because a lot of it is already baked in.

Depends I guess on how much CO2 is already in the atmosphere by the time we reach this future.

At latest count the concentration currently stands at 403.7 ppm.
Source

The same site claims that the upper safety limit is 350 which we passed back in the 80s.

The reason is, warming doesn't magically stop as soon as we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere. It traps heat from the sun, like a greenhouse, it doesn't generate heat. The sun will keep shining and the CO2 that's already there will keep trapping more heat.
 
Less than 1/6th of the world's population is Catholic, it hardly seems fair to blame them for populating when a) everybody else is doing it, too and b)they're not even the ones doing it the most.
 
Less than 1/6th of the world's population is Catholic, it hardly seems fair to blame them for populating when a) everybody else is doing it, too and b)they're not even the ones doing it the most.

I will mention in passing in the Pope's defense that he said something controversial (among Catholics and rabbit breeders) some time ago about maybe having lots of babies wasn't such a good idea.

Catholics don't have to breed 'like rabbits', says Pope Francis

Catholics do not have to breed “like rabbits” and should instead practise responsible parenting, Pope Francis said on Monday.

Speaking to reporters en route home from the Philippines, Francis said there were plenty of church-approved ways to regulate births.
 

Sorry, there's something else in that article I can't let pass without mentioning:

But he firmly upheld church teaching banning contraception and said no outside institution should impose its views on regulating family size, blasting what he called the “ideological colonisation” of the developing world.

African bishops, in particular, have long complained about how progressive, western ideas about birth control and gay rights are increasingly being imposed on the developing world by groups, institutions or individual nations, often as a condition for development aid.

“Every people deserves to conserve its identity without being ideologically colonised,” Francis said.

:id:

The Catholic Church is complaining about “ideological colonisation” of the developing world. Sure.

Hey, we got here first and “ideological colonised” these people with our European ideas about God and stuff, but don't you secular people come and spread your foreign ideas! Colonialism and the spread of the Catholic Church to places like the Philippines, Africa and the Western Hemisphere went hand in hand. It's the ultimate hypocrisy to now turn around and say "don't impose your Western ideas on these people, that's our job!". :rolleyes:
 
It's commendable that the Pope enters the AGW debate, but sad that he also seems to ignore the most fundamental reason of all, for which the Catholic church has major responsibility. Namely that fossil fuels are not the primary problem, but population growth is.

That's just crap. A cursory glance at the per capita rate of emissions exposes this line of argument for the crap it is. Sorry.
 
So when the population was, say, one tenth of the current number, were we better off or worse off as far as energy was concerned?

In 1750, we had abundant energy. Wind, wood, coal, animal, all very low polluting in comparison to today.

Well, except for the cities. Smoke, human waste, horse **** ankle deep in the streets, dead animals lying where they fell.
 
That's just crap. A cursory glance at the per capita rate of emissions exposes this line of argument for the crap it is. Sorry.

Per capita rate? Your cursory reasoning is simplistic in the extreme. It is not simply a matter of emissions, even while it is total emissions that matter, not a simplistic calculation per person. It is all resources, from water to minerals to food production. You should read more.
 
Let's imagine a future. Ten billion people. All the electricity comes from some combination of solar, wind, water, geothermal, or nuclear. Maybe even some early fission plants. Cars are either electric or hydrogen fuel cell. The entire petroleum industry is down to making plastics.

Is AGW still a thing?

Are you not aware that all what you imagine requires minerals and other materials that are rarer than gold? Do you really believe the planet can support, at any reasonable level, unlimited population?
 
Evidence the Catholic church has major responsibility?

Evidence that population growth is the primary problem to be addressed?



Evidence?



Evidence?



Sometime I fear I am getting lazy, but evidence?

I suggest you read up on economic projections and available resources for yourself.

As to the Catholic church responsibility, that should be obvious. To put it simply, a policy of denying women the ability to control their bodies, and helping men make sure they don't, upon pain of hellfire and damnation.
 
On the radio this morning we had a guy who had 17 kids with 15 different women in 15 different states. He's a long distance truck driver who I think should drive off a bridge.

Can't even name ONE of the baby mommas.
 
Per capita rate? Your cursory reasoning is simplistic in the extreme. It is not simply a matter of emissions, even while it is total emissions that matter, not a simplistic calculation per person. It is all resources, from water to minerals to food production. You should read more.

SO population DOESN'T have anything to do with it now? Boy, this is confusing :confused:

But, jokes aside, my point escapes you - the vast majority of carbon pollution has been emitted by lower population density economies. Eliminating 100 million Americans would have a far greater impact on reducing emissions that eliminating 100 million Chinese, because pound for pound one American produces far more CO2 than one Chinese person. And that doesn't even begin to account for the fact that CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for up to 100 years, so the cumulative impact of lower population, higher industrial density economies is much, much higher than in China or India.

Another logical black hole in your argument that fossil fuels aren't the "primary" problem (I really think you have primary confused with secondary, or even tertiary) with climate change is the fact that, even if the population was 10 billion, were everybody to use non-emitting energy sources - there wouldn't be a problem with climate change.

That's not to say that there aren't many, many problems caused by population growth, or even that your agenda of calling out the Catholic Church's really ****** policies around reproduction are not without merit - it just simply means that trying to cast a problem that has been overwhelmingly caused by economies with relatively low populations on population growth is utter, utter garbage.
 
On the radio this morning we had a guy who had 17 kids with 15 different women in 15 different states. He's a long distance truck driver who I think should drive off a bridge.

Can't even name ONE of the baby mommas.

Why should he drive off a bridge, but none of the women ? Both are as guilty each other of not using contraception.
 
I suggest you read up on economic projections and available resources for yourself.

That's not how the game works.

As to the Catholic church responsibility, that should be obvious. To put it simply, a policy of denying women the ability to control their bodies, and helping men make sure they don't, upon pain of hellfire and damnation.

Great. So you've got a massive grudge against the Catholic Church and, probably, religion in general - can't say it is unwarranted. But if you want to make THAT case, then make it, don't try to make fallacious argument around climate change to push your barrow.

ETA

I just reread the OP - maybe I have misunderstood the point you are making, as such I would like to seek clarification and apologise in advance if I have misinterpreted your argument.

Is it your thesis that population, not climate change, is the real problem - rather than population being the main cause of climate change?
 
Last edited:
Are you not aware that all what you imagine requires minerals and other materials that are rarer than gold? Do you really believe the planet can support, at any reasonable level, unlimited population?
Well, he did not say "unlimited". He said 10 billion.

And no, I do not think it is realistic.
 
Why should he drive off a bridge, but none of the women ? Both are as guilty each other of not using contraception.

I don't have any evidence that they drive. Seriously though, the guy was proud he couldn't name any of the women he had kids with. He's just not a good human being.
 
Let's imagine a future. Ten billion people. All the electricity comes from some combination of solar, wind, water, geothermal, or nuclear. Maybe even some early fission plants. Cars are either electric or hydrogen fuel cell. The entire petroleum industry is down to making plastics.

Is AGW still a thing?

No, it won't be. And population growth, in economically free societies, is what will save us.

Our feeble efforts are worse than people of 1900 slamming on the brakes of growth, to us in 2015. We would be mass murderously worse off with 1970 level tech and nice climate, today, than actual reality of today.

This assumes we'd even be at 1970-level tech, which a quick look at places like North Korea, Cuba, or most countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, or South America shows us. The explosion of development in places like China (and, to a lesser extent, India, which still has serious corruption issues) also demonstrates this phenomenon. Again.
 
Last edited:
By the way, to address the OP, the real reason the Pope ignores is a faulty world design by God in general, and "By the sweat of your brow shall ye till the soil", in specific.
 
That's not how the game works.



Great. So you've got a massive grudge against the Catholic Church and, probably, religion in general - can't say it is unwarranted. But if you want to make THAT case, then make it, don't try to make fallacious argument around climate change to push your barrow.

ETA

I just reread the OP - maybe I have misunderstood the point you are making, as such I would like to seek clarification and apologise in advance if I have misinterpreted your argument.

Is it your thesis that population, not climate change, is the real problem - rather than population being the main cause of climate change?

Climate change is an effect. Population growth is the cause, and the issue is not only related to AGW but all the other, often linked, environmental or resource depletion issues driven by population.

When I was young (younger) there were less than half as many people on the planet and I could present anecdotal evidence of the changes just based on the fishing memories I have of those times, without needing any other evidence.
 
Why should he drive off a bridge, but none of the women ? Both are as guilty each other of not using contraception.

Because he did it 17 times that we know of, and 13-14 of the women only did it once.
 
I can agree with the part that the Pope is being selective in choosing the science that matters. But I don't think global warming is as much due to population growth as it is to how that population manages energy it needs.
 
Namely that fossil fuels are not the primary problem, but population growth is.

Population is the ultimate problem.

Quite right!

That's why Africa and South America create less than 10% of CO2 despite having 20% of the world population while USA & Europe, with 10% of the world's population has created over 50% of CO2 emissions to date.

Makes perfect sense to me.
 
Quite right!

That's why Africa and South America create less than 10% of CO2 despite having 20% of the world population while USA & Europe, with 10% of the world's population has created over 50% of CO2 emissions to date.

Makes perfect sense to me.

So your argument is that because the poorer and higher population increase countries don't contribute as much, even while they strive to reach the same level as advanced countries, that means that population has nothing to do with the issues.

Makes no sense at all to me.

Pull your head out of somewhere dark and consider that greenhouse gas emissions alone are far from the only matter of concern.
 
So your argument is that because the poorer and higher population increase countries don't contribute as much, even while they strive to reach the same level as advanced countries, that means that population has nothing to do with the issues.

No, my argument is that your premise is entirely false, and I provided evidence to prove it.

While population is a problem, it has not been one of the reasons for current climate change, because the majority of greenhouse gases have been released by a minority of the population.

I agree the population is too high, but your position of blaming over-population for climate change is bollocks.
 
Can an acknowledgment that the planet must be preserved for future generations be interpreted as a concession that it's unlikely the world will be ending soon? Is the Catholic Church abandoning the notion that the Second Coming is imminent?
 
While population is a problem, it has not been one of the reasons for current climate change, because the majority of greenhouse gases have been released by a minority of the population.

The explanation can't get much more elegant than that.
 
No, my argument is that your premise is entirely false, and I provided evidence to prove it.

While population is a problem, it has not been one of the reasons for current climate change, because the majority of greenhouse gases have been released by a minority of the population.

I agree the population is too high, but your position of blaming over-population for climate change is bollocks.

Agreed. But come mid 21st century (possibly earlier, it's been coming closer by the year) when population growth stops and starts reducing, there will be baby bonuses everywhere as European (in particular) countries have dangerously ageing populations. Look at Japan and multiply several times.

Population growth some time this century will become the saviour of mankind.

The other point is that, along with emission control, technology will go a long way to ameliorate greenhouse gases (fusion power for example) and allow the world to survive and even prosper with a population of 10 billion and reducing.
 
Back
Top Bottom