[jeffreyH]

Poverty, now there is a topic. The American government is funding most of the proxy wars around the world and has troops in multiple conflict zones. Now I wonder why people live in poverty? Let's see if we can solve that puzzle!

They have just authorised over one trillion dollars in "defence" spending. And we are going to solve climate change. Don't insult everyone's intelligence.

[Bored chemist]

It rather depends on whether or not the alternative is that they die in poverty.

The sane alternative is not to make babies in a place where you can't feed them.

If, as is quite common in much of the world, the only "social security" that will look after you when you are old is your surviving children, then having lots of children is the only sane thing to do.

And that decision is made by one group of people, and the decision about  aid to the developing world is made by a different group of people.
The second group could offer social security to the first group.
One way they can do that is by providing aid at a national level.

[pensador]

Poverty, now there is a topic. The American government is funding most of the proxy wars around the world and has troops in multiple conflict zones. Now I wonder why people live in poverty? Let's see if we can solve that puzzle!

They have just authorised over one trillion dollars in "defence" spending. And we are going to solve climate change. Don't insult everyone's intelligence.

Poverty is not a cause of global climate change.

Wars could, especially nuclear, cause global cooling could they not. Nuclear winter. Would this solve the global warming problem.? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

Would a nuclear war cause a reversal of global warming?

Edit Yes it seems like it might have already been considered https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nuclear-war-global-warming_n_828496

[jeffreyH]

The poor have no incentive to do anything about mitigating climate change. It doesn't figure on their list of priorities at all. The same with warmongers. They also don't concern themselves with mitigation of climate change. Making truckloads of money from the suffering of the poor in foreign lands is their motivation.

So you think none of these things figure in the equation. I can see why you are flummoxed.

As for the nuclear winter scenario, well that opinion just shows the type of person you are. You obviously side with the sociopathic warmongers. At least you are honest about it.

[alancalverd]

Are you are appealing to the higher intellect of people living in areas where to have lots of children ensures you are supported in old age, africa perhaps. It wont work, and in fact they are not contributing to global warming, so should not be the focus of attention.

You have missed my point entirely.

Climate change is inevitable and the current trend will drive many marginal populations to extreme distress from lack of food and water. At the same time, human communication has altered human expectation and aspiration. Everyone who has a mobile phone (and that includes practically everyone in Africa)  aspires to a lifestyle that is unsustainable for the present population, even in northern Europe.

Having more babies to sustain you in old age is fine if you can feed them for the first 10 years of their life, and condemn them to the same lousy life that you led. In many parts of the world this is already unrealistic, and will only get worse and more widespread with current climate trends.

If you just look at the UK, nobody contributes to the economy for the first 20 years of their life. OK, some leave school at 16 and work, but half go on to acquire a massive debt and a meaningless qualification. The "working fraction" whose taxes support the young and old, is between 40 and 60, after which we die at a fairly linear rate until there are very few centenarians. If you do the arithmetic, you can see that the working fraction is about 0.5.

Now if we reduce the birthrate, the working fraction actually rises. If we reduce it  to half the replacement rate, the WF increases to about 0.63, so there is more money for pensions and elderly services, and more people available to provide those services as we have reduced the requirement for education and youth services.

[pensador]

You have missed my point entirely.

Maybe

Climate change is inevitable and the current trend will drive many marginal populations to extreme distress from lack of food and water. At the same time, human communication has altered human expectation and aspiration. Everyone who has a mobile phone (and that includes practically everyone in Africa)  aspires to a lifestyle that is unsustainable for the present population, even in northern Europe.

Climate change has little to do with peoples aspirations for a mobile phone in Africa or any where else in the world.

Having more babies to sustain you in old age is fine if you can feed them for the first 10 years of their life, and condemn them to the same lousy life that you led. In many parts of the world this is already unrealistic, and will only get worse and more widespread with current climate trends.

Ive had a pretty good life to date.
Humanitarian aid to famine areas, supporting populations that are already unsustainable, who then produce even more babies in an already over stretched eco system is unrealistic.
 

If you just look at the UK, nobody contributes to the economy for the first 20 years of their life. OK, some leave school at 16 and work, but half go on to acquire a massive debt and a meaningless qualification. The "working fraction" whose taxes support the young and old, is between 40 and 60, after which we die at a fairly linear rate until there are very few centenarians. If you do the arithmetic, you can see that the working fraction is about 0.5.

I managed to get through university with no debt, because I lived within my means, and worked. Students running up debts eating in flash restaurants and pissing all there money against the wall does not affect climate change, and I dont feel sorry for them.

Now if we reduce the birthrate, the working fraction actually rises. If we reduce it  to half the replacement rate, the WF increases to about 0.63, so there is more money for pensions and elderly services, and more people available to provide those services as we have reduced the requirement for education and youth services.

China has an ageing population as I understand it, but has recently allowed extra kids for certain classes.
 
Why not just do away with pensioners voluntary euthanasia, they serve no purpose Ahhh! Joking maybe

[alancalverd]

The function of pensioners like me is to prevent those who prefer dogma to logic, from ruining the world for our descendants.

[evan_au]

in fact they ("third world" countries) are not contributing to global warming, so should not be the focus of attention.

In some areas, local populations have discovered that they can make just as much money by taking people on tours through their natural resources, as they previously did by burning it down/digging it up/chopping it down/catching it in nets and selling it to the rich countries.

When this resource is healthy forest or healthy marine ecosystems, preserving it does help with climate change...
 

They (the USA) have just authorised over one trillion dollars in "defence" spending.

While it may not meet with the approval of their boss, the US military has become increasingly conscious of climate change:
- The impact it is having on their harbour facilities
- The fact that wind and solar is more cost-effective to run a base than using diesel generators (at least, for land bases outside warzones)
- Heat, droughts and water shortages are likely to fuel uprisings and wars around the globe

But sending naval and air forces to attack other countries is also likely to fuel uprisings and wars around the globe!

[alancalverd]

- Heat, droughts and water shortages are likely to fuel uprisings and wars around the globe

That is the real threat, which nobody is prepared to address.

[jeffreyH]

There are already uprisings and wars around the globe. Is no one paying attention? Do the victims of famine rise up? Usually they are seen by BBC reporters starving to death on parched plains. Ordinary people never rise up. Governments rise up. They are the ones with the well-fed armies.

[pensador]

There are already uprisings and wars around the globe. Is no one paying attention? Do the victims of famine rise up? Usually they are seen by BBC reporters starving to death on parched plains. Ordinary people never rise up. Governments rise up. They are the ones with the well-fed armies.

Civil war is when people rise up against well funded governments/leaders that think they have a right to rule by what ever means possible.

Was the war in Syria a result of the government rising up against its own people, OR was it initiated by external governments inside Syria. 

How would the situation in Somalia be described, civil war, desperation, TIA, business?

How would the situation with Iran be described, tortured by the Shah, unprising resulting in religious doctrines, threatened by external nuclear countries, now developing nuclear capability. Do they feel they need a bomb?

Palestine, Brexit too sensitive to discuss perhaps, and not related to global warming.

Is the unrest in regions of the world due to minorities, being supported by external groups over throwing the majority.

Will limited nuclear war stop the unrest, and global warming without killing off all the people who havent contributed to global warming.

[jeffreyH]

The middle class, who want to replace the upper class, usually rile up the working class. They in turn take up arms. So again we have an army led by a potential replacement government. The people never spontaneously rise up.

Some of these "freedom fighters" are then supplied with arms from external governments. They are then fighting proxy wars on behalf of an imperialist regime.

Learn your history!

[syhprum]

How do you discourage people from making babies when they are a useful source of income ? there are two stories going the rounds at the moment "the horrors of child labor in the production of cocoa" and the sorry tale of American women having babies to get government benefits and then letting die of neglect.   

[alancalverd]

the sorry tale of American women having babies to get government benefits and then letting die of neglect.   

My scheme has no child benefits. You get money always and only for not being pregnant.

[alancalverd]

Is starvation an effective method of birth control that might work better than condoms and education? Dont answer that!

It seems not to be. But birth control can prevent starvation.

[Colin2B]

But birth control can prevent starvation.

It is interesting to note that in India they found that educating girls led to them give birth later and have fewer children than the national average. Obviously, lots of other factors go alongside education to contribute to this reduction in birth rate, but still an interesting result.

[jeffreyH]

Well I wonder why we can't deal with the climate crisis. Oh yeah, that's right, we're too busy arguing about why Brexit, or why Trump, or why Boris. That way we can just ignore it and hope it goes away. Let's see how that works out shall we.

[jeffreyH]

Well I wonder why we can't deal with the climate crisis. Oh yeah, that's right, we're too busy arguing about why Brexit, or why Trump, or why Boris. That way we can just ignore it and hope it goes away. Let's see how that works out shall we.

OK, fair point; it's a long way from the topic.
But Trump and Boris are not going to behave as if climate change is real, so there is some interaction/ relevance.

All of which is part of my argument for leaving the EU. So no disagreement there.

So, your argument for leaving the EU is that it's better than nothing, and you prefer nothing...

I'm off topic? Wow!

[jeffreyH]

Well now what about agreeing on answering the original question? Lol.

[Bored chemist]

Well now what about agreeing on answering the original question? Lol.

Again?
OK.

Meanwhile, back at the topic, it's difficult to say how long we have to save the planet.
The true answer is we missed the chance.
Some things will already have died out because of our behaviour.

But it's reasonable to make claims about how long we have before we lose some defined level of quality of life.
If we continue the policy of doing little or nothing then Alan's policies on reducing population will be moot.

The planet will do that for us.