*"The Best Response to Climate Change?"*

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, 'letting nature take its course' has far worse results for a civilization than active population controls. Allowing a population to grow unrestricted almost always results in it going well past the carrying capacity of its resource base, so that when the population crisis does hit, it results in a crippling collapse, rather than a 'culling of the herd.' In the intimately interconnected modern world, the fallout of such a collapse winds up spreading to other areas in the form of refugees, military actions by the failing civilization in order to secure resources, and squabbling by other nations over what few resources remain in the carcass of the civilization. It gets worse if the collapsing society in question is a major power, because the reach of the fallout can become global, and the desperate actions of the failing society have the potential of bringing about the worst case scenario of nuclear war.

Which civilisations were you thinking of here?

'man-made' global warming is the biggest crock of crap that the counter-culture has ever tried to get over on the consumer.

If you would like to debate whether climate change is happening or not there is a thread further down the PPR-forum-page; "Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?" In this thread i really want to concentrate on what people think is the "best response" to scientifically accredited climate change. Thank you.

Something that interests me is how unthinking respect for Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection might be influencing general attitudes so that it seems reasonable to believe that if there is going to be a disaster the fittest will survive. Like Noah. That in fact a catastrophe is to be welcomed as a way of weeding out the "weak".

How in fact in the first major chapter in the works of science the story of Evolution is illustrated with a Flood. It is myth. And so maybe people simply won't believe it can be avoided, and wouldn't want to anyway.... .because most people will believe that they are the chosen people and will survive!

Last edited by ouinon on 12 Mar 2008, 5:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

Do tell.

After all the ecological disasters take place Man will adapt themselves. They'll build cities further inland and perfect artificial climatization. What about natural balance in nature? There are species of both animals and plants that will die out if there's the change in temperature predicted by scientists.

That's the sort of thing i think too, most of the time. Whereas for several years until 2005 i believed in Day After Tomorrow style scenarios of disaster as representing total doom, i now think "we" will probably find ways to deal with the problems. It's just another position of belief/faith, this time optimistic. And on the other hand the immense flourishing of many plant species predicted in other areas as a result of increased temp and CO2.

I believe in science & technology. I believe that they will save us....

That doesn't mean that I have to do what they/scientists tell me to do ( buy local and seasonal and unpacked, stop using fossil fuel, recycle absolutely everything, etc) does it? .....

I'm really interested actually. Which civilisations were you thinking of?

I can't think of any offhand which instituted explicit pop. control measures. And the civilisations which crashed can be explained by a number of factors and not just ecological ones as a result of uncontrolled population growth.

The disappearance of certain Central and South American civilisations has been linked to exhaustion of their environment; I'm not thinking particularly about Mel Gibsons recent treatment of this question, ( ) but of studies done on agricultural traces left on land around old cities. But was pop growth to blame?

I have also read that the real reason for the collapse of the Roman Empire was that it had become too dependent on food brought from too far away, having exhausted the capacities of its nearest lands to supply its increasing population.

And perhaps it is possible to see indirect population control in, for instance, laws in certain religions relating to sexual practices, such as how many days after her period a woman may have sex. How much has religion been a significant, even crucial, factor in controlling population growth in the past?