Why can't we feed the animals?

[Maou]

As I see the world, humanity is always growing every day and encroaching further and further into an ever decreasing animal habitat. Yet they tell us not to "feed the animals" because they will become reliant on us for food. I want to ask... what is wrong with that? Humanity will eventually grow to the point that nothing else can survive alongside it. One way or another, animals will begin to encroach on us and our habitats as they adapt to us. You can see this in California where the wild mountain lions developed a taste for human flesh. As well as rodent and pigeon populations booming aroud humans. Even monkeys and other animals have evolved to co-exist with us. Animals will adapt to us regardless, as we destroy the natural world for our own sake. We will become the "extinction event" for all other animals, and a new ecosystem will eventually emerge adapting around us. 99% of all previous life on this earth has already gone extinct after all due to various previous extinction events. So what is so bad about feeding the animals? It is like being a Republican/conservative, but with animals. It ignores the fact that progress happens naturally and nothing remains static. All this fight towards maintaining what we have, has never truly been what life has been all about since forever.

Thoughts?

I also very much disagree with killing animals for population control. Especially if their population boom was the result of human actions.

 

[Lexicon]

Well, for huge animals like bears... if they lose their natural fear of humans, they’re less likely to keep their distance by default, even when we are encroaching on their habitats. We’ll have more attacks on vulnerable people who may not even see it coming. They already break into people’s cars & houses sometimes. I think doing what we can to limit that risk is worthwhile, even if there won’t ever be a perfect way to prevent overlap & encounters completely.

In particular for apex predators like that, I’d rather work to conserve their space & limit human presence within that space, where we can, than feed them.

PS I hate bears

 

[Maou]

Well, for huge animals like bears... if they lose their natural fear of humans, they’re less likely to keep their distance by default, even when we are encroaching on their habitats. We’ll have more attacks on vulnerable people who may not even see it coming. They already break into people’s cars & houses sometimes. I think doing what we can to limit that risk is worthwhile, even if there won’t ever be a perfect way to prevent overlap & encounters completely.

In particular for apex predators like that, I’d rather work to conserve their space & limit human presence within that space, where we can, than feed them.

PS I hate bears

And my point is that eventually we won't be able to limit our contact, and they eventually won't have enough space. So either a) bears go extinct b) we domesticate bears/feed them so they don't attack us. I will say that a) is the more likely scenario. Hence why I said we are an inevitable extinction event. Or bears may evolve to be completely herbivorous. You never know.

 

[Lexicon]

And my point is that eventually we won't be able to limit our contact, and they eventually won't have enough space. So either a) bears go extinct b) we domesticate bears/feed them so they don't attack us. I will say that a) is the more likely scenario. Hence why I said we are an inevitable extinction event. Or bears may evolve to be completely herbivorous. You never know.

This is gonna give me so many bizarre nightmares tonight, probably with some weird evolved bearmonsters that have taken on anthropomorphic traits.


I think option C would be setting up & maintaining more conservation spaces to keep these animals. Right now, for instance, wayward bears who get too close too humans (but haven’t attacked) can be tranquilized & transported to conservation sites. I think we need more of that going on, to hopefully prevent any sort of extinction event & maintain their natural way of life without humans (outside of free transport).

 

[Maou]

This is gonna give me so many bizarre nightmares tonight, probably with some weird evolved bearmonsters that have taken on anthropomorphic traits.


I think option C would be setting up & maintaining more conservation spaces to keep these animals. Right now, for instance, wayward bears who get too close too humans (but haven’t attacked) can be tranquilized & transported to conservation sites. I think we need more of that going on, to hopefully prevent any sort of extinction event & maintain their natural way of life without humans (outside of free transport).

Optimism is admirable, but if you can't see yourself defeating the oil industry or getting people to stop littering. I have bad news for you.

 

[Earl Grey]

Optimism is admirable, but if you can't see yourself defeating the oil industry or getting people to stop littering. I have bad news for you.

This is like saying you can't be optimisitic unless you can achieve great things with it, which is an error. Achievements are achievements, and giving up right before you even try guarantees a loss. Even if you believe everything is beyond saving and the best we can do is delay,

And as a response to the OP, I'd rather not conclude the fight is over till it really is over. Keeling over and accepting defeat is a surefire way to not only hasten it, but bring it to fruition. Let's do things as how we are to do them, than based off a static assumption of a future failure.

My answer is more general, because based off your responses to Lexicon, I suspect that you are getting at deeper, underlying concept beyond what you are positing in the OP, and I am answering that.

 

[Coriolis]

Optimism is admirable, but if you can't see yourself defeating the oil industry or getting people to stop littering. I have bad news for you.

I don't think either of these problems is as intractable as you suggest. The sure way to fail at something is not to try. Then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is not baseless optimism, but simply a recognition that we cannot predict the future, especially over the long time scales over which events like extinction transpire. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic illustrates how unexpected events can lead to rapid change that could not have been predicted even a decade ago.

The best course of action is to take measures such as what [MENTION=5159]Lexicon[/MENTION] described, that are based on our best knowledge of the current state of affairs, to include root causes and likely (not guaranteed) outcomes. Then we periodically revisit that to adjust for events, expected and unexpected. We may still fail, but if we take your approach, we certainly will. I agree with Earl Grey here:

And as a response to the OP, I'd rather not conclude the fight is over till it really is over. Keeling over and accepting defeat is a surefire way to not only hasten it, but bring it to fruition. Let's do things as how we are to do them, than based off a static assumption of a future failure.

My answer is more general, because based off your responses to Lexicon, I suspect that you are getting at deeper, underlying concept beyond what you are positing in the OP, and I am answering that.

Yes, there are broader concepts here, though from what you (тень) have posted about your RL, you don't seem to have operated on this principle.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Pet bears sounds cool. They’re basically just big cat dogs anyway. I’m also all for domesticated foxes and bobcats

All of these species have made loving pets in instances where people have kept them as trained pets. I think foxes only take a few generations to tame.

I’d like my own mountain lion, the largest purring cat species

 

[Virtual ghost]

Pet bears sounds cool. They’re basically just big cat dogs anyway. I’m also all for domesticated foxes and bobcats

However the biggest issue with the problem at which this thread aims aren't really the bears and similar large animals. But the creatures that no one wants as pets and which make most of the mass of life on earth. Like some 800 000 species of insects, various worms and spiders, microorganisms ... etc. Therefore the natural/original environments will have to be preserved in order to actually preserve the environment. Preserving a few species just isn't good enough.

Especially since human life can't really survive without species that do the pollination of plans or fertilize the soil. While those species need the rest of the eco-system to keep them in check, especially if you plan to have larger packs of trees. Which are again vital for agriculture since they make fruits and they are natural aquifers because they preserve huge amounts of water in them. What keeps enough moisture in the landscape to prevent open desertification. Therefore in the end you have to preserve the whole landscape or you will preserve nothing.

 

[ceecee]

However the biggest issue with the problem at which this thread aims aren't really the bears and similar large animals. But the creatures that no one wants as pets and which make most of the mass of life on earth. Like some 800 000 species of insects, various worms and spiders, microorganisms ... etc. Therefore the natural/original environments will have to be preserved in order to actually preserve the environment. Preserving a few species just isn't good enough.

Especially since human life can't really survive without species that do the pollination of plans or fertilize the soil. While those species need the rest of the eco-system to keep them in check, especially if you plan to have larger packs of trees. Which are again vital for agriculture since they make fruits and they are natural aquifers because they preserve huge amounts of water in them. What keeps enough moisture in the landscape to prevent open desertification. Therefore in the end you have to preserve the whole landscape or you will preserve nothing.

Yes but that's boring. The following is not directed at you btw...

Much better to ask things like - why can't I keep an elephant in my basement or why can't I keep a giraffe in a dog kennel? It's a big one.

Maybe ask - why not grow native grass strips on commercial farms? More than 1/3 or US farmland has lost it's topsoil due to erosion, perhaps we should do something about that or none of us are eating, including the animals. We have colony collapse disorder and pollinators dying due to continued neonicotinoid-containing pesticides. But it's much easier to sit here and go duuuurrrrr we can't do anything about that. Let's just feed the bears.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yes but that's boring.

Of course that is boring, that was my main point. At least 90% of species on this planet is boring and generally uninspiring. Therefore real conservation of nature goes far beyond just saving the iconic animals. Especially since in order to do that you basically have to save the whole food chain.

 

[Maou]

However the biggest issue with the problem at which this thread aims aren't really the bears and similar large animals. But the creatures that no one wants as pets and which make most of the mass of life on earth. Like some 800 000 species of insects, various worms and spiders, microorganisms ... etc. Therefore the natural/original environments will have to be preserved in order to actually preserve the environment. Preserving a few species just isn't good enough.

Especially since human life can't really survive without species that do the pollination of plans or fertilize the soil. While those species need the rest of the eco-system to keep them in check, especially if you plan to have larger packs of trees. Which are again vital for agriculture since they make fruits and they are natural aquifers because they preserve huge amounts of water in them. What keeps enough moisture in the landscape to prevent open desertification. Therefore in the end you have to preserve the whole landscape or you will preserve nothing.

Yes, I was thinking of all plants and animals, not just the ones we like. And you are very right, that you can't just save a few. You have to save all of them, or the system still collapses. Its also near impossible to bring back a species, even if there is a few hundred left due to inbreeding causing deformities and various other problems. Not to mention, you must also convince governments to delegate land for preservation. But what happens when that land need collides with human need for land? The people with the most money wins. And people with money only care about themselves.

I am not exactly trying to be defeatist here. I am a realist, and really wish it wasn't that way. I'll still support preservation efforts. But like I said in another thread, at some point you have to choose between human life or animal preservation.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yes, I was thinking of all plants and animals, not just the ones we like. And you are very right, that you can't just save a few. You have to save all of them, or the system still collapses. Its also near impossible to bring back a species, even if there is a few hundred left due to inbreeding causing deformities and various other problems. Not to mention, you must also convince governments to delegate land for preservation. But what happens when that land need collides with human need for land? The people with the most money wins. And people with money only care about themselves.

I am not exactly trying to be defeatist here. I am a realist, and really wish it wasn't that way. I'll still support preservation efforts. But like I said in another thread, at some point you have to choose between human life or animal preservation.

That kinda depends on culture and the place where you live.
Here the government wants to nationalize what is left of big oil, what would btw. make it easier to have a phase out of fossil fuels. Also there is no population growth, so we don't really need more and more land. Especially since there are no large farming corporations around. Plus we have a growing number of national parks and protected areas, especially since we have areas that are really worth of protecting. Actually some taxes and even private investments are going in direction that some local animal populations recover. Therefore for me all of this is mostly just a question of will, education and investing into the functionality of the whole system/country.

 

[Tellenbach]

The raccoon whisperer:

Absolutely nothing wrong with this. The raccoons are obviously pleased and the gentleman is similarly very content. Notice how polite Canadian raccoons are; American raccoons appear to be much more aggressive.

Feeding wild macaw parrots:

One commenter said this is in Caracas, Venezuela. I don't have a problem with this; both parties are happy. I am glad that these large birds aren't in the USA because I imagine they crap a lot more than pigeons and they can be noisy.

 

[Maou]

That kinda depends on culture and the place where you live.
Here the government wants to nationalize what is left of big oil, what would btw. make it easier to have a phase out of fossil fuels. Also there is no population growth, so we don't really need more and more land. Especially since there are no large farming corporations around. Plus we have a growing number of national parks and protected areas, especially since we have areas that are really worth of protecting. Actually some taxes and even private investments are going in direction that some local animal populations recover. Therefore for me all of this is mostly just a question of will, education and investing into the functionality of the whole system/country.

I am glad you brought in different cultures and governments. This also plays a massive role, and also another variable in creating a successful endeavor to "save the animals". Some nations, have not found their "purpose" on the global scale, and are still developing. Depending on what "resource" they provide to the world, determines if they ever get out of poverty/3rd world status. There are single states in USA that have more income and quality of life than most of the 3rd world. They have to develop, and making these nations stay undeveloped for the sake of wildlife preservation is inhumane. That is why I said at some point, we have to choose between humans or wildlife. Trying to develop nations who can't even use their resources is a money sink and will never improve. Nations have to evolve organically or they will never be able to maintain themselves. Your nation might not need agricultural space, but others might need it. Africa for example, has a LOT of mouths to feed and they need more agriculture to feed their population than most nations. Population also isn't always the determining factor for how much resources a country consumes either.

I feel we need to focus more on clean development, anti-desertification, and taking care of the oceans more than CO2 elimination and other "Green energy" etc. We have to think about green energy on a global capability, and not a single country capability. What we can minimize in the USA and Europe isn't gonna mean shit if the whole world isn't doing it. That is mainly due to developing nations needing dirty production to get them advanced enough to get out of 3rd world status. Another issue lies in the energy cartels that ensure "rich" westerners will always make money. Wars are literally fought over this shit (see oil and USA). "Green energy" is often times a scam, as it abuses 3rd world countries to profit people in the 1st world and making people in the West feel good about themselves while simultaneously employing child and slave labor to fuel their "green energy" needs in many parts of the 3rd world. Lithium is often harvested in strip mines across the world, and in many countries whom have important ecosystems with diverse and unique life that they are destroying to help the "West" profit while they see little advancement themselves. Also, everyone lies about what is actually going on with energy and it pisses me off that the media wants to cover up this shit. Journalism is dead. The people with money have begun to control everything, and stifle scientific advancement to ensure reliance on their products. After all, profit cannot be made if things get better.

"Education" won't fix this. Nothing but a good hard reset will be able to. We will spiral into oblivion on the backs of unknowing happy slaves as the world dies around us. And those who sit at the top think they are gods, and hopefully with enough rebellion and war they might wake the fuck up.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I am glad you brought in different cultures and governments. This also plays a massive role, and also another variable in creating a successful endeavor to "save the animals". Some nations, have not found their "purpose" on the global scale, and are still developing. Depending on what "resource" they provide to the world, determines if they ever get out of poverty/3rd world status. There are single states in USA that have more income and quality of life than most of the 3rd world. They have to develop, and making these nations stay undeveloped for the sake of wildlife preservation is inhumane. That is why I said at some point, we have to choose between humans or wildlife. Trying to develop nations who can't even use their resources is a money sink and will never improve. Nations have to evolve organically or they will never be able to maintain themselves. Your nation might not need agricultural space, but others might need it. Africa for example, has a LOT of mouths to feed and they need more agriculture to feed their population than most nations. Population also isn't always the determining factor for how much resources a country consumes either.

I feel we need to focus more on clean development, anti-desertification, and taking care of the oceans more than CO2 elimination and other "Green energy" etc. We have to think about green energy on a global capability, and not a single country capability. What we can minimize in the USA and Europe isn't gonna mean shit if the whole world isn't doing it. That is mainly due to developing nations needing dirty production to get them advanced enough to get out of 3rd world status. Another issue lies in the energy cartels that ensure "rich" westerners will always make money. Wars are literally fought over this shit (see oil and USA). "Green energy" is often times a scam, as it abuses 3rd world countries to profit people in the 1st world and making people in the West feel good about themselves while simultaneously employing child and slave labor to fuel their "green energy" needs in many parts of the 3rd world. Lithium is often harvested in strip mines across the world, and in many countries whom have important ecosystems with diverse and unique life that they are destroying to help the "West" profit while they see little advancement themselves. Also, everyone lies about what is actually going on with energy and it pisses me off that the media wants to cover up this shit. Journalism is dead. The people with money have begun to control everything, and stifle scientific advancement to ensure reliance on their products. After all, profit cannot be made if things get better.

"Education" won't fix this. Nothing but a good hard reset will be able to. We will spiral into oblivion on the backs of unknowing happy slaves as the world dies around us. And those who sit at the top think they are gods, and hopefully with enough rebellion and war they might wake the fuck up.

I am sorry but I find this quite unrefined. If there will be rebellion and war you are far more likely to destroy the infrastructure and social structures that you need in order to reverse or hold environmentaly problems under control. What you are suggesting is in the end quick removal of various governments and that pretty much inevitably leads into ww3, probably even a nuclear devastation. What means that you have almost surely failed right in the start. Everything is falling apart today as it is exactly because there is just too much rocking of the boat as it is.



Also by education I mean real education on the issue, not some two week crash course and ADHD youtube videos. The problem is just too complex and too big that you can afford people not even understanding what is going on. Also you need millions upon millions of extra scientists and technicians to truly address the environment related problem. These are problems that are technically way above average Joe level or hoping that a revolution will solve everything. If people in the US had a real education in critical thinking they would just ignore the politics as it is and calmly vote for the third party by large mass, and that would be it. If your country has any kind of a working democracy the problem of this kind can be solved quickly and without too much drama. Especially since you need to save time and resources for real problems. After all it looks like US is starting to move in this issue even as it is. Especially since it is coming to understanding that it lags in this regard for the country that is supposedly first in "everything".



Plus you can have development without destroying your own environment. The idea that you have to choose one is false. You can produce sewer water purification equipment in developed countries and install them in no so developed countries. You you can make a factory that produces these in a poor country. Mining isn't that bad if you invest in making sure that the rain doesn't spill out of the mine or it that this water is purified.
There are plenty of decent energy sources from hydro to wind and biomass that you can find in just about any country, you don't need huge amounts of fossil fuels to have development. Also you can make sure there is stable/decent rule of law around many parts of the world, since legal chaos is what makes all those people miserable. It is perfectly possible to have orderly not too high tech life that is still happy and fulfilled. Also you can set global standards for fair trade in order to isolate bad countries to some degree in order to make them rethink things, or make them implode with sanctions (you can do that with the smaller ones and that leaves larger more lonely). This wouldn't be a simple process but causing ww3 isn't really a solution for environmental problems, since in that case we are surely going completely off the rail in the term of environmental issues. Since people by their nature don't care much about abstract or long term topics then their immediate environment is a mess. Therefore if you go too much into "revolution and war" you will probably get lost in a maze.



Plus you have to take serious effort regarding CO2 emissions because otherwise you are quickly in the checkmate. CO2 makes oceans more acid like and therefore it is crashing the whole food chain in them, what has serious global implications however you turn it. Melting of ice caps and glaciers means faster and faster desertification. CO2 will eventually trigger a methane release from permafrost and that is kinda automatic checkmate. Flooding of coastal cities would mean global economic collapse and a refugee crisis that will surely push us off the rail. If you plan to preserve something of this world this is simply number one issue. There is no national park or protected area that wouldn't feel the long term changes of this process if we really mess this up.

 

[Maou]

I am sorry but I find this quite unrefined. If there will be rebellion and war you are far more likely to destroy the infrastructure and social structures that you need in order to reverse or hold environmentaly problems under control. What you are suggesting is in the end quick removal of various governments and that pretty much inevitably leads into ww3, probably even a nuclear devastation. What means that you have almost surely failed right in the start. Everything is falling apart today as it is exactly because there is just too much rocking of the boat as it is.

Also by education I mean real education on the issue, not some two week crash course and ADHD youtube videos. The problem is just too complex and too big that you can afford people not even understanding what is going on. Also you need millions upon millions of extra scientists and technicians to truly address the environment related problem. These are problems that are technically way above average Joe level or hoping that a revolution will solve everything. If people in the US had a real education in critical thinking they would just ignore the politics as it is and calmly vote for the third party by large mass, and that would be it. If your country has any kind of a working democracy the problem of this kind can be solved quickly and without too much drama. Especially since you need to save time and resources for real problems. After all it looks like US is starting to move in this issue even as it is. Especially since it is coming to understanding that it lags in this regard for the country that is supposedly first in "everything".

Plus you can have development without destroying your own environment. The idea that you have to choose one is false. You can produce sewer water purification equipment in developed countries and install them in no so developed countries. You you can make a factory that produces these in a poor country. Mining isn't that bad if you invest in making sure that the rain doesn't spill out of the mine or it that this water is purified.
There are plenty of decent energy sources from hydro to wind and biomass that you can find in just about any country, you don't need huge amounts of fossil fuels to have development. Also you can make sure there is stable/decent rule of law around many parts of the world, since legal chaos is what makes all those people miserable. It is perfectly possible to have orderly not too high tech life that is still happy and fulfilled. Also you can set global standards for fair trade in order to isolate bad countries to some degree in order to make them rethink things, or make them implode with sanctions (you can do that with the smaller ones and that leaves larger more lonely). This wouldn't be a simple process but causing ww3 isn't really a solution for environmental problems, since in that case we are surely going completely off the rail in the term of environmental issues. Since people by their nature don't care much about abstract or long term topics then their immediate environment is a mess. Therefore if you go too much into "revolution and war" you will probably get lost in a maze.

Plus you have to take serious effort regarding CO2 emissions because otherwise you are quickly in the checkmate. CO2 makes oceans more acid like and therefore it is crashing the whole food chain in them, what has serious global implications however you turn it. Melting of ice caps and glaciers means faster and faster desertification. CO2 will eventually trigger a methane release from permafrost and that is kinda automatic checkmate. Flooding of coastal cities would mean global economic collapse and a refugee crisis that will surely push us off the rail. If you plan to preserve something of this world this is simply number one issue. There is no national park or protected area that wouldn't feel the long term changes of this process if we really mess this up.

1) A hell of a catch 22. Old governments and economic systems are the problem.

2) I am saying that regardless of how extensive and effective education is, it will not matter. Think about how many times you have clashed with teachers growing up, and apply that to serious problems. That is implying education hasn't been focused to support the very destruction you are against. Education is highly unreliable due to corruption and lack of the ability to actually teach. Not everyone understands what they are taught.

3)Using developed and clean energy, requires a preset of development to begin with. You cannot just start with green energy, it is not cost effective for growing nations when money means the difference between life and death. It is technically geo-economical suicide to try to go green from the start. The repairs for modern day green energy is absurd cost wise. Most 3rd world nations can manage is a fucking dam. Let alone solar power, or reduction of C02.

4)In what world does development not equal creating more room for industry and agriculture? Have you calculated how much room it takes to create an area to sustain a certain population based on agriculture alone? Are you aware of the deficits to a service economy only? Societies based around tourism and natural beauty do not last long before they are overrun by people trying to make a living there. Remember, with "Green energy", you are not proposing just to a few people. But the entire world. How will these small nations buy expensive lithium and cobalt? How will these small nations afford to make the transition from coal to battery power and or solar/wind that doesnt even work in all areas of the world? All of that requires huge sums of money they do not have.

The melting of ice is the absolute least concern in terms of what we as a race can do for the environment. It isn't the first time there has been a frosting and defrosting of the world either. We are technically still on the end of an ice age. And regardless of what we do, Earth is still gonna change.

 

[Virtual ghost]

1) A hell of a catch 22. Old governments and economic systems are the problem.

What is nothing unfixable. Pushing the elites out with violence that you are arguing for was tried in a number of countries in modern era and in general it led into more misery and the society went completely off the track. Plus here we had one ultra rich dude that made a company that is something like 20% of GDP and the people simply boycotted him, until he went bankrupt. After which he was arrested since it became obvious what kind of a scam all of that was. Therefore there are ways how to do this without rocking the boat even harder.

2) I am saying that regardless of how extensive and effective education is, it will not matter. Think about how many times you have clashed with teachers growing up, and apply that to serious problems. That is implying education hasn't been focused to support the very destruction you are against. Education is highly unreliable due to corruption and lack of the ability to actually teach. Not everyone understands what they are taught.

For the third time I am talking about genuine education. Not a high school in a ghetto (that is not education).
Without education people can't even begin to understand the environmental problems they are actually facing and that basically guarantees failure. Dumb people wouldn't build everything we need and they wouldn't do it in time. Although media also have to be cleaned up since you can't allow that the spew every single day crap into the air. After all more educated people are less likely to even watch TV crap in general.

3)Using developed and clean energy, requires a preset of development to begin with. You cannot just start with green energy, it is not cost effective for growing nations when money means the difference between life and death. It is technically geo-economical suicide to try to go green from the start. The repairs for modern day green energy is absurd cost wise. Most 3rd world nations can manage is a fucking dam. Let alone solar power, or reduction of C02.

You obviously didn't listen or you just don't want to hear. Technology can be produced in rich countries and deployed in the poorer ones. Or it can be produced in poor ones to some degree since not everyone there is an idiot. After all this is exactly where education comes in. Poor countries are poor exactly because of lack of education and problems with the rule of law. Once you fix that you can have sustainable development. Which isn't necessarily in just building huge cities and trying to mimic developed countries.

To be honest you are from the country that is greatest contrarian towards moving away from fossil fuels, so I don't think you have the full picture. After all mass development with fossil fuels is even more unsustainable than going green from the start. Especially since green energy often comes to the exact location, so you don't have to build huge infrastructure regarding electricity. What makes things easier in poorer countries.

4)In what world does development not equal creating more room for industry and agriculture? Have you calculated how much room it takes to create an area to sustain a certain population based on agriculture alone? Are you aware of the deficits to a service economy only? Societies based around tourism and natural beauty do not last long before they are overrun by people trying to make a living there. Remember, with "Green energy", you are not proposing just to a few people. But the entire world. How will these small nations buy expensive lithium and cobalt? How will these small nations afford to make the transition from coal to battery power and or solar/wind that doesnt even work in all areas of the world? All of that requires huge sums of money they do not have.

In the world where money doesn't get to decide everything. You are watching all of this through the lenses of anarcho-capitalism and that isn't the path of everyone on this planet. Actually the less people live like this the faster all of this can be sorted out. Plus I am not just proposing solar and wind, I am also proposing plenty of hydro energy, biomass, geothermal energy, more efficient machines and housing that spend less energy, less transportation and global trade ... etc. Plus I would dare to have some nuclear energy as a back up. However the fossil fuels have to go away completely.

After all the prices are kinda relative thing. If you build a factory of assets and infrastructure that protects environment in a poor country they will produce it at pretty low costs (what makes it locally more affordable). Especially if it is state run and therefore it doesn't need to pay taxes, shareholders or advertising. What greatly lowers the cost. After all that is how many things work in my part of the world and that is why we have various affordable benefits.

The melting of ice is the absolute least concern in terms of what we as a race can do for the environment. It isn't the first time there has been a frosting and defrosting of the world either. We are technically still on the end of an ice age. And regardless of what we do, Earth is still gonna change.

And this is exactly why you need education. So that you don't type these kinds of silly things. Especially since today there are a number of differences between now and changes in previous geological eras. The most obvious ones are huge coastal cities. Therefore when before sea level was going up and down that wasn't the problem. However now when you have hundreds of static large cities on the coasts the changes are no longer a trivial problem. Especially since what will cause such social-economic disruptions that any effort to preserve the environment will be heavily disrupted. After all rebuilding all those huge coastal areas further inland evidently isn't going to help the environment. Therefore you need to have measures that at least try to keep things as they are. Plus you skipped the sea acidification problem that is caused by mass releasing of CO2 into the environment, which threatens to collapse sea food chains globally. Climate change simply isn't the only problem with CO2. There are more of them.

 

[SD45T-2]

Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications

All over the world, countries are confronting population stagnation and a fertility bust, a dizzying reversal unmatched in recorded history that will make first-birthday parties a rarer sight than funerals, and empty homes a common eyesore.

Maternity wards are already shutting down in Italy. Ghost cities are appearing in northeastern China. Universities in South Korea cannot find enough students, and in Germany, hundreds of thousands of properties have been razed, with the land turned into parks.

Like an avalanche, the demographic forces — pushing toward more deaths than births — seem to be expanding and accelerating. Although some countries continue to see their populations grow, especially in Africa, fertility rates are falling nearly everywhere else. Demographers now predict that by the latter half of the century or possibly earlier, the global population will enter a sustained decline for the first time.​

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

A decline in human population is good for our carbon footprint, no?


On a separate note, I would like to see pumas domesticated like dogs.