Why Global Warming doesn't matter: mathematical evidence

[_Tarski]

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 7
part 8

I agree that our inability to understand exponential growth is a huge problem in people grasping the situation as to why global warming won't really matter.

I'm expecially interested in Coggins' comments.

I'm going to make my lower level math classes watch this.

[_Tarski]

Well that's a relief. I'll find something else to fret about now.

Any suggestions?

100,000,000,000,000 organisms living in and on you?

[_barrelomonkeys]

Well that's a relief. I'll find something else to fret about now.

Any suggestions?

100,000,000,000,000 organisms living in and on you?

Yah. That did it. Thanks. *lil gag*

[_Who Knows]

My point is that we'll run out of resources (or at least feel the effects of the cruch) long before we'll feel the effects of global warming. My personal opinion is that the former is more pressing than the latter and that the former is even less debateable than the global warming thing.

Persaonally I've pretty much given up hope and think we'll almost certainly be heading for a global energy crisis followed by war, famine, and pesitilence. That doesn't mean I'm not trying to do anything, but I just don't think my personal contribution will amount to more than a drop in the ocean.

It really struck me how the good things like healthcare only make the problem worse. Birthcontrol, while perhaps the best of the bad options, is still too politically incorrect. Besides, I'm not sure how our economy could handle a world without growth. It's starting to hurt Asia (China and Japan) if I've heard correctly.

Why can't they be related? Intertwined? Global warming as mother nature's 'cure' to the population growth problem?

I'm not sure how our economy could handle a world without growth.

Economic growth is not necessarily dependent upon population growth. Think 'productivity'.

[_asbestosman]

Why can't they be related? Intertwined? Global warming as mother nature's 'cure' to the population growth problem?

I think they are related. However, too many people find easy reasons to dismiss global warming (look at Mars, etc) largely because few of us have the background to understand what is or isn't relevant to the debate. The mathematics of exponentials, on the other hand, isn't nearly as debateable nor hard to grasp.

I'm not sure how our economy could handle a world without growth.

Economic growth is not necessarily dependent upon population growth. Think 'productivity'.

Interesting idea. I'm thinking Moore's Law now. Even so, there are fundamental physical constraints to how long we can keep doubling the number of transistors per microchip, but I guess there is still hope for that sort of thing. I still wonder though whether the increases in productivity would be significantly more difficult to do from year to year than increases due to population. Without increases in population, wouldn't our real-estate market basically go down the tube since there wouldn't be as much increase in demand for a commodity of which there can be little increase in supply? It's true that we have made many increases to the productivity of land, however land seems to largely gain value based on the fact that lots of people want a particular location and generally are willing to pay lots more to have that location exclusively as a home instead of shared as an appartment.

[_Who Knows]

Without increases in population, wouldn't our real-estate market basically go down the tube since there wouldn't be as much increase in demand for a commodity of which there can be little increase in supply? It's true that we have made many increases to the productivity of land, however land seems to largely gain value based on the fact that lots of people want a particular location and generally are willing to pay lots more to have that location exclusively as a home instead of shared as an appartment.

There are so many factors in play, it's hard to single out one of them. But I do know this - the real estate run-up and subsequent decline we've seen over the past decade, cannot be due solely to population growth - in fact i believe it was hardly a factor at all.

This is due to the fact that demand is not solely based upon population growth (although it's a factor).

So no, I don't believe it would go down the tube. It would probably go down proportionally with the decline in population, but again, I believe it's only a small factor, and would thus, have a small effect.