To clarify the question, I'm asking about the consequences of our collective human consumption on the global scale.  It's consequences are already apparent. 

Just wondering what you think?  I've spent years studying this and learning about many different facets, keeping an eye out for some of the more underlying fundamentals.  Lately what I've come to learn and appreciate is that the vast majority of the public who care to have an opinion on the matter almost certainly have superior incites to the next guy.  As a consequence, this renders the public unable to enact meaningful change because the public lacks agreement on changes that need to be made on an personal level.  The public is conflicted in setting priorities and often chooses propriety, often out of instinct ( raising children being the primary reason ).  So as a consequence the public relies on governments and corporations to introduce change that could offset some of the consequences.  However; the success of corporations relies on predictable human behaviour.  Corporations are in business because they are very successful at influencing human behaviour.  Corporations help to steer government policies and laws world wide making it easier to create and expand markets( more consumption ).  Governments in turn rely on taxes that can be generated from citizen prosperity, due to expanding markets( more consumption ).

What do you think?  anyone want to jump in on this?

As I learned in Factorio, eventually we will be eaten by Biters or reach the edge of the map.

But more seriously, we have three large categories of options:

1. Attempt to live on Earth indefinitely.  This requires carefully limiting human population based on the resources available.

2. Begin using habitats and resources other than Earth.

3. Go extinct before we can adapt.

@Nypyren, sorry, I posted my question too soon and didn't even notice it.  So I've edited the post you responded to better reflecting my thoughts.  I like what you have to say though. 

[ I was actually in the process of typing up the post while you responded, didn't know what happened until I tried to post it and saw the submit button was greyed out ].

I've been hearing the same thing since the 1960s.  Of course, we were all going to starve by the year 2000 because of the overpopulation and the impending ice age, but it hardly mattered because of the nuclear apocalypse that would end it all in a single bright flash.  Then came the acid rain that was going to eutrophy all our lakes and the GMO frankencrops that would extinguish all our biodiversity. Only now the same Club of Rome folks are telling us we're going to roast on a waterworld as we starve due to the overpopulation by the year 2100, but it'll be OK because the frankenstorms will wipe us all out with the great plastic supertides.

For a good background, read a lot of history about how doomsayer predictions have always been with us.  Plagues of frogs and rivers of blood, cats lying down with dogs, that sort of thing.  Ohhhh, it's going to be bad.

The interesting thing about it pollution is that it is a self regulated system like almost anything on earth.

As pollution fills the world, the demand for unpolluted space grows, causing a market shift into making "green" zones. So the very economics that causes pollution also fights it.

E-waste is one of the best examples, as demand for new mobiles grow the demand for recycling of E-waste grew to help cover the demand. As the E-waste recycling created air pollution the demand for cleaner E-waste recycling and green real estate grew; resulting in housing planting more trees to improve property value.

There is a lot of money to be made in "green" technology at the moment. The demand for solar energy for example has lead to a stable solar panel stock market that inspires a lot of investors. This in turn has lead to even faster growth in solar technology than expected.

Ultimately, (and similarly to the problem of antibiotic resistance), I think it is because we are selfish. Saying that 'it would be better for mankind' if we did blah doesn't work, because people don't work that way. They just care about the here and now, and their children. In fact most people have no problem breaking societal rules / laws for their children, if it gets the children ahead - this is an example of the selfish gene.

Companies don't work that way either, they tend to be selfish. And so you are relying on regulations.. however they too are often bought and paid for by corporations and vested interests.

And then you have the mechanism by which we are destroying the environment - population growth. The planet is hugely overpopulated, to protect the environment we need to start killing people, or have less children. People won't stop having children (ooman rights don't you know), so we have have to hope for another plague or world war to wipe out a load.

This is why I have mixed feelings about trying to find the cure for diseases such as malaria. Ok, you save lots of people from dying from malaria, but then the population explodes and you have other problems. Malaria is one of nature's ways of keeping the population down.

We could also try gas chambers like Hitler (but disposing of the bodies is so problematic, unless we ate them?), or that guy in that bond movie Moonraker had a good idea about sending a bunch of couples up in a space shuttle then killing all the humans on earth then letting them repopulate.

Really the best thing would be to limit reproduction in some way, that way no one gets hurt, and people are less likely to miss the children they don't have. Perhaps a reproduction lottery .. like the situation with bonobo chimps, or totally genetically selected state offspring, we are getting there with the genetic techniques.

Realistically few people are as forward thinking as me, so I'd think our only real hope is escaping the planet so we can infect other planets with our parasitic existence.

As for the reasoning, that is easy:  Regulations and policies encourage acting with long-term positive consequences.  There is no need for regulations and policies that offer immediate gains and benefits because that is what people will choose by default.  It takes discipline to go work out every day, not so much discipline to lounge around.  It takes discipline to save up, not so much to use credit.  When something is easy, pleasurable, or profitable, it will happen without regulation or discipline.

The larger the cost of the policy or greater the regulation burden, the more difficult and onerous it is to keep the policy and regulations in place. The more immediate the gains and the more clear the benefits, the more easy it is to keep the policies and regulations in place.

As a result of that aspect of human nature it is easy to get policy changes during times of crisis when benefits are immediate, and it is nearly impossible to get policy changes that will make an impact years or decades in the future.  This includes environmental issues.

On 6/21/2018 at 8:07 PM, Bregma said:

For a good background, read a lot of history about how doomsayer predictions have always been with us.  Plagues of frogs and rivers of blood, cats lying down with dogs, that sort of thing.  Ohhhh, it's going to be bad.

You got me, I remember worrying about Armageddon when I was 12, seriously.  It stressed me out thinking that the world could end.  I admit I gravitate towards certain information and facts that are sensational and preposterous like Nuclear Weapons.  I am about the only guy I know who usually peddles this information.  And it's ME, my problem that I think about this stuff.  I guess it's just so fantastic that I waste mental energy on it for something to do.   But.. I do think there are some important truths that I've learned along the way about just what it is that we're doing here.  But you're right, there's been guy's like me in all flavours throughout the ages.

@Scouting Ninja, so I gather what you are saying is that markets should eventually help iron out the environmental wrinkles.  I hope so, I hope that I'm out to lunch and that the ship ain't sinking.

21 hours ago, lawnjelly said:

Saying that 'it would be better for mankind' if we did blah doesn't work, because people don't work that way. They just care about the here and now, and their children. In fact most people have no problem breaking societal rules / laws for their children, if it gets the children ahead - this is an example of the selfish gene.

Companies don't work that way either, they tend to be selfish. And so you are relying on regulations.. however they too are often bought and paid for by corporations and vested interests.

I agree, and you're recommendations illustrate just how difficult it is to come up with practical alternatives.  If I had my way, I'd impose world government with universal access to all and allow it to force change.  Perhaps an AI?  That would be kinda cool actually. 

@frob Well said! 

I think this guy's on to something.

I think we are trying but not hard enough, the necessities of our lives have a very intense drawback but we are stuck in a situation where we have to use them in order to live. 

A few days ago I read this "China’s plastic waste ban will leave 111 million tons of trash with nowhere to go" and today I see this "With China saying no to plastic waste, the world needs a new plan". 

We are advancing a lot in a lot of sectors but why isn't this considered at a much larger scale? If someone can explain this I would be have a much clear vision.

I don't think the world has good enough international regulations. The big problem that 1st and 3rd world countries have different interests.

I also think it will eventually regulate itself as the problem becomes worse. The solution should not be based on self discipline but rather on economic incentives: Polluting has a price (that is not yet calculated well today) and those that pollute should pay it.

As an example: I immigrated from a country that had close to zero recycling to a country that taxes non recycled trash. No one is forcing you to recycle, but you pay more (per waste bin) when you don't. And low and behold: Everyone recycles. And this tax isn't really a tax. It just acknowledges that disposing of trash costs more than the petrol  for the garbage trucks and the garbagemen's wages. If you want to pollute no one is forcing you to recycle (or taking your rights away), as long as you are willing to pay the associated costs.

Big international companies have no conscience. They will always pollute if it is cheaper. And that's ok! We just need to setup a system where the cost of polluting covers the actual cleanup. Then if someone still chooses to pollute because it's core to their business, They can go ahead and do it, as long as they don't leave us (the public) to pay the long term costs. That way no-one can complain that we're killing innovation.