I used to be a pretty strong "doubter", if not a denier. I made a gradual shift away from that, but one strong instance of shift was when Neil Degrasse Tyson presented it as a (relatively) simple physics problem in his new Cosmos series. Before we started burning fossil fuels, x% of the sun's energy was reflected back into space. Now, with a higher concentration of CO2, x is a smaller number. That energy has to go somewhere, and at least some of that is going to be heat energy.

Still, I don't think that anything on the level of "average individual citizen/household of an industrial country" is really where anything needs to happen. Yes, collectively, normal people in their daily lives contribute to Climate Change. But the vast majority of us, even as a collective single unit, contribute less than industrial / government / infrastructure sources.

Fossil fuels have been a great source of energy that has massively contributed to global advances in the past century. BUT, although we didn't know it in the beginning, they have this associated cost/downside. Fossil fuels also have a weakness in that they are not by any means inexhaustible, and costs rise as that becomes more and more obvious. In turn, that tends to favor the status quo in terms of the hierarchy of industrial nations versus developing or 3rd world countries -- we've already got the money and infrastructure in place to use fossil fuels, developing countries can't afford the costs.

All of this makes me think that 2 things need to happen:
A) Governments need to encourage the development of energy sources etc. that move us away from using fossil fuels. Tax breaks to Tesla Motors, tax incentives to buyers of solar cells for their homes, etc. etc.
B) If scientists/pundits/whoever really want people to stop using fossil fuels (or just cut down), they need to develop realistic alternatives. I'll bring up Tesla Motors again for deserving huge kudos in this area. Americans (and in general citizens of developed countries) have certain expectations about how a car should perform. Electric cars have traditionally been greatly inferior to a car burning fossil fuels in terms of living up to those expectations, but Tesla threw all that out the window and made a car that car people actually like to drive. It isn't just "vaguely functional if you really want to brag about how green you are", it is actually competitive with or superior to a gas-engine car for most users/consumers (some caveats for people who need to drive long distances in a single day).

We need to get more companies / inventors / whoever developing superior, functional alternatives to fossil fuel technologies. We need governments to encourage and enable those developments, NOT to cave to lobbyist pressure from big oil etc. and do the opposite. Prices will start high (like Tesla), but if you really are making a superior product, economy of scale will eventually kick in and normalize that out.

Outside of the consumer level, the same thing goes for actual power production. Even if we did nothing (which I would certainly not advocate), eventually scarcity and increased difficulty in obtaining fossil fuels (kinda sad that the past 2 decades of pointless wars 95% driven by oil haven't taught us this lesson yet, but there it is) will make the more "green" alternatives (solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, whatever) more economically practical. That tipping point will be when we see the real change begin.

Your PDF source:
- I cannot find the list of 'climate models' constantly referred to, without a clear identification of what models he's referring to, any argument relating to those models is completely besides the point. How can i fact check that? This should be VERY clearly covered early on, it's the most basic of introduction to your work.
- Top of page 3, unscientific jab at a previous scientist's contribution. Can we stick to scientific arguments please?
- What, no uncertainties? Am i in pre-school? How do i know he hasn't taken the top uncertainty of every model and the bottom uncertainty of every real measurement? These graphs are absolute dog shit.
- Figure 3 - no decent scientist would put an arrow pointing to "subsequent reality" in contrast to the models. That arrow points to the lowest point of a highly variant series of data points, and statistically speaking is fucking worthless (technical term). Plot a trend of the data, this is basic stuff.
- Figure 4 - see previous point, by eye the trend of the data would sit nicely near the conservative estimate made in 1990. If i could see the uncertainties (see previous point) i would know how reasonable this lower estimate was. Without it, i only have the arrow pointing to the lowest point of a highly variant series of data points, which distractingly exaggerates the difference.
- Figure 5 - again referencing "all climate models" which are not specified. Even if i assume this person is telling the truth, how can i check it?

Now i'm going to single this one out, because i'm particularly annoyed by this:

- Figure 6 - DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A KEY TO SHOW WHAT THE COLOURS MEAN - there is no explanation whatsoever, merely a talk of hotspots and how there isn't one...... and furthermore the source of what he calls the 'real data' links to nothing, and unless i'm mistaken, he blames the scarcity of the source on the government.

Trance.......... you are not applying the correct critical review process. This is absolute hogwash, and is totally unprofessional, and i am not surprised it is not published - i checked for you, btw.

I used to think like this, but then I finished high school.

Seriously, anarchy is a lovely ideal. Everyone lives in peace and harmony and no-one is tramping anyone elses rights. When a job needs doing, we find someone willing to do it and compensate them (preferably with a barter system or something).

One minor problem though..

IT

DOESN'T

FUCKING

WORK.

We don't live in some kind of post-scarcity utopia. I wish we did, but that is simply not the reality of human society or history. Anarchists and libertarians seem to think that anyone who disagrees with them loves government and simply can't wait to pour their hard earned money in a military industrial complex.

I don't know anyone like that. I don't like my government, and I sure as hell don't like yours. I don't mind paying for hospitals and roads and welfare (and yeah, I don't even really give a fuck about "welfare queens" or "dole bludgers" or other mythical right wing beasties), but I fucking hate the idea that my money goes to fund the pointless "war on drugs" or on mass surveillance.

But I recognise that for all its ills, the system (for the most part) works. People today have a higher standard of living, live longer, and have more rights than at any other time in history. Some of that is down to science; some of it is because of private innovation and some of it is simply that we have changed the way our societies run through elections, etc.

What I do know is that when government becomes beholden to private interests (lobbyists in the USA) shit goes bad. But the solution to that is not to allow powerful people even more leeway to fuck over the weak.

Hey, more people = more Videos to sift and more Sifters !!!

WIN ! WIN !

VideoSift, a prototype for a future without Scarcity.

Seems like another non-issue. In other words, people who stream video should pay for it, and not the people who don't. Right now, people who don't are subsidizing some of the costs for those who do. I don't really get the "problem," but I haven't put a lot of time looking into it.

In other words, what's the issue with NN? That they won't let you access porn sites or whatever? I think freeing it up for ISP competition would take care of access and cost issues. Like if Verizon was to introduce "static" onto your calls, then AT&T would take a larger chunk from them by not doing so. In a free market, businesses have to compete for your business. In a free market, you cannot really introduce a false scarcity. Only if there is a cartel or monopoly can that happen (which, in this case -- and in every case -- is ultimately the government).

In a competitive environment, no sane provider would want a reputation as a bad provider who intentionally messes with their own quality of service. That makes no sense. The restriction of ISP competition seems to be more of a problem and it is for this reason that the whole NN issue strikes me as another unnecessary freakout.

@ChaosEngine

While long term, it is continuous, relatively easy to encourage (than directly constrain population growth) and historically effective.

As for resources consumption, see my posts about automatic adjustment, comparison to nuclear family, fallacy of fixed factors in an economy etc ... If you disagree with any of these, why?

@gorillaman

Which is politically infeasible, short of a dictatorial state like China.

At this point there are no significant physical resources that you have pointed out that are genuinely becoming scarce. If they were, we would see prices sky-rocket and an adjustment away to another type would take place.

I gave the example of labour resources becoming scarce and the adjustment to dual income households. That was a gradual adjustment.

But okay, suppose energy resources genuinely became scarce. Current alternative energy (nuclear/renewable) techniques are not as cost effective as coal/gas/oil. But if there were genuine scarcity in fossil fuels, they would be.

We would know about the coming scarcity for at least a decade ahead and would build out alternative capacity over that period. Even if the average cost were twice current energy costs, how would that be different to the change to dual income households? Society wouldn't like it, but we would adjust.

Perhaps there may be some unrest in borderline developing/poor countries, especially those dependant on energy exports. But there would be no incentive for inter-country wars. In fact, those with the most efficient renewable technology would have much to gain from trading and selling their technology to those who do not.

@SDGundamX

Thanks!

@shveddy

Bit confused since you say there's a point of no return at the end, but yes your argument is not really about that.

People not meeting their nutritional needs right now is not due to an under supply but due to general poverty. If sufficient employment and income existed in impoverished countries the world supply of food would be able to cope. As far as a lack of balance, see my earlier point about bringing people out of poverty, closing global income gaps and all sharing the available resources.

I don't think you could characterise any of the global conflicts in the past 100 years as being primarily due to resource scarcity. Perhaps Japan's aggression in SE Asia around WWII because of its lack of energy resources but that's an isolated case in the post-Depression era brought about by misguided isolationist economic policies. If you really want to prevent resource wars, your best bet is to be a staunch advocate of free trade.

Large countries have gone to war because of personalities, territorial ambitions and a general desire for power, not out of necessity because of scarcity.

As far as a point of population balance, that's entirely subjective. Like I said before, his bandying around of exponential is completely unfounded. Population growth is rising at a much reduced rate, proportionate growth relative to current levels is much smaller than in the 1950s during the baby boomer period.

When you say 20Bn as an example, I don't think you appreciate how much we're going to plateau. Have a read of:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/06/daily-chart-10

9.6Bn by 2050
10.9Bn by 2100

There is a good chance we will never hit anywhere close to 20Bn short of life enhancing technology which at this point doesn't exist. If we do, then I could equally argue we will invent technology that will reduce our individual resource needs dramatically.

Do I wish population growth was lower and there were more for each of us? Sure. Louis CK has a great bit on it. Agreed on women's rights and education, but as with everything it's correlated to societal poverty. You may as well kill two birds with one stone by just focussing on that. Every policy action has an opportunity cost, given what I've said, I would rather focus on something more pressing.

@gorillaman

The market dictates prices and the capacity to consume the current amount that we do. With more people affluent and more demand, the price of items will go up based on levels of scarcity. With less countries to outsource lower paid labour to, prices on the supply side will also rise.

Whatever we have will be shared based on wealth. It's the interests of fairly sharing resources that as many people as possible rise from poverty to match rich/middle income countries.

I don't know about his predictions, I was sourcing the data on the relation between birth rate and poverty.

Your range seems arbitrary and not supported by any data. Massively restricting population growth, if it were even possible in anything but a dictatorial state would create the same problems China will have in the coming years as I listed. If we let it plateau, as it's expected to, I don't see how the harm (of having to share more), outweighs the obvious problems of a large elderly/young imbalance.

Over the long term, the comparative levels of scarcity that would result from a complete hand gun and assault rifle ban would make it difficult for these weapons to play such a common role in violence amongst minorities.

But of course we can't ever ban these weapons because we need to have the option of starting a guerrilla war against the US government in suburban Cleveland - because that's the only way to get rid of tyranny!

One thing not mentioned here is that the zookeepers were offered $600K to "sell" Marius to an individual. They refused -- giraffes are herd animals and Marius would have had a horrible existence. They could have done a lot of good with that money, but they turned it down as the ultimate ethical decision.

Here's the thing -- zoos are unnatural places and they lead to unnatural results. @A10anis is correct. Against this, one can ask what GOOD do zoos do? Maintain a healthy gene pool to populate the wild. Instill a love of nature in city folks.

And maybe help foster the wildlife conservation scientists and wildlife biologists for the future.

The world isn't perfect. Terrible things happen. The world is a place of scarcity of resources. As thinking, reasoning, feeling beings, we must make choices.

And as I keep thinking -- for those who are appalled at the waste of this young giraffe's happy life, maybe shift your focus to the lions? In this unnatural place of the zoo, those lions got fed their natural diet for a change. Consider being happy for them? In this unnatural world?

Seems somewhat circular.

There isn't a scarcity of resources! Its because war!
Why war?
A scarcity of resources!

There is a hand book and it's a mormon too. I mean, it's the thing they read. Not the bible. That other book. The one that describes post-scarcity domination of human women and planet conquering supermen.

Nothing but creating gun scarcity will work, which is what the rest of the developed world does, and with 89 guns/100 people that will not happen in this lifetime. I suggest getting used to it already or emigrating.

http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/total-gun-ownership.jpg

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control

fuck economics. there, i said it. you can keep your hard on for Dr. Paul

i dont need a college course to tell me if people NEED something to LIVE, they would like to have it... and if there is scarcity, guess what they will be willing to do to survive... ANYTHING.

thats history, you can skip the comfort math... the message is clear on sustainable growth... it is an oxymoron

Being someone who has done as much downloading as I have (and will probably continue to do so) I don't think I'm in a position to complain about it too much. If I were a writer, artist, or musician and I was making enough to make a decent living then I'd probably shrug off the rest and be happy that people were actually paying attention and get on with my life. I think the digital age has really thrown many of us for a loop, I can't remember if there was a time in human history before this when we were able to reproduce a product at virtually no cost and yet our thinking is still heavily rooted in the concepts of scarcity and supply and demand. So our entrepreneurs and our business tycoons spend centuries perfecting the art of manipulating these market forces and have suddenly run smack into something that is shiny and new and also resistant to the old ways of doing things, chaos ensues.