Does government intervention seem to be the only solution for the modern environmental-ecological crisis?

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,739
" the term 're balance' is a rather mild description "
when one get to the bottom of it people are protein transformed
nothing is lost , all is recycled

8 billions people are a protoplasm weighing 440 million tonnes
equivalent to a cube of 760 m on the side of ravenous hunger
this is one organism , the largest animated creature on the planet and is eating it all
It's one valid way of describing the current human predicament, certainly.

The problem is that we have really nothing in the historical record indicating humanity is a species that unconsciously and diffidently accepts natural constraints and "rebalances" like that – more running things down to crash and the survivors pick up if possible. It's how we ended up as this 440 million tonnes problem eating everything. If we don't agree on some meaningful collective action somehow, we are going to eat it all.

The OP asked if "government" is the necessary solution. I certainly think government WILL be heavily involved in any kind of solution, but the solution is going to have to be political, as well as technological and economic. And it is going to be economics in the form of some very deliberate "management of scarcity", and one the is quite probably going to have to first face down an economic model built around fast-turnover for-profit business in favour of something rather more long-term and sustainable.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,950
Sydney
When I mention re-balance , i do not mean that it will be a conscious decision ,
the re-balancing would be through a population crash , probably triggered by a fortuitous event
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,739
When I mention re-balance , i do not mean that it will be a conscious decision ,
the re-balancing would be through a population crash , probably triggered by a fortuitous event
It's not obvious either humanity or the world can afford what seems to be brewing.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,454
Dispargum
I can think of some public-private partnerships that worked to solve environmental problems. In the US circa 1900 deforestation threatened to put the timber industry out of business. The timber industry accepted new laws that required each old tree cut down be replaced by a new tree planted. During the Dust Bowl farmers agreed to implement new practices that minimized loss of top soil to wind blow off - tractors replaced horses (compacting more soil), less harrowing left the soil too lumpy and heavy to blow away (excessive harrowing broke the soil down to a fine powder). People will implement wise environmental practices if they see that it's in their best interest to do so.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,950
Sydney
population growth is exponential , it's food supply is resting on fossil fuels which deplete exponentially
no amount of discussion can provide a smooth transition
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,739
population growth is exponential , it's food supply is resting on fossil fuels which deplete exponentially
no amount of discussion can provide a smooth transition
I don't think anyone was suggesting discussion as a means of transition. This could fall somewhere between a more or less total crash as some kind of at least managed process.
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,533
Europix
I think it’s said that the root cause of modern overpopulation is that our technology has advanced to the point of overcoming natural population checks,
False premise: advanced and stable societies do not have population high rate growth.

On the contrary.