"Forget, for a moment, your national identity. Consider inequality from an astronaut’s perspective. Imagine the earth and all the suffering on it. Think globally, as if there were no countries or borders, but only one great planetary pool of humans, which can be partitioned into nations, or races, or genders, or ethnic and religious communities. Or into classes—like “the global one percent”—defined by wealth, income, and emissions.
....
In this global inequality approach, one doesn’t compare the wealth of an average American to that of an average Chinese, or the emissions of an average Colombian to those of an average Russian. One ignores countries, at least initially, to reveal the bigger picture.
....
Because income and emissions are highly correlated, this approach allows us to better answer the question of why humanity’s cumulative emissions have doubled since the early years of the U.N. climate treaty. The Stockholm Environment Institute’s Carbon Inequality Era paper shows that, in the period since 1990, as emissions almost doubled, the rising consumption of the world’s top 10 percent was responsible for almost half of that increase—almost as much as the entire remaining 90 percent of the world’s population. The emissions of the richest 5 percent (37 percent of all post-1990 emissions) were particularly notable, and the emissions of the top 1 percent (who contributed 21 percent of all post-1990 emissions) were far greater still.

Many of us will live to see the consequences of this emissions growth, as the temperature begins a true overshoot (and not just a transient spike) above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). To have a 50/50 chance of holding the 1.5-degree line, we have to limit emissions from the beginning of 2023 onward to about 250 metric gigatons of carbon dioxide. At current global emissions levels, that budget will be exhausted in 2029. But the world’s richest 10 percent would exhaust it on their own by about 2035, even if the rest of us were to cease emitting anything at all.

The problem isn’t just that wealthy people generate more carbon emissions than poor people. It’s that the sheer overwhelming extent to which they do so belies the endlessly repeated claim that rising fossil fuel consumption and even the destabilization of the climate system are justified by the need to lift the world’s poor from poverty.

The truth is that the poorer, energy-deprived half of the human population has barely contributed to, and barely benefited from, these past three decades’ rise in emissions, during which the earth’s temperature has risen perilously. Rather, they continue to struggle, even as they’re pummeled by the devastations of an ever more inhospitable climate system. "

https://newrepublic.com/article/176558/emissions-rich-people-problem

ltlee1 wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]
> Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
> certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
> linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
> seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
> including groups getting wealthy more recently.
-----------------------------
Overpopulation is the problem. We were overpopulated 50 YEARS AGO,
when the scientists called for Zero Population Growth!!
--
--

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 11:03:29 PM UTC, David P. wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]
> > Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
> > certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
> > linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
> > seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
> > including groups getting wealthy more recently.
> -----------------------------
> Overpopulation is the problem. We were overpopulated 50 YEARS AGO,
> when the scientists called for Zero Population Growth!!
> --
> --

Many learned people the sun moved around the earth not that long ago.
As far as I can tell, Zero Population Growth had never gain mainstream.
Since you had repeated the claim of overpopulation multiple time, would
you please also tell how many out of how many scientists called for Zero
Population Growth.

Anyway, the The Stockholm Environment Institute’s Carbon Inequality paper
seems to blame people getting better lives in great number as the barrier of
stabilizing the climate.

ltlee1 wrote:
> David P. wrote:
> > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]
> > > Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
> > > certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
> > > linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
> > > seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
> > > including groups getting wealthy more recently.
> > -----------------------------
> > Overpopulation is the problem. We were overpopulated 50 YEARS AGO,
> > when the scientists called for Zero Population Growth!!
> > --
> > --
> Many learned people the sun moved around the earth not that long ago.
> As far as I can tell, Zero Population Growth had never gain mainstream.
> Since you had repeated the claim of overpopulation multiple time, would
> you please also tell how many out of how many scientists called for Zero
> Population Growth.
-------------------
The scientists looking at our eco-footprint & projecting into the future called for
Zero Population Growth 50 years ago. The other scientists were not qualified to
speak on that subject. The people replied with: "Numbers don't matter!" and
"There's no limits", and the people were wrong! Every species has natural enemies
that keep its numbers in check. The Laws of Nature supersede and overrule human laws!
--
--

On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 11:31:05 PM UTC, David P. wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > David P. wrote:
> > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]
> > > > Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
> > > > certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
> > > > linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
> > > > seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
> > > > including groups getting wealthy more recently.
> > > -----------------------------
> > > Overpopulation is the problem. We were overpopulated 50 YEARS AGO,
> > > when the scientists called for Zero Population Growth!!
> > > --
> > > --
> > Many learned people the sun moved around the earth not that long ago.
> > As far as I can tell, Zero Population Growth had never gain mainstream.
> > Since you had repeated the claim of overpopulation multiple time, would
> > you please also tell how many out of how many scientists called for Zero
> > Population Growth.
> -------------------
> The scientists looking at our eco-footprint & projecting into the future called for
> Zero Population Growth 50 years ago. The other scientists were not qualified to
> speak on that subject. The people replied with: "Numbers don't matter!" and
> "There's no limits", and the people were wrong! Every species has natural enemies
> that keep its numbers in check. The Laws of Nature supersede and overrule human laws!
> --
> --
Have you ever heard Julian Simon and his bet with Paul Ehrlich?
The following from Wikepedia:

"In 1968, Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which argued that mankind was facing a demographic catastrophe with
the rate of population growth quickly outstripping growth in the supply of food and resources. Simon was highly skeptical
of such claims, so proposed a wager, telling Ehrlich to select any raw material he wanted and select "any date more than a
year away," and Simon would bet that the commodity's price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the
wager.

Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals that they thought would undergo big price increases: chromium, copper, nickel,
tin, and tungsten. Then, on paper, they bought $200 worth of each, for a total bet of $1,000, using the prices on September 29,
1980, as an index. They designated September 29, 1990, 10 years hence, as the payoff date. If the inflation-adjusted prices of
the various metals rose in the interim, Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference. If the prices fell, Ehrlich et al. would
pay Simon.

Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800 million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history.
But by September 1990, the price of each of Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen. Chromium, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in
1980, was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade later.[2]

As a result, in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager in Simon's favor. "

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 8:12:21 AM UTC, David P. wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> >David P. wrote:
> > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > David P. wrote:
> > > > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]
> > > > > > Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
> > > > > > certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
> > > > > > linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
> > > > > > seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
> > > > > > including groups getting wealthy more recently.
> > > > > -----------------------------
> > > > > Overpopulation is the problem. We were overpopulated 50 YEARS AGO,
> > > > > when the scientists called for Zero Population Growth!!
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > Many learned people the sun moved around the earth not that long ago.
> > > > As far as I can tell, Zero Population Growth had never gain mainstream.
> > > > Since you had repeated the claim of overpopulation multiple time, would
> > > > you please also tell how many out of how many scientists called for Zero
> > > > Population Growth.
> > > -------------------
> > > The scientists looking at our eco-footprint & projecting into the future called for
> > > Zero Population Growth 50 years ago. The other scientists were not qualified to
> > > speak on that subject. The people replied with: "Numbers don't matter!" and
> > > "There's no limits", and the people were wrong! Every species has natural enemies
> > > that keep its numbers in check. The Laws of Nature supersede and overrule human laws!
> > > --
> > > --
> > Have you ever heard Julian Simon and his bet with Paul Ehrlich?
> > The following from Wikepedia: [ . . . ]
> > Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals ....
> -----------------
> Can you make a list of all the things we need besides those five metals?
> --
> --

Paul Ehrlich was offered to pick any raw material he wanted per his "population
explosion" theory. Yet he lost. The first question one has to consider is whether
Ehrlich was qualified to speak on the subject.

Anyway, IF you really believe "The Laws of Nature supersede and overrule human
laws", we human could have little chance acting proactively regarding Nature.

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:31:24 PM UTC, David P. wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > David P. wrote:
> > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > >David P. wrote:
> > > > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > David P. wrote:
> > > > > > > ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > > > > > ltlee1 wrote: [ . . . ]
> > > > > > > > Very complicated issue. As people are becoming wealthier they are also emitting more carbon
> > > > > > > > certainly makes sense in general. However, the lower, upper bound, as well as assumed
> > > > > > > > linearity appear to be arbitrary. In particular, However, the lower bound of 30% of median income
> > > > > > > > seems high. This would skew increase carbon emission over time toward higher income groups
> > > > > > > > including groups getting wealthy more recently.
> > > > > > > -----------------------------
> > > > > > > Overpopulation is the problem. We were overpopulated 50 YEARS AGO,
> > > > > > > when the scientists called for Zero Population Growth!!
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > Many learned people the sun moved around the earth not that long ago.
> > > > > > As far as I can tell, Zero Population Growth had never gain mainstream.
> > > > > > Since you had repeated the claim of overpopulation multiple time, would
> > > > > > you please also tell how many out of how many scientists called for Zero
> > > > > > Population Growth.
> > > > > -------------------
> > > > > The scientists looking at our eco-footprint & projecting into the future called for
> > > > > Zero Population Growth 50 years ago. The other scientists were not qualified to
> > > > > speak on that subject. The people replied with: "Numbers don't matter!" and
> > > > > "There's no limits", and the people were wrong! Every species has natural enemies
> > > > > that keep its numbers in check. The Laws of Nature supersede and overrule human laws!
> > > > > --
> > > > > --
> > > > Have you ever heard Julian Simon and his bet with Paul Ehrlich?
> > > > The following from Wikepedia: [ . . . ]
> > > > Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals ....
> > > -----------------
> > > Can you make a list of all the things we need besides those five metals?
> > > --
> > > --
> > Paul Ehrlich was offered to pick any raw material he wanted per his "population
> > explosion" theory. Yet he lost. The first question one has to consider is whether
> > Ehrlich was qualified to speak on the subject.
> >
> > Anyway, IF you really believe "The Laws of Nature supersede and overrule human
> > laws", we human could have little chance acting proactively regarding Nature.
> ------------------
> We're doing pretty well with agriculture, as long as we don't overdo it!
> We just need to become more humble regarding the population numbers.
> --
> --
Whatever the laws of nature are, human mind/brains are the only thing which could
make sense of them. Humans are solutions to all problems.

The issue is not population size per se but what percentage of the population are
devoted to do what. Political, social polarization as well as inequality among races
contribute to create problems rather than solving them.