Why do climate alarmists ignore Darwin?

Did I say that? No. Darwin specifically avoided the subject of human brain function as a process of evolution in On the Origin of Species, and you'd know that if you read it completely, but in no way did he allege that it was not a factor of evolution. At the time, he did not know how to deal with it, and his notes on the subject confirm that. However, when he wrote The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex [have you read that?], he did entertain it. I'll let you figure out how, but don't make accusations in ignorance of the facts. You might go back and review the title of this string, and who launched it.

We already have historical evidence where terrestrial climate change occurred over a matter of days, not years such as with meteor impacts and supervolcano eruptions. Humans survived one such sudden climate change 70,000 years ago with stone tool technology. 

To claim the current climate change threatens the human species ignores a vast amount of known historical fossil, geographical, and anthropological data, not to mention the technological explosion in the last century.

spot on!

In 2015, there were approximately 141 million births.

In 2015 around 57 million people died. The world population, therefore, increased by 84 million in 2015.

Due to climate change-related food shortages alone, the world could see a net increase of 529,000 adult deaths by 2050.

This is the LEAST conservative death toll I was able to find due to climate change.

84 million subtracted by .5 million = 83.5 million increase in the human population per year.

Climate change has as much power to slow the growth of the human species as a fly has the power to stop a car by smashing into the windshield.

Even Covid-19 is a royal joke at slowing that juggernaut. COVID probably won't even reach 1 million GLOBAL deaths for 2020.

Now stack that against the 84+ million ADDITIONAL humans being added to the planet EVERY year. It would take something 100 times more deadly than Covid-19 just to put the human species into homeostasis, let alone actually reduce the population

And people think there are actual threats to the human species? Give me a break.

What may or may not have occurred 70,000 years ago is pure conjecture.

I assume that you are referring to what is known as the Toba catastrophe.

What may or may not have occurred 66million years ago is also pure conjecture.

The assumptions are similar and the assumed outcomes indicate that in both incidences there were niche survivalists, whether that be plant, animal, insect etc.

I'm not sure what these facts or human technological development (including stone tools) actually goes to prove other than the above.

And I have always agreed that species will either adapt or just simply survive for as long as environmental conditions on Planet Earth allow.

What about post 64?

The most recent greatest man-made catastrophe, Communism, was only able to affect about 10 million additional deaths a year.

That's far above any of the dire predictions of death due to climate change, yet still falls 74 million deaths short of homeostasis.

What do you think it will take?

Another man-made disaster World War II still doesn't come close.

the 60 million humans killed during the 6-year war was easily replaced IN A SINGLE YEAR in 2015 with the 84 million newborn net people added to the planet. 

What do you think it will take to achieve homeostasis?

If you mean homeostasis as a population factor, I'd say never. We don't have a world population excess problem, anyway. What we have is a distribution problem in population, in water and food. Consider that if the entire world population were collected on just cultivated and arable [able to be cultivated, but  not currently], leaving urban, forest, arctic, desert, and mountainous regions completely unpopulated by humans, there would be enough land for every man, woman and chid to have about 1.2 acres, each.

Since the planet is not getting any bigger, eventually homeostasis of the human species must occur at some point. Maybe not in your lifetime.

Well.... I needed to check how homeostasis is defined and the key words were "relatively stable equilibrium"......A tad woolly and a tad ambiguous really.....It could  easily be suggested that homeostasis in a global environmental context is therefore an ongoing situation for as long as all species do not become extinct....The same principles would also seem to apply to the homeostasis of the human species, though global environment and humanity are somewhat inextricably linked anyway.

So I would suggest that homeostasis is current and ongoing.

The real question is, at what point will Planet Earth cease to be life sustaining?

And will we have successfully adapted to a homeostatic environment elsewhere?

When all the tardigrades are gone of course.

Until climate alarmists get their shit together and come up with some real deathy numbers, it, as Avenatti would say, " doesn't move the needle for me."

We need some real alarmists with the balls to use the B word, considering the 85 million net new babies being dumped annually on the planet like an open fire hydrant in the street.

Like I said, we are not overpopulated; we are poorly distributed, and so is our fresh water and food. Fix that; your fire hydrant dribbles, at best.

I'm not sure that all the new babies is the whole problem. Or in fact a problem at all.

Medical advancements and interventions that result in an ever more aged population is the flip side of the coin. Not much more than 100 years ago, average life expectancy was around 25years, whereas today it's probably in the 70's. Infant mortality was extremely high and common diseases and infections were killers....  Couple this with modern consumerist  expectations and the demands for ever improving  infrastructure and technology and that is more likely to be where the cause of the assumed problem lies. 

Nonetheless:

If everything has no purpose then what does anything matter anyway?

If everything has a purpose, then surely everything that occurs is purposeful?

I would therefore suggest, that a greater purpose would be far greater than us...Though, that is not to say that our role in a greater purpose would be inconsequential....

So maybe everything happens as it does for a reason, or not....Who knows?

Homeostasis will occur at some point, probably not in our lifetimes, but probably way before we can find a way off this rock before we drown in our own feces.

As I attempted to suggest previously.  I think you misunderstand the term "homeostasis"....Look it up and have a think about it.

Nonetheless:

Getting of this rock and leaving this solar system,  ironically should be the ultimate achievement of evolving and existing upon it.

Nonetheless....I currently rest with the idea that the universe has a preordained certainty or sequentiality, therefore the evolution of the organic, organic life and organic intelligence is only a part of a bigger sequence, so maybe our techno developments herald the next phase of the sequence. 

Maybe we were never meant to leave this rock or solar system....In our current form anyway.

I think that it is foolish to assume that we are the be all and end all of everything. Who knows what the possibilities are for material evolution in the next million years or so?

Maybe knowledge and data is the key to everything.

..."So what crisis?  Well I think that we agree, that in terms of species survival, there is no real crisis. Just change that we will adapt to."...

How do you adapt to 100's of hydrogen bombs going off on Earth?

How do adapt to acidifying oceans with marine life that is only dwindlling, not increasing whereas human population is only increasing and increasing there need for stuff they dont need?

Not all culture adapt and they are gone.

Not all species adapt and they are gone.

Humanity is going bye bye within 1000 years is my best estimate, intuition, speculation.

How are we doing on available clean fresh drinking water?

Estimate based on what?  And countered with the fact that of all species, man is adaptable far more than they because we can actually think of ways to adapt by changing our environment, such as the tech of A/C and heat, and building materials, and... As we adapt by technology, we vastly improve our probability of survival. Yes, tech can also lead to nukes, but when was the last time we did that? Not in your lifetime. How much fresh, potable water is underground? The fact is, we know of vast stores of it, and we don't know all there is, just like other resources.

F-Law has me blocked yet he continues to ask me questions. 

I think F-law must be on mental prescripted drugs. Go figure.

F-law is obviously  clueless to nuclear arms race that went on for 50 years and how humanity cooperated to do something about  that---Mutually Assured Destruction---  because there were so many close calls. Go figure.

Are there still enough hyrdogen bombs on Earth to destroy humanity and the ecology that sustain it?  Less see what mentalist F-law has to say about it.

In extreme circumstances 7.6 billion people are not going to adapt quickly enough, though one or two might do...Speculation.

And like you, I do not share F-laws overwhelming faith in the ability of the Earth to keep sustaining human demand at current levels, in the long term.

Though adapting to this issue is probably what we are currently in the process of doing. 

And ebuc wonders why I block him.  Go figure. The tactic of personal attack is the last argument, and least effective left to a loser.

Ebuc is Ebuc, as we are all what we are.

And blocking is usually futile, as we have a tendency not to ignore anyway....As exemplified by your indirect communication through me.

And the antagonists on this site are often more entertaining and engaging than the a lot of the others.

Where as Mr Ethan gone, again?....Did I miss another banning?

..."Ebuc is Ebuc," 

= cubE

However, 66 lines-of-relationship---my profile--  directly associated with 12-around-one spheres aka the cubo-octahedron and that is a truncated cubE i.e. a cube with its 8 corners slashed off,

and associated  with 12-around-none { sphericals } aka the icosahedron and those are basis for most viruses ---if not all--,

and as for evolution, Fred Hoyle thought that evolution was partially propagated by viri from extraterrestrial sources.

He goes on to explain why we would get more colds and flu's in winter when moisture comes in from higher altitudes, where the viri from space may hang-out more.

blocked to avoid direct mention of 66-lines of a-retention.

F-law that's retensioning of a finite set of a  11 triangle and  not  "retention".

That your an pre-mature baby and were shorted oxygen is not an excuse for you pretention of actually knowing anything to say that has validity, much less of any moral or intellectual significance.

If you dont have the  kahunas---and you dont---  to unblock me, then you need to stop addressing me. Do you understand English Fox-law? Apparrently not. 

Sad :--( waster of band width

ebuc, having the ill-conceived notion that I address ebuc, I don't need the reminder that I don't even think of ebuc, let alone address him.

So wherefrom "extra-terrestrial viri"?.....Same old question....Something  from nothing......Pre-cubo-octahedron.

Though that is not to say that the establishment of life on Earth was not from an extra-terrestrial source....All hypotheses currently valid.

...."There are several worlds thought to possess liquid water beneath their surfaces, and many more that have water in the form of ice or vapor. Water is found in primitive bodies like comets and asteroids, and dwarf planets like Ceres. The atmospheres and interiors of the four giant planets -- Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune -- are thought to contain enormous quantities of the wet stuff, and their moons and rings have substantial water ice.

...Perhaps the most surprising water worlds are the five icy moons of Jupiter and Saturn that show strong evidence of oceans beneath their surfaces: Ganymede, Europa and Callisto at Jupiter, and Enceladus and Titan at Saturn.

....Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope recently provided powerful evidence that Ganymede has a saltwater, sub-surface ocean, likely sandwiched between two layers of ice."...

Break away from your narrow mind and see the Universe as it is, and not as you falsely project z4. Ive been passing along the following link for nearly 20 years now.