Water is a big one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... There is much prior evidence that we are willing to kill each other for fresh water.

As human population increases, and weather patterns change, some places will become arid, others enjoy increased rainfall. The leads to so called "climate migration" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... although an increasing number of humans eventually creates the same effect even if a person does not believe in the energy retention effects of an atmosphere based upon its gaseous composition.

It is a little ironic that AGW results in increasing rainfall. The problem is the distribution of the rain.

Desalinization works, but cannot provide the amount of water needed to sustain humanity as it exists now. And if using electrical desalinization, produces a lot of toxic leftovers.

Now the other resources. We've spent a lot of time and effort mapping out mineral sources. One example. Will there be enough lithium to provide every person on earth with their own modern lifestyle? Enough petrochemicals? - yes, oil is used for a lot more than just fuel. The increasing population will have to make decisions about resource distribution. This does not end up with lifting everyone up, but pulling the first world down to the third world.

In irony those who are up in arms over the ultra wealthy in one country while living a lifestyle that was unheard of 200 years ago for anyone, might consider that as population increases and with limited resources, we will probably have a wealthy class with amenities, and 99 percent living right on the edge.

Could I be wrong? Sure. A lot of people believe that since Malthus was wrong a few times, that the Malthusian concept that humanity is limited by resource availability will always be wrong. But that is an equation that ends up with a big fat infinity in it. How many equations do you believe that end up there?

We still have the problem of resource management. The earth is not an endless supply of what we need for civilization, and there are limits to recycling.

https://www.worldometers.info/... We hear how people are going to stop having children. Well, yeah some groups are. But I remember when 8 billion was crossed a few years ago, now we are at 8.3 billion - .3 billion added in just a few years. That's 1 USA worth of population. https://www.worldometers.info/...

So - what is your solution? How do we get that graph to head in the opposite direction without imposing on anyone? And in a world where all problems are the fault of the USA, how are we going to control what other countries are doing.

I know - right? Yeah, I let them, and I'd do it again. My son did play organized Ice Hockey at the competitive level, and you could see which kids never had a moment unsupervised by adults. They never grew up. And that's the difference between coddling and getting coached. I coached the team to help them become better athletes and players, as well as late lessons in teamwork for the coddled. Pissed some of the kids and their parents off. But I still get thanks from some of them when I meet up with them.

In the end, I've come to the realization that when these kids hit their early 20's, and always being managed by parents and the schools, it is completely understandable that they have mental health crises when they have no idea how to act like adults. They feel like powerless victims.

instead of learning to grow up in stages, their coddling made adulting hit them all at once. And while many get angry at me for saying it - it isn't their fault. But they need to learn how to adult while physically being an adult.

And that is about as cool a thing as I can imagine!

I work plenty of hours. I work the number of hours I want to work. Now that does indicate to many people that I am a perfectionist, a once esteemed quality, now widely regarded as mental illness, a negative character trait that needs to be eliminated.And that's okay, it makes me a total beast to compete with.

There are plenty of people in the US who work as little as they can, if they do just enough to not get fired, they consider that a win. And that's okay - maybe that makes them happy.

The idea that if you make over 200 K annually means you don't have time to spend it, that you are chained to your desk is a meme, one that I believe is something to salve the lower paid.

I take lots of vacations, I have many expensive hobbies. I eat organic as much as possible. I wear good clothes. Those things cost a good deal of money. So yes, I have plenty of spare time to use that money, despite the memes. I even have time to post on Slashdot!

My advice is that sometimes memes are counterproductive. Perhaps some of the well to do people many revile, don't have an issue with others removing themselves from competition. A paradox? Well, for my part, I try to do the opposite, telling people they might have it in themselves to do better. Which ironically really pisses some off. Telling a person they can do better is counter to the meme that they are being kept down by the man.

We all know that worthiness is inversely proportional to social and economic level. The guy living under a bridge is smarter and more worthy than the highest paid executive. That's simple truth.

That quote was in the article, but the article title was about a four-day work week. Kamelia Aryafar, the author, clearly thought (correctly) that AI would allow engineers to get a week's worth of work done in less than a week and then thought (incorrectly) that this would mean developers would respond by ending their week as soon as they had done that.

What actually happens, of course, is that if you can get done in one day what used to take five, you now do five weeks' worth of work every week.

And we can produce babies in a month if we get 9 women pregnant. ;^)

Yes. The 8 hour day and the 40 hour week are intertwined. In jobs that require 24/7 presence, that 8 hours fits perfectly. Three people working 8 hours. the other fits are 2 people working 12 hours each, 6 people working 4 hours each, 12 people working 2 hours each, or 24 people working 1n hour each. All of those fits are problematic.

What is more, not all work can be fit into a 32 hour week, or even 40 hour week. My present work is variable. Some times I have a short week/day. Others I've put in multiple 16 hour days. It works out okay, because I am not afraid of working.

It is interesting that GB has a limit of no more working after 48 hours. SRSLY? What do they do if I work a 60 hour week? Arrest me? I work the hours I need to complete my tasking.

A lot of people in her have believed that if we went to a four day workweek that productivity would rise, to better than a 5 day workweek, without AI involved. So all of the bullshit was just another wet dream.

The sad thing is the physics is so simple that children can figure it out. feel the sunlight on your skin? That is energy. The earth is receiving energy from the yellow thing some 93 Million miles away.

So now, we can skip ahead to the earth and its atmosphere. A long time ago, Joseph Fourier noted that the earth was warmer than the amount of energy received from the sun could account for, not much later, Eunice Newton Foote, a scientist, performed experiments that confirmed that the composition of atmospheric gases affected energy retention.

And that's basically it. Energy retention of an atmosphere is based on its gaseous composition.

Since then, we've determined that Water vapor, carbon Dioxide and methane are big contributors to energy retention, and sulfuric and chlorine aerosols are energy rejection "gases".

And while there are other effects that influence temperature, the underlying virtual certainty is that an atmospheres energy retention or rejection of energy is based on that atmosphere's gaseous composition. Scientists seldom deal in absolutes, but damn.

I always ask the deniers to show exactly how an easily provable thing like this works on a small scale level, but fails utterly on a global level. So far, they rely on how it was cold some place, and claims that Michael Mann is a jerk. (note, he is not a jerk) if they even respond.

None of these problems would exist if there were only 10 percent the present amount of people, and if humanity returned to teh lifestyle that we evolved from.

One could make a plausible case that the roots of all this was when humanity started practicing agriculture.

If we got rid of 90 percent of humanity, or returned to hunter gatherer ways, we wouldn't need to worry about airplanes or houses or overeating. I solved the problem much better than you.

Depends on how you wish to take my statement, Unironically that is the fix to human's altering the environment excessively by placing humanity as just one part of the environment. And preventing us from influencing it any more than natures other creatures. Of course, few of us want to live on the edge, and to die in our 30's.

Good to know.

And that works sooo well. 8^)

Worse than that, they enter post college life mentally like 9th graders.