Global Warming is misdirection.

[Oceandevi]

The real issue is over population.

The countries who are rich and powerful now can see the future. And so can we. People are starving all over the world. And yet they still have children. I do not blame them. It is natural to want to have a family. In some places it is life insurance.

But the reality is that without something to trim our numbers, we are growing too large. I know the UN has charts that say it will all level off. Unless they are anticipating mass death I don't buy it.(they say higher standards of living.... blah blah)

The possible solutions are many.

Some of the solutions involve letting people die basically.

 

[lifeobry]

That's actually not true.

 

[Oceandevi]

You do not believe in carrying capacity?

 

[guyver01]

Unless they are anticipating mass death I don't buy it.

Didn't like 50,000 people just die in Haiti?

In the end.. life fixes itself.

 

[Oceandevi]

Didn't like 50,000 people just die in Haiti?

In the end.. life fixes itself.

Yeah if we could cause quakes at will this would not even be a problem. I agree.

 

[Nik]

Didn't like 50,000 people just die in Haiti?

In the end.. life fixes itself.

harsh but I lol'd

 

[brblx]

Global warming...

go. away.

 

[jagec]

You do not believe in carrying capacity?

It's not a fixed number. Fifty years ago, the earth could not keep all 6 billion of us alive. Today it can.

 

[Oceandevi]

It's not a fixed number. Fifty years ago, the earth could not keep all 6 billion of us alive. Today it can.

Phosphorus mining is awesome. At some point you run out of tricks.

 

[guyver01]

Fifty years ago, the earth could not keep all 6 billion of us alive. Today it can.

WUT?

mind to tell us how in 50 years, a planet has changed?

I think you mean... 50 years ago humanity couldn't keep 6 billion alive. Today it can.

 

[Oceandevi]

WUT?

mind to tell us how in 50 years, a planet has changed?

I think you mean... 50 years ago humanity couldn't keep 6 billion alive. Today it can.

He means we can reach resources to enable growth. But in a closed system it is foolish to avoid thinking about the empty barrel. When we have to filter our ferts from seawater.. then you will see the stupidity.

 

[guyver01]

He means we can reach resources to enable growth.

so.. what did the planet do? did it push the resources closer to the surface?

 

[Oceandevi]

so.. what did the planet do? did it push the resources closer to the surface?

Newer tech enables us to reach resources previously unavailable. This is a simple point he made. I am tired of explaining it.

 

[guyver01]

Newer tech enables us to reach resources previously unavailable. This is a simple point he made. I am tired of explaining it.

Then like i said... HUMANITY has made the change.

The planet didn't do shit.

I am tired of correcting stupidity.

 

[Oceandevi]

Then like i said... HUMANITY has made the change.

The planet didn't do shit.

I am tired of correcting stupidity.

I understood what he meant. Maybe you need to acquire the ability to infer.

 

[Oceandevi]

hell man change the word earth to "resource base" there does it make sense now?

 

[guyver01]

I understood what he meant. Maybe you need to acquire the ability to infer.

So when he typed "the earth could not keep all 6 billion of us alive. Today it can." he really meant to type "PEOPLE couldn't keep 6 billion people alive." like i said..

Trying to sound smarter than you really are and trying to be all philosopical, only makes you look stupid.

This is why i hate political bullshit.

 

[speg]

How is emitting less carbon dioxide going to stop population growth?

 

[guyver01]

hell man change the word earth to "resource base" there does it make sense now?

no.. because the resources available on the planet hasn't changed.


Human technology.. and thus Humanity... has.

The planet didn't just "provide" more oil...or more animals... or more coal.. or more wood.

 

[DrPizza]

People are starving all over the world. And yet they still have children. I do not blame them. It is natural to want to have a family.

No, that's not the driving factor for population growth. It should read "It is natural to want to have sex." But, in all these 3rd world countries with high birth rates (but little resources & not enough food), we have all the feel-good missionaries and "feed the children" folks who spread the word of the Pope: condoms are bad!

 

[ModerateRepZero]

<- p & n

 

[Locut0s]

Can't both be true?

As for population levelling off that is based on growth statistics of the largest nations like China and India and assuming that they follow a similar curve to other nations as they go from third to first world nations. There is good research that suggests that family size drastically decrease as standards of living increase. Countries like Germany and Japan for example who are considered late stage first world nations actually have negative growth. Not that this helps that much as even the best predictions show that that levelling won't occur before we breach the 9 billion mark or more and at that point we are REALLY REALLY straining the world's natural resources.

 

[Locut0s]

No, that's not the driving factor for population growth. It should read "It is natural to want to have sex." But, in all these 3rd world countries with high birth rates (but little resources & not enough food), we have all the feel-good missionaries and "feed the children" folks who spread the word of the Pope: condoms are bad!

Yes this is just disgusting.

 

[Ken g6]

But the reality is that without something to trim our numbers, we are growing too large. I know the UN has charts that say it will all level off. Unless they are anticipating mass death I don't buy it.(they say higher standards of living.... blah blah)

I buy it. On one hand, farmers need labor. In places where they can't afford big oil-fueled machines, they need lots of labor. Now, slavery is illegal in most places, so one of the easiest ways to get free (meaning not paid with money) laborers is to grow them.

On the other hand, developed countries tend to have fewer farmers, more farming machines; and more emancipated women, who tend to wait to have children. Together this leads the women in developed nations to have fewer children. The resident US white population is declining, for instance.

 

[Locut0s]

I buy it. On one hand, farmers need labor. In places where they can't afford big oil-fueled machines, they need lots of labor. Now, slavery is illegal in most places, so one of the easiest ways to get free (meaning not paid with money) laborers is to grow them.

On the other hand, developed countries tend to have fewer farmers, more farming machines; and more emancipated women, who tend to wait to have children. Together this leads the women in developed nations to have fewer children. The resident US white population is declining, for instance.

Yes these and other mechanisms are exactly the forces at work behind the trend I listed above. The Emancipation of women is a HUGE factor in this!!!