Global Warming is misdirection.

[Whoozyerdaddy]

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.

WTF does any of that have to do with 'global warming'? LMFAO

 

[0roo0roo]

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

In the end.. life fixes itself.

its a sh*t island with no resources yet has 9 million people.
drop in the bucket that death toll was.
if we were as densely populated the us would have 3.4billion people.

 

[seemingly random]

Whether the planet is overpopulated at this moment is debatable. What's most troubling is the growth rate. It seems hard to imagine that the planet can sustain the growth. And, most of the ahole religious sects preach having more babies as a way to increase their flocks.

 

[Cattykit]

The over population can be handled. In fact, more and more, especailly developed, countries are worried about losing population. The problem is the aging of population.

 

[destrekor]

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.

It's not just the UN. Anthropologists, sociologists, and other people who have interest in following populations over time, all basically agree as countries become more developed, their individual population growth changes drastically. In short, the reason almost everyone agrees India will eventually surpass China's population and continue to do so for awhile, is India is a lot farther behind in development compared to China.
China is actually getting close to even, and some countries are even in negative population growth (more deaths per year than new children). Basically, if the average is 2 children or less per couple, the population stops growing, and can even shrink. Most of Europe, Canada, the US, and a few other countries, have basically reached this point.

But the future projections basically rely on that fact remaining true, and other large countries slowing down the birthrate. Some projections say no more than 9bil, some projections say we could see 11bil.

No matter the actual ability to provide food and shelter for a large population, there will be population control in some natural way. Famine, weather, pathogens, other natural events... will definitely hit harder when there are more people.

 

[Locut0s]

It's not just the UN. Anthropologists, sociologists, and other people who have interest in following populations over time, all basically agree as countries become more developed, their individual population growth changes drastically. In short, the reason almost everyone agrees India will eventually surpass China's population and continue to do so for awhile, is India is a lot farther behind in development compared to China.
China is actually getting close to even, and some countries are even in negative population growth (more deaths per year than new children). Basically, if the average is 2 children or less per couple, the population stops growing, and can even shrink. Most of Europe, Canada, the US, and a few other countries, have basically reached this point.

But the future projections basically rely on that fact remaining true, and other large countries slowing down the birthrate. Some projections say no more than 9bil, some projections say we could see 11bil.

No matter the actual ability to provide food and shelter for a large population, there will be population control in some natural way. Famine, weather, pathogens, other natural events... will definitely hit harder when there are more people.

Your too late, already been said twice.

 

[Hacp]

The over population can be handled. In fact, more and more, especailly developed, countries are worried about losing population. The problem is the aging of population.

Haha, you're not serious are you? Do you really buy into what the sociologists say?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Resource shortages are a myth. There is no problem growing populations create that technological advancements cannot solve.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

so what specific evidence do you cite that suggests we wont be able to keep innovating and adapting?

 

[Miramonti]

Death is not as much fun as everyone makes it out to be.

 

[Regs]

Haha, you're not serious are you? Do you really buy into what the sociologists say?

How about economics? It takes a lot more resources to keep a retired old man healthy and sheltered than a young male working full time earning his way.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

How about economics? It takes a lot more resources to keep a retired old man healthy and sheltered than a young male working full time earning his way.

Thats a problem that can be solved. A perfect niche market for someone to bring to market self sustained living for the elderly.

 

[Cattlegod]

supply and demand

 

[ahurtt]

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

In the end.. life fixes itself.

Nobody knows for sure but probably way more than that. The thing is that those people in Haiti who died had such poor living standards by comparison to modernized industrialized first world nations that the effect their existence had on the environment was negligible to begin with even before they died. You want to really kill the people who are affecting the environment you need to kill people in rich industrialized nations. I remember reading statistics a while back that on average, 1 American has the same impact on the environment over the course of their lifetime as like. . .10 or 15 people in India or something like that. (Please don't cite that as fact as my memory on the exact statistic and its source is a little foggy. But it was some absurdly skewed figure like that.) So killing all the poor people won't really solve any of the worlds environmental problems. Only coming up with cleaner and more efficient and "green" technologies and doing away with the old way of doing things can really help. And then you have to get EVERYBODY to buy into it. And guess what. . .the development and conversion will cost a lot of money. Uh-oh. We're fucked.

 

[ahurtt]

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

No. We did what humans are very good at doing. We adapted to survive. There are very few places on the face the Earth where human life cannot survive because of our remarkable ability to adapt to our environment and this is due largely in part to our advanced intellect.

 

[HannibalX]

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.