and more importantly how and when to not populate) responsibly — Lif3r
I'm surprised at this attitude, although it continues to surprise me how little concern there is for climate change in the members of the forum from the US. Is it a partisan stance perhaps, I recollect Trump's insistence that climate change is a Chinese plot, a deception to persuade the west to ruin its economies and competitiveness. — Punshhh
They have, certainly in India. For decades the Indian government has tried initiatives to limit population growth with no success. They overtook China a few years back in the size of the population.i noted that many environmentalists are for population control of third worlders. Nobody ever asks the third worlders what they think. Some extreme environmentalists are anti-human; and I oppose that type of environmentalism.
The problem is the numbers, the carbon emissions would increase vastly if all those people had air conditioners, white goods, cars etc.I can be for clean air and water without wanting to deprive the third world of their aspirations to a better life.
The problem is the numbers, the carbon emissions would increase vastly if all those people had air conditioners, white goods, cars etc. — Punshhh
But my response was primarily to your second paragraph. Firstly that the changes will wreck western economies and that it is a small increase in temperature. — Punshhh
Yes, I agree that it is an argument against what Lif3r said about population control. For me though, I don't recall anyone who talks about the climate crisis talking about limiting population. I certainly don't, it was only because it was brought up here that I commented. What is more likely is them talking about what calamity, or disease is likely to reduce population.Well that's the argument right there. The first world says to the third world: We've got ours. You can't have yours. In fact you should die or not be born.
We're not resposible for the planet. The planet takes care of itself. It was surviving a long time before humans. We, the human species, have need for a planet. Destruction of habitat is stupidity. We would be wiser to rationalize with our resources. — Qwex
One woman, one child, half the population in 50-80 years. — Lif3r
If you didn't call for active murder, then I apologize for imputing that stance to you. But on your overall idea of a one-child policy and halving the world population. you could not be more wrong. My criticisms of radical environmentalism stand. Your "ideal" world of 50 years hence would consist of billions of old people with nobody to support them. Active extermination would be less cruel. — fishfry
Perhaps nature will take care of it for us with a new type of plague. — Noah Te Stroete
Overpopulation is a myth. I hope you at least glanced at the two links I gave, which make the case that the real problem is underpopulation. You illustrate the problem I have with many environmentalists. You dream of billions of people dying a horrible death. Environmentalism is literally a death cult. — fishfry
The Chinese program did work -- fewer children. The problem is that it produces a mushroom-shaped population distribution -- a large cap of elderly people supported on a narrow stem of working-age people, — Bitter Crank
The Chinese program was deliberate, but other countries have ended up with the same problem without imposing any such imitations. — Bitter Crank
It's just an unavoidable problem of shrinking populations. As young people become more affluent they have fewer children. That's all it takes. — Bitter Crank
Adaptations can be made. Many people work in jobs manufacturing superfluous products or providing services people can do without. Providing services to elderly people will have to become a more dominant paid job activity. — Bitter Crank
As for reducing excess population, nature will provide solutions as human capacity to deal with global crises decreases. Remember: Nature bats last. — Bitter Crank
Overpopulation is a myth. I hope you at least glanced at the two links I gave, which make the case that the real problem is underpopulation. You illustrate the problem I have with many environmentalists. You dream of billions of people dying a horrible death. The other poster wants the population halved in fifty years. Environmentalism is literally a death cult. — fishfry
Nobody wants to see billions of people dying horrible, or even pleasant deaths. — Bitter Crank
If billions die, it won't be because environmentalists wanted that to happen. It will happen because the carrying capacity of the planet failed to produce enough of what the added billions of people need. It isn't in human hands! We will all be subject to nature's culling operation. It won't be just "those people" it will be "us people". — Bitter Crank
I think you’re “literally” delusional. This from someone who gets accused of being delusional by many all the time mind you, so take anything I say as you wish. — Noah Te Stroete
hoping for a plague to kill billions? — fishfry
Did I say I hoped for this? — Noah Te Stroete
Perhaps nature will take care of it for us with a new type of plague — Noah Te Stroete
Another anti-human — fishfry
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.