Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's my *point.* The lifestyles of the first and third worlds are diametrically opposed. This is due to greed and laziness on the part of the first world, and lack of other options on the part of the third world. It doesn't have to be this way, though.

You seem to imply that first world amenities necessitate unsustainability. If so, that's the lazy thinking I'm criticizing. It's a false dilemma. We don't have to rely on fossil fuels for transportation, but corporate interests are glad we do. And I never heard of clean water causing people to go out and chop down the Amazon - that happens due to incentives given by corporate interests, ie the palm oil industry, mining industry, coffee industry, and to a lesser extent, logging industry.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

A bunch of scumbag elitists trying to tell us how to live AGAIN. They are truly a pathetic species of dare I say human.

originally posted by: CB328

there are plenty of solutions that don't require limiting people's freedom to have kids

When that freedom is putting the entire planet and all life on it at risk than yes, we need to limit that freedom. Just like we limit peoples' freedom to drive beyond a certain speed, people should not be allowed to have 10 or 20 kids.

Our freedom to generate trash by buying crap and to burn unlimited amounts of fossil fuels is what's putting the planet at risk. How about we address that first?

Every product we use comes with a warning. We just never listen to it KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN
Is not admonishing us to protect the little ones. It's a warning!

I'm kidding of course but I often say there's a reason God gives them to us when they are small, cute and can't talk. If he gave them to us as teenagers no one would keep them.

originally posted by: CB328
Growth is the problem. I do think we should put a limit on having excessive kids though, like that woman who had 8 babies. That's just stupid and if anything happens to her then we all have to pay for them.

Of course ending immigration is the easiest fix for the US.

People like you are always so willing to force others to do your will, but of course you don't make demands of yourselves, you only demand for others to do what you are not willing to do yourself.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

People could consume less instead..

There is no real problem with "overpopulation". It might be too late for the people who have been led to believe this lie. These are the kinds of people who will do unspeakable things in order to "protect their belief". Notice that i labeled it a belief, because that's what it is. A belief, one that is false and only aims at reducing the population at the whims of the globalists.

This is also the reason why CO2 has been labeled by the globalists and their thugs as "being bad". When in fact with more CO2 all plants use less water and produce more harvests. But instead people are being led to believe (again that word) that we have to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere "to save ourselves and the planet". When the only thing this does, sequestering atmospheric CO2, is that we will have less global harvests, and we will have less potable water because with less CO2 plants need to use more potable water, which leaves less for animals and humans.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: TheLotLizard

More people are bad for the earth in any way shape or form. So yes they are just as bad. There is NO WAY a human being can live without making a carbon footprint sorry.

Yes there is. Positive ecological regeneration and a negative carbon foot print. Produce instead of consume.
Permaculture means permanent culture its the way forward.

So I guess the fires to eat your food( which expels greenhouse gasses), the house that came from natures supplies, the land you had to destroy for your food. Those are all negative carbon footprints.

Shoot, even just breathing is contributing to greenhouse gasses.

Given that offspring of all forms are pretty much the reason for the Earth's existence its a weird idea. At least to me, there seems no point to a life supporting planet if to save it you have to restrict life.

That's like saving a football pitch by not allowing people to play football on it.

Who encourages these people?

originally posted by: TheLotLizard

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: TheLotLizard

More people are bad for the earth in any way shape or form. So yes they are just as bad. There is NO WAY a human being can live without making a carbon footprint sorry.

Yes there is. Positive ecological regeneration and a negative carbon foot print. Produce instead of consume.
Permaculture means permanent culture its the way forward.

So I guess the fires to eat your food( which expels greenhouse gasses), the house that came from natures supplies, the land you had to destroy for your food. Those are all negative carbon footprints.

Shoot, even just breathing is contributing to greenhouse gasses.

Read up on permaculture and aquaculture and how to live sustainably, you may be surprised at what you learn... The key word is sustainable.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: TheLotLizard

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: TheLotLizard

More people are bad for the earth in any way shape or form. So yes they are just as bad. There is NO WAY a human being can live without making a carbon footprint sorry.

Yes there is. Positive ecological regeneration and a negative carbon foot print. Produce instead of consume.
Permaculture means permanent culture its the way forward.

So I guess the fires to eat your food( which expels greenhouse gasses), the house that came from natures supplies, the land you had to destroy for your food. Those are all negative carbon footprints.

Shoot, even just breathing is contributing to greenhouse gasses.

Read up on permaculture and aquaculture and how to live sustainably, you may be surprised at what you learn... The key word is sustainable.

What does agriculture have to do with leaving a footprint. No matter how much you try you’re going to make a footprint in one way or another.

a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart

Most of the first world advances rely on technologies dependent on fossil fuels. Where do you think plastics come from just to start with.

Mass transit is lovely idea, but it cannot take everyone to their jobs and jobs are not such that everyone can work from home.

If I had to rely solely on green tech in order to work? I'd lose my job or my husband would. The reality of our life for close to 20 years now is that we have to commute at least 30 miles in order to work and mass transit does not go where we need it to for either of us.

In order to have first world advances, people need to be highly specialized in their work which leaves little time for them to live the very work intensive lifestyle of self-sufficiency that the third world is mired in. You simply cannot work at pharmaceuticals, for example, (modern medicine you cited) and then come home and work the intensive agriculture needed to provide all the food and clothing and other items your family would need in order to be self-sufficient.

a reply to: TheLotLizard

I'm not talking about agriculture, which is also known as monoculture.

a reply to: TheLotLizard

So I guess the fires to eat your food( which expels greenhouse gasses), the house that came from natures supplies, the land you had to destroy for your food. Those are all negative carbon footprints.

We are living in an ecosystem collapse.
Learn permaculture. . Copy nature and close open cycles. its not about sustainability. Its about regeneration. Got a problem with carbon. Take it out, lock it in the ground use it to make biochar.

Be the problem

Or be the solution.

Your choice.

a reply to: TheLotLizard

What does agriculture have to do with leaving a footprint. No matter how much you try you’re going to make a footprint in one way or another.

Present agriicultrue is not susitainble it is causing massive habitat loss the primary source of mass extinction and is eroding soil to a point of no return in many places.
You do leave a foot print yes. But what kind do you want to leave. One that destroys the world or regenerates.

Permaculture regenerates.

originally posted by: CB328
Growth is the problem. I do think we should put a limit on having excessive kids though, like that woman who had 8 babies. That's just stupid and if anything happens to her then we all have to pay for them.

Of course ending immigration is the easiest fix for the US.

Not a growth problem. A resource allocation problem. There is plenty of food in the world for everyone. The problem many do not get it. The richest countries consume far more than they produce in real terms. For example the USA is 5 percent of the worlds population but consumes almost 20 percent of the worlds resources and create similar amounts of pollution too.

This is the crux of the problem not growth. Some countries have been far too greedy. We need a more sensible approach.

Would not a more prudent method to be

I would hope that we would not start meddling in population control. Think of the things that have happened in our past that have dealt with it fairly consistently. We go up and down in cycles and are clueless about the most distant cycles. The button should say "Do Not Touch, Insufficient Data."

I'd "suggest" we stop creating "science". Whoever came up with this, is an idiot and was somebody's "kids" ounce. They won't live forever. Who's going to pick up their "educated" slack, when they go the way of all mortals (dirt)? I guess we can keep their brain in a jar of preserving liquid for future "analysis". "Scientists" really need to get a grip on just how important they really aren't. This post, is really anti-science and Nonsense.

a reply to: TheLotLizard

What about the thousands of years during which humans survived by hunting and gathering? Are you referring to their respiration systems exhaling CO2 as a carbon footprint?

a reply to: scojak

... those glaciers from the Ice Age didn't just melt themselves ...

Or do you want to blame mammoth flatulence?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: scojak

... those glaciers from the Ice Age didn't just melt themselves ...

Or do you want to blame mammoth flatulence?

What? Are you serious? That was a joke, right?

You honestly think human respiration caused global warming? Oh boy... If you have a serious point to make, I'm all ears. Until then, stay away from the crazy pills.