Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis, Scientists Say

a reply to: neoholographic

People like you who will ignore science, observations and facts because is does not align with your confirmation are dangerous.

You are no different than the guy who smoked 3 packs a day and freaked out over tobacco controls and higher prices because he refused to accept smoking causes health problems.

The CO2 spike is a global health problem, so is over fishing, deforestation, pollution of our air and water.

Anyone who is not so self absorbed can see how burning fossil fuels is a global problem.

Unfortunately the propaganda machine has made a certain target audience(many of whom post on here denouncing climate science) think human induced climate change is some sort of liberal agenda to make everyone gay and levy more taxes.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Blue Shift
Let's just start with our own Earth Orbit and the Moon before worrying about Mars.[...]

We can't even figure out ways to colonize 75 percent of our own planet -- underwater. I recently read an article that said, "If you want to live on Mars, first try living in Antarctica, which is a paradise compared to Mars." The Moon? A few outposts, maybe, but imagine living in an ashtray filled with microscopic shards of broken glass for the rest of your life.

Humans will colonize whatever they must to survive, adapting to new environment and overcoming obstacles is after all what we do best, well that and killing.

Not this time. Sorry. It's a lovely fantasy that will never come true.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: MetalThunder

There are about 40 million people in the whole world that are millionaires. I'm sure they would all be included in the 500 million population.

It's hard to find the numbers but I would guess that the 500 million would be upper class and above. No room for middle class or lower.

Who is going to clean their toilets? There will be a large population of poor people for that.

We don't know enough about the world yet to be able to tell if what we're looking at is truly normal or abnormal, and we sure don't know enough to be able to say that we should go "all-in" on some project or plan to modify the Earth significantly to "fix" something we don't even know is really broken.

I hate mosquitoes. They kill at least a million people a year -- a whole lot more people than who have ever died from climate change. However, I know enough about ecosystems to know that if I went on a rampage and destroyed all the mosquitoes in the world, the likely result would be massive ecological destruction across the planet.

Anybody who thinks they know what the exact result will be of a significant change in any of the Earth's systems is deluding themselves and are a far worse threat to the planet than some dude who doesn't recycle.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: MetalThunder

There are about 40 million people in the whole world that are millionaires. I'm sure they would all be included in the 500 million population.

It's hard to find the numbers but I would guess that the 500 million would be upper class and above. No room for middle class or lower.

Who is going to clean their toilets? There will be a large population of poor people for that.

The less rich, rich people. lol They'll do anything to stay alive.


I remember reading a long time ago that aliens had to use humans to replicate because they were no longer able to. Makes you wonder if aliens are those rich people from the future with a time machine, who exterminated all but 500m people.

That means... All aliens are evil. We should kill aliens!

a reply to: Blue Shift

Apollo Program came true.

Deep space is a hell of a lot less dangerous than deepsea exploration, ile give you that.

Possibly not radiologically speaking i suppose.

We can't figure out quite a bit, but if we don't, we won't be around in the same manner to appreciate fantasy nor reality.

We have been to the Moon so no fantasy there, and there are basses that exist all year round on Antarctica.

Still, somewhat apples and oranges compared to the Moons environment all the same.

But the technology is there, or can be created to accommodate extended stays on the Moon, all that's required is the will to go back, nevermind the monies and reason to do so.

Its not us that will be sorry, but our kids and grandchildren, should we not try.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Blue Shift

Apollo Program came true.

A quick hit program designed to disguise our catch-up ICBM development and provide anti-Soviet propaganda. If it was so successful, why did it stop with rockets literally waiting to be launched?

Deep space is a hell of a lot less dangerous than deepsea exploration, ile give you that.
Possibly not radiologically speaking i suppose.

We don't have to travel millions of miles to get stuff like food and air and water and decent medical care. And yeah, there's that radiation thing. Not an issue if you're going to live underground like a mole. Which you'll have to.

We have been to the Moon so no fantasy there, and there are basses that exist all year round on Antarctica. [...] But the technology is there, or can be created to accommodate extended stays on the Moon, all that's required is the will to go back, nevermind the monies and reason to do so.

Scientific outposts. Maybe we'll have them on the Moon eventually. The Chinese want that to happen, certainly. But there will be no large scale settlements that represent a colonization. And Antarctica is a piece of cake compared to the Moon. That moon dust is deadly.

We Still Don't Know How to Deal with Moon Dust

Its not us that will be sorry, but our kids and grandchildren, should we not try.

We will try for a while, because we're big fans of fantasy. But my guess is that we'll eventually understand that we're going to be here on Earth for the duration and we'll lose our interest in flying around in toxic space. The kids will be more than happy to explore fantastic, adventure-filled virtual worlds in the comfort of their own homes rather than travel decades to live and die in a buried shipping container.

Among the things we need to figure out is what is the optimum (not necessarily the maximum) number of people the Earth can support without it becoming a complete garbage dump filled mostly with poor unemployed people.

a reply to: Blue Shift

If the Apollo Program was a quick hit notion one has to wonder what could have been achieved via a worldwide sustained endeavor?

My bet is if we manage to build bases on the Moon we will colonize a significant proportion of our own star system sometime soon after.

The real fantasy thus far lies in travel to the next star.

Space will cater to a significant proportion of our future unemployed and poor people in the same manner transportation took them to the new world.

Like i said, canny keep all our eggs in the one basket forever, that's just silly nevermind counterproductive given our seeminly ever-expanding populations.

'The Earth Needs Fewer People'! Ah yes, it's the New World Order softening us up for the program of eugenics and mass culling they've been planning for hundreds of years. Or maybe just a suggestion that if we don't take measures to reduce the global birth rate to a sustainable level, mother Earth will do it for us, and just as inhumanely.

a reply to: andy06shake
Our will to explore and discover is our strength. It's also what brought us to this ecological precipice. But the idea that space travel offers an escape for anyone living on earth here and now (or children thereof) is a wild and dangerous fantasy.

a reply to: EvilAxis

Certainly not hear and now but a few generations down the line.

That being said we need to start somewhere in a meaningful manner.

Humans do after all have a tendency to attempt to realize there fantasies and dreams, especially if they're is monies and profits to be had in the process.

Keep in mind that our wildest and most dangerous fantasies are generally the most desirable.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Blue Shift

If the Apollo Program was a quick hit notion one has to wonder what could have been achieved via a worldwide sustained endeavor?

Such as?

My bet is if we manage to build bases on the Moon we will colonize a significant proportion of our own star system sometime soon after.

Even if that were possible, would you expect the colonies to rely completely on immigration to sustain themselves? Probably not. If we're living that fantasy, then they'll have babies and the population will grow essentially as fast as it did on Earth -- but with the added pressure of finding new resources to support them. If you guessed that one of the first things a native sustainable colony will do when they reach capacity is build a "wall,", you'd be right. Earthers go home!

Maybe some people will be "lucky" to get a chance to live in an off-world colony, if that's what they want. But it would be very, very few. Interplanetary migration is not a solution to anything because even if people were crazy enough to do it, it will never be enough to take the primary population load off Earth.

I would then suggest, they sacrifice themselves for the good of the earth.

The earth seems to have a lot of extra "scientists" laying around.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Such as a sustained space program would have had bases on the Moon long before now.

Such as the industrialization and colonization of our own low Earth Orbit and Lagrange point.

I'm not so sure about sustaining themselves in the beginning, as to immigration, well can people even conceive children in low gravity or carry them to term?

These would be things we would need to find out.

They might need to import people just like our first world nations do.

Luck might not have much to do with it but rather necessity.

Gods not making any more land, thus it's our job to provide such.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Gods not making any more land, thus it's our job to provide such.

Every time somebody builds a two-story house we create more living space. Maybe not land where we can grow a lot of things, but space where we can live. And we don't have to build insanely expensive rockets and the necessary machines for our survival, either. We don't need other planets. This one is just fine.

Until the asteroid hits, of course.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Well, apparently we are long overdue for a KO asteroid hit.

Then there are a number of other rather more terrestrial scenarios ranging from supervolcano eruption to mini ice age than can befall our race setting it back significantly.

Hence the reason it might be nice to have somewhere else to live i suppose.

Mate most of the two-story homes we build today won't last more than a century if that, as to insanely expensive well that depends on location.

This one is just fine for the time being, things change through, epochs and all that jazz, with or without the help of humanity.

Nothing wrong with hedging one's bets via expansion, again it's kind of what we do as a race, move to an area and feck it up, that is most of the time.

Why should the rest of the star system get a break from Humanity?

originally posted by: MetalThunder
Well not the first time I have heard of this ...not the last I am sure

Georgia Guidestones

Limiting the population of the earth to 500 million will require the extermination of nine-tenths of the world’s people.

The ironic thing is, I watched a video of a couple men whom investigated to see whom was it that paid for the Georgia guidestones, at the end both of them found out the man was a "NAZI..."

They did an excellent job, they even went to the bank that gave the loan to this "NAZI", and asked the manager/supervisor of the bank about the identity of this man. They even went to the address he used, supposedly the NAZI is dead.

The whole video was eye opening.

BTW, the name "R. C. Christian" was not the real name of the founder of the Georgia Guidestones.

...
In part one and part two of the interview below, Pinto describes how they uncovered the identity of R.C. Christian, his connections to the Eugenics and depopulation agenda, how this all fits in with bible prophecy, the elites’ plan for a “global government,” and more.
...

Secret identity of Georgia Guidestones founder revealed, confirms sinister eugenics related agenda

originally posted by: jrod

People like you who will ignore science, observations and facts because is does not align with your confirmation are dangerous.

Look in a mirror when you claim such things...

People like you and df, among others are the danger. If you don't "believe it now" you will in the not so distant future agree with the idiocy of left-wing philosophers, doctors and even activist scientists whom keep using Climate Change just to implement the left-wing agenda. Some of that agenda includes legalizing the murder of newborns,, and even old people, just like the nazis did, to "save the planet" when the planet needs saving from people like yourself.

Your ignorance and belief that you can dictate what amount of CO2 should exist in the atmosphere, when CO2 is a building block of life, will be a danger to all life on the planet.

Less atmospheric CO2 means less plant life, and they need to use more water the less there is atmospheric CO2.

originally posted by: jrod
The CO2 spike is a global health problem, so is over fishing, deforestation, pollution of our air and water.

WRONG, atmospheric CO2 is nowhere near to being a health problem to anyone...
You are right now inside your heated, or AC home with atmospheric CO2 at around 800PPM to over 1,000ppm. Don't blame your ignorance on the CO2, blame it on yourself...

originally posted by: jrod
Anyone who is not so self absorbed can see how burning fossil fuels is a global problem.

ROFLMAO... it is people like you whom are the "self absorbed, selfish, and blind" to the true dangers of your AGW RELIGION.

People with greenhouses increase atmospheric CO2 from 800ppm to even 2,000 ppm for some plants. Although the optimum level most experts claim for most plant life on Earth is 1,200ppm -1,500ppm. Earth only has 400ppm-410ppm. These levels are nowhere near toxic to any life on Earth.

...
Experts disagree about the optimum level of CO2 for plant growth. You can find arguments for 800ppm, 1,000ppm, 1,200ppm and 1,500ppm. We recommend starting at 1,000ppm, then adjusting your CO2 levels over time with experience.CO2 levels below 400ppm and above 1,500ppm will reduce plant growth.
...

CO2 Calculator for Grow Room or Indoor Greenhouse

Even NASA has stated that with the increase in atmospheric CO2 Earth has GREEENED. The amount of biomass which has increased, because atmospheric CO2 is at ~410PPM , is two times the size of the United States.

By Samson Reiny,
NASA's Earth Science News Team
...
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
...

climate.nasa.gov...

Atmospheric CO2 levels below 400ppm will reduce plant grow, and will yield less harvests as well as needing more water because of the lack of atmospheric CO2.

The more atmospheric CO2 the bigger plant life gets, and the more harvests they produce.

Anyone whom is actually an environmentalist would want this amount of atmospheric CO2 to increase to at least 800ppm. It won't harm ANY life on Earth, but it will green Earth even more and provide more harvests, stronger plant life, ,and they would use less potable water with the increase in atmospheric CO2.

originally posted by: jrod
Unfortunately the propaganda machine has made a certain target audience(many of whom post on here denouncing climate science) think human induced climate change is some sort of liberal agenda to make everyone gay and levy more taxes.

Again, look in a mirror when you make these wrong arguments...

originally posted by: dfnj2015
...
We should be doing what China is doing at that is spend billions of dollars on exotic alternative energy technologies capable of replacing the use of all fossil fuels.

China spends billions on technology to replace using fossil fuels

China is going to save the World from death by carbon pollution. And in doing so they will become the preeminent super-power in the World because the people and the government will have the least amount of debt.

Think of this like the space race but it's a race to prosperity and cleaner air.

ROFLMAO... Go move to China and stay there...

China is the most polluted country in the world, all their rivers, lakes etc, are super polluted as well as their air...
If China takes control of the world, the whole world will become as polluted as China...

originally posted by: dfnj2015

It seems there is a strong consensus with NASA scientists about global warming. You are the would with silly religious superstitions not based in scientific facts.

NASA Consensus on global warming

There was a consensus of 100 nazi scientists whom Hitler stated proved that Einstein was wrong... Consensus doesn't mean "being right." More so when the real numbers of scientists whom agree or disagree with AGW have been skewed by left-wing activists passing themselves as scientists to make it look like more scientists agree withe AGW.

This thread is about 11,000 scientists, whose majority are probably not atmospheric scientists.

But hey, we had over 30,000 scientists of various branches of science whom signed an agreement that the AGW claim is a farce...

30,000 Scientists Sign Petition on Global Warming

I guess since we have more scientists disagreeing with these 11,000 we must be right... After all....CONSENSUS...

originally posted by: ChefFox
But noticed who they are aiming this Needs Fewer children to beat Climate Crisis? Mostly Europeans. Europeans in general when it comes to world population are a minority.

Its almost as like they were to suggest that Americans and Europeans are a problem to the Climate Crisis.

Yeah, these 11,000 scientists want people in wealthy western nations to have fewer children, when the western world's birthrate is about 1.2-1.5 or so. Less children, and a dictatorial policy like china's 1 child will redduced our birthrates to 1 or less, meanwhile allowing people in third world countries to have more children...

These left-wingers also want to further every green, and left-wing agenda such as "social justice" among many others.

...
The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity,” they write.
...

www.bloomberg.com...

These dumbasses want not only population control, but also depopulation mostly in western nations... All 11,000 of them, and anyone whom agree with them, should commit "hara kiri to save the world," instead of wanting to force these idiotic beliefs on the rest of us.