Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

If that's true then I'm a little relieved. I think that is one of our biggest problems. In any eco system, whenever the pop. reaches it's max (or saturation), bad things happen. Their environment ceases to support them, or diseases, etc.

I'm not doubting what you said, but look at this:
Earth's Population: Wikipedia

If this is true, they're projecting that earth's pop to reach 9 Billion in 30 years. That's a lot of people! (Way too many).

When my son is my age there will be 9 billion people on earth. That means, more disease, more pollution, less opportunities (in other words they'll be more competition for resources, jobs, etc.), and a lot more C-C, or C=C, carbon molecules.

Anyone know what I'm saying?



[edit on 2-1-2009 by Electro38]

I've made it a habit to not pay any attention to anyone getting all worked up about overpopulation in the world unless they do it through a suicide note. All hypocrisy otherwise.


The world can sustain the current population, and more. It's our current socioeconomic system that can't. So it makes me sick when people advocate death as a solution over fixing a sick society.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by thrustbucket]

I'm not advocating death as a solution. Rational birth rate control is what I'm saying. In other words, we all start to move towards procreating less. Maybe all couples have only 2-3 kids.

Wouldn't that be a proactive and responsible solution to "over consuming". Too many people equals more pollution, less resources, etc.

You don't think too many people causes problems for the environment?

Its a laugh -

There is no conspiracy - no lie - these are INDEPENDANT scientific views of the vast majority of the worlds leading scientist, 99% certainty on the issue which has noew been accepted by Shell, Exxon, Mobil, and every other major opposition force to this position - these are the companies which set up the lavosier group to sow seeds of doubt, as proposed by Luntz who set up the idea of "doubt" in the tobacco causing cancer fight.

If you believe there is no global warming, you still beleive that smoking is not bad for you - it is exactly the same marketing group behind the idea - the only difference being the people who contracted the "merchants of death" marketing men have now changed their own tune, however the message has been so insidious that the most intellectually mundane amongst us continue to believe the tripe.

The idea of global warming is so accepted that it is now finished - we have gone beyond the issue and are now moving to dealing with the consequences rather than preventing them, and some intellectual umpalumpa still think its a dark secret of the liberals

www.independent.co.uk...



[edit on 2-1-2009 by audas]

reply to post by Electro38

---

Damn, that'd shatter my hopes of talking my girlfriend into letting me talk her into giving birth to a football (soccer) team then. You wont be getting my backing if you ran for president then.

Have to say I agree with you though, at least until we found a means of not deteriorating the planet by further increasing the population. But that is as far as I can comment on your idea really, I should stay out of this one as I'm utterly clueless on the positives and negatives it'll produce.

reply to post by SLAYER69

---

Here in the UK people who live on coastal cliffs are losing their homes because of erosion. This does not mean the entire world is eroding

reply to post by MrAnonUK

---

We hear all the time about recycling, conserving, etc. Which are all good things that we should do. For some reason people are very uneasy about the topic of population control (I don't mean killing/murdering people), I mean responsible efforts among the worlds countries to start limiting the number of kids couples can have.

More people = more pollution. More people = greater negative impact on the environment.

This is how it goes in all eco systems.

I don't know why it is perceived so negatively. If people really want to reduce human impact on the earth, wouldn't this be a logical thing to do?

reply to post by Electro38

---

" When my son is my age there will be 9 billion people on earth. That means, more disease, more pollution, less opportunities (in other words they'll be more competition for resources, jobs, etc.), and a lot more C-C, or C=C, carbon molecules. "

Your not taking into consideration the probable strides in the medical profession and the new medical break throughs that will make living with disease a less liky problem. There is also astudy going on right now that ismeasuring just how much CO is converted to O2 and exactly what is the offset that plants and trees contribute. CO may very well NOT be the problem and to mess with its mixture into the atmosphere might very well do more harm than good.

Zindo

I believe the earth is struggling to support our current population. If pollution is the cause of global warming, if global warming is caused by the impact humans have, wouldn't that mean less people on earth would equal less negative impact of the earth?

You believe it's our current socioeco system that's the problem. Wouldn't socioeconomics go hand-in-hand with the earths population?

In other words our ecology is directly related to our socioeconomics.
You cannot separate the two.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Electro38]

I, myself (meaning ME)... am about to announce (in a second)..

..that I am skeptical of skeptics who are skeptical about global warming skepticism.


Peasants of Earth! We will kill you if you develop electric cars, cold fusion, etc.. but tax the hell out of you when you use the only energy products we allow you to use!

thank you and have a pleasant serfdom.

-

I don't.

A populations behavior might affect the environment. But a population's existence alone does not. That's the problem with the overpopulation agenda, they fail to differentiate between behavior and numbers. Unless you want to argue that increased flatulence harms the earth in a measurable way.


Everything you said here is unsubstantiated alarmist heresy, as pointed out by others in this thread. I'm not ready to advocate global policy of population control based on a hunch.

The global warming cult is quite literally a pagan cult; and just as useful. The worship of gaia, putting gaia's needs before anything else, making offerings to gaia through drastic policies founded on unsound science.... and eventually human sacrifice for gaia (convince enough of the right people that it's a serious issue and "policy" and "geonocide" become one in the same).


No. You could make a bunch of changes in how governments work, eliminate class systems, and change human behavior and this planet can and will support a much higher population than it has now.



Exactly. And population alone has nothing to do with either.

If you took the gross weight of every Ant on the planet, it would weigh several times more than the weight of every Human on the planet. Where is the campaign to reduce Ant population? Nowhere, because it's not about quantity of a population, it's about a populations current behavior.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by thrustbucket]

[edit on 2-1-2009 by thrustbucket]

[edit on 2-1-2009 by thrustbucket]

[edit on 2-1-2009 by thrustbucket]

reply to post by leisuredrummer

---

The ice melting in the arctic wouldnt be the problem, since it is free-floating.
The problem of rising seas would only occur if/when the ice in Greenland and Antarctica melt, since these are on top of land masses and when melted would add to the waters in the seas but its debatable how much of an impact it would make.
I think that they only use the arctic as a measuring stick, showing how much the earth is warming over time.
Personally, i think its all bunk and we are just in one of earths natural cycles of life.

I'm sure they'll be more cures for diseases. But I am stating an ecological fact, that when an ecological system becomes overpopulated there is either the emergence of disease or the environment ceases to support the population, or both.

reply to post by thrustbucket

---

You said,"A populations behavior might affect the environment. But a population's existence alone does not."

Yes it does, please look it up or ask an ecologist. It does that exactly.
Any ecosystem with any kind of population does in fact effect its environment, regardless of it's behavior.

The existence of any population, regardless of it's size will effect its ecosystem, if the population is alive and consumes resources, produces a waste product.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that overpopulation is one of our biggest problems which is negatively impacting the earth, and why can't we add responsible population control to the list of things we're supposed to do? (Such as consume less, recycle, use less fossil fuels, etc.)

Also, you said; "Exactly. And population alone has nothing to do with either."

Population has nothing to do with ecology or socioeconomics? Wow!


No offense, Just trying to have a dialogue/conversation.


[edit on 2-1-2009 by Electro38]

Michael Creighton presents some interesting arguments in his book and on his website: www.crichton-official.com...
where he writes "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world."

I recommend reading the website, at least, before you decide that globalwarming is anthropogenic.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” -- Mark Twain

reply to post by Electro38

---

Thats not true. 2/3ds of the arable lands are not even populated or planted and that which is isn't accomplished with any thought to it. Africa could feed the world and do it with triple the poplulation because they can get three plantings and harvests in one year because of the climate! Its the stupidity of the agricultural model there that prevents the outcome!
Zindo

You don't think overpopulation has anything to do with increased pollution? You don't think the world is overpopulated?

That's ok, I'm just trying to see where you're coming from.

reply to post by Electro38

---

No, the world is not over populated as a whole. The concentrations of populace is the problem and the lack of coordinated and smart farming processes is the problem. Waste is a problem but thats lazyness not that much of a problem. If you spread the total population of the world to equal points on the land masses of this globe. People would have miles between them and could not see each other. Its not the population, its how they live and interact.

Zindo

reply to post by ZindoDoone

---

"Overpopulation" is an oxymoron, of sorts. Population is self correcting and will assume the level that the world can support while using all the technology available to it.