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]

Originally posted by thrustbucket
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.

Originally posted by thrustbucket
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 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]

Originally posted by ukuli
I have to announce I am a sceptic about global warming scepticism.

While I have to admit it is quite unscientific to make scientific estimates about the future when the whole issue is not known at all, I at the same time think it is very stupid to take uncertain risks while the issue is not known at all.

So at this point my sympathies are still with the global warming alarmists - if their theory is true then we are in a lot of mess if we don't take some precautionary action.

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.

-

Originally posted by Electro38
I believe the earth is struggling to support our current population.

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.

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?

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).

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

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.

In other words our ecology is directly related to our socioeconomics.
You cannot separate the two.
[edit on 2-1-2009 by Electro38]

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]