Berkeley declares 'climate emergency' - demands 'humane' population control

a reply to: DexterRiley

Lmao.

I apologize. Seems I got posters mixed up
I'll leave my post up though because I guess I will bother, just didn't mean to bother you.

Haha, I'm such an idiot at times, again apologies.

a reply to: RAY1990

Unfortunately I didn't make myself clear. I completely agree with what you were saying.

My point was that on ATS we have become so left versus right that facts and reasoning are frequently disregarded in support of the poster's political point of view.

I share your pain and the sense of futility that I read into your "I won't bother" response. In attempting to provide cogent and thoughtful input to these discussions, many participants, such as yourself, receive responses that border on nonsense and are not worthy of rebuttal.

I was glad to see you provide some concrete examples of how the products that we manufacture from "basic elements" will degrade much slower than their constituents; as well as how you highlighted the extensive manufacturing processes involved in refining the basic elements into useful products.

If you hadn't responded with your detailed reply, I would likely have done so myself.

I very much apologize that my meaning was misconstrued.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

Indeed

It bewilders me how people often become mouthpieces for someone else's cause, like they're scoring one for the team. Politics is a waste of time if people are genuinely not interested in politics...

I have a love for history and I've always had a love and fascination with our intellectual and innovative capability, such wonders we've created over time. I just think and know that we can do such things cleaner, safer and with a higher regard towards the world that enables us to do what humans do best. Creating and building.

The ethos of taking a tree and planting two or three whilst ensuring their survival.

I very much apologize that my meaning was misconstrued. 

No need to apologize I assumed I was replying to the person that initially replied to me, it's I who should be apologizing but in the end we agree and everything is cleared up with a little understanding.

It's all good All the best dex

That's pretty dumb. I believe there is a severe pollution and global warming problem...caused by man. Some of that overlaps and that we need to do something about it. but a carbon tax isn't the answer, population control isnt the answer.

And you may think government isn't the answer but...think about this...

there are laws that make it harder for Tesla to sell electric cars because they aren't a typical auto dealer.
Tehre are laws that make it harder to have uber and lyft in areas because taxi cab companies complain
There are laws that make it hard to put solar on your house or to allow net metereing)selling excess electricity back to the grid)
there are laws against collecting rain water

There are massive subsidies and tax breaks for coal, oil and gas companies.

All of that needs to change.

Let's start there first.

If it's really this dire, I expect them to lead by example.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Here is the revised version which does talk about humane population control

Page number please.

a reply to: Phage

Page 5.

They talk about wildlife extinction due to encroachment by people and restoring biodiversity of interconnected wildlife corridors with humane population control and a shift to a more climate resilient society and culture...

Those who wish to balk at the statement read this as humane population control of the wildlife. However, the statement is in regard to human encroachment on the wildlife habitat which would be perfectly fine without human interference. Hence, the goal is controlling the human population to stop its interference with what would otherwise be a self sustaining wildlife ecosystem.

originally posted by: RAY1990

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: RAY1990

Illegals here have access to more than most tax paying citizens do. They can get more for free than I ever could including a college education.

How?

It's all good stating something but to have me believe that an illegal immigrant has more rights and access than an actual citizen without evidence then you must think I'm retarded.

Either that or your nation is.

I'm not trying to offend you, I'm trying to learn. In any modern nation (UK too) if a criminal or an illegal immigrant (criminal) tried to register for anything they'd be arrested on the spot, put through the legal system and dealt with in a slow and painful manner.

They could lie but that's fraud, fraud is also a crime.

Unfortunately that actually is the case. Illegal aliens get more from our government than tax payers do. In our local community college illegal aliens only have to pay the local citizen rate regardless of where they live. Actual tax paying residents who live outside the school district have to pay higher tuition. And in Chicago illegals get it for free - see the link. I just did a very short search and grabbed a link. There is a lot of information out there on the subject of how much illegals get versus tax paying residents.

link
Yes, the country is that screwed up.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I don't believe Berkeley talks about the US with population control.
Rabbits and rats are smarter than humans when it comes to creating offspring. India, Africa, ... they already have the situation where they can't feed their kids, yet are making more.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Page 5.

Wrong page?
I don't see anything about human population control. Humane or otherwise. And that is unaltered from the document I linked.

a reply to: Phage

So you are reading that as wildlife population control. I thought so. The writers goal is to "halt the sixth mass extinction and preserve and restore Earth's biodiversity". Humanity is encroaching on wildlife habitats and wildlife is going extinct because of it. The solution is not to further attempt to control the wildlife population. It is to control the human population so we might stop causing more species to become extinct. Letting the human population go unchecked will mean the demise of many more species.

The US is probably one of the most responsible nations on Earth when it comes to land/population ratios. And even at that species have gone extinct or are on the verge due to human encroachment on their habitats. It makes no sense to save biodiversity by further controlling/limiting the population of the species we are trying to save.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

So you are reading that as wildlife population control.

No. I see nothing about population control of any sort. The title and basis of this thread would seem to be fake news.

What a surprise.

But it sounds great when combined with "Berkeley." I'll give you that.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Vroomfondel

I don't believe Berkeley talks about the US with population control.
Rabbits and rats are smarter than humans when it comes to creating offspring. India, Africa, ... they already have the situation where they can't feed their kids, yet are making more.

We are talking Berkeley here. Less people means less pollution might be a great answer to them.

The US is probably the most responsible nation on Earth when it comes to population/land ratios. And we still have issues with species going extinct due to lost habitats. Restoring biodiversity might very well mean less humans in the mix, especially since we cant bring back the species already lost. If the goal is to save wildlife I find it hard to believe the answer is reducing its population. This is not a simple call for culling the herd.

a reply to: Phage

WHEREAS, reversing ecological overshoot and halting the sixth mass extinction requires an effort to preserve and restore half Earth’s biodiversity in interconnected wildlife corridors and to humanely stabilize population. as well as a shift toward a climate-resilient society and culture that prioritize conservation, community, and mutual aid over consumerism and narcissism;

The document as written is inconclusive in its meaning. That being said, it clearly does talk about humane population control. I don't know what you are looking at or why you don't see it. Perhaps you just don't want to. Either way, it is there. What a surprise. Why don't you try reading the document instead of looking for an opportunity to be a smart ass? I guess the fake news is YOU.

As I said earlier, it makes no sense to say this refers to wildlife population when everything in the document is in regards to the effects of human population on this planet. We are causing species to go extinct by encroaching on their habitat. The answer is not to limit the threatened species population but to limit the human interference.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I read the document. Before I posted it.

I enjoyed the comments about eugenics in this thread, even though I don't often find ignorance amusing.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

You just need to cutback on glyphosat and other chemicals.

I'm with Phage on this one.

a reply to: Phage

I think eugenics is a bit extreme, but I didn't introduce that element to the discussion.

Also for consideration:

WHEREAS, the global economy’s overshoot of ecological limits and, increasingly, climate change are driving a global fresh water scarcity crisis and the sixth mass extinction of species, which could devastate much of life on Earth for the next 10 million years;

WHEREAS, England’s chief scientific advisor has warned that humanity faces a “perfect storm of global events” by 2030 as climate change, population growth, and growing demand for food, energy and fresh water incites violent conflict over diminishing resources that are essential to human life and dignity;

They clearly talk about a sixth mass extinction and clearly place population growth among the causes.

a reply to: Peeple

Not when Berkeley is talking about the sixth mass extinction and devastating life on Earth for the next 10 million years. I think they are looking at a bigger picture than that. And if they really believe we are heading for a sixth mass extinction devastating life on Earth for 10 million years, are any solutions completely off the table? After all, this used to be a conspiracy site...

a reply to: Vroomfondel

It's not just Berkeley who is talking about a sixth mass extinction event. And human population growth can be problematic, don't you think?

But where is the demand for "humane population control" for humans?

a reply to: Phage

What do you think they mean when they say "humane population control"?