Quote:
Originally Posted by wmiddlemas
I have read extensively on this subject not just on the posts here in this forum. I don't see why there can't be an honest discussion on reduction of the earth's population without people resorting to name calling, but that is typical of people who have an a weak argument or are closed minded. I am not avocating that governments force anyone to reduce family size, but that they as a minimum encourage smaller families through education and various other incentives. Technology has already been outpaced by population growth and it won't solve climate change or reverse environmental damage. Technology won't save species from extinction. There is less water and arable land to feed an exploding world-wide population and we can't make more of it. The fact is that mankind is literally breeding itself and many other species into oblivion. Those who deny this obvious fact and refuse to even consider an agressive program to reduce human population growth are just not dealing in reality. We are not going to solve the sorry state of the earth'senvironment by changing out light bulbs and recycling soda cans. The planet is in deep trouble and it is probably already too late to reverse climate change, and we certainly are not going to bring back the all of the plant and animal diversity that is being decimated everyday, but dramatic action is needed if most of the current species to include humans are to survive.
|
You are right. There would be no AGW if there would be no people.
The "function" you want optimized by public policy is reduction of manmade CO2. This is not centered on human welfare and is inherently misanthropic. Until you bring a non-misanthropic agenda to the table you will be ridiculed by myself and others.
The "function", if you will, that I am trying to optimize is survivability of the human race, which is best accomplished by letting free people act freely, without socialism and onerous government regulation.