Radical Depopulation Of The Earth - The Solution To Mankind's Problems?

[wmiddlemas]

It is not a stupid question. If you don't think world population is causing climate change, then I am simply asking what is causing it ?

[forfismum]

so now you are a speed reader ?read what has been posted here on the subject,then come back

[wmiddlemas]

Originally Posted by forfismum

so now you are a speed reader ?read what has been posted here on the subject,then come back

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 this subject without people resorting to name calling, but that is typical though of people who have an a weak argument or are close minded. I am not avocating that governments force anyone to reduce family size, but only encourage smaller families through education and other incentives. Technology has already been outpaced by population growth. There is less water and arable land to feed an exploding world-wide population. Mankind is literally breeding himself and many other species into oblivion. Those who deny this obvious fact and refuse to even consider an agressive program to reduce human population 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, but dramatic action is needed if most of the current species to include humans are to survive.

[wmiddlemas]

Originally Posted by forfismum

so now you are a speed reader ?read what has been posted here on the subject,then come back

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.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

It is not a stupid question. If you don't think world population is causing climate change, then I am simply asking what is causing it ?

Oh dear ,here we go again.I did suggest that you read the posts,should had said all the posts.

OK the photo below shows a valley carved by ice which finally melted.Not overnight but slowly at first then faster and faster just like an ice cube in a drink.
At the time there were few people around,no Al Gores to educate the few that were there and no numpties crying that the "sky is falling"
Glaciers like that one have been melting since then and continue to do so.Just a little example of what happens in the real world.

[imp]

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.

[wmiddlemas]

We are lost under your solution:

There is a direct correlation in parts per million of carbon to the growth of world population with an exponetial increase in the last half of the last century. For the last 500 thousand years the carbon concentration in the atomosphere has been no higher than 350 parts per million. Now it is over 365 per millon and growing. Last year alone it grew by 2 parts per million -- and unprecidented increase in just one year ! Additionally, with the melting of glacier and polar cap ice, methane is increasing at an ever increasing rate further adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Basically from a growth of 2.5 billion in the early fifties to 6.0 billon now, the increase in carbon in the atmosphere is an astronomical 4% with most of it coming in the last 20 years.

Is there another long term solution other than reduction in human population under these conditions ? Tell me and I will sign up ! Look I have bought a hybrid car but not for purely altruistic reasons: in Italy gasoline is already over $9.00 per gallon. I really try to do my part: I drive less than 6000 miles a year. I started replacing incandescent bulbs with flouresent until I learned that the mercury in the flouresencents were a bigger environmental problem than the wastful incandescents; and I recycle everything I can; but even if everyone in Europe and the United States signed up to a much more frugal lifestyle it would not make much of a difference. China is building a coal fired plant every week and putting 5 million cars on the road every year. Those increases are a result of population growth and the increasing prosperity- of only 300 million of their 1.3 billion people becoming middle class. Imagine what happens when the other 800 million become middle class and 500 million additional cars hit the road ! Their increasing prosperity and of course increased use of limited resourses will have a profound effect that no amount of conservation or technology can offset. Now India is following the same trend. Together India and China will offset all projected advances in technology and conservation that the western world could make under the best circumstances to bring their population up to the western standard of living. The problem is that they will not have the political will to sacrifice anything to do it... unless we can get them to reduce their population growth.

Now to their credit China initiated a program to limit population growth and as distastful as their method was, it has paid off to a modest degree. If they had not done this 20 years ago they would not be at the level of prosperity that they are now. India and Africa need to initiate some form of population control also, with more voluntary incentives of course, but if they and other developing nation do nothing the world will eventually face catamaclismic problems that cannot be solved under any circumstances. Fortunately most of Europe and the U.S are already at a negative growth rate except for immigration.

So where do we go from here ? As a start, I suggest that through the UN all countries needs to initiate a world-wide conference on population growth and begin encouraging a decrease in family size to no more than 2 children in all countries. This is a very conservative approach. With this agreement, one obvious benefit would be a more liberal immigration policy between countries. Those needing additional labor would be more willing to relax immigration restrictions to sustain economic growth.

A sustainable worldwide population will mean a reduced stress from food, water and energy shortages and a better long term, sustainable standard of living for all.
A quick implementation of something of this sort could literally save the world. I am a lover of all nature and it breaks my heart to see some of the most magnificient animals on the earth go extinct while right wing talk show pundints cry that it is the natural order of things. The fact is that man is not the center of the planet, but a thread of life dependent to every living species on this planet.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

We are lost under your solution:

There is a direct correlation in parts per million of carbon to the growth of world population with an exponetial increase in the last half of the last century. For the last 500 thousand years the carbon concentration in the atomosphere has been no higher than 350 parts per million. Now it is over 365 per millon and growing. Last year alone it grew by 2 parts per million -- and unprecidented increase in just one year ! Additionally, with the melting of glacier and polar cap ice, methane is increasing at an ever increasing rate further adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Basically from a growth of 2.5 billion in the early fifties to 6.0 billon now, the increase in carbon in the atmosphere is an astronomical 4% with most of it coming in the last 20 years.

BUT the earth has gone through periods of warming before and ice ages. In those cases there was not the current trend of human emissions to be the cause of the changes. Life adapted and continued to live on the Earth. The issues with the current climate change are related to the speed with which the clomate is changing, as it happening so quickly that it is difficult for species to adapt. Humans will also have to adapt to different living conditions, regardless of whether the changes are directly related to humans or not. There is not adequate documantation of the causes and responces of previous large climate chages for people to predict with any certainty what will happen or exactly how and why it is happening.

There are correlations between increases in emissions and changes in climate. There are also correlations between the sales of sun hats and the sales of sun block. Sales of sun hats do not cause sales in sun block, they are connected by the fact that they are both related to changes in the weather. Correlations do not prove dependancy. Scientific theories continue to exist because they cannot be disproved. Once a theory is disproved it becomes invalid. The link between the increase emissions from humans and changes to the climate does not appear to have been scientifically disproven, hence it is a live theory. However until we can explain exactly what is happening, how it is happening and accurately predict what will happen we do not know if the theory will turn out to be in the relms of the world being flat (which was a valid theory until somebody managed to sail around it without falling off) or the relms of the existance of gravity (which increases in knowledge have all confirmed and behaviour continued to correspond to predictions).

Stories continue to be published about revisions to predictions from organisations such as the IPCC. This would illustrate that their current understanding of the subject is not sufficient to enable them to explain exactly what is happening, how it is happening or accurately predict what will happen.

[wmiddlemas]

Originally Posted by spadlet

BUT the earth has gone through periods of warming before and ice ages. In those cases there was not the current trend of human emissions to be the cause of the changes. Life adapted and continued to live on the Earth. The issues with the current climate change are related to the speed with which the clomate is changing, as it happening so quickly that it is difficult for species to adapt. Humans will also have to adapt to different living conditions, regardless of whether the changes are directly related to humans or not. There is not adequate documantation of the causes and responces of previous large climate chages for people to predict with any certainty what will happen or exactly how and why it is happening.

There are correlations between increases in emissions and changes in climate. There are also correlations between the sales of sun hats and the sales of sun block. Sales of sun hats do not cause sales in sun block, they are connected by the fact that they are both related to changes in the weather. Correlations do not prove dependancy. Scientific theories continue to exist because they cannot be disproved. Once a theory is disproved it becomes invalid. The link between the increase emissions from humans and changes to the climate does not appear to have been scientifically disproven, hence it is a live theory. However until we can explain exactly what is happening, how it is happening and accurately predict what will happen we do not know if the theory will turn out to be in the relms of the world being flat (which was a valid theory until somebody managed to sail around it without falling off) or the relms of the existance of gravity (which increases in knowledge have all confirmed and behaviour continued to correspond to predictions).

Stories continue to be published about revisions to predictions from organisations such as the IPCC. This would illustrate that their current understanding of the subject is not sufficient to enable them to explain exactly what is happening, how it is happening or accurately predict what will happen.

Yes you are right, the earth has gone through several warming and cooling cycles. But before the industrial revolution, only 200 years ago, the carbon count never exceeded 275 parts per million. It seemed that at that level, the climate of the earth fluctuated in a fairly narrow range allowing species to flourish over a long period of time. However, in the last 200 years that carbon concentration has risen from the "normal" pre-industrial level of 275 to about 385 today. This number is significant because above 350 scientist now believe that we will quickly reach a tipping point of climate change that will be irreversable no matter what steps we take. In fact, we may have already reached that point according to some, as evidenced by the alarming melting rate of earth's glacers and polar ice sheets.

A foremost climatologist, NASA's Jim Hansen, submitted a paper to Science magazine with several co-authors. The abstract attached to it argued -- "if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm." He cites six irreversible tipping points -- amoung them massive sea level rise and huge changes in rainfall patterns, -- that we'll pass if we don't get back down to 350 soon; but instead of slowing down our carbon emissions, we are speeding up ! A few weeks ago came the news that atmospheric carbon dioxide had jumped 2.4 parts per million last year -- two decades ago, it was going up barely half that fast!

The Indian scientist and economist Rajendra Pachauri, who accepted the Nobel Prize on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year said "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

The world has been talking about climate change for more than a decade and has made no progress, instead we continue to pour carbon into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate. We are already seeing some of the consequences of our addiction. It is irrefutable that we are suffocating the planet - no one can realistically say that climate change is not the result of human activity -- there is just too much overwhelming evidence that it is. So given that the world does not have the will power to kick its carbon habit and change its life style or for emerging countries to abandon lifitng its citizens out of poverty, an agressive internation program to cut back on the world's population along with continued carbon management is the only realistic, long term solution. But it may already be too late.

[forfismum]

Hansen,the discredited and ridiculous IPCC? I see now where you get your misinformation from.Again I would point out that much of this crap from the IPCC has been discussed here already.