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

[wmiddlemas]

Yeah, but using this method takes a real discipline and let's face it takes most of the fun out of sex, so many won't do it. That is why I say pills and condoms are more effective for the larger population.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

Interesting, but there is some controversy as to whether this warming period was global or limited to the North Atlantic region.

Of course their is controversy,thats what scientific debate is about.It is nice,however to see that the MWP has been reinstated by the Cult and that Mann has been shown to be wrong.The LIA may have been limited too in its extent but to ignore it shows that the evidence for changes and patterns in our climate is still being omitted from the work of the IPCC.This of course has been their brief since 1966.
As for charts and odds and sods for the last 1200 years,please dont try that one on,even those weird born-again-Christians accept that the world is 6000 years old .How many warming /cooling cycles [of the current type ]have there been in the past 2 million years? Before that?

[wmiddlemas]

I only referred to the last 1200 years because that is only how far the chart goes back. Of course there have been countless warming and cooling cycles over the 4+ Billion years of the Earth's life. There have been several mass extinctions, some say 2 have occurred - some say we are entering a 3rd mass extinction for which I think a good case can be made. The significance of the last Science Article is that the MWP is much less significant than the warming that we are going through now and I think that is attributable to human activity and a long term planet warming cycle that will have profound implications on all life.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

The significance of the last Science Article is that the MWP is much less significant than the warming that we are going through now

So the period of prosperity in Europe [due to the MWA ]which led to the great voyages of discovery were of no significance ?

Anyways this is a matter for discussion in the climate department where I am just about to post a linkie to a nice item.

[wmiddlemas]

No, the significance is related to the extent and degree of warming. Today the warming is much greater, than then and the increase in warming is accerlating at a much greater rate. Also the warming today is truly global, the MWP was thought to be limited to the North Atlantic region while the remainder of the globe actually was cooler.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

No, the significance is related to the extent and degree of warming. Today the warming is much greater, than then and the increase in warming is accerlating at a much greater rate. Also the warming today is truly global, the MWP was thought to be limited to the North Atlantic region while the remainder of the globe actually was cooler.

Not quite true if you check out the lates evidence.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

Yeah, but using this method takes a real discipline and let's face it takes most of the fun out of sex, so many won't do it. That is why I say pills and condoms are more effective for the larger population.

No comment

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by imp

Again, by asking the western world to embrace contraception, you are asking them to cede their national security to nations that bother to have children. Don't you understand Darwinism? - the nations that ignore policies promoting family planning will consume those nations that actually practice family planning. You are advocating suicide. No politician would support it. But your left wing friends may support it, until they get old and wise.

Using contraception does not prevent someone from having children. It allows them to choose WHEN they have children. This can enable them to achieve certain levels of security and comfort in their lives so that they can provide a situation which will give heir children a better chance of survival and competitive edge over other humans. If domination is related to number of children, why don't the most powerful people have the most children?

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

Yeah, but using this method takes a real discipline and let's face it takes most of the fun out of sex, so many won't do it. That is why I say pills and condoms are more effective for the larger population.

So those living on a dollar a day or less can save some of it for a pack of ticklers or maybe even half a Trivora or Modicon pill for the missus?

[imp]

Originally Posted by spadlet

Using contraception does not prevent someone from having children. It allows them to choose WHEN they have children. This can enable them to achieve certain levels of security and comfort in their lives so that they can provide a situation which will give heir children a better chance of survival and competitive edge over other humans. If domination is related to number of children, why don't the most powerful people have the most children?

But the most powerful NATIONS do have the highest populations. Don't give me B.S. red herring arguments about which FAMILIES have the most power.