Why dont we yet link global warming with population growth?

Question

When I was growing up I was told that the earth's populalion would double before the year 2000 (and it has) and that the planet was not able to support such numbers. By the year 2050 there will be another 50% increase. Why dont we address the real cause of the global warming problem, it being the expanding population instead of trying to squeeze an increasingly green quart out of a plastic pint bottle!

Answer 1

The Muslim nations consider it to be part of their duty to Allah to have large families so that one day they will outnumber the people that they consider to be infidels.

Once this is achieved they will then attempt to impose Shariah law on the rest of us because they see it as their duty to Allah.

The Muslim nations consider it to be an act of war if we attempt to limit their population growth.

If you think the war in Iraq is bad, you haven't seen anything yet compared to the hell that you will see if you attempt to limit population growth in Muslim countries.

Answer 2

There are a few things you need to look at here. For one thing, overpopulation is a myth. In the U.S. the birthrate is barely at replacement level and in Europe it is dropping. Take the time to read the links below.

Also, don't take all your info on global warming from hollywood pretenders and politicians who waste more energy in a week than you or I would use in year. There are many legitimate scientists who believe that a human-induced global warming crisis is a hoax. The world has been warming and cooling since it's inception. It's a very hip thing right now to buy into the global warming crisis because of the people forcing this down our throats. Check out the facts with some of the people whose voices have been drowned out by the hollywood big mouths (The "I'm not a scientist but I played one in a movie" crowd) Remember, money, fame, and an acting career do not equal scientific expertise or even superior intelligence.

Do some research on line.

Answer 3

It is definitely linked. By the way, your note that population will increase 50% by 2050 is a very low estimate. The population doubles about every 40 years. Today, the population is about 6.7 billion. A 50% increase would take it to about 11 billion by 2050. Instead, it will be closer to 14 billion.

Answer 4

because there is no correct answer in that argument, as we see in China trying to limit population, and it causing a problem with female shortage.
Birthrate does not have to be much above replacement level for overpopulation to occur. Anyone who makes such claims, that overpopulation is a myth based on those two factors, has a very poor understanding of population growth, or is trying to spread misinformation.
one of the many factors that determine whether an ecosystem is overpopulated or not, is its carrying capacity, or its ability to sustain a population. as rescources are used, the carrying capacity decreases unless the resources are replaced at the same pace in which they are used. If a population exceeds the carryign capacity of its ecosystem, it will surely cause the population increase to slow, and eventually drop sharply and suddenly. this drop will continue until the population is reduced to the new carrying capacity of the ecosystem. this situation is completley independant of birth rate and replacement rate, and has more to do with overpopulation than either.
Man exceeded the carrying capacity of this planet long ago. the only thing that allows us to continue exponential growth is our tenacity and intellect that allows us to develop new technologies to sustain our population growth, such as livestock farming, and improving agricultural methods to increase food supply.
Even though he have delayed the inevitable, technological advances will not sustain exponential growth forever, and chances are, the human population will be ravaged by a pandemic long before we have to face the sharp downward trend that would be created by lack of resources, which would probably be a blessing in disquise, considering the alternative of starvation and cannibalism.
BUT to limit population growth via government intervention, and telling people they cannot have offspring, seems to be somewhat tyrannical, while reducing population by artifical means, such as introducing a man-made(or isolated) pathogen seems utterly evil.

Answer 5

There's NOT "an issue evolved" to lower the population or population rate. Most of the limits on populations exist long before the population gets large enough to bump into them. Evolution can produce populations that take advantage of other large populations, and this may help maintain a population below its limits. Under natural conditions, what limits a population is exceeding its carrying capacity from time to time.

Answer 6

In The Population Bomb (1968), Paul Ehrlich predicted disaster for humanity due to overpopulation and the "population explosion". The book predicted that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death", that nothing can be done to avoid mass famine greater than any in the history, and radical action is needed to limit the overpopulation.

Now they say things like that about global warming. That too will turn out to be less of a problem than the alarmists are saying.

Answer 7

Okay, once again... global warming is a cycle. It is a factor of nature that comes and gos over millions of years. If it was linked to population, then why 10 million years ago when there was a higher warming cycle were there not as many people, cars, and no electricity? Stop watching Al Gore's crappy documentary. It only has been put out there to scare the general population and put him back into the media. He is a nut.

On the other hand, I have no problems with recycling or planting trees. I think we do have some obligation to keep our planet cleaner, as it was a gift from God.

If you want to know more on the debate of global warming.. see below.

Answer 8

You may be right! The scary thing is that natures way of controling unchecked population growth is often a massive die off or even extiction.

And don't ever think that we are somehow not subject to natures laws.

Answer 9

Very good question. Population growth combined with selfish demand for MORE, MORE, MORE is the root cause of all man made pollution, yet we just keep blaming the government and corporations for giving us what we think we need.

Answer 10

Already has been done. Genocide proved a tad unpopular. Birth control a sensitive subject and abstinence a non starter.

It has also been argued (correctly) that if all the responsible parts of society limited their population growth, the general trend would be to reduce the ratio of responsible to irresponsible people.

Good question but finding a solution other than dictatorship is a tad awkward.