global warming...the final solution?

Question

global warming at the moment is blamed on deforestation,polluting factories,to many cars and even cows breaking wind,when is somebody going to inject (human)overpopulation into the equation,6+billion now expected to double in the next 50-60 years.has the increase of humans got nothing to do with it? please no g.o.d. answers.

Answer 1

Nailed it.
Here are some facts to confirm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
These numbers show that the world's population has tripled in 72 years, and doubled in 38 years up to the year 1999. Including some more estimates, the world population has been doubled or will double in the following years (with two different starting points). Note how, during the 2nd millennium, each doubling has taken roughly half as long as the previous doubling.
The doubling takes less time as each generation puts out 3.4 children.
Other projections of population growth predict that the world's population will eventually crest, though it is uncertain exactly when or how. In some scenarios, the population will crest as early as the mid-21st century at under 9 billion, due to gradually decreasing birth rates, (the "low variant" of [1]), The "high variant" from the same source gives a population between 10 and 11 billion in 2050.

In other scenarios, disasters triggered by the growing population's demand for scarce resources will eventually lead to a sudden population crash, or even a Malthusian catastrophe (also see overpopulation).
Then there is the Malthusian thing:
Malthusian catastrophe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Malthusian catastrophe, sometimes known as a Malthusian check, Malthusian crisis, Malthusian dilemma, Malthusian disaster, Malthusian trap, or Malthusian limit is a return to subsistence-level conditions as a result of agricultural (or, in later formulations, economic) production being eventually outstripped by growth in population. Theories of Malthusian catastrophe are very similar to the subsistence theory of wages. The main difference is that the Malthusian theories predict over several generations or centuries whereas the subsistence theory of wages predicts over years and decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html
Those numbers haven't stopped or slowed in a long time.
It is pretty basic math, x number of Humans, x Area of land, something has to give.

Answer 2

I think there is no solution, if the human working together, to change our beautiful planet. Well the population is just growth and growth and that cannot be stop as impossible, and YES the world's population had strong relative to the Global Warming, because there more peoples, and some countries, does not available enough shelter for their peoples, and the pollution and all those risk to the planet might increasing very fast, so there still haven't got any solution to save our planet till the peoples working together!

Answer 3

According to the best estimates, we must reduce world wide carbon dioxide emissions to less than one tenth of what they are today if we are to have any chance of avoiding the worst consequences of Global Warming.

To achieve those kinds of reductions would require that we shut down the economies of all of the nations in the world. This would cause poverty, disease and death on a scale that we have never witnessed in modern history.

You refer to the final solution which was the NAZI's term for the holocaust.

It is true that if you did attempt to get these kinds of reductions in carbon dioxide emissions that you would kill several billion people in the process.

That would make the holocaust look like a Sunday School picnic.

Essentially we cannot get the world wide reductions in carbon dioxide emissions necessary by moral means acceptable in a civilized society.

The only other alternative is to accept the fact that Global Warming is the inevitable consequence of human civilization and start planning now how we will mitigate the effects of Global Warming.

The sea levels will rise.

Fortunately coastal areas can be protected from flooding by dike systems similar to those used in Holland.

Hurricanes will become stronger and more frequent.

We must help the affected areas upgrade their disaster preparedness programs.

Droughts will become more frequent.

We must help the affected areas with supplemental water supplies and desalination plants.

We cannot stop Global Warming by moral means that are acceptable in a civilized society but we can mitigate the effects of Global Warming if we start planning and saving now so we are prepared to mitigate the effects of Global Warming when that time comes.

Answer 4

There's not doubt that we have impacted the environment and I think much more negatively than positively so. But, I'm not convinced that a system as vast and complex as the planet Earth is going to be irreparably impacted by a mere species. There have been dominant populations in the past and they have all gone the way of fossil remains, being either caramelized or petrified...'recycled', so to speak.

One great catastrophic 'natural' event would be enough to snuff us all out. Earth has a tendency to do that, according to our geological scientists. Aside from cockroaches and horseshoe crabs, it would appear that we are all doomed.

I'm not so arrogant as to believe that we can control much of anything having to do with macro systems like a planet. We certainly should do all we can to make our stay here as pleasant as possible. And, I do believe we have a responsibility - stewardship, if you will - to our children, grandchildren, etc., to make this place as nice as possible. But, ultimately, our population will be 'controlled' by natural processes. In my opinion, it already has been acted upon in that respect and will continue to be in the future.

Answer 5

No, because of the fact there is not any longer one that human beings will settle for, or that their legislators will vote for. To stabilize CO2 stages the place they at the instant are will require devastating cuts in potential use, which will turn our economic device into something greater equivalent to that of Zimbabwe or Somalia. it will by no ability take place. we will proceed to hem and haw and placed it off for destiny generations, as we've been. If a factor, or all, of the warming is organic, then it is not significant lots what we do, different than prepare. Neither Obama, nor everybody else in government, says very lots approximately that. So, no, he will in basic terms attempt to get the little, painless cuts made, which will do no longer something in direction of fixing the subject, or making waiting for it. DK

Answer 6

Of course human population has something to do with it (every thing comes back to us, the animals don't drive cars, etc.) Way back in the early 1900's there were advocates to limit the population grouth. The US on a general basis does fair, but the third world countries seem to remain ignorant of the effect they have.

Answer 7

Damn..how dumb are you...you know the increased amount of "deforestation, polluting factories, cars and even cows breaking wind" is because of the growing human population.

Answer 8

I personally believe that overpopulation is going to wreak havoc on food supplies long before global warming has a serious effect, with that said yes i believe that overpopulation is a major contributor to global warming....solution Global Freezing, everybody at one time around the world turns on their air conditioners, fans, and opens their freezer doors....if only it were that simple....

Answer 9

Stop worrying about it-it is an idea born of panic. I have lived long enough to have seen this happen many times. How the world would run out of food, the domino theory in SE Asia and on and on. What if an asteroid hits us tomorrrow? Are you going to worry about that? WE would all be instantly pulverized and there is nothing that we can do about it. Live your life.

Answer 10

Ah, the fear of large numbers. The planet could hold 3 times the number of people without any problem.