I am a "independent", can a "democrat" de facto admit that climatechange is caused "more'ly" by overpopulation

Question

I have asked under 7 different profile, which "scenario" causes more global warming --person C or Person H

Person A drives hummers and vipers, but reproduce at a rate of 2 children per generation.

Person H has teen pregnancies and arises 3 kids by the type person H reaches age i2s0p.

(age 20)

Any comments? I am free to open/opposing commentary.

My point is that, to stop global warming, its not by the quality of breathes we take, but by the quantity of breaths we enable in our future.

I actually condone when a cockasian couple has 2.2 children that drive hummers, when 5 miles away, their wasp anic counterparts have 7 children they all drive toyota prius's.

Will an "open minded" democrat hold hands with this open-minded conservative, and admit that over-population is the real pandemic? and only logical decisions can thwart our inadvertent destruction?

My voter id# is 01346 - 549 K 0

Also, my roommate has a fax machine, so we can email our respective senators

Answer 1

hi 01346,

I'm sorry to say that the future of the human race isn't going to boil down to 'democrat' vs. 'conservative'.

There is another axis you might be interested in seeing-- including, at one end 'Malthusian' thinking.. check out this page..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

Here's a little from the page:

According to Dr. Dan Ritschel of the Center for History Education at the University of Maryland,

"The great Malthusian dread was that "indiscriminate charity" would lead to exponential growth in the population in poverty, increased charges to the public purse to support this growing army of the dependent, and, eventually, the catastrophe of national bankruptcy. Though Malthusianism has since come to be identified with the issue of general over-population, the original Malthusian concern was more specifically with the fear of over-population by the dependent poor!"

And at the other end of the spectrum, there is notion currently called 'cornucopian' thinking. Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian

from the page:

"A cornucopian is someone who posits that there are few intractable natural limits to growth and believes the world can provide a practically limitless abundance of natural resources. The term 'cornucopian' is sometimes used derogatorily, especially by those who are skeptical of the view that technology can solve, or overcome, the problem of an exponentially-increasing human population living off a finite base of natural resources."

another view that might help here is the notion (yes, it's a notion but there is data too) of the demographic-economic paradox. As referenced on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

"Developed countries usually have a much lower fertility rate due to greater wealth and their individualistic culture. Mortality rates are low, birth control is easily accessible, and children often can become an economic drain caused by education costs, clothing and feeding. Longer periods of time spent getting higher education often mean young people have children later in life. The result is the demographic-economic paradox.

In developing countries on the other hand, families desire children for their labour and as caregivers for their parents in old age. Fertility rates are also higher due to the lack of access to contraceptives, generally lower levels of female education, and lower rates of female employment in industry."

So, here are three dots to connect. As for my personal opinion, I would recommend that you love the people on this planet, and help feed and provide education for them. That's how the birth rate goes down. Not by hoarding resources. That starts wars. And if you want war, you'll get it. If you want peace, you got it.

Decide for yourself what you believe. (and then challenge it) I'm not going to hold your hand here. But, it's not out the question either.

Answer 2

Of course humans are almost the complete perpetrators of global warming.

With more humans comes more driven cars.

As far as humans, the planet was meant to not produce global warming as the CO2 we eliminate is replenished by vegetation. Unfortunately, the increase in population, emission of CO2 into the atmosphere by humans, and the deforestation of a lot of the Earth has precluded our natural cycle to continue!

You are right. Get rid of all humans!

Wonder how much JP8 an A340 or A320, or 737 uses daily?And multiply that by the number of flights! How about tanks? 5 gallons a mile, which is about what Air Force One uses!

Answer 3

collectively as i think of all of those issues are factors, I blame the vendors. Its the owner who would not do study and buys the difficulty puppies that help the BYBs. Its the owner who would not neuter the puppy, and facilitates it to reproduce undesirable puppies. Its the owner who abandons the canines because of the fact its habit will become inconvenient, instead of determining a thank you to coach the canines proper. Its the owner who refuses to the two spend the money for scientific care, or placed the canines down. Its the owner who would not attempt to place the canines in a sparkling residing house, instead of dumping it interior the seem after. To be honest, some vendors have not got a call approximately giving up their canines. yet maximum do. I easily dont blame the shelters. many of the canines we've in our seem after are strays - canines the owner allowed to wander away, and did no longer make any attempt to reclaim. without shelters, there would merely be plenty extra ravenous canines wandering the streets, like there are in third worldwide international places. (by way of the years, residing out interior the country, I surely have ended up with countless former strays, myself - canines that have been dumped out in an open container via their vendors. The seem after became in no way a element in that.)

Answer 4

Global Warming and climate change is a natural phenomenon. Read Michael Crichtons State of Fear. Plenty of references to dispute your claim. And no I'm not a democrat or republican.

Answer 5

Climate change has not happened because there are to much green house gases, It has happened because our
politicians and our Governments has ate to much Pork and
now they have the diarrhea of the mouth in congress and are to busy running it to get anything done, that makes sense. Al Gore might still be in the White House restroom. Someone needs to check.