If man causes global warming, then don't you agree that the only way to stop it is to...?

Question

...reduce the population dramatically through war, genocide, or by some means of birth control that guarantees that no couple can have more than one child?

Think about it - it is not what we do that is making the CO2 worse, it is merely out exisence. Even if we ended civilization as we know it and all live in tribes like Africans, or the Native Americans of the 1600s, we still are going to burn fires every night which not only would contribute alot to CO2, but strip the world's forrests in no time.

My point is that it is not how much CO2 EACH person produces, it is the collective CO2 that all of humanity produces combined. Even if everyone on earth reduced out "carbon footprint" by 10 times, in 50 years the increased population of the world would collectively produce as much CO2 as we are now.

Is there a real, practical, long term solution other than war, genocide, or birth laws of some sort?

Answer 1

I think the key part of you question is "IF man causes global warming..."

Of course we know that the scientific data shows that man causes at most very little of the global warming observed over the last century. An increase in solar irradiance over the last century directly accounts for 80% of the warming over the last century, and probably indirectly accounts for most of the rest (after all we know that warming causing a natural increase in both co2 and water vapor in the atmosphere.)

Answer 2

War and genocide IS the population control device of choice today in Africa and its working. That is why the UN actually turns its back on Darfur, for instance. They actually want the genocides to take place all over Africa and the political groups in Africa know this will actually benefit their society because there is just too large a population and not enough resources to take care of everybody. The UN and the Africans just can't outright say it, but that's what they are doing with a high success rate. Now only if places like China and India get enlightened like their African brothers and take some radical steps in controlling their populations.

Answer 3

Overpopulation poses other problems in addition to CO2 emission. Shortage of water, for instance, will be a problem. Not to mention shortage of living space.

So yes -- reducing or curbing population growth will be needed.

To go to such extreme remedies like genocide and war seems drastic, to say the least. Try two-children quotas to curb the growth and tax incentives for one-child families. A bit more controversial is social engineering methods like levying heavier taxes on families with 3 or more children. As is everything else global, every country needs to participate. We can curb our population like crazy and still achieve nothing if foreign countries squeeze 'em out like puppies.

As far as burning fires that emit CO2, I will suggest to you that people don't burn fires 24/7, and CO2 from small fires is negligible to the amount pumped out of coal plants and other industrial plants.

Answer 4

You know, humans are not the only species on Earth that create carbon dioxide. Most every species undergoes cellular respiration which creates carbon dioxide.

What we need to do if global warming does exist (which it probably does) is to limit our CO2 output and there are many better ways to do this rather than killing off mass amounts of people. We need to follow the 3Rs, be efficient with all our energy consumption and all that other stuff you hear about about "living green."

Answer 5

No. Extreme solutions are not necessary, if we start to work on the problem now.

Here is a practical and affordable solution. It doesn't totally stop global warming, it reduces it to the point where we can easily cope with the remaining consequences.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

It was developed by hundreds of scientists and economists working together. The major recommendations involve changes in the ways we produce and use energy, to reduce use of fossil fuels. A good idea in any event.

Answer 6

war is horrible for our environment, as it is highly destructive and uses up way too much fuel.
Killing people is definately not the answer, but yes, we should ALL be limited to the amout of children we can have, like in China, at least until we can ALL learn to live sustainably. It made me sick to hear about that woman in Alabama who just gave birth to her 17th child!
The solution to global warming lies in our not burning fossil fuels anymore, and turning to clean renewable energy instead. Collectively we need to all be responsible stewards of this planet, and as depressing as it is to have to count on the millions of stupid lazy people out there, we'll find a way. Or we'll all die :)
In the meantime, take an oath to not have kids (which is what I've done), do your part to care for this planet and try to educate as many people as you can.

Answer 7

No, your logic is flawed.

We need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions drastically, but we can manage this without reducing the population. We just need to do things like use more fuel efficient cars, invest in renewable energy sources, use less air travel, etc. etc.

Even if we were to reduce the population it wouldn't solve the problem because we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by ~80% by the year 2050. We're not going to cut the population by 80% in the next 40 years, but we can change our lifestyles and utilize greener technology to make these cuts. It's just a matter of having the will to do it.

Answer 8

Humans are not the cause of global warming. It's normal for the earth to do this. The problem is that we speed up the process and it's going way faster than the earth can handle. Therefore, the ice caps are melting away and the ocean levels are rising.

Answer 9

Yeah, I agree. However, since we have all of these scientists creating all of these harmful drugs that are actually supposed to be good for us, why don't we get some scientists to create a gas or a pill or something that will shrink everyone to about a foot tall? Then after all the wars for survival have finished we can get on with living more with nature than against it.

Answer 10

I try to be polite in these forums, but when I read a post that suggests Genocide as a possible solution to Global Warming you are testing the limits of my politeness.


There are hundreds of options that are available to us to reduce the effects of Global Warming and reduce the level of Global Warming and delay Global Warming.


The only question is whether or not we are willing ot take those options.


Reducing populations by the use of Genocide and War is absolutely absurd.

Genocide is the worst and most ridiculous of all of the options.


I see these proposals from time to time and it demonstrates the ridiculousness of the hysteria that has been generated by the popular media regarding this issue.


According to the best scientific estimates we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions to less than one tenth of what they are today if we are to have any chance of stopping Global Warming.


Over 50% of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States are produced by coal fired power plants that produce electricity.


If we were truly determined we could replace electricity produced by coal fired power plants with electricity generated by wind turbines.


That would reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 50% That alone would be a significant improvement even though it would not get us all the way that we need to go.

.
The cost of production of the electricity is approximately the same at 4 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity generated by wind turbines compared with the cost of electricity produced by coal(1).


The obstacles are primarily the fact that the wind does not always blow when you need it, it would take millions of wind turbines to replace the coal fired power plants, birds are killed when they fly into wind turbines, and people like Ted Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. bring lawsuits to stop wind turbine projects when they are visible from the Kennedy compound at Hyannisport.


When I hear people saying that we have to kill billions of other people to solve the problem of Global Warming, but we can't run the risk that birds will be killed by wind turbines, and we can't have wind farms that are visible from the homes of wealthy, powerful people this makes me question whether we have lost our minds.


If we cannot replace coal fired power plants with wind turbines, even nuclear power plants with all of the problems of waste disposal and accidents would be far preferable to committing Genocide over this issue.


One thing that people need to realize is that the dramatizations in the popular media such as in silly horror flicks like "The Day After Tomorrow" are nothing but silly horror flicks designed to make money for vacuous Hollywood producers, actors and actresses.


These silly horror flicks have absolutely nothing to do with reality, yet when I hear people talking about committing Genocide to stop Global Warming, they often cite silly horror flicks like "The Day After Tomorrow" as their justification for committing Genocide..

.
It is time that we stopped the ridiculous hysteria over this issue and start dealing with reality rather than the ridiculous hype and exaggeration that the popular media have used when exploiting this issue for profit.


The greed of Hollywood knows no bounds. Hollywood has already made too much money off this issue, and has done too much damage by distorting this issue beyond the bounds of reality..


It is time that we take the issue of Global Warming back from Hollywood and bring some reality and sanity back to the subject of Global Warming and Climate Change
.