I am not saying that I agree with or against the idea of global warming. If you do, is population control a viable option? How would you implement a program?
2007-12-04 06:03:44 · 16 answers · asked by Mother 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Population increase is something that I don't think the global warming folks had considered. They are locked into fossil fuel burning as being the major cause for the increase in CO2. Think about it for a moment. How much has CO2 increased from 1800 to 2000? The population has increased by a factor of six since then. That means there are six times as many people exhaling CO2 now as there were then.
A lot of people are using vehicles cars today that weren't in 1800 and those vehicles all give off CO2. A lot of people are eating more meat and that meat all comes from animals that are exhaling CO2.
Will someone tell Al Gore THAT is the inconvienent truth. Yes people are the cause of increased CO2. But even if we gave up fossil fuels all together for transportation it still wouldn't do a thing for all the CO2 that is exhaled by people and animals.
2007-12-04 07:36:11 · answer #1 · answered by namsaev 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I really don't think that population control will do anything for global warming.
Granted the globe is in a temperature upgrade trend, but my position is that it is a meteorological trend, nothing more; just like 20 years ago the globe was in a cooling trend.
So, I don't think that the population neither a correlation nor a cause of the warming trend. I firmly believe it is due to the sun and its fluctuation in properties as unpopular as that may be.
2007-12-04 10:18:42 · answer #2 · answered by MrOrph 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lets say that issue is a viable course of action. Don't you think that one of the MANY other viable reasons and actions that the critics say cause/solve Global Warming are a lot easier to employ then World population control.Is it not easier to produce and implement alternative fuel then to control population. Is it not easier to produce motor vehicles that get 50+ m.p.g then it is to control population? Is it not easier to stop cutting down and start replanting our World's forests then controlling population.
While it might be a viable reason there are many others that are much easier to achieve then that one
2007-12-04 06:09:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Generally every few hundred years a good pandemic appears and takes care of overpopulation, however with the advances in medicine, this is probably not going to happen.
There is no way to introduce population control without being fascist, perhaps we should work on being more responsible consumers first, then if need be take a look at population reduction.
2007-12-04 06:11:47 · answer #4 · answered by smedrik 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I intentionally waited a while to answer so that I could read what others would really say . And boy oh boy there are some doozies here . Everything from calling it a 'most effective plan' to saying that every few hundred years a 'good' pandemic comes along !! What the .. ... . . ?
Then the looney ones like 'Earth knows how many people are on it' . Again , WTF ?
People have lost their most valuable asset -- LOVE . Without Love , people will say and think just about anything .
2007-12-04 06:38:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, population control, start with liberals and global warming believers, with Al Gore jumping off the edge of the earth first.
2007-12-04 06:07:32 · answer #6 · answered by Curtis 6 · 8⤊ 1⤋
No that does no longer sparkling up the subject, by means of fact worldwide warming in no way stops. The IPCC released a piece of writing a pair of weeks in the past asserting that worldwide warming is irreversible, so no forcing human beings to renounce having better than one baby won't sparkling up the subject. we are able to easily cut back worldwide warming. that's impossible to thoroughly get rid of it. it may be like doing away with all climate and climate in the worldwide. impossible.
2016-10-10 05:54:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
wow, population control....
i wouldnt even say that louder than a whisper....
i would discourage babies from being born, by encouraging adults to get fixed esp. ones that rely on govt to pay for them
now i didnt say that.... and i would argue with anyone that ever wanted to impliment a program like this....
but logic may dictate doing something in the near future
2007-12-04 06:14:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If global warming is really as big a problem as some would have you believe, it seems like the most effective plan.
2007-12-04 06:08:12 · answer #9 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Abortion is still legal.
-save a tree kill a child.
You've already got population control.
Even though global warming is a myth.
2007-12-04 06:31:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋