Scientists in the BBC’s series “The Planet Earth” claim that current world population is twice what its ecosystem can sustain and remain in balance.
Could a world apocalypse reduce world population by 50% or more, and solve this crisis?
(Is this the unspoken Bush-Cheney plan? Clear out the world's population making way for corporate America to re-colonize the empire?)
2007-12-05 05:30:42 · 7 answers · asked by Wave 4 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
BBC DVD "The Planet Earth"
http://shopping.discovery.com/product-65763.html
2007-12-05 05:32:08 · update #1
I'm not sure we're going to have to do this ourselves. I think it possible that Mother Earth may just decide to scratch the fleas off her back one of these days.
2007-12-05 06:28:55 · answer #1 · answered by gldnsilnc 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe Dr Blob: "Indefinite advance isn't available, hence loose marketplace cornucopian capitalism is basically mistaken and by ability of definition can not in any respect be a lengthy time period sustainable answer." it would not be counted what economic device is in position, they are all overshadowed by ability of consumerism and the perception that better is better efficient: better sq. pictures, better channels, better earnings, better go back and forth, better toddlers, better weight problems. till hairless apes get it by ability of their thick skulls that they do no longer have dominion over nature yet are a small area of it then there is little wish for genuine sustainability of the species. And arguing economic theories gained't help one iota. information common mathematics may: "for the period of each and each doubling time better is ate up than in all previous heritage mixed!" (see 6:11 mark of video) it isn't the large, undesirable businesses that are destroying the Earth; this is the large, undesirable shoppers! end attempting to bypass the dollar!
2016-10-25 12:12:28 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Right. And let's hope that this war goes nuclear.
Dr. Carl Sagan said that a nuclear war would give us a nuclear winter. This could balance global warming out nicely.
A few coal fired power plants here, a few nuclear bombs there and the world is at equilibrium once again.
2007-12-05 05:35:42 · answer #3 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Nope...make it worst, sure. Lemme see....
War - more burning buildings, forests, dead bodies (they release CO2 as they decompose), dead animals, radiation, irradiated dust in the troposphere, tons of fuel consumed in running airplanes, tanks, ships etc...
A virus would be more effective...but then again, since humans only cause less than 5% of global warming, reducing it to 2 1/2% wouldn't do much.
Bush-Cheney have a plan?? They barely have a brain between the two of'em.
2007-12-05 05:53:58 · answer #4 · answered by Marc G 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't know how we keep up according to UNICEF and the other "send money" hucksters on TV "millions" of people are dying everyday.
2007-12-05 06:10:44 · answer #5 · answered by vladoviking 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think there would be anyone left to solve the crisis.
2007-12-05 05:50:42 · answer #6 · answered by jjb51 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, But I did my part already, I didn't have any kids.
2007-12-05 05:39:27 · answer #7 · answered by Mikira 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋