Do you feel that the topic of population has been too inconspicious in the global warming debate?

Answer 1

The population has nothing to do with the climate. The Earth could handle 5 times the number of people that are here today without any problem

Right now everyone can take 5 acres of land for themselves. That's 20 acres for a family of 4.

People just get spooked by large numbers.

Answer 2

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. -- Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS -- Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets...Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along. -- David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans. -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund



China is the model for the world under an NWO one world government. This clip from ENDGAME details the NWO plans for their eugenics program and the enslavement of mankind.

Answer 3

I’m going to condense this writing and let you fill in the gaps. Late in the movie Al Gore produced, he states that the world has 6 billion people and will eventually level off at 9 billion. Why not stem the growth now? He says that global warming is man made; weather it is or not doesn’t matter. Let’s forget global warming and focus on the real problem of population. We as the people of earth should maybe consider pushing the idea of replacing our selves, one person one child and no more, a married couple would have two children.

Everything that is manufactured is based on creature comforts. People think I’m nuts when I say creature comforts but figure it out. Power plants make electrical energy to support homes with lights, heat, cooking, washing, T.V. computers and the list goes on. Over fifty percent of all power produced in this country comes fossil fuel (Coal). All manufacturing requires electrical power to produce products like cars, T.V. building materials, soap, steel, copper on and on. We are the purchasers of these products; they are made for us so we will be more comfortable. Even food is a creature comfort. If you don’t think so try going without and see how comfortable you are. This is just one example; so use your mind and go beyond what I write.

Some people blame religion for the over population and I’m sure they contribute because of their attitude on birth control. Let’s get to those that benefit by the population growth, those that would want population growth and depend on it. Business and industry need more people to buy their products, so that they might become bigger and bigger, after all the stock holders want more dividends.

Now, I’ve laid the ground work. What would happen if we started a downward spiral in the population? Would people become more important and valuable as workers? Would we need less government cronies, would they have to get a real job? The government would yell that they need more money for more roads, but what do we need more roads for with less people. The environment wouldn’t suffer because with less people there would be less traffic in the wilderness. A lot less fossil fuel would be needed (coal). It would be a slow process getting it all back to what the world once was. Is this a better idea than Al’s and the environmentalist’s idea to shut down the world so the flowers can grow? What good are the flowers if there isn’t anyone to enjoy them? I’m going to leave all the rest of my thoughts to you.

Answer 4

Some of the highest birth rates in the world are in Muslim nations.

Many Muslims consider any attempt to limit their population growth to be an act of war against them.

If you like the war in Iraq you will love the war that you will get with the Muslim nations if you try to limit their population growth.

Answer 5

Don't listen to the likes of Paul Ehrlich ("smog disasters will kill 200,000 in NY and LA", "the battle to feed humanity is over", "before 1985 mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity"...).

As societies evolve technologically, birth rates drop. Look at western Europe, which does not reproduce at a level sufficient for generational replacement.

Answer 6

yes, more people use more energy create more polution, need more land, cut down more trees. Solution, kill lots of people, save the world. You are brilliant. Go out and kill 3 billion people today and the problem is solved. See why people don't really talk about that as an issue. The solution is a bit messy.

Answer 7

Yes, overpopulation is a key part of the issue.

Some people have pointed out that population growth in the U.S. will erase potential greenhouse gas savings, through immigration alone. We should stop upgrading people to our consumptive lifestyle, and employ the 6% unemployed and the 25% poor already living here (many unemployed but no appearing in the count, which is based on unemployment benefits).

Answer 8

Over population is not longer politically correct to discuss. Years ago it was a problem. Now we are not allowed to talk about the breeders on the planet.