Global Warming solution with population control?

Question

If we really wanted to reverse global warming, couldn't we just limit each woman to one child (world wide)? Bringing the population down would stop the demand on our resources, and decrease pollution.

Answer 1

I think you are missing the point
Global Warming may be the solution to over population.

they have tried its impossible to control populations in a nice way
it would have to be done the hard way,
Disasters,War,Human sacrifice,

There has been a depopulation strategy ,operative since 1998,Following a Bilderberg Meeting in Copenhagen.
it was suggested to bring the world population down by 60%,one cannot help but wonder at how this would be archieved

World population has doubled in the last 50 years exceeding the growth of 4 million years (since we became homo Sapiens).
To satisfy the growing demand farmers are cultivating unstable lands , too steep or dry to be sustainable.

Over the last half century,
Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million

In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise.
--------------------------------------...
.
NATURES POINT OF VIEW

In Nature exists such a thing as the law of Harmony and Equilibrium

Animals have lots of young when there is plenty of food ,and have little or none when the conditions are bad
when there is a plague of rabbits ,many foxes are born,
when there is no game lions ,and other predators have few cubs.

plants do roughly the same
All follow the LAW OF NATURE OF EQUILIBRIUM
everybody is welcome ,but nobody in excess.
we must co-exist on this planet and limit our numbers to our resources

All of Nature obeys these LAWS,but Humans put themselves above the LAW,and have bred themselves into a plague
It is a miracle that Nature has allowed us to get this far.

Everything else is set upon by plagues ,disease or predators ,when they exceed their allotted quantity,or there are Natural disasters .

There are two moments in the existence of a specie when extinction is likely,
when there are two few
And when there are too many.
--------------------------------------...
PEOPLE

However population control has always been a very sensitive issue Because people get get very nervous when you go below the belt

Mans sexuality and very often how many kids hes got is proof of his masculinity and insurance for old age
with many possible incomes to assist him when he himself cannot work any more
the second point is HOW do we ethically control populations

poor areas with less education DEMONSTRATE THE HIGHEST NUMBERS OF TEEN AGE PREGNANCIES,

educated women have less children
But uneducated populations are more religious and more resistant to birth control.
to forcibly control populations is frowned upon to say the least
--------------------------------------...

Population control in the past and present

War (past .present and future)
Natures way disease(today,past and future)
Manufactured disease(suspected today)
cures that kill(suspected today)
poisoned consumer goods (suspected today)
making children infertile or gay,by raising the PH level in drinking water or even drinks (suspected today)
birth control,

Some Native peoples have always been aware of this
to limit the tribes number to as many as the tribe can afford to feed
in the past the Olmecs women ate yams to make them infertile,
Amazonian tribes have strict sexual rites that limit copulation in the conventional way.

And there were central Americans who sacrificed their excess children to the Gods

Today we have several methods but most reach only the educated ,i handed out condoms to an native Mazatecca comunity in Oaxaca ,and the church retrieved them all )

education on birth control(not enough,again the poor regions are excluded )

there are the strong methods such as in China with laws that limit childbirth per family.
Also a horrible concept.

.
--------------------------------------...
In the Netherlands after the war families were encouraged
to have few children because it is such a small country
not much bigger than Mexico city,
so it was physically impossible to fit a lot of people into the country ,There people can understand the concept of birth control,
But in larger countries many think of the family ,not the society as a whole

what happens if the country is full
wage war and kill everybody in another place to invade and settle there ,that would be the natural solution

In the past conquering countries encouraged the people to have many kids to be used as cannon fodder

or settling farmers needed many sons to provide labor,
one would have thought that we had progressed from that

But judging by many peoples reactions, many still cling to the old self centered or invasive philosophies

Answer 2

No that wouldn't solve the problem, because global warming never stops. The IPCC released an article a couple of weeks ago saying that global warming is irreversible, so no forcing people to give up having more than one child will not solve the problem. We can only reduce global warming. It is impossible to completely get rid of it. It would be like getting rid of all weather and climate on earth. Impossible.

Answer 3

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

Cannibalism is a "radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation." -- Lyall Watson, The Financial Times, 15 July 1995

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

Answer 4

Population control would help a little because we wouldn't need so many houses which stop the earth absorbing water eg floods in cities. The world needs to get over money and start doing whats right not whats easy or makes the most money. Greed has messed up alot of our resources. We could have used alternative sources of fuel 20 yrs ago but no theres still oil in the ground so the government makes it illegal to drive anything but what they approve(to their finacial benefit). What is wrong with a man powering his farm machinary with vege scraps? Is it not cleaner than diesel or petrol for the environment. I believe the universe has its cycle (ice ages/ temperature spikes) but I also think that we are making it occur quicker. Then at the same time it is said that the 2 last ice ages were caused by an asteroid and a super volcano eruption in which case we have no control over either of them.

Answer 5

I support you (except that a few 'endanged tribes' including the buxom blondes and redheads and all beauty queens should still have two each, for the benefit of our grandchildren).

It is clear that the growth of human population from below 1 billion in 1700 to over 7 billion soon is a HUGE contributing factor, that and the fact that we are so damned much more well off now (which is not reversible I hope).

Answer 6

Yes it would. But you will never hear that brought up by the global warming elites who want cheap labor and total control of the unwashed masses.

Answer 7

I think global warming is a problem that will solve itself eventually the sea level will rise, weather will become so chaotic that people will start dying as a result of it and the earths populatioin will decrease on its own.

How exactley would they go about enforcing the one child rule anyway?

Answer 8

It would help a bit, but this would not solve the problem.

Currently humans are emitting 8 billion tons of carbon per year. The natural carbon cycle can absorb 4.8 billion tons of this, because it naturally absorbs a bit more than it emits.

So in order to solve global warming just by controlling the human population, we would have to reduce the population by 40%. This is not realistic, to say the least.

Population control could help the problem a bit, but the real solution is reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Answer 9

Yea - nothing like gvmt controlling our bodies.

All women should undergo forced abortions as dictated by men. After all, men know what best for the little ladies.

Forced sterilizations next? We're regressing back to the Nazi era. Is Algore the modern day Hitler?

Answer 10

what happens to those who accidentally have two kids? The only way to enforce your idea is to impose Hitler-ish, no... Maoist doctrine on everyone - forced abortions, infanticide, government intrusion in every aspect of our private lives.
I would rather live on planet Venus than let the government in the United States even suggest how many kids I can have.