Here's a Global Warming though.?

Question

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. Muslims are a problem they are polygamists so let’s let Big Al work with them. He’s been selling global warming, if he can do that he could cool down those polygamists.

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. Let’s hear what you think.

All are good answers and much appreciated. The global warming crowd don’t seem to be as rational.

Answer 1

The downward spiral has already begun. Look at western Europe, Japan and other developed countries - they're not replacing themselves each generation.

Except, of course, Muslim countries and others that don't evolve technologically. Broad prosperity slows population growth, and freedom is the only way to achieve this. Good luck convincing many world dictators of your view.

Answer 2

Firstly, I'm not so sure Earth is 'overpopulated'. I think the problem stems more from such horrible mismanagement of our resources, rather than there being too many people. I'm not in favour of controlling the population by dictating how many children a couple can have. That should be their decision, and theirs alone. The government has no business telling people how often to procreate. There are also so many other questions involved in that, such as, what happens if a couple has triplets? Or quadruplets? Rare that this occurs naturally, but it does. What happens if birth control were to fail? If often does. Even 'permanent' sterilization, like vasectomies and tubal ligation, aren't always 100% effective. If that were to happen, we're faced with the dilemma of 'what to do with this particular couple'. Abortion is bad in the best of times; even worse when governments force it upon people. What about taxing them? As if there aren't enough taxes already.

Secondly, you are correct about 'creature comforts'. Much of what you've listed, though, could be chalked up to materialistic desires rather than comforts. How many families own two or three cars? Is that necessary? What about more than one computer? (My family is guilty of that one). I've always wondered why in hell we don't just build homes that are solely able to run on solar and wind power. Is it so difficult to build a windmill for every neighbourhood, and then outfit every home built inside it with solar panels? Why aren't these things standard? It would help in two ways: reduce the dependency on fossil fuels, and end the need for large generating stations. Food is a given; we need it to live. But today there are smaller ovens to use, the microwave (which may be debated whether it is safe or not), toaster ovens, etc. We have the technology to build electric cars. Why are they not mass produced yet? That alone would majorly impact the amount of pollution.

Muslims are not the problem. Those who practice polygamy are the problem, regardless of their religion. Attitudes on birth control differ from religion to religion, and in the case of Christianity, between the different sects. As far as I know, there is no Protestant sect of Christianity that prohibits birth control. To my knowledge, only the Catholic churches do that.

The government needs to make many of these changes. Why they haven't yet is up for speculation. If the governments said "No more gasoline-powered vehicles; build electric cars only", the manufacturers would have to comply. If the government said "From now on, there will be 50 houses per neighbourhood. In the middle of the neighbourhood there will be a windmill. All 50 homes are to be equipped with solar panels", builders and developers would have to comply. Labour laws could be changed so that they become more family-friendly, perhaps allowing for more flexibility and ending a 'need' for more than one vehicle per household. There are always alternatives. Clearly there are people out there who come up with them. The problem now is getting the government to listen.

By the way, I'm not a believer that global warming is solely caused by us. I believe it is a natural cycle, but one that we should take steps to slow. And while we're doing that, we should be learning new ways to adapt to the warmer period that is upon us.

Answer 3

Man Made global warming is a farce, the warming and cooling of the planet is a 100,000 year cycle based on the small change in the ellipse of our orbit. It is a natural cycle. When I was kid they were trying to tell me we were approaching an Ice age, now we are all going to melt and die.

They can not even tell me what the weather will be like tomorrow, much less in 100 years.

Answer 4

Has anyone studied the word IATROGENIC? = Death by Medicine/Doctor.
It should make you wonder if a program for EUGENICS is not already in place?
I believe everyone here knows of a friend or family that seems to have died 'before their time'.
Cancer seems to be the most popular way for the Experts/Doctors to administer Toxic Lethal Chemo. Cocktails.

This information comes from JAMA Journal of American Medicine -
Read the shocking stats here:
http://www.gnhealth.com/MEDICINE_FOR_SALE.asp
Table 1: Estimated Annual Mortality and Cost of Medical Intervention
Total Deaths/Yr. - - Total Costs
882,936 . . . . . . . . . $285.5 = 286 billion

Answer 5

Yes, but that will not happen and mankind will be forced to colonize Space.
At the top of the food chain, we have no predators except ourselves.
We conquered most illnesses and modern wars kill very few people, not millions as before.
Therefore the population will keep growing and we will start emigrating somewhere else.
Maybe mankind was ment to do so.
Maybe it is our logical destiny.

Answer 6

I only read the first paragraph because your rant is way to long. But I completely agree with you about over population. Over population is the largest environmental disaster to confront the planet. We need to see that and stop worrying about all these side issues. Political correctness be damned. The worlds people must be forced to stop breeding.

Answer 7

So, you're saying that you want us to go back to being hunter-gatherers, without any "creature comforts," and you want there to be less people, because you think that this will stop global warming?
I knew it. Anthropogenic global warming is just a scheme to curb population and economic growth.

Answer 8

Very true. The world has a way of dealing with overpopulation - war, disease, and yes... natural disasters. We are on the way to some culling of the population unless we take proactive steps ourselves.

Answer 9

Even if we stopped breeding today, stopped consuming and stopped driving our cars- worldwide, we could not stop what is happening to the planet now.

It is too little too late. See "What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire' and 'Manufactured Landscape'. We will not stop and can only wait for the end - 5 years is my guess.

Answer 10

Global Warming is a Conspriacy