The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Bullitt]

I'm suggesting that maybe the calculations would suggest one child per 100 couples or 1/1000 couples, not one child per couple.

As much as thats a good theory Id like to see a political party try to implement that...thed never work again

[davereid]

When conservationalists look at saving a species i.e. elephants, factors such as how many in a herd and what size territory that herd requires to be able to survive are calculated and put into practice.

Has this equation been put towards human habitation on this planet? Earth will only be able to sustain a certain number of humans in relation to other species for this planet to sustain itself.

It doesn't need to be applied to humans. We have technology. We use tools and a brain to adapt. We are the most biologically fragile mammal on the planet. Yet we can live in hotter climates, and colder climates that any other species. We consistently produce more food, and improve our lives - no other animal has ever done that.

Since the industrial revolution took us from the iron age, more people have been born, and lived their entire lives without knowing food shortage that in the entire history of the planet.

Can we keep on doing it ?

No. Not without production, and wealth.

But, we already know, that productive, rich countries already CHOOSE population growth below replacement.

Stone age people need children and grandchildren to feed them.

Technological people don't.

The world can easily support it's current population, and much more. And given wealth, most will choose to rely on technology, not grandchildren to keep them eating in old age.

[peasea]

It doesn't need to be applied to humans. We have technology. We use tools and a brain to adapt. We are the most biologically fragile mammal on the planet. Yet we can live in hotter climates, and colder climates that any other species. We consistently produce more food, and improve our lives - no other animal has ever done that.

Since the industrial revolution took us from the iron age, more people have been born, and lived their entire lives without knowing food shortage that in the entire history of the planet.

Can we keep on doing it ?

No. Not without production, and wealth.

But, we already know, that productive, rich countries already CHOOSE population growth below replacement.

Stone age people need children and grandchildren to feed them.

Technological people don't.

The world can easily support it's current population, and much more. And given wealth, most will choose to rely on technology, not grandchildren to keep them eating in old age.

While living longer into the bargain.

[Winston001]

It doesn't need to be applied to humans. We have technology. We use tools and a brain to adapt.

Since the industrial revolution took us from the iron age, more people have been born, and lived their entire lives without knowing food shortage that in the entire history of the planet.

Can we keep on doing it ?

No. Not without production, and wealth.


The world can easily support it's current population, and much more.

No. Three examples - Mesopotamia, Mayan empire, Easter Island. All three used up their resources and within a very short period evaporated as societies.

We are now a global community and there isn't another handy planet to move to if we muck this one up. Our natural resources are not infinite.

Up to 1960 the worlds biomass was in balance - animals, plants and micro-organisms reproduced as fast as they died. However since then the human population has exploded and the others have shrunk. There is a very complex symbiosis between micro-organisms and our environment. Plants won't grow without them, oxygen is created in plants by them (no it isn't the plant itself, contrary to school science), our ability to absorb food relies on them.

And we've been poisoning these tiny creatures, as well as taking larger species to extinction.

Yes humans will survive - but at the cost of billions of deaths. I despair at what can be done - its beyond politics.

[TimeOut]

China had the right idea but their culture of wanting boys over girls has now put China in a terrible, sexual imbalance. Though China would be one of the few countries in the world who could implement such a policy (and it is a policy of one child, not a policy of boys only).

I'm suggesting that maybe the calculations would suggest one child per 100 couples or 1/1000 couples, not one child per couple. We have to reduce the population before sustaining a pre-determined level.

If the planet is to survive another couple of thousand years of human habitation, we need drastic solutions and forget the Political Correctness crap. Time to get logical not emotional.

That may have the disired effect as there will be less females to reproduce in future generations. (Terrible as it may be)

[Maki]

That may have the disired effect as there will be less females to reproduce in future generations. (Terrible as it may be)

Anything is better than simply telling people that 1 child is the max they can have. That would not be PC, would it...

[Winston001]

China is the only country in the world brave enough to institute a controlled birthrate policy. And it is only possible there because it is an autocracy run by one Party. At times there are benefits in benevolent dictatorship, its just that from our liberal perspective, it doesn't look too benevolent.

The way it works is that you are permitted as a couple to have one child. If you have a second child you are taxed extra, the child isn't taken away or killed. Kind of the exact opposite to Family Support here which encourages more children.

What happens with divorced or unmarried mothers I don't know, makes it kind of tough to have a child with a new husband.

And yes, boys are preferred over girls in Chinese culture so girl foetuses are aborted or sadly the baby disappears....

Nevertheless this policy is to be admired. You are allowed to have more children, you just need to be able to support them. Kind makes sense.

[madandy]

There is truth in that. Compound that by adding an overlay of overindulged ignorant green politics that is opposed to genetically-modified food production and deeply in love with "organics" and the world's scant arable land falls under even greater pressure.

Mankind has the necessary technology and knowledge to feed the world many times over. The barrier is affluent, self-absorbed, middle-class, western politics that has run out of real things to worry about.

We are a long was from producing the quantities of food required without poisoning the land.
Irrigation technologies and chemical reliance are the other barriers.

Organic eggs are so much better than non organic eggs, fact. Same with lettuce etc.

[davereid]

We are a long was from producing the quantities of food required without poisoning the land.
Irrigation technologies and chemical reliance are the other barriers.

Organic eggs are so much better than non organic eggs, fact. Same with lettuce etc.

Organic food certainly tastes better, we have our own garden, sheep, chickens and eggs as a result.

But we don't have to feed the world with organic gourmet food.

Actually, millions of people wold be happy to eat at all !

Our arrogance is a massive part of this problem.

Don't stave the third world, just so you can feel good about your carbon credits.

We became rich (and for the first time in the planets history generally fat), by cutting down trees, using coal to make steel, and the industrial revolution.

Its a special kind of person that would deny wealth to the third world so that we may remain fat.

[Bullitt]

Everyone knows about chinas one child policy but does anyone know what effect its actually having. China has about 1 billion people, in 20 years time will they have 800 million and 50 years time 500 million or something like that or are they still continuing to grow?

[Winston001]

China - so far as I know they still have a growing population but much slower than say, India.

[Ocean1]

Everyone knows about chinas one child policy but does anyone know what effect its actually having.

A bit. It's no longer enforced but the social damage it caused is evident, not too far below the surface. I met numerous teenagers who were 2nd and third children, particularly in the villages. Unrecognised by the state they get no education and for some health care is difficult. You don't want to go there.

[Winston001]

But we don't have to feed the world with organic gourmet food.

Don't starve the third world, just so you can feel good about your carbon credits.

We became rich (and for the first time in the planets history generally fat), by cutting down trees, using coal to make steel, and the industrial revolution.

Its a special kind of person that would deny wealth to the third world so that we may remain fat.

Nobody in the West wants to deliberately starve the Third World - instead it will happen as a sort of unintended and unseen consequence of our continued wealth. We have the money to buy bio-fuels, it pays better as a crop for an African farmer, why would he plant wheat?

Earth is currently heading towards a population of 7 billion. Biologists calculate that a sustainable biomass could support 2 billion. So....5 billion people either have to stop breeding (unlikely) or gradually die of starvation, disease, and war.

The injustice is that its the poor of the world who will suffer because they can't do anything about it. We in the West have choices, we have space, food, medicine and technology.

[Winston001]

A bit. It's no longer enforced but the social damage it caused is evident, not too far below the surface. I met numerous teenagers who were 2nd and third children, particularly in the villages. Unrecognised by the state they get no education and for some health care is difficult. You don't want to go there.

Interesting and inevitable. There will be a strong political and legal disincentive for a second child, reinforced by public disapproval.

[devnull]

China is the only country in the world brave enough to institute a controlled birthrate policy. And it is only possible there because it is an autocracy run by one Party. At times there are benefits in benevolent dictatorship, its just that from our liberal perspective, it doesn't look too benevolent.

The way it works is that you are permitted as a couple to have one child. If you have a second child you are taxed extra, the child isn't taken away or killed. Kind of the exact opposite to Family Support here which encourages more children.

What happens with divorced or unmarried mothers I don't know, makes it kind of tough to have a child with a new husband.

And yes, boys are preferred over girls in Chinese culture so girl foetuses are aborted or sadly the baby disappears....

Nevertheless this policy is to be admired. You are allowed to have more children, you just need to be able to support them. Kind makes sense.

I think you lead a very sheltered life.

China has been doing forced abortions for a long time. Some very late in their pregnancy.

See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9766870
or http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...5/112856.shtml or http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/may/05052706.html

No shortage of information.

Try bringing that sort of thing in here and expect armed insurrection. I know which side I'll be on. It'd guarantee a thinning out of the population, though not perhaps in ways the politicians intended