3 ms·

It exploded. Next question. It's pointless trying to reduce greenhouse gases by a few percentage points, if you contradict that by freely allowing the human po

It exploded. Next question. It's pointless trying to reduce greenhouse gases by a few percentage points, if you contradict that by freely allowing the human population to keep exploding higher and higher. The Chinese were on the right track with their 'one child per family' policy. Better would be 'one child per woman' world-wide. That would reduce human numbers smoothly over a couple of generations without disruption of civilisation.

nhchris 4y ago
Somehow, as soon as you connect environmental strain to population size, not just lifestyle, ecological problems disappear and Earth is doing just fine.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hilbert42 4y ago
  Exactly!
- simonblack 4y ago
  Huh? 'Environmental strain' = 'disappeared ecological problems' ? That just doesn't compute for me. Did you leave something out of the sentence? How I see it is that the more people there are, the more ecological strain on the environment, and the more the ecological problems. That will apply whether the extra population is in African Bushmen using negligible technology, or in New Yorkers whose energy requirements are through the roof. They both probably take up much the same sort of living space, meaning that there is less arable land available. They probably both eat similar amounts thus putting probably the same sort of strain on food production, they'll probably use much the same amount of fluids. Just in breathing, they'll produce a similar quantity of greenhouse gases. Better for the Earth as a whole if both of them hadn't been born. But there is no need to 'cull humanity'as some would propose, it just requires some forward family-planning over a couple of generations until we reach sustainable levels.* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Sustainable levels depend on the amount of energy used per capita. So we could sustain (say) one billion at US energy levels, (say) two billion at European energy-usage levels, and (say) five billion at African Bushman energy-usage levels.
hilbert42 4y ago
"It's pointless trying to reduce greenhouse gases by a few percentage points, if you contradict that..." Right. I've never understood why the debate over climate change was (and still is) separated from the population argument. It's just hypocrisy to me. I've seen estimates that a human being eats between 70 and 100 tons of food across a lifetime let alone all the other resources he/she consumes—housing, cars, fuel, goods of every kind. As it stands, the arguments simply don't equate. I wish someone would provide data and equations that would authenticate the figures one way or other. It seems to me the human race is presently engaged in the greatest instance of the Emperor's new clothes ever witnessed. The politics of not mentioning population in the same breath as climate change has to be one of the defining events of our age.

nhchris 4y ago

Somehow, as soon as you connect environmental strain to population size, not just lifestyle, ecological problems disappear and Earth is doing just fine.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hilbert42 4y ago
Exactly!
simonblack 4y ago
Huh? 'Environmental strain' = 'disappeared ecological problems' ? That just doesn't compute for me. Did you leave something out of the sentence? How I see it is that the more people there are, the more ecological strain on the environment, and the more the ecological problems. That will apply whether the extra population is in African Bushmen using negligible technology, or in New Yorkers whose energy requirements are through the roof. They both probably take up much the same sort of living space, meaning that there is less arable land available. They probably both eat similar amounts thus putting probably the same sort of strain on food production, they'll probably use much the same amount of fluids. Just in breathing, they'll produce a similar quantity of greenhouse gases. Better for the Earth as a whole if both of them hadn't been born. But there is no need to 'cull humanity'as some would propose, it just requires some forward family-planning over a couple of generations until we reach sustainable levels.* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Sustainable levels depend on the amount of energy used per capita. So we could sustain (say) one billion at US energy levels, (say) two billion at European energy-usage levels, and (say) five billion at African Bushman energy-usage levels.

hilbert42 4y ago

"It's pointless trying to reduce greenhouse gases by a few percentage points, if you contradict that..." Right. I've never understood why the debate over climate change was (and still is) separated from the population argument. It's just hypocrisy to me. I've seen estimates that a human being eats between 70 and 100 tons of food across a lifetime let alone all the other resources he/she consumes—housing, cars, fuel, goods of every kind. As it stands, the arguments simply don't equate. I wish someone would provide data and equations that would authenticate the figures one way or other. It seems to me the human race is presently engaged in the greatest instance of the Emperor's new clothes ever witnessed. The politics of not mentioning population in the same breath as climate change has to be one of the defining events of our age.