4 ms·

In all honesty, the only time we should care about is the one in front of us. Is it possible there are "natural forces and cycles at work"? Sure, but throw your

In all honesty, the only time we should care about is the one in front of us. Is it possible there are "natural forces and cycles at work"? Sure, but throw your hands up and say "oh, it's possibly beyond our comprehension"? Good grief, no. We should try to comprehend everything, and human induced global warming is the best hypothesis fitting the available evidence. Of course there are other possibilities, but this is such an important question. Should we sit and wait for even more extensive proof that we're causing the problem? I guess we could go to our graves in the certain knowledge that we were right; I'd prefer the scenario where we try our best to avert the extinction of the species, even if it means being wrong a few times.

alphapapa 11y ago
Respectfully, I think you are exaggerating the risks. This is probably not the place to debate AGW and climate change, but not only are there many reasons to doubt AGW, there are also points to be made in favor of global warming, such as increased crop yields and arable lands, more habitable land, etc. As usual, the question is one of balancing risks. It does not seem likely that, even if AGW occurs, it will prove harmful--the opposite may be the case. It also does not seem likely that we could reverse AGW, if it were occurring. But what does seem likely is that, by attempting to reverse it, we would cause real harm to real people, right now. People are talking about people starving and living in poverty--well if we deny the developing world the use of fossil fuels, they are going to keep starving and living in poverty. It seems hypocritical to me for someone to advocate helping the poor and hungry while at the same time advocate trying to stop global warming. Absent free energy, both can't happen. The only other alternative is population control: that would solve both the starving-people problem and the global warming problem. And, if you notice, that's exactly what people like Ehrlich have advocated: population control.
- blumkvist 11y ago
  I don't hold a strong opinion about global warming and other doomsday theories, with which we are bombareded every day, but population control has crossed my mind and I can't seem to find a reasonable con. In an ecosystem, nature has its ways to control an overgrown population of one species or another. We humans are not as reliant on nature as other species, so there is no way for the balance to be preserved naturally. What is so atrocious about limiting parents to have only 1 child, for example? Or only two for that matter, some individuals (the number of which is growing) will never have an offspring, so the population will simply contract. What is so bad about it?
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    What is so bad about it? Are you kidding me? Why don't you talk to some people in China about that, people whose children die and are denied the right to have more. Why don't you think about corrupt, evil governments that want to keep the population a manageable size so they can remain in power and continue exploiting people. I don't know where you are from, but where I come from, we value freedom and the right to self-determination. Trying to control other people--to prevent them from doing normal, natural things like having families--is wrong. There is no shortage of food, nor of living space, on this planet. The problems are getting the food and the people to the right places. The solution to those problems is not to sterilize people--medically or legally--against their will. The only reason to do that is to keep certain people in power so they can continue to exploit everyone else. And that is evil. So that is what is so bad about it.
    - blumkvist 11y ago
      Nobody is denying you having a family. Or are you saying that having just 2 children is not having a family? Where I come from? I come from a country where gypsies have 6,7,8,9, more children, sucking welfare checks from the government. They occupy their spare time with laying around, marking retired, defenseless people for robberies and extortion, sending their children to developed countries to pickpocket. They view their children as a resource to exploit in one way or another. And before you make an attempt to defend them, saying that they are in an unfortunate position, I have to inform you that they are very much content with their position and do not want to change it at all. They like their lives the way they are. They think of it like culture. It certainly is one, whether it is worthy of preserving is a wholly other discussion. So, please, come off your high horse and be a realist about the situation. I have yet to see evidence of humans, en masse, self-determine on impairment in the name of bigger picture.
      - alphapapa 11y ago
        In the example you give, uncontrolled population is not the problem. Social policies and cultural values are the problems. And I don't think limiting the number of children people can have is the right solution, not morally, ethically, or practically. Now, who are you (not literally you) to say how many children I'm allowed to have? Who are you to control the size of my family? What business is it--or should it be--of yours? (Maybe we just have very different ideas about the proper roles of government.) Anyway, if the problem is too many undeserving people on welfare, change the eligibility requirements for receiving welfare. > So, please, come off your high horse and be a realist about the situation. I have yet to see evidence of humans, en masse, self-determine on impairment in the name of bigger picture. You haven't? I think that, say, the Soviet Union would be an example of that, and communism in general. Although one could argue that that wasn't a case of self-determinism. It depends on the scale you're talking about. I think there are many examples of mobs of one scale or another being convinced to follow a certain path which had negative consequences. If the mob agrees with its leader, are its actions "self-determined"? Or if they think they're headed for success, are they "impairing" themselves? What matters, intent or results?
- anon1385 11y ago
  >if we deny the developing world the use of fossil fuels, they are going to keep starving and living in poverty. If fossil fuels are so vital to developing countries why are you wasting them on luxury goods? Surely you should be campaigning for massive reduction in fossil fuel use in developed countries (who can afford sustainable and nuclear power generation technologies).

alphapapa 11y ago

Respectfully, I think you are exaggerating the risks. This is probably not the place to debate AGW and climate change, but not only are there many reasons to doubt AGW, there are also points to be made in favor of global warming, such as increased crop yields and arable lands, more habitable land, etc. As usual, the question is one of balancing risks. It does not seem likely that, even if AGW occurs, it will prove harmful--the opposite may be the case. It also does not seem likely that we could reverse AGW, if it were occurring. But what does seem likely is that, by attempting to reverse it, we would cause real harm to real people, right now. People are talking about people starving and living in poverty--well if we deny the developing world the use of fossil fuels, they are going to keep starving and living in poverty. It seems hypocritical to me for someone to advocate helping the poor and hungry while at the same time advocate trying to stop global warming. Absent free energy, both can't happen. The only other alternative is population control: that would solve both the starving-people problem and the global warming problem. And, if you notice, that's exactly what people like Ehrlich have advocated: population control.

blumkvist 11y ago
I don't hold a strong opinion about global warming and other doomsday theories, with which we are bombareded every day, but population control has crossed my mind and I can't seem to find a reasonable con. In an ecosystem, nature has its ways to control an overgrown population of one species or another. We humans are not as reliant on nature as other species, so there is no way for the balance to be preserved naturally. What is so atrocious about limiting parents to have only 1 child, for example? Or only two for that matter, some individuals (the number of which is growing) will never have an offspring, so the population will simply contract. What is so bad about it?
- alphapapa 11y ago
  What is so bad about it? Are you kidding me? Why don't you talk to some people in China about that, people whose children die and are denied the right to have more. Why don't you think about corrupt, evil governments that want to keep the population a manageable size so they can remain in power and continue exploiting people. I don't know where you are from, but where I come from, we value freedom and the right to self-determination. Trying to control other people--to prevent them from doing normal, natural things like having families--is wrong. There is no shortage of food, nor of living space, on this planet. The problems are getting the food and the people to the right places. The solution to those problems is not to sterilize people--medically or legally--against their will. The only reason to do that is to keep certain people in power so they can continue to exploit everyone else. And that is evil. So that is what is so bad about it.
  - blumkvist 11y ago
    Nobody is denying you having a family. Or are you saying that having just 2 children is not having a family? Where I come from? I come from a country where gypsies have 6,7,8,9, more children, sucking welfare checks from the government. They occupy their spare time with laying around, marking retired, defenseless people for robberies and extortion, sending their children to developed countries to pickpocket. They view their children as a resource to exploit in one way or another. And before you make an attempt to defend them, saying that they are in an unfortunate position, I have to inform you that they are very much content with their position and do not want to change it at all. They like their lives the way they are. They think of it like culture. It certainly is one, whether it is worthy of preserving is a wholly other discussion. So, please, come off your high horse and be a realist about the situation. I have yet to see evidence of humans, en masse, self-determine on impairment in the name of bigger picture.
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      In the example you give, uncontrolled population is not the problem. Social policies and cultural values are the problems. And I don't think limiting the number of children people can have is the right solution, not morally, ethically, or practically. Now, who are you (not literally you) to say how many children I'm allowed to have? Who are you to control the size of my family? What business is it--or should it be--of yours? (Maybe we just have very different ideas about the proper roles of government.) Anyway, if the problem is too many undeserving people on welfare, change the eligibility requirements for receiving welfare. > So, please, come off your high horse and be a realist about the situation. I have yet to see evidence of humans, en masse, self-determine on impairment in the name of bigger picture. You haven't? I think that, say, the Soviet Union would be an example of that, and communism in general. Although one could argue that that wasn't a case of self-determinism. It depends on the scale you're talking about. I think there are many examples of mobs of one scale or another being convinced to follow a certain path which had negative consequences. If the mob agrees with its leader, are its actions "self-determined"? Or if they think they're headed for success, are they "impairing" themselves? What matters, intent or results?
anon1385 11y ago
>if we deny the developing world the use of fossil fuels, they are going to keep starving and living in poverty. If fossil fuels are so vital to developing countries why are you wasting them on luxury goods? Surely you should be campaigning for massive reduction in fossil fuel use in developed countries (who can afford sustainable and nuclear power generation technologies).