Climate Change Denial (1 Viewer)

[DMW]

I am not against ZPG. If someone decides not to have children for ecological reasons, and i have known well 3 such couples, then that is respectable. I am just not for anyone pushing it as an agenda unless they are willing to remove themselves from the population first. Not just removing as a breeder, but from the actual population. Make a statement, and stand for what you espouse.

I've read some daft things in my time, but this takes the prize. So anybody who has an agenda of zero population growth should kill themselves?

I would actually like to see the world's human population decline, so should I go out and kill a few random strangers before topping myself - just to make a statement?

 

[Trystan]

OK, I get it. But here is what really happens.

You make a great case for fewer kids, some hollywood knucklehead grabs ahold of the cause du jour, and they get in the ear of a politician. Said politician finds a focus group that trends towards him or her picking up more of the electorate if they jump on this particular bandwagon.

Legislation goes forward, and within a short time, all of the "normal" folk are limited to their 1 kid and taxed out the arse for any more. The only people who get around this are the pols or the wealthy.

Viewing this from the moral highground of just having "saved the planet", imo, doesnt make up for the fact that the inevitable outcome of this is to prevent poor from breeding, taxing middle class for doing same, and allowing only the trust funders to bloom.

Ok, firstly, I didn't realise that legislation changes in the US were dependent on Hollywood, but that aside, we are talking about something which has to be implemented across the world, like meeting carbon emmission targets except everyone has to play the game.

Secondly, in the western world I think a two children cap would be more realistic followed by financial penalties, then the poor of whom you speak can still have their family. In the rest of the world, its trickier because people already have no money. I've seen Sri Lankan schools in operation and they actively encourage smaller families, citing the poverty in neighbouring India as a very good reason for this. I think this is a starting point, along with readily available contraceptives. (Here the catholic church is helping to cause abject poverty and destroy the planet with its stance. This needs sorting out).

No, I think pushing that agenda results in no real change other than taking money from me, reducing the number of grandkids I'll someday (hope) to have, and sending that $ to some fat pols bank account. Token $Scraps to the developing world.

Raising my family is a fundamental right, whether by the law of my country or a god or God. While your argument makes sense, the realistic outcome is
entirely unacceptable.

Remember that as an American you are consuming 4 times the worlds resources than a person in the developing world. It's more urgent for your population to be under control first, lead by example but if your God given right to breed is more important than saving the planet then so be it, we are doomed.

I am not against ZPG. If someone decides not to have children for ecological reasons, and i have known well 3 such couples, then that is respectable. I am just not for anyone pushing it as an agenda unless they are willing to remove themselves from the population first. Not just removing as a breeder, but from the actual population. Make a statement, and stand for what you espouse.

What can I say...

If I could push a button and save the planet at the cost of my own life, I reckon I would do it, but topping myself and leaving you (generic) behind, what would be the point?

(FYI ZPG = zero population growth)

Thank you

 

[ceasar]

Please don't think I'm being hypocritical on this, I have already made the decision not to have children and would encourage anyone and everyone to do the same, but at the very least, do not have more than 2 children per family because anything more is the most selfish thing you could do against the environment.

I dont know what a ZPGer is but if you have any amount of forsight then you must see the damage human population is going to cause based on the amount of damage it's already causing. The offspring of your nearest and dearest will suffer for your right to have as many children as you like. Taking offence that some people want to tackle the problem is not going to help.

Actually this 2 child or less family policy has been happening in the West, especially in Europe, for quite some time now if demographic studies are accurate. This will cause serious financial problems for their rapidly aging populations and affect old age pensions severely.

It was unplanned and had nothing to do with saving the environment and it will ultimately do nothing to save it. The world will be left to other nations and cultures who are more concerned about their own survival than nature's survival.

Please read this recent bleak essay by a columnist at Asia Times who writes under the pen name, "Spengler." His name is David Goldman and you can access his articles at the web site.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/MG15Dj01.html

Bob

 

[fugl]

Actually this 2 child or less family policy has been happening in the West, especially in Europe, for quite some time now if demographic studies are accurate. This will cause serious financial problems for their rapidly aging populations and affect old age pensions severely.

It was unplanned and had nothing to do with saving the environment and it will ultimately do nothing to save it. The world will be left to other nations and cultures who are more concerned about their own survival than nature's survival.

Indeed, in a nutshell. I wonder what the prospects are of China's one child policy being adopted elsewhere in the third world? Or for that matter of it continuing to work in China, assuming that is that it's working now? The U.S. I believe is already at or near zero population growth, recent increases being mostly or entirely the result of immigration.

What really depresses me about all this is that given the current state of the world I don't see any way out. Does anyone? What should we in the developed world do, just seal our borders--& good luck with that over any kind of long term--& hope for the best? ???

 

[lashinala]

What really depresses me about all this is that given the current state of the world I don't see any way out. Does anyone? What should we in the developed world do, just seal our borders--& good luck with that over any kind of long term--& hope for the best? ???

(not to anyone in particular)
Do? a way out? 'Attrition' will inevitably force it's hand, regardless of the path we take. It's just a matter of whether we admit that our lives are a struggle, or whether we see our lives as a series of attempts to get others to 'do our struggling for us'. In the end, your only descendants are your only descendants....no avoiding it. Sure, we can all have a 'right to breed', but only for our current (or maybe 1 or 2 future) generations...unless we teach our posterity the same skills, they are on their own to be easily convinced that ZPG is a noble cause (it's not) or some other mindgame.
The problem with Americans...(and Canadians and Mexicans and Caribbeans, etc.) isn't just comsumption, it's that there is no foward looking plan due to our system of electing and following an ethic that sees consumption as morally right. (Fasting every now and then would be a good start...no TV another one)
Remember, 7 billion mouths feed 7 billion minds that may have solutions. A tribe of 20 celebrates a birth like no other, while a city of 20 million sees the same baby as taking up space and resources. Same kid. JMHO

 

[BrightIdea]

I would actually like to see the world's human population decline, so should I go out and kill a few random strangers before topping myself - just to make a statement?

Of course not, no. Dont be silly. You should not have control over those people, their lives. You can only have control over you.

So, yes, if one TRULY seeks a population decrease for the betterment of future ecosystems (and not for selfish reasons) then one should be prepared to step up.

 

[BrightIdea]

I've read some daft things in my time, but this takes the prize. So anybody who has an agenda of zero population growth should kill themselves?

A desire for it to occur? No. An actual agenda to effect change in others for this purpose? Yes

 

[BrightIdea]

...It's more urgent for your population to be under control first, lead by example but if your God given right to breed is more important than saving the planet then so be it, we are doomed.

Nah. The planet isnt doomed by any internal force. Biological diversity well may be , I think we are seeing that.

We may well be doomed regardless. But I am not typically a fatalist. I do think you (or maybe others?) misunderstand my position. I think its laudable to educate others, or to decide not to have children for ecological reasons (or any other reason). A few of my very best friends have done just that. I just dont think anyone should be in that position to MAKE it happen. It's a personal choice. MANY choices are, and should be. It should be that way.

It may come across poorly as I scribble away during my lunch break, or because I am not a terrific writer. Basically anyone else imposing anything on others is what I am fully against.

And I think its OK to disagree too.

 

[BrightIdea]

Ok, firstly, I didn't realise that legislation changes in the US were dependent on Hollywood,

OK, I skipped a few steps and took some liberties, but special interest groups disguised as news outlets and popularity contests disguised as elections are not uncommon.

but that aside, we are talking about something which has to be implemented across the world, like meeting carbon emmission targets except everyone has to play the game.

Nope. We wont see eye to eye on that. I see any group powerful enough to implement that policy as being too powerful and too ripe for the inevitable human corruption.

...I've seen Sri Lankan schools in operation and they actively encourage smaller families, citing the poverty in neighbouring India as a very good reason for this. I think this is a starting point, along with readily available contraceptives. (Here the catholic church is helping to cause abject poverty and destroy the planet with its stance. This needs sorting out).

Sure the pope and the church officially has this position. However in practice, I dont believe it is 1% the issue that is made of it. At elast in the NE USA developed world I am very familiar with, its a better news article or talking point that reality. I have known a heck of a lot of RCatholics, including a fair portion of my extended family. I can assure you that despite what the pope preaches, Roman Catholics are fully aware of and use BC- condoms, and especially the pill. They even get abortions. Remember they feel that to sin is human. Dont worry, they are human.

I dont know for sure, but I bet that the RC statistic is either playing off of old sterotypes (Irish catholics @ turn of the century) or new ones (poorer latino RC's with high birth rates.)

What can I say...

If I could push a button and save the planet at the cost of my own life, I reckon I would do it, but topping myself and leaving you (generic) behind, what would be the point?

Thank you

Indeed, The world is more interesting discussing such things, right? I am not promoting suicide. I am rejecting others making such decisions for me.

And you are welcome. I appreciate others being able to disagree without things getting ugly. B

 

[BrightIdea]

(not to anyone in particular)
...
...(Fasting every now and then would be a good start...no TV another one)
...

Great idea! Because you "can" shouldnt mean you "will" or "should", right?

We've gone for over a year without a TV (currently have one) and close to a year without a refrgerator... in suburbia no less.

Add to this teaching others about sustainable agriculture, the benefits of eating from the bottom of the food chain, easy access to BC and, if they choose, even abortions.

 

[fugl]

Nah. I think its laudable to educate others, or to decide not to have children for ecological reasons (or any other reason). . . . I just dont think anyone should be in that position to MAKE it happen.

It depends on what you mean by "make". Jail sentences for people who have too many kids? No. Less draconian disincentives of various kinds, e.g., shaming via state-funded propaganda campaigns (cf. smoking), sure why not? The same for positive incentives involving public monies like a tax breaks (or whatever). Public funding of course involves taxes & and people are "made" to pay taxes.

 

[BrightIdea]

Public funding of course involves taxes & and people are "made" to pay taxes.

That they are.

I'm also of the opinion that our tax system is abysmally broken. Whole threads (forums... books.. libraries even!) could be devoted to this topic. in short, I'd be for removal of the tax incentive to have children. You would likely agree with that as well, I imagine. Upon removing deductions for "dependants", you no longer have taxpayer subsidizing others familial expansion. We'd both agree this is a good thing, no? I would not, however, be for a tax ON having children.

However, I would also be for ceasing the connection between any persons habits or decisions (or luck of the draw in the lottery of life) from tax code. Food stamps, corporate welfare, disability, welfare, deductions for buisness expsnse...gone. I'd love to see a 2 tier tax code. One rate for poverty and below, and another for anyone (or entity) above poverty. Period.

Eh. I am getting off topic.

Back to discussion of global climate change.

 

[fugl]

I'm also of the opinion that our tax system is abysmally broken. Whole threads (forums... books.. libraries even!) could be devoted to this topic. in short, I'd be for removal of the tax incentive to have children. You would likely agree with that as well, I imagine. Upon removing deductions for "dependants", you no longer have taxpayer subsidizing others familial expansion. We'd both agree this is a good thing, no? I would not, however, be for a tax ON having children.

However, I would also be for ceasing the connection between any persons habits or decisions (or luck of the draw in the lottery of life) from tax code. Food stamps, corporate welfare, disability, welfare, deductions for buisness expsnse...gone. I'd love to see a 2 tier tax code. One rate for poverty and below, and another for anyone (or entity) above poverty. Period.

Eh. I am getting off topic.

I was just making a general point, not proposing anything specific. As for your ideas about tax "reform", I don't agree with any of them but do agree we're getting way off topic so won't comment on them any further here.

 

[MJB]

While your argument makes sense, the realistic outcome is entirely unacceptable.

Here I was thinking that a realistic outcome was what we were looking for!o

I wonder which unrealistic outcome might work?:eek!:
MJB

 

[MJB]

I've seen zero evidence that this situation can be ameliorated or even is being addressed.

Here's a good summary of a recent paper in Nature. Now you have greater than zero evidence. http://www.nature.com/news/vultures-blind-to-the-dangers-of-wind-farms-1.10214
MJB

 

[BrightIdea]

Here I was thinking that a realistic outcome was what we were looking for!o

I wonder which unrealistic outcome might work?:eek!:
MJB

lol, yeah yeah. How about "probable" outcome, as opposed to "intended" outcome. I've been told by 4 english teachers that I am no word-smith, I need YOU correcting me as well!? :t:

 

[Stevie babe]

That they are.

I'm also of the opinion that our tax system is abysmally broken. Whole threads (forums... books.. libraries even!) could be devoted to this topic. in short, I'd be for removal of the tax incentive to have children. You would likely agree with that as well, I imagine. Upon removing deductions for "dependants", you no longer have taxpayer subsidizing others familial expansion. We'd both agree this is a good thing, no? I would not, however, be for a tax ON having children.

However, I would also be for ceasing the connection between any persons habits or decisions (or luck of the draw in the lottery of life) from tax code. Food stamps, corporate welfare, disability, welfare, deductions for buisness expsnse...gone. I'd love to see a 2 tier tax code. One rate for poverty and below, and another for anyone (or entity) above poverty. Period.

Eh. I am getting off topic.

Back to discussion of global climate change.

Sorry but just to continue the population thingy. It is mostly the poor countries that predominately have large families. I stand to be corrected but most of those poor countries don't have direct taxation like we do in the 'West'. IMO tax incentives will have little effect in the mass population growth anticiapted over the next 20 - 50 years.

However the human population is relevant to global climate change. We are causing desertification, CO2 emissions, pollution & species extinctions by short term measures to satisfy our growing food requirements and material needs (and I don't deny I don't help in these matters).

I don't think there is a real humane way to prevent the population growth and only external factors such as a major war, serious disease or something resulting from a tectonic event are likely to have any noticeable effect.

On the subject of the giant windmills I have mentioned in another thread some time ago that even with building as at's lowest point for some considerable time new wind farms barely keep up with supplying new homes yet alone everything that currently exists. The only way to supply the power needs is properly controlled nuclear power.

Soap box now clear for others.

 

[Trystan]

I don't think there is a real humane way to prevent the population growth and only external factors such as a major war, serious disease or something resulting from a tectonic event are likely to have any noticeable effect.

War and disease will be the likely outcome of our exponential population growth anyway. Personally I feel that we should give the softly softly approach a shot, but if it doesn't work then the draconian measures everyone is set against is the preferable alternative to the suffering that will ensue otherwise.

On the subject of the giant windmills I have mentioned in another thread some time ago that even with building as at's lowest point for some considerable time new wind farms barely keep up with supplying new homes yet alone everything that currently exists. The only way to supply the power needs is properly controlled nuclear power.

Soap box now clear for others.

This is what brought me in on the population thing in the first place. Renewable power and any green technology is a noble cause, but it's not enough against the damage we are doing. I hear alot about population growth by 2050 and how we need to have more energy and more food, and more effiecient ways of producing these. Lets assume we make it (unlikely but possible I suppose), then what happens? In 2050 is the population suddenly going to stop growing all of its own accord with nobody trying to get the message out and do something about it?

 

[etudiant]

Here's a good summary of a recent paper in Nature. Now you have greater than zero evidence. http://www.nature.com/news/vultures-blind-to-the-dangers-of-wind-farms-1.10214
MJB

Thank you for the link.
The article says that stopping the turbines when vultures are observed nearby during the peak migration season cuts mortality by half.
The overall kill rate recorded was about 0.4 Griffon vultures/turbine year.
Other mortalities (bykill?, in analogy to the bycatch, non target fish caught and discarded by trawlers) were not recorded.
Do note that the only reason the loss of generation was so low was because turbines were selectively shut down only when vultures were spotted nearby and only during the Oct-Nov migration peak.
The implication is that best case, with careful observation and a focus on reducing the kill, wind turbine generated large bird mortality can be halved.
Given natural human greed, sloppiness and accidents, the improvement in actual practice is likely to be much less.

 

[John Cantelo]

For an insight into how the mind of a prominent climate change denier works (or not!) see:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#46754847
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#46754907
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#46755044

It’s depressing to think that this individual, Senator James Inhofe, is the ranking Republican Senator on the Environment & Public works committee. He’s also the author of ‘The Greatest Hoax; How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens your Future” and apparently thinks that climate change can’t be true as God wouldn’t allow it! I nearly fell off my chair laughing when he claimed that the ‘Daily Telegraph’ was a ‘left wing/liberal’ publication. Then again this crackpot seems to be so far to the right that to him it probably is a proto-communist rag. (Incidentally, I’m pretty sure too that the diatribe that he quotes from that paper is taken out of context and may well predate the ‘Climategate’ enquiries – anyone know?),