observer.guardian.co.uk — If governments want to cut greenhouse gas emissions we have to address the accelerating growth in the world's population, expected to increase from 6.7 billion now to 9.2 billion by 2050. Some population activists argue the world can only support a population of two to three billion, even as few as 500 million in future.
Mar 18, 2007 View in Crawl 4
luciansolarisMar 19, 2007
Hmm, man's involvement in Global Warming (tm) is a sham, and Over Population (tm) worldwide is a sham as well!All these are meant to do is further bind the hands of the [once free] people and consolidate the wealth of such nations into the hands of the few (Rothschilds and relatives, Rockefellers, and other globalists and/or world bankers). This is an enslavement tool, just as the government did 9/11 to ratchet up the anti-privacy tyranny, Global Warming (tm) is being used to enslave and euthanize humanity!DAMNIT PEOPLE! Get your heads out of your NFL/NBA/FOX News/American Idol[try] TV shows and think for once in your life! Every step of the way the government, by the order of the super-elite, has taken our liberties one by one (liberty, the ability to do what you wish so long as it doesn't violate someone else's common law rights) and encroached on our rights (as protected in the Bill of Rights) to the point where some of them are barely recognizeable! Wake up sheeple, you've been shaved and shaved for your wool and soon you'll be euthanized for the elite's dinner!
kd1sMar 19, 2007
I plan on being very dead by 2050 so I don't give a s**t.
posnegMar 20, 2007
Go back to the sea where you came from lunatic environmentalists.
drummerbrotherMar 20, 2007
This is f**king ridiculous. Population is one thing that we can't control. You can't place limits on the amount of children people can have... look at what happens in China. Being free to have as many children as you like is a fundamental right. f**k the environment. If I want a big family, I'll have one. I don't give a s**t if that creates more pollution.
rojer64Mar 20, 2007
This is where we see the "liberal" Digg community turn into a bunch of little greedy nazi f**ks.Go ahead and bury me. But this post is nothing but "kill them all". We westerners are the cause or ressource depletion. Period.Arguing like "EU doubled Co2 emissions" is so stupid I can't believe it ! Didn't one noticed that the EU just swallowed 10 overpolluted ex stalinian countries?A test was dugg few weeks ago : how many planets would be needed for everyone to live like you. So this is your answer : "I won't run the test, just fewer people and I will be OK".This is nazi talk. Plain and simple. Shame on you diggers.
kweeketMar 22, 2007
@Hecate:He wants people to NOT die. He's saying that it's better to not bring people into the world that cannot be supported except by foreign aid. Giving them money without education, so that they have babies they can't really afford to have, so that they're dependent on getting more aid so that their babies don't starve - that's cruel.
kweeketMar 22, 2007
Did you take calculus? You're confusing the the RATE of growth with actual growth. This is a change in the second derivative and not the first. In fact, every year more people are added to the planet than the year before due to the larger base population, but the RATE at which that is happening has declined - it has, as you say, deaccelerated.
hallsofmandosMar 22, 2007
That thought-experiment is actually found in 'The Story of B' not 'Ishmael,' a minor point I know...Anyway - 300 comments and only person mentions this when it is in fact the right way to look at this problem. No one is saying take food away from people, it all boils down to food production. New people are made of food, nothing else. If you begin to lower food production by minute amounts there will be less food for more people to be made of. Continue the process for several generations and viola, a manageable population again. Not only is over-population an environmental issue, it is also a social one. Humans did not evolve fit to cope with living as tightly packed as we are in some areas and this stress finds ways to be released from people, it could be crime, drug abuse, etc. Bringing the population under control would have enormous benefits for the overall health and sanity for the people on this planet.I cannot find a link to it, but the parable of 'Blessing' found in The Story of B is worth a read, as are all of Daniel Quinn's writings, check them out!
athodydMar 24, 2007
It's about darn time. But nice also that the comments are generally in agreement. The 2 billion number is one I heard about 20 years ago.Please see my article some months ago: Human overpopulation as the root to global warming at <a class="user" href="http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=75400#75400">http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?p=75400#75400</a>If only, if only. We exist because of what nature has wrought. And what it has wrought is beyond wonderful. We can kill it and perhaps have already.
foamweaponsApr 11, 2007
Akaji: "I don't think restricting children-per-family is the answer. I think legalizing killing sprees is the answer. But only with permits!"I read that as "KillIng Species." And THAT is something to consider. Instead of saving the polar bears, why don't we kill them all? They release CO2 when they breathe, don't they? Why not kill them to make room for more humans? Who the hell do they think they are, converting oxygen to CO2 like that?Maybe every year we could have a new species to wipe out to help account for the new humans. You have to bury the animals you kill though, because decomposing corpses release methane gas, which causes global warming. I really think it's a win-win policy for both left and right... righties get to shoot some s**t, and lefties get to save the planet by burying the animals so they don't release greenhouse gas. Sounds more fun to me than 'not making babies.'