Is forced population control the solution to climate change?

Wow! A complete fantasy! There is not one shred of scientific evidence to support this dream.

 

I wouldn't worry too much. In the long-run I'm always betting on the microbes.

 

I might be persuaded to lean your way sir, if I saw any evidence of focus on a problem. Worry about too much carbon or the carbon foot print is ridiculous. We are carbon, trees are carbon
We defoliate the earth and quadruple our population in the last century. Trees glean their carbon from the air, we do not. We will not be able to feed the population soon if it grows like this. When the US has to import food, the world is screwed.

This debate is silly, if science is to be enlisted to assist, and that is a good idea, let us not begin with the solution, let us begin with understanding our boundaries and the capacity within those boundaries. I do not know what the capacity of the earth is to support human life, but I do not even want that answer. I want to know, and this should be a consensuses, what the capacity of earth to support human life with the highest quality sustainable and acceptable to us? The dream of expanding to space is pure science fiction. We have zero evidence to support the dream, so it can not be counted on to accept our excess population that can not be supported here. Global climate change is happening, and I am sure humans have not done a damn thing to stabilize it. What is worse, we have not done what must be done to provide the best living through the change we will need to endure. We will lose all water from Glaciers between 035 degrees of latitude North to South. That will drastically affect the ability to produce food in the most populated areas of our planet. Euro-Asia probably the most.

The bottom line is we do not know shit! nor have we begun the beginning of learning what we need to do. This is where science should begin, not where a political party sees profit.

 

As much as this analogy is coherent it is completely false. The Earth is not raising its own temperature in response to anything. It's not an evolved biological organism. It's basically a rock floating is space. Rocks don't get sick. There is no parallel.

 

I don't condone killing fuckers but letting them die when it's their time might be something to consider...I've worked with disabled seniors for a long time..in many cases, it's better to let nature take it's course

 

Ha! This makes me think of tunnel vision. Maybe if you view the Earth as Rocks and the Ecosystem we all live in, it might make a bit more sense. However, I don't necessarly think it is sick
more like at this point in a cycle or cycles. But I am sure it will become sick (not the Rocks). Our ecosystem began, it will end.

 

At what point do want to cut me off? Let see, I have been here half the time Oregon has been a State. Have I over stayed my welcome?

 

you can stick around Marzy...you built a cool boat

 

Thank you. You can't believe how long it took to learn enough to do it.

 

The implication was the temperature is increasing functionally *in order* to eliminate humans. There is no context in which that makes sense.

 

Those damn baby boomers...

The solution is simple. We should never have more than 2 kids. One to replace ourselves and another to replace our spouse. If we do this worldwide the results would be exponential. We also need to make sure that women are educated worldwide. When a woman is educated or involved in sports they have children later in life and they choose how many they have.

 

I still believe a carbon offset tax on having children would greatly discourage people from reproducing. It goes up after each child.

 

Oh yes! Beware when the Pope cites science. Science needs no altars, field work and labs will do.