Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis, Scientists Say

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Blue Shift
I already applied but Im waiting on Astros superiors to approve the transfer!

Hopefully you won't have to wait until 2044 for that TDY.

Actually 2032,but apples and oranges i suppose.

originally posted by: neoholographic


The people who talk about population control will be the last ones to volunteer to die to save the planet. These people will deem themselves too important to die so while they get life extending treatments, sadly the useful idiots that buy into this nonsense will be told there heroes for dying to save the planet.

Nobody has to die. Just have fewer children.

If everyone agreed to just have one child per pairing (or an average of one, give or take), the population would decrease by half every generation.


However, the first world has already curtailed its population growth. Population expansionism is purely a third world problem.


If the Vatican and Mecca would change their position on the issue, the world would be saved. That's all it would take. (Or maybe the Hindus would need to join in also...)

The way you will solve this problem isn't through alarm and fanaticism but through science and technology. Today we have Politicians Hollywood Celebrities that tell us the world is about to end because of climate change but they're still living high off of the fruits of Capitalism. They fly around in private jets, party on Yachts, have 3 or 4 big homes and have a carbon footprint the size of King Kong.

Common sense should tell you, if these people really thought the world was about to end we would see drastic change in their behavior. We don't see Al Gore living in a tiny home and riding around in a rickshaw.

It's just dangerous to say the only way we can do anything about climate change is to give the Government total control over human behavior. It's going to happen though and the world is going to become a very dark place when everything you do has to be controlled by the Government in the name of saving the planet while those in power live the good life.

How many biological children do you see them having?

I'm not counting the kids Angelina Jolie adopts. Adopting doesn't increase the population.

originally posted by: MetalThunder
Well not the first time I have heard of this ...not the last I am sure

Georgia Guidestones

Limiting the population of the earth to 500 million will require the extermination of nine-tenths of the world’s people.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: jrod

Barring the current earthly human species turning the planet into a Venusian hot house which would be a lot harder than some scare mongers want to suggest then it remain's a fact that global cooling is potentially a far more dangerous thing than global warming for the species as a whole.

There is strong evidence, that world wide food output was GREATER during the ice age than it is today.

For example: all those 10 ton giant elephants/mastodons running around that had to eat 400 pounds of food per day.

Apparently it rains more when the world is cooler, and less when it is hotter.


Climate change will probably only raise world temperature a few degrees, but in the process it will permanently reduce rainfall, which will lower food output.

There won't be any amount of money you could spend that would enable us to produce enough food for 7 billion.

Maybe then, all scientists will commit suicide......or have to start telling only the truth, for once.

With only two options, they must choose which one to take!!

Cool.

Population control is certainly one aspect of looking after the environment. What's to stop world population reaching 100 billion and beyond ?
But looking a bit deeper, I don't think genocides and a big body count would do much for the planet, simply because it's the middle class who buy all the cars, build houses, take cruises, use coal-fired electricity, take aeroplane rides, buy too many clothes, eat meat and generally consume as much as possible of anything. Not to mention an ever increasing lifespan. Hell, even our cats are living to 20.
So hypothetically, the only body count that would make a difference would be to selectively target those who consume the most. But, as such people influence who govern, no such unpleasant decisions will ever be made. Though lone wolf environment nuts might try to do it themselves.

a reply to: neoholographic
If you think humanity is not killing the planet then you are dumb

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

It has been estimated that the Pre Conquest meso american cultures produced up to sixty percent more food than is produced in south america today despite the current population apparently being larger (a contentious point since past population of south america is estimated and is constantly being revised though there is a possibility that the mayan mega city may have ended as a result of ecological collapse).

No Chemical's, no Corporation's, no Pesticides they grew potato's on terraced fields, maze and corn in areas that today are simply abandoned not because they can not grow food but because the cultures that lived in those places were smashed by the European arrival's.

That mayan city may have had more than ten million people living in it placing it on a par with modern metropolis and it would also make it the largest city in the world for it's time, there are other giant city's also around the world such as the Khmer city of Angkor and for the Khmer empire it was not there only city though it may have been there largest as they had other very large city's housing millions of people.

When Ghengis Khan led his hoard into China they eventually burned down the Chinese capital city, there were millions of people in that at least 4 million and hardly any survived, it was said at the time that as the fires raged the street's of the city ran with human fat from the burning population so that the ground was slippery.

Rome by comparison though a huge city was no where near as large as these having perhaps 1 to 2 million people at it's peak, though the estimate given by the romans themselves were 2 to 4 hundred thousand, the reason I am saying 1 to 2 million is because it is more than likely the roman's did not include the slave population of the city in there estimate and according to similar estimates by the Roman's themselves there entire population was only 4 to 5 million but that can not be correct now can it, they had constant wars, a need to expand and built huge road network's that would simply be an over stretching of such a small population so that estimate most likely ignored the non ROMAN or those they regarded as barbarians or slave population's and I would guess the population to actually have been closer to fifty to eighty million despite the argument's that will likely be pulled against this now.

Remember the Roman Empire spread from Anatolia in the east to at it's peak Caledonia (Scotland) in the west, to Germania in the north (before Arminius betrayed his roman citizenship to try to found a new empire of the German's and Quintus Varus the defeated and disgraced roman General whom lost those legion's became a swear word for senators in Rome) to Egypt in the south and traded far and wide beyond it's borders often with OTHER empires many of whom history has long since forgotten.

Also remember the size of the Army's that the Persian Empire could raise and it was only a fraction of the size of Rome, millions of men according to the ancient legend of the Spartan's at the hot gates.

So I argue the Roman's whom claimed those populations were only including what they regarded as Civilized or Citizen level residents of the empire and ignoring the vast bulk of the population whom were probably menial, slaves and agricultural workers or just simply people avoiding the roman's but arguably within the boundary's of the empire.

Then we have recent discovery's of vast ruined city's off the south coast of India that have been equated with the Legendary Dwarka of the Hindu religion and indeed one of them could be that very city, while there dating does not take into account potential continental tilting which would make them far more recent than the 12.600 or so years that many believe them to be they evidence the existence of vast ancient developed cultures long before the rise of the fertile crescent civilization, then there is the enigmatic ruin's off the north west coast of Cuba discovered by Paulina Zelitsky a former soviet marine engineer turned underwater salvage hunter which she stumbled on while searching for lost Spanish treasure galleon's.
Current estimates base on it's depth suggest that city is at least 50.000 years old but once again do not take into account potential continental subduction and tilting in the region perhaps due to magmatic sub crustal movement and crustal uplift as well as settling during the ice ages fluctuations as crustal pressures varied due to ice displacement's and ocean level variation's as well as continental spreading meaning that on the other side of the meso american plates they could be passing over a thicker proto continental crustal region of the pacific ocean platelets.
But even so they suggest that advanced human civilization's, not necessarily above high stone age but still advanced, may have occurred a lot more frequently than the neat out of Africa theory requires and this in turn would suggest not only has our race and the ecosystem survived past cataclysm (perhaps coming very close to our extinction at one point when only a few people survived) but that it has done so several time's before the present.

The Human race shall survive, we do not need to cull the population and those that spread this HATRED of humanity are people I personally volunteer for them to be the first in the euthanasia booth's if they get there wish, so that when they are gone we can then abolish there idiocy and get back to a sane humanity.

On a side not there is some controversy about the crop variety's cultivated by the meso-american cultures, many of them are superior and far more digestible for the human body than the western supposedly old world variety's and though not much research has been done into it there is a claim they may be evidence of ancient genetic engineering or of a much longer cultivation history than even those crop variety's that arose in the fertile crescent the officially recognized oldest known region of farming, if so then who was farming these south american crop's some of which would seem to be highly unlikely food stuff such as the Tomato which is a relative of the deadly nightshade and yet is perfectly edible when ripe while the nightshade is a traditional poison.

originally posted by: ziplock9000
a reply to: neoholographic
If you think humanity is not killing the planet then you are dumb

If humanity is killing the planet, why are you on a computer? Do you ride in a car, eat, use toilet paper, drink out of a straw, have kids, live in a house, use a cell phone or watch a flat screen TV?

These Climate Change Fanatics are hypocrites. If climate change were really that dire, why aren't all these climate change fanatics still living off of the fruits of capitalism? If AOC really thinks the world is ending in 12 years, why isn't she drastically changing her behavior? Bernie has 3 houses, why not just 1?

Liberals are just hypocrites on this issue like they are with most issues.

They yell about paying more taxes but each of these Liberals can send more money to the treasury each year. If they feel the Behemoth Government needs more money to waste and spend they can just send in more money to the Govt. Of course they don't. They want everyone to pay more taxes but they don't pay more taxes right now.

All of these Hollywood Liberals and Singers have "Production Companies" and most of them don't produce anything. This is simply a way to avoid paying taxes. You make 5 million on a movie and the money is paid to your production company without any taxes taken out and you have a year to pay any taxes. A good accountant can step on that money to where you're paying very little or nothing in taxes. This is why you're always seeing a singer or actor caught up with the IRS.

If these Hollywood Liberals really think the Govt. needs more in taxes, these Actors and Actresses wouldn't use Production Companies to avoid paying taxes, they would pay income tax just like the Mailman or Factory worker. This way taxes are taken out before you even see your check. When you advocated a national sales tax over an income tax so the factory worker or the Mailman makes $1,000 they get a check for $1,000 so they can build wealth like rich people do, it's the rich Liberals who are most against it.

This is why you see movies make a ton of money but they don't turn a profit.

1. My Big Fat Greek Wedding cost $6 million to make and made over $350 million at the box office, and yet lost $20 million.

2. The Lord of the Rings trilogy made over $2.9 billion in box office, and yet showed “horrendous losses.”

3. Return of the Jedi made $475 million on a $32 million budget, yet has never shown a profit.

4. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix made $939 million worldwide, and yet ended up with a $167 million loss.

5. Forrest Gump earned $667 million, yet shows a loss of $31 million.

www.pajiba.com...

The truth is, these studios would rather spend a bunch of money on bonuses, press junkets, parties labeled as promotion and more than pay taxes on that money. This is why you see so many horrible movies getting made. Holly wood doesn't care about losses.

You make 350 million on Greek Wedding but you may fund 20 films with 10 million dollar budgets that lose money but it doesn't matter because everyone is getting paid off of the money you're spending. So if you have 3 or 4 huge money makers and 20 flops, you will be filthy rich while not paying much in taxes.

Climate Change Fanaticism is just another form of liberal hypocrisy. It's just an excuse to have sheep sending in all their money to a bloated Govt. and to allow this corrupt Govt. to have total control over your behavior in the name of saving the planet.

I think you are misunderstanding the climate change problem, as it is now.

1) - It's a set thing. The average temperature will go up, whether we stop burning fossil fuel or not. We already put the requisite amount of CO2 into the air, but the outcome has a delay.

2) - The world won't end. Just go up a few degrees, and then stop increasing.

3) - This will dramatically lower the world wide average rainfall.


So the reason the population needs to go down is not to stop climate change. (It would be nearly impossible to stop it at this point, short of capturing all the CO2 that has already been released and burying it again.)


The ONLY reason the population needs to go down is because FOOD PRODUCTION is going to go down. Less food means we need less people, or else we're going to have food wars.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: bloodymarvelous



The Human race shall survive, we do not need to cull the population and those that spread this HATRED of humanity are people I personally volunteer for them to be the first in the euthanasia booth's if they get there wish, so that when they are gone we can then abolish there idiocy and get back to a sane humanity.

Mere survival is a stupid goal. A pathetic goal. If all you aspire to is bare survival, then you're dead inside already.

Of course none of those previous civilizations had nukes. The loser of a genocidal war, or even a genocidal food war, had no choice but to simply give up and die.

In the modern world, the loser isn't going to just give up. They'll get their hands on either a nuclear, biological, or other chemical weapon. They'll bring the winner down with them.

On a side not there is some controversy about the crop variety's cultivated by the meso-american cultures, many of them are superior and far more digestible for the human body than the western supposedly old world variety's and though not much research has been done into it there is a claim they may be evidence of ancient genetic engineering or of a much longer cultivation history than even those crop variety's that arose in the fertile crescent the officially recognized oldest known region of farming, if so then who was farming these south american crop's some of which would seem to be highly unlikely food stuff such as the Tomato which is a relative of the deadly nightshade and yet is perfectly edible when ripe while the nightshade is a traditional poison.

Apologist history always has lots of controversy.

I'm not certain that modern methods are any better than the old, although the ability to farm marginal terrain is probably better today than it was.

But ALL METHODS, young and old, run into a problem that they can't extend the production of a given acre of land past a certain point. They all require you to increase acreage, if you want to increase output.

originally posted by: dwrdwrdwr
Population control is certainly one aspect of looking after the environment. What's to stop world population reaching 100 billion and beyond ?
But looking a bit deeper, I don't think genocides and a big body count would do much for the planet, simply because it's the middle class who buy all the cars, build houses, take cruises, use coal-fired electricity, take aeroplane rides, buy too many clothes, eat meat and generally consume as much as possible of anything. Not to mention an ever increasing lifespan. Hell, even our cats are living to 20.
So hypothetically, the only body count that would make a difference would be to selectively target those who consume the most. But, as such people influence who govern, no such unpleasant decisions will ever be made. Though lone wolf environment nuts might try to do it themselves.

Excessive individual consumption as the driver is a myth. An absolute myth.

Efficient agriculture, in the modern world requires quite a lot of energy. Mostly getting it from farm to consumer, but also some to produce those little yellow fertilizer pellets that so dramatically increase the productivity of the land.

www.chooseenergy.com...

Even if all people do is eat, there would still be a limit on how many people the world can sustain.

At the macro scale, you can't trade in all those cars, television sets, and fancy street signs to get food. An individual can sell one thing and buy another, but a macro economy has nobody to buy/sell from/to.

Your food production will simply cap out at a certain point, and it won't matter how many sacrifices you are willing to make to get more food.

Yes, have less kids. It's not that hard.

originally posted by: JohnProctor
To be clear, I don't buy the climategate agenda, it is a means to extort from the living while reducing population for other reasons. It's aim is incremental global control over all human life and reproduction. The actual polluters (chemicals, radiation, biological hazards) are the corporations and governments who are telling us we need to give them all our money and die. We could argue the bought-and-paid-for science all day long, the solution that's proposed to this "problem" is what I'm focusing on.

Remove the liars who say climate change is happening, and show their skewed, cherry-picked 'data' to 'prove' it, and that would solve the whole problem, right there!

As a person who has traveled around for over 50 years plus...... Here is what I feel is going to happen naturally to correct the balance of nature. All the people close to the Equater are going to get cooked and die. It's already silently happening. Ask yourself is the news reporting the massive heat deaths in the summers? No? A bunch of people died in France just this summer.... They do not have air conditioning, or even screens for their window. Only the grocery stores, or maiphia owned Italian restaraunts, rental cars have air conditioning over there. So that means the Middle East, Africa, India, China, Central America, and people /countries with no air conditioning are going to have a huge natural population reduction. Nancy Pelosi and her drama have distracted everyone from the heat deaths last summer. The political news is not the real news and problems affecting the real people on this planet. Thousands (74,000) of people in Europe died in 2003 heat wave.

Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis, says Thanos

a reply to: Blue Shift

1) their standard has already risen
2) there are population controls in place

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Blue Shift

1) their standard has already risen
2) there are population controls in place

No time to stop now, then, right?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

However, the first world has already curtailed its population growth. Population expansionism is purely a third world problem. If the Vatican and Mecca would change their position on the issue, the world would be saved. That's all it would take. (Or maybe the Hindus would need to join in also...)

Here's the thing and problem many on the liberal alignment with what you just stated. They view that argument or debate as racism so they would never admit that what is happening with the world's ever rising population that is a third world problem. When considering western countries population are low.

Whenever i see this kind of discussion of Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis whose the message this aimed at really? Europeans? or the third world countries?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: JohnProctor
To be clear, I don't buy the climategate agenda, it is a means to extort from the living while reducing population for other reasons. It's aim is incremental global control over all human life and reproduction. The actual polluters (chemicals, radiation, biological hazards) are the corporations and governments who are telling us we need to give them all our money and die. We could argue the bought-and-paid-for science all day long, the solution that's proposed to this "problem" is what I'm focusing on.

Remove the liars who say climate change is happening, and show their skewed, cherry-picked 'data' to 'prove' it, and that would solve the whole problem, right there!

Says the guy that believes the earth is flat and is less than 10000 years old. LMFAO!

originally posted by: ChefFox
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

However, the first world has already curtailed its population growth. Population expansionism is purely a third world problem. If the Vatican and Mecca would change their position on the issue, the world would be saved. That's all it would take. (Or maybe the Hindus would need to join in also...)

Here's the thing and problem many on the liberal alignment with what you just stated. They view that argument or debate as racism so they would never admit that what is happening with the world's ever rising population that is a third world problem. When considering western countries population are low. I feel like India should do the same with a 1 child policy and other countries with lower populations should limit it to 2 or 3 kids.


Whenever i see this kind of discussion of Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis whose the message this aimed at really? Europeans? or the third world countries?

It has to be the world as a whole. It can't be one country or another, we just need to make an effort to slow down population growth. China / India are the biggest culprits of this. Way too many people, although China IS making an effort to limit the amount of children people can have. India should implement a similar policy and countries with lower populations should be limited to 2 or 3 kids.

There is no reason in today's world to have more than 3 kids. This is isn't the dark ages before modern medicine where half our kids would die from disease before adulthood, so having extra kids was practically required back then but it's not anymore. Time to move on and stop living in the ancient past.

Once we reach the extractable limits of the resources we need to keep the economy driving forward, it becomes almost self-evident that that the economy can only stall, and the only solution is to reduce the strain on it to get it edging forward again (allbeit temporarily).

The strain on the economy is human want and human greed, and yet at the same time they are both food for the economy. it is a self-reinforcing loop that is damaging to our environments and our habitats. Human culling will be the tool used to reduce the strain. They will seek to manage and control the weight of the strain upon the economy, because that 'virtual' environment is perceived to be more real than real environments. Proportionate response will be applied whenever and wherever required, and they have a goodly arsenal to use at their disposal.

Clearly, you can't simply kill off billions in one go, you'll end up poisoning the environment you want to live in with all manner of diseases. The clear up will be horrendous. No. You get those you are going to kill off in some far-distant cull to kill and cleanup the present victims. Regardless of the political reasons, WW1 and WW2 could be viewed as practice runs for culling. From those wars you can understand how to reduce the destruction, but deal more clinically with the death and the bodies afterwards.

If our species is going to survive long into the future, it will have to reduce, not increase.