Global Climate Change

[Balagor]

 

Yeah! Teach the controversy!

 

I just loved that reading :D , and of cause it is all true when they say so.

The evidence: quote: "Mcintyre says his mining ties don't affect his views on climate change"

<end quote>

<end sarcasm>

:P

[ITOS]

I just loved that reading :D , and of cause it is all true when they say so.

The evidence: "Mcintyre says his mining ties don't affect his views on climate change"

Thing is, he may very well believe this. He might even be right, even if the chance for that is very small given the irrational behaviour of humans. I think we too often accuse others of malicious or selfish behaviour when it's actually about a strong belief. Too many people (myself included) speak with too much certainty and too many let uncertainty lead to paralysing. In my opinion, more dynamic is needed on both fronts but I digress.

Edited October 28, 2011 by ITOS

[greywaste]

I personally couldn't give a rats arse about climate change whether hastened by mankind (feasible at best in my own opinion) or not, since it seems 'intentional' regardless of mankind given Earth's history.

One thing I am curious about though, is how the "good guys" are going to feel about the enforced population control that's going to be necessary some time in the future.

[Balagor]

@ITOS. I hear you ;)

[draconix]

 

One thing I am curious about though, is how the "good guys" are going to feel about the enforced population control that's going to be necessary some time in the future.

 

Population control is already kind of de-facto, don't you think? If a mother can't feed her children AND herself, then one of them will starve. Population is kind of a self-regulating system.

[HeyYou]

One thing I am curious about though, is how the "good guys" are going to feel about the enforced population control that's going to be necessary some time in the future.

 

Population control is already kind of de-facto, don't you think? If a mother can't feed her children AND herself, then one of them will starve. Population is kind of a self-regulating system.

 

Not really. if that were indeed the case, we wouldn't have families with double digit children in poor parts of the world. Granted, starvation does take it's toll there, but, population is still growing. World population continues a steady rise, and that trend isn't going to stop. China has population controls on the books, but, so far as I know, that is the ONLY country that does.

[BlackRampage]

Thing is, he may very well believe this. He might even be right, even if the chance for that is very small given the irrational behaviour of humans. I think we too often accuse others of malicious or selfish behaviour when it's actually about a strong belief. Too many people (myself included) speak with too much certainty and too many let uncertainty lead to paralysing. In my opinion, more dynamic is needed on both fronts but I digress.

Agreed.

 

 

One thing I am curious about though, is how the "good guys" are going to feel about the enforced population control that's going to be necessary some time in the future.

 

Population control is already kind of de-facto, don't you think? If a mother can't feed her children AND herself, then one of them will starve. Population is kind of a self-regulating system.

Under normal circumstances I would say you are right, but I'm afraid it doesn't really work like that anymore in most parts of the world, but that's something beyond the scope of this thread.

 

Edit: Oh, HeyYou already said why it doesn't really work like that anymore.

 

Oh, and I wouldn't call myself much of a "good guy" so, I don't about how they would feel. :devil:

Edited October 28, 2011 by BlackRampage

[Ghogiel]

One thing I am curious about though, is how the "good guys" are going to feel about the enforced population control that's going to be necessary some time in the future.

 

Population control is already kind of de-facto, don't you think? If a mother can't feed her children AND herself, then one of them will starve. Population is kind of a self-regulating system.

 

Not really. if that were indeed the case, we wouldn't have families with double digit children in poor parts of the world. Granted, starvation does take it's toll there, but, population is still growing. World population continues a steady rise, and that trend isn't going to stop. China has population controls on the books, but, so far as I know, that is the ONLY country that does.

The predicted population increase in Ethiopia over the next few decades is as much as one needs to see that even in the worse off places humans are bonking their brains out. Even in war torn area, famine and drought people still find a way.

 

But not all countries are expected to increase in population

 

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2010/2010wpds.aspx

 

There has to be a point where the population does in fact level off, there is only finite resource after all. Some estimates put that figure in the high teens of billions. So yes, that trend is going to stop one way or another.

[Lisnpuppy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

 

He also considered war, famine, disease as viable population controls. Now where medicine and world releif organizations are able to (rightly) save so many...these things do not regulate population control as they once did. It is the countries that are most able, materially, to have more children that typically do not.

[grannywils]

Since this thread is about Global Climate "and some other stuff", I don't feel I am going off topic when I ask the following. Why do so many of the posters on this thread, whether they believe there is a global climate change problem or not, seem to have so little faith in Al Gore? I have seen his name bandied about somewhat unkindly by both sides of the debate, and I am just curious as to why? Just asking....