Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies

The alarmist species? Good riddance!!!

 

You think policies only apply to a certain group? That is hilarious!

 

I can't really argue with you there, but for different reasons. Technological advances and increasing automation are inevitably leading to the difficult fact that there simply isn't enough work for the amount of people in the world. Environmental issues aside for a moment, that is a formula for massive civil unrest. Using the most populous nation in the world for an example, can you imagine an army of 40 or 50 or 60 million unemployed Chinese young men; with no future prospects for employment or marriage? Can you imagine the sheer frustrated and angry destruction they can wreak? Now multiply that the world over and you get a picture of where we are headed.

Environmentally speaking, we are human beings, and like every other living thing, we are going to have an impact on our environment. It cannot be avoided. Some change is systemic due to natural changes in the Earth itself. There are some microclimate changes due to intensive human modification. Think Tokyo pumping tons upon tons of raw sewage several miles out into Tokyo Bay, or the collective effects of huge windfarms in the Midwest downwind. I personally think our efforts should be directed toward coping and adaptation to change, rather than playing the role of King Canute and attempting to command the tides to recede.

 

No one is talking about not having any children. But zero population growth is a movement that started in the 60s. The problem is that some populations still have far too many children per couple for the resources at hand, and stress resources globally. The most critical problem we are seeing in the immediate future is water shortages. California has been fighting water wars for decades and the demand keeps growing. That is a boiling pot and has been for a long time. The last drought was nearly catastrophic. And with the ice melting in the Himalayas, the water supply for much of Asia is in jeopardy.

The biggest problem with zero growth is economic. Economies depend on an increasing population. If we had zero growth, unless we restructure and adopt an economically sustainable model, the global economy would collapse.

Americans [US] average 2.2 babies per couple. So we are almost at zero growth here now were it not for immigrants. Ironically, immigrants are providing the necessary population growth that reproduction isn't, in order to sustain the economy.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/w...nals-trouble-for-asian-water-supply.html?_r=0

The Mengke Glacier, one of China’s largest, retreated an average of 54 feet a year from 2005 to 2014. From 1993 to 2005, it retreated 26 feet a year.

 

The populations still having lots of babies are mostly third world countries living in poverty and ignorance. This extremist AGW movement does nothing but keep them there by attempting to deny them affordable fossil fuel as a resource to grow their way out of poverty. As nations prosper they get cleaner and child birth rates go down as education levels goes up. As for newly arrived immigrants from those countries,yes they do bring their culture of big families with them but this diminishes quickly as their kids get educated and prosper here in America. My original point on this subject remains though. If you think man is on the verge of destroying the planet by using fossil fuel you shouldn't bring more fossil fuel consumers into the equation.

 

The irony is that is has done so unnecessarily for so long. Should CA get serious about desalinization, CA would always have water, in abundance.

Likely, though this is more symptomatic of the need for the progressive mind to assert their draconian authoritarianism on everyone else. Notice the absence of or willingness to apply these policies to them, only for everyone else, especially where a perceived "resource scarcity" they have identified exits.

 

No one denies anyone else oil. There is no evil AGW god controlling the shipping lanes. What should we do, buy all the fuel and Buicks they need?

People are working hard to leapfrog fossil fuels and drive underdeveloped countries to renewable technologies, and ahead of the rest of us in terms of energy. But there is no magic bullet. It is a huge problem. But you argue time and time again that no one is doing anything about these issues when in fact there are and have been for a long time. You see a problem, assume no one else has ever thought of this, and decide liberals are all stupid, when in fact we are way ahead of you.

Yes, but just moving here adds to the population. We need the immigrants for the population for a growth-based economy. The entire economy is a pyramid scheme that will eventually fail.

I agree and you are 50 years behind the rest of us.

 

Whos "the rest of us"? You are one of the few and possibly the first in here that is an AGW believer that thinks you should not have children in order to slow humanities contribution to C02 in the atmosphere.

 

It probably already came up but white population is actually decreasing. Minority and Hispanic groups are significantly reducing birth rates but are still producing more children than whites. A lot of it has to do with women being more career oriented and the increased access to birth control. You can thank progressivism for that. They managed to do one thing right. Now if they could do that and cultivate a culture without completely destroying family values and fatherhood so that children had two parents we would be sitten purty.