Are babies bad for the environment?

[get_involved]

"Having one fewer child would reduce a family's climate burden 20 times more than driving a fuel-efficient car or using energy-saving appliances, according to this statistical analysis. That doesn't seem to be stopping anyone in developed countries like the U.S. New research published in Nature this week shows that birth rates in the most developed countries are rising again."


Are Babies Bad for the Environment? : Scientific American Podcast

 

[Fatality]

no liberal should be allowed to have children

 

[JBeukema]

no liberal should be allowed to have children

You're an idiot. Just an observation.

 

[Fatality]

no liberal should be allowed to have children

You're an idiot. Just an observation.

you should have your ability to have children removed

 

[editec]

Are babies bad for the environment.

If you want your environment to smell vaguely like baby shit and talcum powder, and you want that environment to be occassionally punctuated with nerve shattering crying sometimes that goes on for hours, they're ideal for the environment.

 

[Fatality]

Are babies bad for the environment.

If you want your environment to smell vaguely like baby shit and talcum powder, and you want that environment to be occassionally punctuated with nerve shattering crying sometimes that goes on for hours, they're ideal for the environment.

well libs just kill em anyway so they should not be allowed to have em.

 

[editec]

Are babies bad for the environment.

If you want your environment to smell vaguely like baby shit and talcum powder, and you want that environment to be occassionally punctuated with nerve shattering crying sometimes that goes on for hours, they're ideal for the environment.

well libs just kill em anyway so they should not be allowed to have em.

Sorry, Fat, I'm not much interested in getting into a mindless insult-fest.

Perhaps Sho will accomodate you.

He apparently like that sort of mindless trading of insults.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are babies bad for the environment.

If you want your environment to smell vaguely like baby shit and talcum powder, and you want that environment to be occassionally punctuated with nerve shattering crying sometimes that goes on for hours, they're ideal for the environment.

well libs just kill em anyway so they should not be allowed to have em.

Sorry, Fat, I'm not much interested in getting into a mindless insult-fest.

Perhaps Sho will accomodate you.

He apparently like that sort of mindless trading of insults.

The left is now advocating that less children will lessen the none existent man made global warming. I suggest they show us the way by having every liberal dumb ass fixed so they can save the environment. Won't be long before they are pushing for abortions to save the environment too. Maybe a law outlawing more then one child per woman?

 

[Anguille]

"Having one fewer child would reduce a family's climate burden 20 times more than driving a fuel-efficient car or using energy-saving appliances, according to this statistical analysis. That doesn't seem to be stopping anyone in developed countries like the U.S. New research published in Nature this week shows that birth rates in the most developed countries are rising again."


Are Babies Bad for the Environment? : Scientific American Podcast

"It's no secret that there are more and more of us every day. From less than a billion 200 years ago to more than 6.6 billion people on the planet today. And the United Nations expects more than 9 billion by mid-century.

This kind of exponential population growth has consequences for the planet, from stretched natural resources, such as fresh water supplies, to burgeoning levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

The global warming deniers still need to explain how we will continue to be able to feed everyone going at this rate.

Have less kids. Do it for the kids.

 

[editec]

"Having one fewer child would reduce a family's climate burden 20 times more than driving a fuel-efficient car or using energy-saving appliances, according to this statistical analysis. That doesn't seem to be stopping anyone in developed countries like the U.S. New research published in Nature this week shows that birth rates in the most developed countries are rising again."


Are Babies Bad for the Environment? : Scientific American Podcast

"It's no secret that there are more and more of us every day. From less than a billion 200 years ago to more than 6.6 billion people on the planet today. And the United Nations expects more than 9 billion by mid-century.

This kind of exponential population growth has consequences for the planet, from stretched natural resources, such as fresh water supplies, to burgeoning levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

The global warming deniers still need to explain how we will continue to be able to feed everyone going at this rate.

Have less kids. Do it for the kids.

White Americans are already having less kids.

In fact as early as the late 60's America (White and minorities included) had reached zero population growth except for the immigrantion which continued to increase our population.

Perhaps you're preaching to the wrong people?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Are babies bad for the environment?

This is the most insane concept I think I have ever read. It almost makes me believe that "retro-active" abortion should be used on the person who was lame enough to post such a foolish thought.

 

[Anguille]

Are babies bad for the environment?

This is the most insane concept I think I have ever read. It almost makes me believe that "retro-active" abortion should be used on the person who was lame enough to post such a foolish thought.

So, explain then how babies are good for the environment.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Is this something new to anyone? Are there really still people left out there who don't understand that overpopulation means over-pollution?

This planet can sustain a finite number of human beings indefinitely. Go past that number and the ability of the planet to sustain everyone indefinitely diminishes.

Are there really any upright-walking people who don't get this?

 

[xsited1]

"Having one fewer child would reduce a family's climate burden 20 times more than driving a fuel-efficient car or using energy-saving appliances, according to this statistical analysis. That doesn't seem to be stopping anyone in developed countries like the U.S. New research published in Nature this week shows that birth rates in the most developed countries are rising again."


Are Babies Bad for the Environment? : Scientific American Podcast

3rd world countries like India and China are bad for the environment. All citizens there should sterilized.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Having one fewer child would reduce a family's climate burden 20 times more than driving a fuel-efficient car or using energy-saving appliances, according to this statistical analysis. That doesn't seem to be stopping anyone in developed countries like the U.S. New research published in Nature this week shows that birth rates in the most developed countries are rising again."


Are Babies Bad for the Environment? : Scientific American Podcast

"It's no secret that there are more and more of us every day. From less than a billion 200 years ago to more than 6.6 billion people on the planet today. And the United Nations expects more than 9 billion by mid-century.

This kind of exponential population growth has consequences for the planet, from stretched natural resources, such as fresh water supplies, to burgeoning levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

The global warming deniers still need to explain how we will continue to be able to feed everyone going at this rate.

Have less kids. Do it for the kids.

Kill the fetuses for the sake of the human children!

What a load of crap. China pulled this. Resulted in more abandoned babies, infanticide and forced abortion. Great idea. Go for it.

 

[Anguille]

"Having one fewer child would reduce a family's climate burden 20 times more than driving a fuel-efficient car or using energy-saving appliances, according to this statistical analysis. That doesn't seem to be stopping anyone in developed countries like the U.S. New research published in Nature this week shows that birth rates in the most developed countries are rising again."


Are Babies Bad for the Environment? : Scientific American Podcast

3rd world countries like India and China are bad for the environment. All citizens there should sterilized.

Don't worry. They will be the first to suffer mass starvation.

China can't really be accuse of contributing to over population.

From the article :

By their calculations, every American child born today will add roughly 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere under current conditions. For comparison, a Chinese child would add roughly one-fifth that amount while a boy born in Bangladesh will add 1/160th.

Having one fewer child would reduce a family's climate burden 20 times more than driving a fuel-efficient car or using energy-saving appliances, according to this statistical analysis. That doesn't seem to be stopping anyone in developed countries like the U.S. New research published in Nature this week shows that birth rates in the most developed countries are rising again.

 

[JBeukema]

no liberal should be allowed to have children

You're an idiot. Just an observation.

you should have your ability to have children removed

I should be given the ability to have children removed? Good, I can think of lots of people who should not be rearing their children.

 

[JBeukema]

I suggest they show us the way by having every liberal dumb ass fixed so they can save the environment.

Liberals are the only people who make America worth living in. Newsflash: AMERICA FOUNDED ON LIBERALISM! CONSERVATIVE TORIES HANGED! STATISM REJECTED IN FAVOR OF INDIVIDUALISM! HUMAN RIGHTS RECOGNIZED!

Every single good thing about America is due to the influence of liberal ideologies.

We can add liberalism to the list of things you buffoons know nothing about if the you think the Obamites are even remote liberal in their views or actions.

 

[AllieBaba]

You are such a nitwit. These arguments regarding the liberals of yesteryear and exactly what selective breeding means (genocide) have already been effectively dealt with in other, more intelligent threads.

 

[JBeukema]

You are such a nitwit. These arguments regarding the liberals of yesteryear

Real liberals still exist. T claim that the Democrats are liberals is just ignorant.

and exactly what selective breeding means (genocide)

Selective breeding isn't genocide, you twit.

Genocide

"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

have already been effectively dealt with in other, more intelligent threads.[/quote]
1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2


No, if you're done illustrating your ignorance...