The real environmental problems.

gslack

Senior Member
Mar 26, 2010
4,527
356
48
Everyday we have more headlines telling us of catastrophic global warming. Every time you turn around they say this or that is evidence of it, and that this bit of weather here and now is indicative of climate. Yet if any non-believers try and point out that this or that cold weather spell is proof that there is no warming climate, and they will lose their minds trying to attack them.

Want the truth? Plain and simple there are soon to be 7 billion people on this planet and that is just too many. Thats going to be 7 billion people who will all want a SUV and a big house with a yard and big screen tv's. & billion polluting, 7 billion breathing, 7 billion crapping and all of it will require resources that are getting more scarce by the minute.

The world cannot support a continued population growth like this, and if they all develop to the level of the First world countries, it will support even less.

Want to know why they continue on with the warming doom and gloom despite the science failing to make the case day after day? Because if they came out and said we got to have population control they fear the people would call them elitists and shun them. No one would want some governmental decree for controlled birthrates or decisions made on who or what people or nation get the dwindling resources. SO they call it climate change so it can get warm or cold and its still proof, and limit the amount of fossil fuel use by countries that use the most and the least alike. The UN prevents many countries in Africa from making more coal burning electric plants (a resource they have in abundance) and forces them to use alternative sources. Like a solar panel for a hospital serving 100's of miles that only allows them to operate a fridge to store the medicine in OR a incubator but not both.

They limit us to so much fossil fuel use a year its one thing, but limiting Africa or India which are budding into their own is another. The reality of Kyoto and the accords for reducing greenhouse gas emissions will result in massive deaths in the third world countries and limit their growth and ability to reach 1st world status.

Claiming CO2 is a climate driver despite the science showing it is an effect of warming, and limiting peoples access to fossil fuels to prevent the natural occurring and important gas for our ecosystem is nothing more than population control.

And whats the most disturbing about all of this is who exactly is deciding this? Look up The Club of Rome and the Sierra Club, and then look into the UN agenda 21 and global biodiversity project and see if you recognize some of the same concepts and even people involved. Then ask yourself who are they to decide for all of us....
 
LOL. Yes, the world's population is well above what it should be. And many scientists have noted that and stated that the affect of climate change will excaberate that problem, and reduce the population in a most unpleasant manner. We are seeing the start of that right now.

As the far of the rest of your rant goes, you don't post science, because you have none to back up your nonsense. All you have, and all you post is yap-yap.
 
LOL. Yes, the world's population is well above what it should be. And many scientists have noted that and stated that the affect of climate change will excaberate that problem, and reduce the population in a most unpleasant manner. We are seeing the start of that right now.

As the far of the rest of your rant goes, you don't post science, because you have none to back up your nonsense. All you have, and all you post is yap-yap.

"... Yes, the world's population is well above what it should be."

1. John P. Holdren’s advocacy for a global planetary regime to enforce forced abortion, government `seizure of children born out of wedlock, and mandatory bodily implants designed to prevent pregnancy, Obama’s top advisor also called for,”Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods.”
Holdren added that the sterilant must meet stiff requirements in that it must only affect humans and not livestock.

“It must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock,” wrote Holdren with co-authors Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich.

Holdren notes that the proposal to forcibly mass sterilize the public against their will “seems to horrify people” and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him too much, amidst the myriad of other totalitarian Dr. Strangelove style ideas that are put forward in the book as a way to carry out an aggressive agenda of population reduction.» Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply Already Happening Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

2. Paul Ehrlich was John Holdren’s close scientific partner. John Holdren is Obama’s science advisor. Paul Ehrlich proposed mass poisoning of water and food supplies in 1969.

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 24--A possibility that the Government might have to put sterility drugs in reservoirs and in food shipped to foreign countries to limit human multiplication was envisioned today by a leading crusader on the population problem.
A STERILITY DRUG IN FOOD IS HINTED - Biologist Stresses Need to Curb Population Growth - Article - NYTimes.com
Editorials, Columns, Op-Ed, Letters, Opinionator and More Opinion - The New York Times
Ehrlich 1969 : Wanted To Poison Water And Food Supplies | Real Science
 
LOL. Yes, the world's population is well above what it should be. And many scientists have noted that and stated that the affect of climate change will excaberate that problem, and reduce the population in a most unpleasant manner. We are seeing the start of that right now.

As the far of the rest of your rant goes, you don't post science, because you have none to back up your nonsense. All you have, and all you post is yap-yap.

Douchebag, you cry for science but only accept science you agree with. Posting science with you is pointless, you don't want science you want to push AGW theory. You are about as scientific as Al Gore's film...

DO you know who the club of rome are or what they do? How about UN agenda 21 or the global biodiversity project? Do you know anything but Greenpeace propaganda?

Its complete nincompoops like you who sit there citing greenpeace and posting from the IPCC all the while calling it science, that have no clue what the real problems are.

You are like mushrooms, all they have to do is feed you shit and keep you in the dark.
 
Last edited:
Everyday we have more headlines telling us of catastrophic global warming. Every time you turn around they say this or that is evidence of it, and that this bit of weather here and now is indicative of climate. Yet if any non-believers try and point out that this or that cold weather spell is proof that there is no warming climate, and they will lose their minds trying to attack them.

Want the truth? Plain and simple there are soon to be 7 billion people on this planet and that is just too many. Thats going to be 7 billion people who will all want a SUV and a big house with a yard and big screen tv's. & billion polluting, 7 billion breathing, 7 billion crapping and all of it will require resources that are getting more scarce by the minute.

The world cannot support a continued population growth like this, and if they all develop to the level of the First world countries, it will support even less.

Personally, I see population value and growth as more symptoms of an underlying problem based more on perception and circumstance than a fundemental problem in and of itself. In fact, from a sheer statistics perspective, the more people we have the greater the value and accomplishments of humanity in general,...all else being equal. It is in those last four qualifying words that we find most of the perceived problems. "all else being equal," is a goal not many work towards. Given an abundance of cheap, clean energy, and no ridiculous pseudo science clap trap about GMO foodstuffs or "natural" vitamins being better for you than "manufactured" vitamins and supplements, our planet could probably handle 10x the current population without critically straining crucial non-energy resources and habitats. Of course, 99% of those people are going to live in environments more like Hong Kong than Fairfield Iowa.

...And whats the most disturbing about all of this is who exactly is deciding this? Look up The Club of Rome and the Sierra Club, and then look into the UN agenda 21 and global biodiversity project and see if you recognize some of the same concepts and even people involved. Then ask yourself who are they to decide for all of us....

You hand out foil hats with this conspiracy mongering?
 
Last edited:
Everyday we have more headlines telling us of catastrophic global warming. Every time you turn around they say this or that is evidence of it, and that this bit of weather here and now is indicative of climate. Yet if any non-believers try and point out that this or that cold weather spell is proof that there is no warming climate, and they will lose their minds trying to attack them.

Want the truth? Plain and simple there are soon to be 7 billion people on this planet and that is just too many. Thats going to be 7 billion people who will all want a SUV and a big house with a yard and big screen tv's. & billion polluting, 7 billion breathing, 7 billion crapping and all of it will require resources that are getting more scarce by the minute.

The world cannot support a continued population growth like this, and if they all develop to the level of the First world countries, it will support even less.

Personally, I see population value and growth as more symptoms of an underlying problem based more on perception and circumstance than a fundemental problem in and of itself. In fact, from a sheer statistics perspective, the more people we have the greater the value and accomplishments of humanity in general,...all else being equal. It is in those last four qualifying words that we find most of the perceived problems. "all else being equal," is a goal not many work towards. Given an abundance of cheap, clean energy, and no ridiculous pseudo science clap trap about GMO foodstuffs or "natural" vitamins being better for you than "manufactured" vitamins and supplements, our planet could probably handle 10x the current population without critically straining crucial non-energy resources and habitats. Of course, 99% of those people are going to live in environments more like Hong Kong than Fairfield Iowa.

...And whats the most disturbing about all of this is who exactly is deciding this? Look up The Club of Rome and the Sierra Club, and then look into the UN agenda 21 and global biodiversity project and see if you recognize some of the same concepts and even people involved. Then ask yourself who are they to decide for all of us....

You hand out foil hats with this conspiracy mongering?

At first I thought "oh good a response that had something to say" then I read the rest of it realized the truth..

The first part, was you rambling nonsense.. What you think you can talk in a circle and not get noticed? You said...." I see population value and growth as more symptoms of an underlying problem based more on perception and circumstance than a fundemental problem in and of itself. "

Oh really? Bullshit much? LOL, so then by reading that you say you see population value and growth as a problem with perception and circumstance? So its the perception of population rather than the population? Or is it a problem based on circumstance, by that I assume you mean population control in a third world country being not quite the same as in a first world country, or if that's incorrect I can guess you were just talking shit and didn't plan on anyone noticing or being called on it.

Look Mr. Bullshitter your post here was an asinine attempt to give the appearance of deeper thought, without actually having any at all. The second part of your post deserves no response, it was a retarded attempt to disregard my post as conspiracy theory. You did not check any of my links, or address any of my points.

Personally I have little use for clones or the cowards who hide behind them.
 
Personally, I see population value and growth as more symptoms of an underlying problem based more on perception and circumstance than a fundemental problem in and of itself. In fact, from a sheer statistics perspective, the more people we have the greater the value and accomplishments of humanity in general,...all else being equal. It is in those last four qualifying words that we find most of the perceived problems. "all else being equal," is a goal not many work towards. Given an abundance of cheap, clean energy, and no ridiculous pseudo science clap trap about GMO foodstuffs or "natural" vitamins being better for you than "manufactured" vitamins and supplements, our planet could probably handle 10x the current population without critically straining crucial non-energy resources and habitats. Of course, 99% of those people are going to live in environments more like Hong Kong than Fairfield Iowa.

At first I thought "oh good a response that had something to say" then I read the rest of it realized the truth.

If you point out the sections giving you troubles I will see if I can simplify it for you. In general, the primary problem isn't population, so much as it is abundant, clean energy, with the control and proper application of sufficient energies there more than enough basic resources and potentially viable technological processes to support a much larger population than currently exists, at western standards, problem is, fossil fuels aren't up to that task (even if we largely forgot about the "clean" portion of that requirement). Nuclear is, and will continue to be, an important component of our civilization's future energy picture, though it is well passed the time to move on from gen II/III systems; they helped us through the end of the 20th century but its time to retire the aging systems and move into the 21rst century with both feet. If you would like to discuss the future of energy, that is certainly a discussion that needs to be had. We know the mistakes of the past, now it's time to plan the future instead of being relegated to merely dealing with the future that unfolds.
 
To actually address the problems associated with population growth, the affects of that on the environment, and the neccessity of addressing our energy needs, both through conservation and technical efficiancies is well beyond Gstrings capability.

Most here fear any change in the present scheme of things, failing to realize that the changes are already happening. Our failure to recognize and address the source of the changes, and to plan for the inevitable disruptions, will make what should have been inconveniance into catastrophe.

There is one important point about population, that is how close do you want your neighbors feet? At it's very basic, freedom of action for any of us only extends to where our neighbors feet begin.
 
population size is a significant factor in the production of CO2 and land use issues. that it is taboo to discuss it on an international scale is very telling.
 
The human carrying capacity of this world depends much on the quality of life that those humans have.

Its seems obvious to me that this world cannot provide the same quality of life for all 7 billion humans that it currently provides for about 2 billion of us.

Energy is only part of the problem.

Even if we found a source of unlimited pollution free energy, I doubt this world currently has the resources to sustain the entire world's population at a middle class lifestyle as we currently define it.

Right now I am informed that about 1 billion people live in absolute hand-to-mouth poverty -- less than $1 day -- and another billion live on less than $2 a day.


Population control is, I suspect, one of the challenges that face mankind in this century.

I do not think mankind will come together to cobble out some solution, however.

What I do think will happen is that mankind will allow the invisible hand of market forces to kill off much of the population by attrition.

That way people will be able to wring their hands and tells themselves " Ain't it a shame?" while remaining guilt free at the same time.

You know...much like we do now, only on a much grander scale.
 
Personally, I see population value and growth as more symptoms of an underlying problem based more on perception and circumstance than a fundemental problem in and of itself. In fact, from a sheer statistics perspective, the more people we have the greater the value and accomplishments of humanity in general,...all else being equal. It is in those last four qualifying words that we find most of the perceived problems. "all else being equal," is a goal not many work towards. Given an abundance of cheap, clean energy, and no ridiculous pseudo science clap trap about GMO foodstuffs or "natural" vitamins being better for you than "manufactured" vitamins and supplements, our planet could probably handle 10x the current population without critically straining crucial non-energy resources and habitats. Of course, 99% of those people are going to live in environments more like Hong Kong than Fairfield Iowa.

At first I thought "oh good a response that had something to say" then I read the rest of it realized the truth.

If you point out the sections giving you troubles I will see if I can simplify it for you. In general, the primary problem isn't population, so much as it is abundant, clean energy, with the control and proper application of sufficient energies there more than enough basic resources and potentially viable technological processes to support a much larger population than currently exists, at western standards, problem is, fossil fuels aren't up to that task (even if we largely forgot about the "clean" portion of that requirement). Nuclear is, and will continue to be, an important component of our civilization's future energy picture, though it is well passed the time to move on from gen II/III systems; they helped us through the end of the 20th century but its time to retire the aging systems and move into the 21rst century with both feet. If you would like to discuss the future of energy, that is certainly a discussion that needs to be had. We know the mistakes of the past, now it's time to plan the future instead of being relegated to merely dealing with the future that unfolds.

Moron, no one is buying your nonsense.

You didn't say anything or make a point all you did was talk in a circle. You said an underlying problem that you didn't name or even point to. All you did was ramble.

trakar said:
Personally, I see population value and growth as more symptoms of an underlying problem based more on perception and circumstance than a fundemental problem in and of itself.

Oh really and what underlying problem would that be exactly?... Again you didn't mention the underlying problem and you just went on rambling nonsense. What exactly in that drivel did you establish? Nothing, all you did was recite bits of something you most likely googled to pretend you have something of value to add.

trakar said:
In fact, from a sheer statistics perspective, the more people we have the greater the value and accomplishments of humanity in general,...all else being equal. It is in those last four qualifying words that we find most of the perceived problems. "all else being equal," is a goal not many work towards.

Still looking to see if you named that "underlying problem here... Nope... Again just you talking shit to give an impression of deeper thought. The more people we have the the greater the value and accomplishments of humanity in general? WTF kind of BS is that? More people means more people the rate of exceptional people (people who do more than just for themselves) is not going to go up just because more people are being born. 1000 people and 100 of them are exceptional and increase that times ten and we get 100,000 people and 1000 exceptional. And taking into consideration that the rate is the same and the population increased the actual number of exceptional will be disproportionate indefinitely. Again you talk shit with no substance...

trakar said:
all else being equal. It is in those last four qualifying words that we find most of the perceived problems. "all else being equal," is a goal not many work towards. Given an abundance of cheap, clean energy, and no ridiculous pseudo science clap trap about GMO foodstuffs or "natural" vitamins being better for you than "manufactured" vitamins and supplements, our planet could probably handle 10x the current population without critically straining crucial non-energy resources and habitats. Of course, 99% of those people are going to live in environments more like Hong Kong than Fairfield Iowa.

Here you tried to make it seem like you were naming that "underlying problem" but you didn't.. More of your Bullshit...

What in the hell point were you trying to make there? Seriously man, you jumped from a so-called underlying problem that you haven't named, to GMO foodstuffs and clean energy.
You then say our planet could handle 10X the population but we would live like in hong kong and not Iowa... WTF?

Dude do you even understand that the UN's global sustainability project is about? Its about making sure our population and resource use allows for us to have as good and long a future as we can. At least thats what they imply. The problem is its done by people who do not live like the average person so they are out of touch and will never live by the same standards they would impose upon the rest of the world.

Price Phillip for example does not live like joe the plummer, so why should Prince Phil get to decide what is comfortable for Joe the plummer or even moobootoo the tribal elder.

Seriously man, there is a lot more to knowledge than talking shit. You are a pathetic example of a person with an obsession with an appearance of knowledge, and no desire to actually attain much less have or use any of it.
 
The human carrying capacity of this world depends much on the quality of life that those humans have.

Its seems obvious to me that this world cannot provide the same quality of life for all 7 billion humans that it currently provides for about 2 billion of us.

Energy is only part of the problem.

Even if we found a source of unlimited pollution free energy, I doubt this world currently has the resources to sustain the entire world's population at a middle class lifestyle as we currently define it.

Right now I am informed that about 1 billion people live in absolute hand-to-mouth poverty -- less than $1 day -- and another billion live on less than $2 a day.


Population control is, I suspect, one of the challenges that face mankind in this century.

I do not think mankind will come together to cobble out some solution, however.

What I do think will happen is that mankind will allow the invisible hand of market forces to kill off much of the population by attrition.

That way people will be able to wring their hands and tells themselves " Ain't it a shame?" while remaining guilt free at the same time.

You know...much like we do now, only on a much grander scale.

That is the ultimate self-correcting aspect of anthropogenic climate change. After enough people die, our emissions will fall to a sustainable level.

I disagree with your other assessment, and am of the consideration that we can support many times the current planet population, at US standards of living, provided that we are willing and able to provide enough energy to achieving that goal.

of course, we would need a reason to have that goal, I'm not saying it would necessarily be worth the effort to generate that energy unless there is a definable benefit to having such increased numbers. While I have seen arguments for such that may, or may not, demonstrate such benefits, I am, as of now, unconvinced.

With appropriate amounts of energy, correctly applied, there are few goals that are beyond reach.
 
That's it trakar when you get busted being a posturing, preening buffoon, just ignore the post and keep on talking shit.... FAKE...
 
That's it trakar when you get busted being a posturing, preening buffoon, just ignore the post and keep on talking shit.... FAKE...

Why shouldn't your posts be ignored? You rarely post anything of substance, preferring to call people names. How about posting something without throwing childish tantrums? THAT would be refreshing. :eusa_whistle:
 
Everyday we have more headlines telling us of catastrophic global warming. Every time you turn around they say this or that is evidence of it, and that this bit of weather here and now is indicative of climate. Yet if any non-believers try and point out that this or that cold weather spell is proof that there is no warming climate, and they will lose their minds trying to attack them.

Want the truth? Plain and simple there are soon to be 7 billion people on this planet and that is just too many. Thats going to be 7 billion people who will all want a SUV and a big house with a yard and big screen tv's. & billion polluting, 7 billion breathing, 7 billion crapping and all of it will require resources that are getting more scarce by the minute.

The world cannot support a continued population growth like this, and if they all develop to the level of the First world countries, it will support even less.

Want to know why they continue on with the warming doom and gloom despite the science failing to make the case day after day? Because if they came out and said we got to have population control they fear the people would call them elitists and shun them. No one would want some governmental decree for controlled birthrates or decisions made on who or what people or nation get the dwindling resources. SO they call it climate change so it can get warm or cold and its still proof, and limit the amount of fossil fuel use by countries that use the most and the least alike. The UN prevents many countries in Africa from making more coal burning electric plants (a resource they have in abundance) and forces them to use alternative sources. Like a solar panel for a hospital serving 100's of miles that only allows them to operate a fridge to store the medicine in OR a incubator but not both.

They limit us to so much fossil fuel use a year its one thing, but limiting Africa or India which are budding into their own is another. The reality of Kyoto and the accords for reducing greenhouse gas emissions will result in massive deaths in the third world countries and limit their growth and ability to reach 1st world status.

Claiming CO2 is a climate driver despite the science showing it is an effect of warming, and limiting peoples access to fossil fuels to prevent the natural occurring and important gas for our ecosystem is nothing more than population control.

And whats the most disturbing about all of this is who exactly is deciding this? Look up The Club of Rome and the Sierra Club, and then look into the UN agenda 21 and global biodiversity project and see if you recognize some of the same concepts and even people involved. Then ask yourself who are they to decide for all of us....

But one half of the Earths population is rural/tribal - many of them still live primitive lives and have no desire for machine manufactured products and if they do they're generally novelties.

Hell, there are still many "uncorrupted tribes" around the world that wouldn't even comprehend a TV... They still run around naked like they did 10,000 years ago.

They don't even have the same immunities as the other 80% of humans.
 

Forum List

Back
Top