Quote:That would be a unique event, whereby "solving" waste didn't solve a problem. That's a nice round number 9-10 billion, what assumptions go into this?Maths, observations from numerous naturalists.
Quote:It doesn't seem to be working, as those who have the fewest children by comparison are consuming the vast majority of resources and directly/indirectly causing the majority of environmental damage.If overpopulation isn't a trouble, then knock yourself out and reproduce like crazy. See what happens. We seem to be doing that anyway, so, might as well go for fuck.
Quote:Questioning both your assumptions and conclusions does not count as not listening Ace.I'm afraid I'm just going to give up.
Agree to disagree? I'm sure the coming years will prove Attenbourgh correct.
The three options as he put it. Either we have less kids, quickly improve our technology to prolong the problem or have mass starvation, war.....death.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
