The Need to Breed

[The Grand Nudger]

Take a look at these per capita emissions figures and you tell me whether it looks like a small portion of us or all of us are doing the vast majorty of the polluting Cin. This is just emissions, mind you, ad doesn;t take into account a plethora of other pollutants (or the forces driving the pollution). Hey Aussies, eat shit and die btw (just kidding, lol, but surprised that you're dirtier than we are as of the time of this little write-up)

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...f-co2.html

Take special note of India btw. These guys are the big hitters in the over-population arena...and they happen to have the lowest emissions per capita of anyone on the list......Hell, these people should be having more kids and Aussies and Americans should all take a long walk off a short pier.

So, let me get this straight.
People need things to survive. Undeniable.
More and more people have created a need for more things. Undeniable.
More things require more resources. Undeniable.
More resources to make more things requires more fuel and emissions. Undeniable.
No people would require no resources. Undeniable.
Population IS indeed a factor to global warming. DENIABLE??????

Yup, and I don't feel like repeating myself for what has to be approaching double digits.

Regarding India and any other country that has slightly lower greenhouse emissions:

Slightly lower......slightly..lower? Are we still talking population?

First of all, most of India is a shithole that has been in the dark ages up until recent. Secondly, the world is a global market, and just because India only recently became economically viable doesn't mean that they are not contributing to the "need" factor. They need products, they need fuel, they need all the stupid shit that we pretend to need in this world, and somewhere someone else has to make that shit and ship it all over the planet.

Absolutely, human beings have needs, I don;t hold any grudges against anyone on that count. Nevertheless, theres a wide gulf between what they need and what we get (from them..no less). If there weren't, why would there be a problem with their numbers? Surely that many people are capable of producing all the products they need...right?

Hell, even in the US the average human being eats food that traveled on average 1500 miles to get to their plate. Telling people that some overpopulated country doesn't put out quite as much emissions as some country less crowded and using it as an example of how population is not a factor is dishonest in my opinion.

"Quite as much" doesn't even come close, if you go down the honesty road this isn't going to be pretty Cinjin. Rather than calling me dishonest, or asking me what I'm selling, you could always handle this single objection that I've raised. I have been honest, I have provided numbers (we could dispute those numbers, that would be a start), I've asked a legitimate question (multiple times) and I get nothing. Look, you asked me if I was a science denier not but one post ago, what do you think those emission numbers are? We have a disagreement about what they mean, it would seem. To me, it would seem establish that a small number of us are responsible for the overwhelming majority of emissions (and especially so per capita - go back a few decades and China and India wouldn't even be on that list btw, but we would). To me, this suggests that activity, and not numbers, are a factor for our current problems. Address the activity, if the problem persists, maybe then look at the population again. As an interesting aside, to control the emissions of India via the population you would have to remove and or prevent about 15 or 16 Indians to every 1 American to achieve commensurate levels of reduction. To reverse the roles, that means that a single american child is going to be responsible for more than a dozen Indian children's worth of emissions...and we;re supposed to go tout population control to these people...even as an educational policy? Wow, yeah, why not, I mean it sure as hell looks like it's been working for us /sarcasm.

We live in a global market. That massive populations is creating those emissions elsewhere and eventually they'll raise their own numbers. Lets see if India's doing so well with their emissions in 30 years. Predictions? Everybody loves 'em.

Where will our emissions be in thirty years? Is there some rule that emissions can only go up? Maybe India will be the first big adopter of a sustainable society (they have alot less invested in conventional tech than we do. and stand to gain a hell of alot more...think about that.)

You don't have to be a fucking science denier to suggest that we might be in a position to handle these problems we've made for ourselves, that we're not looking at the end of the world. The end of the world as we know it...I hope so (but we could probably get away with alot less change than I would like..imho).

I hope you're right, I just don't think you are.
[/quote]