The Need to Breed

[Shell B]

Well, that didn't sum it up incorrectly or anything.

[Ace Otana]

See why I've lost hope? Many don't even think it's a problem or that it's happening despite overwhelming evidence. Might as well argue with a brick wall. The result is the same.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, human population is a factor. We know, for a fact, that we pump that shit into the ozone like nobody's business. However, we also know for a fact that the Earth goes through warming and cooling periods. If anything, we are speeding up a natural process. No matter how you cut it, there is global warming. No matter how little or how much, we do contribute to it. No matter how much we would like to think we can change shit, it's going to get hot here with or without our help. It's also going to get cold. The only thing we can do is try not to push the planet's buttons. These are facts. I would link shit, but this is common knowledge, meaning finding a reputable source will take you less than a minute, so do it your damn selves.

Yes, and we also know, for a fact, that a tiny portion of our (global) population has been handling the dumping for quite some time. On the other hand China pulled up from the rear. Two of the biggest offenders on that count happen to be China and the US, one of which engages in population control measures openly (and unsuccessfully) and the other unintentionally. Strangely, the problem continues to worsen unabated. Now, before Global Warming became the "it thing" you wouldn't see population control invoked without an immediate explanation of the suffering, hunger and death in third world nations (where overpopulation is fingered as a problem). Maybe I'm just a cynic but it was only a matter of time until overpopulation and global warming got thrown together. People want to drum up support for their causes (and it's not like either of these issues are a bad cause or anything). When those areas with overpopulation issues (China aside-again, because they have pop control measures and their pollution issue is one of dirty tech) become our biggest concern that we might say that the one contributes to the other. When some poor bastard living in a cob hut with 30 children dumps more pollutants into the environment than a phosphate mine (or when those dwellers of cob huts worldwide are the largest benefactors and supporters of that phosphate mine) I'll start to point the finger at him. As of now, they look like distinct problems. As of now, it looks like the guy with .84 children dumps about 9 times as much as the guy with 30. Though I would argue that some of the ways we could deal with one issue would deal with the other.

-If a small fraction of our population is responsible for our contribution to global warming, and if population controls are openly or unintentionally engaged in by that small fraction of the population, why would we assume that curbing the global population would have an effect on global warming? Are the parties responsible for the vast majority of ACC the same parties that are responsible for the vast majority of overpopulation issues?

-Might it be possible that changes in the practices and policies of that portion which contributes the most to global warming would have a profound effect on those areas in which overpopulation is a problem (IMHO it's a symptom of a problem, but we'll run with it anyway)?

Suggesting that the people responsible for the -overpopulation problem- stop having children is the fucking height of hypocrisy if we're using global warming as a reason. Why, so we here in the first world can evade living in the world they already find themselves in? You tell somebody in the third world that if that global warming is going to cause famine and disease and violence and they might just stare at you blankly.....because that's already business as usual for them. If they stop having kids, that wont stop us from exploiting them or their resources, will it? Their situation won't get much better, (and imho neither will ours, because they aren't causing our fucking problems in the first place) unless we here in the first world make changes to our societies - and since population controls, either unintentional or intentional- are already a part of our society it's likely that a different solution is required.

[The hunger issues we see around the world and here in the US were a driving factor in why I decided to pursue a career in the exciting and lucrative area of agricultural non-profits, sustainable ag, and activism in the first place /sarcasm. This (hunger/environmental issues) has been my baby for awhile and it irritates me to no end every-time someone implies that my disillusionment with the popular opinion as opposed to the practical reality of our situation is an issue of denialism. What is it that I'm not communicating very well? The issues of overpopulation (largely hunger) and global warming ( largely pollution) have been subbed out by interested parties and vast amounts of ad copy have been accepted as fact by large swathes of the population. So here I am, trying to honestly address both of these issues not in the forums, but in my real life, and I have folks assuming that I don't think there's a problem? Give me a fucking break. Every-time I get into one of these threads somebody tries to file me away in the lunatic fringe but I've never seen anyone address any of my objections, they just get bowled over or ignored.]
not directed at you btw Shell, before you wonder..lol-

[Shell B]

I'll keep this short and simple, Rhythm.

Fewer people = fewer emissions. Why cite that population control is unsuccessful and then say it is evident that population control is not the problem because said unsuccessful population control is being implemented? Weird.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, and I'll make this short and simple by repeating myself...

Fewer people are already responsible for greater emissions. Fewer than an average of one is zero..a counter-intuitive goal...and last I checked, we polluting few were also the ones looking to fix this problem in the first place.
China is the one example of a country contributing to both the overpopulation issue and the global warming issue -and they have a population control program.

In a "perfect world" where resource use and subsequent pollution were distributed evenly then sure, fewer people would mean lower emissions. We do not live in such a world. Population control appears to be unsuccessful at curbing pollution via the example of China....I use this as an example of a place where population control is a reality and yet the problems of both overpopulation and pollution continue unabated. If there were some direct result on global pollution (and by extension global warming via population or population control than it would be difficult to understand why the US (small fraction) contributes so much, or why China (with it's controls) is right there with us....unless....the issue is something other than population. This is the crux of every objection I have.

-Population control as a solution to our global warming issue: Two countries that already engage in very different forms of population control are massive contributors to the global warming pie-

What, precisely, is weird about my mentioning this?

[Shell B]

So, an average of one person is responsible for emissions? Oh, you mean fewer than an average of one child. Well, when you point to someone suggesting that the United States be the sole country implementing population control, you'll have an argument. Furthermore, no one is suggesting that population control be the only strategy.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, I'm mentioning that population control in countries whose overall emissions are 1/100th or less of our own isn't going to make a dent. With the exception of China (which has a population control program in effect), the countries that have the most severe issues related to population are not the same countries that are dumping their shit into the atmosphere en masse.

[Shell B]

But, the point has never been that global warming is the only reason for population control, has it? It has been to limit the use of finite resources. Global warming happens to also be a byproduct of the population problem, so it is win-win.

You still have to explain to me how you figure the U.S. population is still growing and yet population expansion is not a problem.

[The Grand Nudger]

It was offered as a solution. Yep. It ,may have never been your point, and it certainly isn't mine.

But, lets approach this from the angle of resources and the landscape doesn't change. A very small number of us (who already engage in an unintentional population control scheme) consume the vast quantity of the worlds resources. If we told people in the third world to stop having kids, that won't change the rate at which those resources are depleted, because they aren't the ones depleting them.

If global warming is a byproduct of the population problem, then again I'm going to have to ask you to explain why so few contribute so much to that problem? Why isn't it the seething masses that are raping this place? Why is it the lucky few?

I don't think it's a problem unless we are absolutely dead set on continuing to consume resources wastefully. Eliminating or curbing that waste may seem like a more difficult solution, but judging by the success of population control thusfar it doesn't seem like the "easy answer" worked very well, and we haven't given the -hard work- answer a fighting chance. I'd rather see us toil away at that first, because it seems to be a prerequisite for population control to be effective in the first place, and the overall limits we'd have to set on ourselves would be much better understood and fleshed out (and we'd have a solid argument for the individual being told not to have another child) if we went that route first.

[Jackalope]

You still have to explain to me how you figure the U.S. population is still growing and yet population expansion is not a problem.

The U.S. fertility rate is below the replacement fertility rate. That is to say, that if not for immigration, the population of the U.S. would be declining, not increasing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic...ted_States (second paragraph)

The issue in the U.S. is not that our population growth is out of control, but rather that our per-capita consumption of resources is. That is, in my opinion, the root cause of the problem as far as the U.S. is concerned.