The Need to Breed

[The Grand Nudger]

India -is- an example of populations non-effect. As is the US's fantastically high contribution via it's (relatively) small population.

I asked you why my objections where unfair because what you've written there doesn't make them unfair, or inaccurate. You basically responded with "well if it isn't, then one day it will be". This has never been a point of contention (though perhaps you should use the word -might- in place of -will- when predicting the future), if emissions levels evened out -precisely the situation you just described-. Would you like me to quote the two times I've said that prior to this moment? So maybe somebody else's global warming problems will be an issue of population eh , maybe the problems of 2042? Today, it is 2012. Today, our problem appears to be over-consumption and waste, and not by all 7 billion of us, not by any stretch.

I wasn't under the impression that I was arguing for unlimited or irresponsible population growth. What I was hoping to argue was against the notion that population controls are a clever solution to our problems here and now. I was hoping that I had been arguing against the notion that population control schemes were effective (either at curbing population growth or environmental damage). I think the examples of China, The US, and India are pretty damned relevant on both of those counts. My examples are not unfair or dishonest Cinjin, they simply don't paint a picture you agree with.

[Cinjin]

My examples are not unfair or dishonest Cinjin, they simply don't paint a picture you agree with.

What about your response to the picture I painted? It's pot & kettle brother. In response to the quotes I left by biologists you wrote: "The author of that quote is a blithering fucking idiot." I can't call your arguments dishonest, but you can call mine "fucking idiotic?" Sorry, it's the same thing. If we disagree with each other, it should be expected that the other's arguments are going to be thought of as illegitimate, idiotic, or dishonest.

but than again ... I already addressed this didn't I.


In answer to your question: Your point regarding India is not fair since you do not address the resources that still have to be produced for them elsewhere in the world. Furthermore, if you have the right to completely disregard the opinions of established biologists and scientists than I certainly don't have to validate your side of the argument either. Shall I respond the same way you did? By saying, "your information source is a blithering fucking idiot." ?????

Also, this debate of ours has gotten off on an India rabbit trail. I was making only one point: You are of the position that population does not effect global warming. I am of the position that it most certainly does. IMO, you have not offered me any legitimate reason for your position, especially when I have pointed out that if there were no people on this planet, there would be no global warming, at least not for the reasons we currently are experiencing. It seems rather absurd to me to deny this, but since you do and we cannot come to an understanding, it would seem our friendly little debate is pointless. It doesn't mean jack shit that India itself is creating less greenhouse emissions. Not one bit. We are all part of a global community and those people need resources created elsewhere. Also, it is estimated that our population growth will decline in 30 some odd years (give or take), but that is only a decline in growth, not a reduction in population, and by then it will likely be too late. I really believe that its either wishful thinking or blatant ignorance that keeps people thinking that we're going to become some utopian society in a matter of 20 years. Because most climate scientists think that's all the time we have left before the scale tips. In your case, as intelligent as you obviously are, I would say it is definitely wishful thinking.


I'm sorry it took so long to respond. I've been extremely busy this last week and these next few days look equally busy.

[kılıç_mehmet]

150? I say this is a doomsday scenario like any other...
But I have to agree on what you said regarding population control. We should not stop breeding, but we should do this in moderation. Like having 4 children is hard for a man to feed and send to school. So have two children instead.
I think that unless you have a lot of money, you should have at most two children.
Even if you have a lot of money, you should have two children so that your inheritance is only divided into two parts, rather than more.

[cratehorus]

What about your response to the picture I painted?

Since you loved my last vid so much i'd figured i'd post another one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8

[Cinjin]

That video served only to bolster my side of the argument: People (population) are most definitely affecting the planet (global warming).

[The Grand Nudger]

In answer to your question: Your point regarding India is not fair since you do not address the resources that still have to be produced for them elsewhere in the world.

Yeah the import numbers for India are staggering..what with all the wealth floating around in that country......?

Furthermore, if you have the right to completely disregard the opinions of established biologists and scientists than I certainly don't have to validate your side of the argument either.

I have the right to call their interpretations of data into question, and no, you don't have to validate my side of the argument.

Shall I respond the same way you did? By saying, "your information source is a blithering fucking idiot." ?????

You could.....but that wouldn't help your argument any unless you could explain why -which i spent considerable amounts of time doing for my own-. I'm not suggesting that you absolutely have to sign on with my explanation, but "a biologist said....." isn't exactly compelling.

Also, this debate of ours has gotten off on an India rabbit trail. I was making only one point: You are of the position that population does not effect global warming. I am of the position that it most certainly does. IMO, you have not offered me any legitimate reason for your position, especially when I have pointed out that if there were no people on this planet, there would be no global warming, at least not for the reasons we currently are experiencing.

And if there were just as many people on the planet as there are right now, exercising just a modest amount of common sense and planning, we also wouldn't have global warming -at least not for the reasons we currently are experiencing-. Perhaps I simply failed to adequately explain my position. Proposing that population is a contributing factor to global warming is a falsifiable proposition. All one needs to do to at least call it into question is show some discrepancy between population (overall or growth) and global warming (in our case emissions- as the cause). Believe I did just that, not one example, but many. Wouldn't it be much more accurate to state that "population is a contributing factor to global warming so long as the population has excessively high emissions per capita"? IOW, More Americans = bad....more Indians = not so much. Seems to be something other than population at work in this particular equation Cin.

It seems rather absurd to me to deny this, but since you do and we cannot come to an understanding, it would seem our friendly little debate is pointless. It doesn't mean jack shit that India itself is creating less greenhouse emissions. Not one bit.

It means quite a bit, since emissions are those reasons we just made reference to.

We are all part of a global community and those people need resources created elsewhere.

Laying aside that the vast majority of our [global] emissions aren't exactly an issue of "need".....that people need resources in no way mandates that we source, process, or consume those resources in a manner that has led us to our current situation.

Also, it is estimated that our population growth will decline in 30 some odd years (give or take), but that is only a decline in growth, not a reduction in population, and by then it will likely be too late.

Too late for what? Too late for dinner, too late for tea? Too late for goodbye? /sarcasm. Honestly Cin, I think that this rather bleak appraisal of the situation ignores just about anything that we could do to remedy our problems, a great deal of which is likely to directly address the problem in a way that "fewer people" does not. As I have already said, and linked, and argued at length "fewer people" have already shown themselves to be completely capable of handling the job of trashing this place utterly and thoroughly.

I really believe that its either wishful thinking or blatant ignorance that keeps people thinking that we're going to become some utopian society in a matter of 20 years.

I'd settle for a less polluting society, replete with all the other nasty shit we currently have. I'm comfortable with that.

Because most climate scientists think that's all the time we have left before the scale tips. In your case, as intelligent as you obviously are, I would say it is definitely wishful thinking.
I'm sorry it took so long to respond. I've been extremely busy this last week and these next few days look equally busy.

Take as long as you like amigo...no hurry..we have time :wink:

---

Ah, almost forgot.....it bears mentioning that a great many people in a great many places didn't even make that emissions list - this despite being human beings, having children, and growing populations. Another thing that bears mentioning, that I haven't even touched as of yet- The populations of both China and India had been growing for some time with no appreciable effect on their emissions. Their current population explosion is often chalked up to increased access to modern technology and development -limited as it may be- which does itself increase the emissions per capita. Amusingly, their population growth and sudden explosion onto the global warming scene can both be attributed to the very technologies that are shouldering the brunt of the global warming pie....not so much the other way round.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's a great conversation to be had with regards to my blithering idiot comment btw, but it'd be a massive derail. Researchers in any given field are very fond of demonstrating why their field is relevant to hot topic issues. There are a lot of very good reasons they do this, but they are not always entirely accurate in their enthusiasm. Perhaps I was unkind to the researcher in question, perhaps I should have said

"correlation does not prove causation"

On the other hand, if i can sit here -not a biologist-, -not a climate expert- and criticize the statement on those grounds I suppose they would qualify for the "blithering idiot" title. For all the right reasons, I'm sure (no sarcasm implied, I really mean that).

[cratehorus]

That video served only to bolster my side of the argument: People (population) are most definitely affecting the planet (global warming).

Oil will run out soon some say as early as 2030, and when that happens, "emissions" as you keep calling it, will cease to be problem.

[ib.me.ub]

. We are going to be hit with everything all at once. See that cliff there......just there......

---

You know my solution? Just forget about it, there's nothing you can do about it. Let people think nothing's wrong, they'll see the real world soon enough. Just live your life and enjoy the show.

.

[The Grand Nudger]

Great, the doomsayers are coming out of the woodwork. 2030 you say? Can we get a month and a day Nostradamus?