Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
RSS feedBump TopicReply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Overpopulation (Population control), Controversial topic. (Science)

manami
post Nov 22 2009, 06:49 PM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
It is accepted in mainstream science that earth has an overpopulation problem, therefore directly linked to the global warming theory.

Why global warming can result from humans?


Demand for products/goods/services so producers increase supply.


The more demand there is, the more goods and services need to be produced, and this, according to some global warming proponents, introduces carbon emissions from the manufacturing/production economic process.

Consumption, production, all produces carbon emissions.

Therefore, we can safely theorize that demand comes from human population numbers.


One of the most prominent methods are pushers of population control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_control


This is not a conspiracy theory, but a fact that is happening, population control agendas and programs.


Let's discuss what methods one can take to manage populations on the planet. It is without a doubt that the earth is being ravaged partly due to accepted theory of overpopulation. The more humans, the more chain reaction that would react in the harm to the environment, and therefore there is a need to control, or possibly reduce the number of populations on this planet.

The methods used of course, can range from common sense acceptable to outright unethical and possibly breaking international laws.

Common sense acceptable methods

1. Use contraceptives but met with staunch opposition from religious institutions, such as the Vatican.
2. Proper education/family planning.
3. Better welfare for the retired, no need to depend on children.
4. One child policy as done by China, with forced abortion, to the applause of David Rockefeller.
5. Improve economic conditions of poor nations so they would need to depend less on children (by having more children) to bring home the money.

But due to cultural influence, stubbornness, and 'Let everyone worry about overpopulation while I continue to have more of my own children', population may continue to grow and saturate the planet's ability to sustain life. Religious factions want more population so they can be the dominant religion/power on the planet, hence encourages own religious network of followers to have more children. Human ego/greed/power/selfishness encourages explosive population growth. Believe in the end times and messiahnic/apocalyptic religious dogma is preparing certain people for the final solution and they might want to be the standing victor by sheer population numbers alone.

Traditional Chinese culture encourages more and more children, the more the merrier. Go forth and multiply is also the motto of Abrahamic faiths.

Overpopulation itself has been debated by many and there're equally skeptics around.

One of the most prominent pro-population control policy pushers are the Rockefellers, and now, even Bill Gates has joined.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6350303.ece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8






Scientists have jumped on the bandwagon and agree there's a need to reduce population of earth.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Pianka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

"Overpopulation was an early concern and interest. In a 1969 article, Holdren and co-author Paul R. Ehrlich argued that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."[19] In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many."[20] In 1977, Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Holdren co-authored the textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment; they discussed the possible role of a wide variety of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning to enforced population controls, including forced sterilization for women after they gave birth to a designated number of children, and recommended "the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences" such as access to birth control and abortion.["

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21...ulation-growth/




Whether you agree there's a population overload or not, it has already been accepted as part of the global warming theory that we're the cause, and we can only be the cause because there're too many of us, resulting in too many demand for food and goods, causing more carbon emissions.


Now the question is, what are the acceptable methods to use when humans still stubbornly refuse to heed overpopulation advices?

If population continues to grow, scientists would be forced to come up with more scientific data and take drastic measures and present to political forces on the need to reduce the population.

The problem comes when

1. Who gets to have children, and who is not allowed? (Eugenics come to play)
2. How do you reduce the stubborn population numbers without being labeled a mass murderer ?


If it does come to the fact that overpopulation is real, and something must be done about it, but yet the masses do not want to subscribe or control their reproduction, or heed advice given by scientists, what would have to be done to control the inevitable rape of the planet by the sheer numbers of human populations ?


Would ethics and laws need to be broken and humanity sacrificed for the future of the planet and more deserving humans ?


If you're given the task to solve the overpopulation problem of a stubborn population that would not heed mainstream advice to reduce their numbers of children, and population continue to grow, what drastic measures would you take as a scientist to reduce population growth, and how do you decide who should be allowed to live, and who should die ?

Eugenics would most definitely play a role in population control, and how do you choose the descendants of the human race , based on what criteria?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Who gets to reproduce, and who doesn't when there's a mandatory need to manage population numbers on the planet ?


Remember, no conspiracy theory on this thread, as this is a much needed discussion on this taboo topic.

You're the scientist now. The world is overpopulated and people are stubborn and refuse to reduce the 'carbon' they're producing.


You've been tasked by world leaders to solve the overpopulation of a stubborn population. What would you do ? What methods would you use?

Tell us your methods, whether ethical or unethical, they're all welcomed in this thread.



I'll start with my method, which is borderline or outright unethical/immoral for population growth management. Remember I am supposed to think like a scientist forced to reduce population by any means possible if all else fails. I am in a position where I make decisions and I am better than you, more deserving than you intellectually to exist on this planet, so population reduction/control does not involve myself, because I am better than you now, as I am tasked as a prestigious scientist to solve this problem.

This is what I would do to you.


1. Stealth sterilization through drinking water, vaccines, food, products which causes infertility to chosen countries of 'undesirables'. Bisphenol-A and other hormones in daily food/products to interfere with human fertility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A




2. Carcinogenic food supply to cause disease like cancer to prematurely terminate lives of 'undesireables'. I will suppress scientific studies of ingredients used for food/human use from being exposed as carcinogenic, just as how Hadley scientists would suppress data.

3. Force countries to implement 1 child policies through trade embargo/sanctions for those who refuse to comply.

4. Change culture through education, media, by empowering the opposite sex away from traditional family/wife/mother role, give them more independence. Make the world more material and people more demanding so they would not get married easily or become too dependent on men if they're women.

5. Subjugate religious institutions, espionage and sabotage religion so they would be focused on other things other than propagation of their numbers either through conversion of uncontrolled reproduction. Influence religious leaders to my direction.

6. Biological weapon, release pandemic while keeping the antidote to only selected few (through Eugenics), and let the virus wipe out as many people as possible, blame it on God/nature and keep saying 'we're long overdue for a pandemic'.



If you have anymore ways of how to reduce human population, or if you disagree that we're overpopulated, feel free to contribute your opinions here.

There's no right or wrong answer in this thread. Everything goes.

How you participate in this thread reflects on how ready you are to tackle this taboo subject.

This post has been edited by manami: Nov 22 2009, 06:49 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
horatioken
post Nov 22 2009, 07:21 PM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 106

Joined: Nov 2009


actually global warming can be solved by inject sulfur into atmosphere, the real problem is limited natural resource to keep up with unlimited demands from us. therefore insane inflation is happening to everyone.. to solve this problem of scarcity, its time to create 'independent' new 'land' and re-create/grow the supply and fulfill the human demand.


for example :




Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 22 2009, 07:42 PM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(horatioken @ Nov 22 2009, 07:21 PM)
actually global warming can be solved by inject sulfur into atmosphere, the real problem is limited natural resource to keep up with unlimited demands from us. therefore insane inflation is happening to everyone.. to solve this problem of scarcity, its time to create 'independent' new 'land' and re-create/grow the supply and fulfill the human demand.
for example :
*
That would still not solve the overpopulation problem, because we would still continue to reproduce.


Changing geographical locations would not reduce demand for production of goods, foods and that requires uses of natural resources, which according to the global warming theory, contributes to carbon emissions, and humans are the primary source of global warming.


Relocation within the planet may not be a solution, at least that's what the global warming supporters are believing.


Short of artificially induced sterilization and mass murder (either publicly or stealth through food/medicine) I see only space exploration and colonization as a more ethical route but the problem is...


How many are willing to fund this project, put down differences and engage in a star trek world?



Based on the technology we have nowadays, that are disclosed (not counting black ops projects) how ready is the technology available to allow man to explore space?



Finally boils down to the question, which way is easier to solve the overpopulation problem?


Find a habitable planet, colonize, or risk interstellar war if there exists other more advanced life forms that would not allow us outside of our planet or for us to colonize their planets.


Or just murder the population steathily without their knowledge?


The latter option that is morally bankrupt seems like a much cheaper and easier approach to take. Normal humans, the non-scientists, the average eater that is not needed for the advancement of human race, are expendable, dispensable, no ?


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bgeh
post Nov 22 2009, 07:51 PM


Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,814

Joined: Jan 2003
horatioken: We don't know what side effects will come out of sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere - remember, low level sulphur dioxide leads to acid rain, so research is undergoing on what happens when we pump sulphur dioxide in the upper atmosphere.

manami: The main method right now for these NGOs is women's education. There's plenty of empirical evidence that birth rates drop considerably when women get educated, and it tends to drop further the more affluent the population gets; e.g. see the developed countries. Most of the populations are stable, or growing because of immigration.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
b3ta
post Nov 22 2009, 07:55 PM


responsible poster stormtrooper
****
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 660

Joined: Apr 2007
From: malaysia


i believe family planning should be practised and encouraged more than population control.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 22 2009, 08:03 PM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(bgeh @ Nov 22 2009, 07:51 PM)
horatioken: We don't know what side effects will come out of sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere - remember, low level sulphur dioxide leads to acid rain, so research is undergoing on what happens when we pump sulphur dioxide in the upper atmosphere.

manami: The main method right now for these NGOs is women's education. There's plenty of empirical evidence that birth rates drop considerably when women get educated, and it tends to drop further the more affluent the population gets; e.g. see the developed countries. Most of the populations are stable, or growing because of immigration.
*
Yes it does work but does it work faster than others who're not educated who continue to reproduce?


The united nations publicly available study

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publicati...op2300final.pdf


states that the world population is estimated by 2050, to be maximum at 10.6 billion, and 7.4 billion at minimum,

Which is still high by the standard of the planet's ability to sustain humanity, according to the scientists Eric Pianka who said we passed the reasonable level to sustain all humanity long time ago.


The vatican is still not accepting birth control and continues to ask christians to reproduce.


We've past the sustainable level and are not 'dying' fast enough due to longer life expectancy.



One way to make humans die faster is artificially induced disease like cancer and others, which is not ethical, and also suppression of nutrition information and possibly nutrients themselves.

Are scientists willing to use these artificial methods to deprive life continuing necessities in order to induce a famine to reduce population ?


That would be one method I would use if I am tasked to manage population and throw my ethics out the door.


It is much faster, cheaper to achieve the target population than education, which costs money and may not always work as people can change their mind at anytime of their lives, so the only insurance are those who are guaranteed to not reproduce either from infertility or imminent death.

Remember, we're throwing out ethics. Ethics no longer matter when the future of humanity is at great risk due to overpopulation/global warming theories.

What we want are to discuss ways to manage population, good or bad, you can discuss, or if you don't believe there's an overpopulation problem, discuss why and how.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 22 2009, 08:05 PM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(b3ta @ Nov 22 2009, 07:55 PM)
i believe family planning should be practised and encouraged more than population control.
*
What if that does not work? We're in the context now where nobody wants to follow mainstream advice of reducing your own population or family count.

If this works then we wouldn't have famine anymore or cause any global warming/carbon emission problems according to global warming proponents.


Traditional and religious values are still very strong in the quest for increasing our 'family' numbers for inter-dependence.


If education actually worked on everyone, China wouldn't need to force one child policy on their population.

This post has been edited by manami: Nov 22 2009, 08:07 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
frags
post Nov 22 2009, 08:28 PM


The Wizard
Group Icon
Gamer's Hideout
Group: Moderator
Posts: 1,586

Joined: Oct 2006


Birth control.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
horatioken
post Nov 22 2009, 08:40 PM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 106

Joined: Nov 2009


ok... overpopulation matters... before i suggest my idea. im not sure how advance our current science and technology is.

but assume if it is possible..

the solution here is.. i believe by the time human were around 65 years old or more.. most of them are incapable/weak physically. so just remove their body and keep our head in a jar.. (im not kidding..lol) to reduce any physical activities + less producing the carbon, less consumption as well..

i dont believe totally in birth control, theres no way you can stop idiot or smart people from producing because thats what make us today. communism, nazi ruling wont stop human from producing either..

This post has been edited by horatioken: Nov 22 2009, 08:42 PM


Attached image(s)
Attached Image
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bgeh
post Nov 22 2009, 08:40 PM


Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,814

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(manami @ Nov 22 2009, 08:05 PM)
What if that does not work? We're in the context now where nobody wants to follow mainstream advice of reducing your own population or family count.

If this works then we wouldn't have famine anymore or cause any global warming/carbon emission problems according to global warming proponents.
Traditional and religious values are still very strong in the quest for increasing our 'family' numbers for inter-dependence.
If education actually worked on everyone, China wouldn't need to force one child policy on their population.
*
It is working; see http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi...rt_in&tdim=true

Check it for most of the countries; you'll notice a very strong correlation between women's education levels/wealth and birth rates. The next great frontier is to reach Africa, and increase the penetration of women's education in other countries.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
frags
post Nov 22 2009, 08:46 PM


The Wizard
Group Icon
Gamer's Hideout
Group: Moderator
Posts: 1,586

Joined: Oct 2006


QUOTE(bgeh @ Nov 22 2009, 08:40 PM)
It is working; see http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi...rt_in&tdim=true

Check it for most of the countries; you'll notice a very strong correlation between women's education levels/wealth and birth rates. The next great frontier is to reach Africa, and increase the penetration of women's education in other countries.
*
Oh dear, very inappropriate in the context of what you are saying tongue.gif


Added on November 22, 2009, 8:51 pm
QUOTE(horatioken @ Nov 22 2009, 08:40 PM)
ok... overpopulation matters... before i suggest my idea. im not sure how advance our current science and technology is.

but assume if it is possible..

the solution here is.. i believe by the time human were around 65 years old or more.. most of them are incapable/weak physically. so just remove their body and keep our head in a jar.. (im not kidding..lol) to reduce any physical activities + less producing the carbon, less consumption as well..

i dont believe totally in birth control, theres no way you can stop idiot or smart people from producing because thats what make us today. communism, nazi ruling wont stop human from producing either..
*
No way now because there is no political will. I'm not saying we should move towards an authoritarian government, but we must continue to insist and harass(maybe not the most suitable word, but you get the point) all these governments and religious authorities to accept birth control. In time they will accept what is necessary.

This post has been edited by frags: Nov 22 2009, 08:51 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hiphopstar
post Nov 22 2009, 09:07 PM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 166

Joined: Aug 2008


That's why natural disaster happens once awhile. They know what's going on up there, you know, thus problem solves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natur...s_by_death_toll

This post has been edited by hiphopstar: Nov 22 2009, 09:08 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 22 2009, 09:51 PM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(bgeh @ Nov 22 2009, 08:40 PM)
It is working; see http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi...rt_in&tdim=true

Check it for most of the countries; you'll notice a very strong correlation between women's education levels/wealth and birth rates. The next great frontier is to reach Africa, and increase the penetration of women's education in other countries.
*
That is fertility, which isn't the population count level. Population still isn't going down to desired levels because based on the UN data, population will continue to climb, instead of being reduced from our current 6++ billion.

The question now is, what is the desired level of headcount ?

Reducing fertility is one thing. The other aspect of reducing population is hastening death, which is the most highly controversial method. Life expectancy is increasing due to modern medicine, hygiene.

This education only works in countries that cooperate with you, but in places like Africa and other 3rd/4th world countries ravaged by warlords and dictators, it would be impossible to educate without being caught or accused of preaching other religion.

And if going by your data being correct, then how would it justify humanity as the cause of global warming ? Why should there still be a global warming carbon tax or other politically motivated policies due to global warming which in the first place, was attributed to human population/consumption/production? If according to the data by google, that world fertility rate is down, why is there a need for carbon tax and global warming political policies?

How does that tally with the data chart given by UN which contradicts what google has produced? Who is right ? Should we trust google or the UN ? Is google's data reliable compared to the UN's ?


QUOTE(hiphopstar @ Nov 22 2009, 09:07 PM)
That's why natural disaster happens once awhile. They know what's going on up there, you know, thus problem solves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natur...s_by_death_toll
*
Natural disasters are a poor way to reduce population, based on today's number of headcounts. The largest disaster is the black death and spanish flu, which would not seem much by today's standards, if you compare to the population count now and then.

Now the question is, when the pandemic strikes, how many are expected to be taken out ? And then, highly controversial question, do we hasten the pandemic or let it occur naturally? There're still debates as to whether a natural pandemic is enough to reduce population, or a man-made pandemic could do the job, which either way, the objective is to reduce the population to desired levels.

Biological weapon is a reality/possibility. It is also not easy to trace and proof that a pandemic is deliberate man-made disaster, so as a scientist if this option is available and there is an urgency to reduce population, would this method be used?

Remember, we're discussing in a context where voluntary birth control is not working or not working fast enough to achieve the desired levels.

Condoms break, people get horny at wrong times and many, many many still believe in coitus interruptus.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bgeh
post Nov 22 2009, 10:45 PM


Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,814

Joined: Jan 2003
Fertility matters; if you can cut down the level of fertility, population growth will eventually stop. The target right now is the fertility rate of 2.2, that's around the level at which the population more or less remains stable. We will probably hit 9-10 billion by 2050, but the rate of growth has fallen significantly directly due to the drop in fertility in the past 50 years; and many credit that to increasing education among women. There's no need to go to extreme measures yet, unless it can be shown that education and increasing levels of wealth will not be able to bring population growth to a halt, or reverse it.

Notice also that plenty of the developed countries with relatively wealthy populations (the US doesn't really count here, because it has quite a large income disparity, and a large, relatively poor immigrant population, relative to its general population anyway) all have fertility rates below 2.2, i.e. below replacement rate, and if you blocked immigration you'd have a drop in the population instead over time. Which is why a lot of people are advocating for women's education, and economic growth as a means to help people get out of poverty, and reduce population in the long run without any forceful measures.

As for your statement about Africa, no it isn't true, it is already starting to work in a few sub-Saharan African countries, e.g. see Nigeria, etc, etc.

Fertility is a way to cut population count, like it or not, and the good news is over the past 50 years it's been heading downwards below the replacement rate mark; i.e. our population will start dropping

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 22 2009, 10:49 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 22 2009, 11:14 PM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(bgeh @ Nov 22 2009, 10:45 PM)
Fertility matters; if you can cut down the level of fertility, population growth will eventually stop. The target right now is the fertility rate of 2.2, that's around the level at which the population more or less remains stable. We will probably hit 9-10 billion by 2050, but the rate of growth has fallen significantly directly due to the drop in fertility in the past 50 years; and many credit that to increasing education among women. There's no need to go to extreme measures yet, unless it can be shown that education and increasing levels of wealth will not be able to bring population growth to a halt, or reverse it.

Notice also that plenty of the developed countries with relatively wealthy populations (the US doesn't really count here, because it has quite a large income disparity, and a large, relatively poor immigrant population, relative to its general population anyway) all have fertility rates below 2.2, i.e. below replacement rate, and if you blocked immigration you'd have a drop in the population instead over time. Which is why a lot of people are advocating for women's education, and economic growth as a means to help people get out of poverty, and reduce population in the long run without any forceful measures.

As for your statement about Africa, no it isn't true, it is already starting to work in a few sub-Saharan African countries, e.g. see Nigeria, etc, etc.

Fertility is a way to cut population count, like it or not, and the good news is over the past 50 years it's been heading downwards below the replacement rate mark; i.e. our population will start dropping
*
Well if that's true then it's good news, but now, how do we explain the global warming carbon tax on the world? That would really be a problem now for those global warming carbon taxation advocates, since as you said, fertility is down, and population also going down, so hence logically speaking, carbon emission also going down, but on the contrary, the copenhagen summit is just around the corner, and every UN nation is going to be made to sign the lisbon treaty and made to pay carbon tax.

Even if population is dropping, would it be fast enough ? You still have to deal with religious institutions like the Vatican and the Islamic world. Areas where militant Muslims rule, women has no rights, and because women has no rights to decide how many children they should give birth, we would still have problems with overpopulation especially in these 4th world areas.

Now you have another problem, financial armageddon. If and when it happens, you got no more jobs, can't feed and pacify the population that is wrecked with unemployment. What happens then ?

America is a country to watch out for now, as it is heading towards hyperinflation and it's financial markets are gone.

The collapse of the financial pyramid based on debt/fiat money would have impact on the ability of the economy to sustain a population, because that could massively alter what is needed to sustain a particular LEVEL of population, regardless of population decreasing or not.

If the economy collapses to a point where it could not sustain even the drop of population we estimated to be sustainable, then you have a new anchor/bench and have to revise that anchor point of population ideal level.

It is no longer just about reducing population level, but the economy system, finance must change as fiat money and debt based economy (MLM pyramid) is also a factor you must consider for sustainable population level.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bgeh
post Nov 22 2009, 11:32 PM


Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,814

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(manami @ Nov 22 2009, 11:14 PM)
Well if that's true then it's good news, but now, how do we explain the global warming carbon tax on the world? That would really be a problem now for those global warming carbon taxation advocates, since as you said, fertility is down, and population also going down, so hence logically speaking, carbon emission also going down, but on the contrary, the copenhagen summit is just around the corner, and every UN nation is going to be made to sign the lisbon treaty and made to pay carbon tax.

Even if population is dropping, would it be fast enough ? You still have to deal with religious institutions like the Vatican and the Islamic world. Areas where militant Muslims rule, women has no rights, and because women has no rights to decide how many children they should give birth, we would still have problems with overpopulation especially in these 4th world areas.

Now you have another problem, financial armageddon. If and when it happens, you got no more jobs, can't feed and pacify the population that is wrecked with unemployment. What happens then ?

America is a country to watch out for now, as it is heading towards hyperinflation and it's financial markets are gone.

The collapse of the financial pyramid based on debt/fiat money would have impact on the ability of the economy to sustain a population, because that could massively alter what is needed to sustain a particular LEVEL of population, regardless of population decreasing or not.

If the economy collapses to a point where it could not sustain even the drop of population we estimated to be sustainable, then you have a new anchor/bench and have to revise that anchor point of population ideal level.

It is no longer just about reducing population level, but the economy system, finance must change as fiat money and debt based economy (MLM pyramid) is also a factor you must consider for sustainable population level.
*
Carbon taxes are different things altogether. Consider per-capita carbon emissions. Developing countries release, per capita (per person) much less carbon than developed countries. Cutting the population will do that to some extent but not much. Also, economic growth tends to be tied up with carbon emissions, which is why even if you get a decreasing population, which is more wealthy overall, you might not get a reduction in emissions, which is why a tax is necessary to account for this.

Also, stop going into conspiracy theory mode. The Lisbon treaty is for EU nations only, and has been ratified, and has nothing to do with carbon taxes, and has absolutely nothing to do with UN nations, and the Copenhagen summit, which by the way, is pretty much going to fail in terms of getting an agreement.

What do you mean by fast enough? Heck that we're going to have a fall in human population is already good enough! I agree that the Vatican's stance isn't helping, but even in strongly Catholic Latin American countries, birth rates have dropped significantly. Heck, check Saudi Arabia's figures if you want an example of an Islamic kingdom, or Iran, etc. etc...

If you noticed, there aren't that many countries being run by Islamic militants too, which in the context of population is a good thing wink.gif

And really, do you want to talk about population or your ideas of some end of the world as we know it conspiracy theory? Because the tone I'm getting from your posts is some idea of "imminent doom awaits!!!" mixed with conspiracies.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dreamer101
post Nov 22 2009, 11:46 PM


10k Club
Group Icon
Real World Issues, Finance, Business and Investment House
Group: Elite
Posts: 13,843

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(manami @ Nov 22 2009, 06:49 PM)
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

*
manami,

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...ory_id=14744915

<< Falling fertility

Oct 29th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Astonishing falls in the fertility rate are bringing with them big benefits>>

Population growth is SLOWING...

Dreamer


User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 23 2009, 12:00 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(bgeh @ Nov 22 2009, 11:32 PM)
Carbon taxes are different things altogether. Consider per-capita carbon emissions. Developing countries release, per capita (per person) much less carbon than developed countries. Cutting the population will do that to some extent but not much. Also, economic growth tends to be tied up with carbon emissions, which is why even if you get a decreasing population, which is more wealthy overall, you might not get a reduction in emissions, which is why a tax is necessary to account for this.

Also, stop going into conspiracy theory mode. The Lisbon treaty is for EU nations only, and has been ratified, and has nothing to do with carbon taxes, and has absolutely nothing to do with UN nations, and the Copenhagen summit, which by the way, is pretty much going to fail in terms of getting an agreement.

What do you mean by fast enough? Heck that we're going to have a fall in human population is already good enough! I agree that the Vatican's stance isn't helping, but even in strongly Catholic Latin American countries, birth rates have dropped significantly. Heck, check Saudi Arabia's figures if you want an example of an Islamic kingdom, or Iran, etc. etc...

If you noticed, there aren't that many countries being run by Islamic militants too, which in the context of population is a good thing wink.gif

And really, do you want to talk about population or your ideas of some end of the world as we know it conspiracy theory? Because the tone I'm getting from your posts is some idea of "imminent doom awaits!!!" mixed with conspiracies.
*
I think I confused the climate change treaty with lisbon treaty.
I am not in conspiracy mode. This climate change carbon tax source I hear is by Lord Christopher Monkcton himself.

Like I said before, people love throwing the conspiracy theory label around on things they do not understand and screw up threads.

I request that you stop throwing the conspiracy theory label around without doing any research and spoil my threads.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/18/vide...-in-copenhagen/





And like i said, even if population rate falls, if the economy cannot sustain it, it would still be a problem. You seem to ignore the economic/financial aspects of it. Remember money is no longer backed by gold, it's mostly fiat based now, and in US case it's backed by debt and more debt.

This post has been edited by manami: Nov 23 2009, 12:01 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 12:07 AM


Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,814

Joined: Jan 2003
And Christopher Monckton has been known for a long time to be an anti-EU, man-made global warming sceptic. The title "Lord" pretty much means nothing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 23 2009, 12:09 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(bgeh @ Nov 23 2009, 12:07 AM)
And Christopher Monckton has been known for a long time to be an anti-EU, man-made global warming sceptic. The title "Lord" pretty much means nothing.
*
So you're attacking his character now instead of debating his points? Is he a 'conspiracy nut' to you as well ?


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 12:20 AM


Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,814

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(manami @ Nov 23 2009, 12:09 AM)
So you're attacking his character now instead of debating his points? Is he a 'conspiracy nut' to you as well ?
*
Nope, he's long been known as an anthropogenic climate change sceptic, and anti-EU campaigner. You used an 'appeal to authority' argument, when I'm trying to show that he's not much of an authority at all. Or do you want me to start quoting some random PhD holding some random climate change beliefs as some authority?

Edit: To clarify, I'm fine if he states his beliefs, etc, etc, but please don't quote his beliefs as evidence of any kind to support your assertions.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 12:23 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 23 2009, 12:23 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(bgeh @ Nov 23 2009, 12:20 AM)
Nope, he's long been known as an anthropogenic climate change sceptic, and anti-EU campaigner. You used an 'appeal to authority' argument, when I'm trying to show that he's not much of an authority at all. Or do you want me to start quoting some random PhD holding some random climate change beliefs as some authority.
*
Debate his points, don't attack his character/authority. AGW theory is now invalidated by scientific fraud and in a way Monckton is vindicated.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
horatioken
post Nov 23 2009, 12:25 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 106

Joined: Nov 2009


anyone cares to find out is there any people die of hunger everyday? or how many? if yes, its fair to say earth is definitely overpopulated
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 23 2009, 12:26 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(horatioken @ Nov 23 2009, 12:25 AM)
anyone cares to find out is there any people die of hunger everyday? or how many? if yes, its fair to say earth is definitely overpopulated
*
You're a conspiracy theorist. *just kidding*. tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 12:28 AM


Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,814

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(manami @ Nov 23 2009, 12:23 AM)
Debate his points, don't attack his character/authority. AGW theory is now invalidated by scientific fraud and in a way Monckton is vindicated.
*
He isn't an authority on man-made global warming. He's like Al Gore, they're both not authorities, but they're pushing/popularising some agenda/point of view. You don't see me quoting Al Gore on his beliefs and using that as evidence of some argument do you? (Heck I've not even watched Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth) Look at his qualifications for goodness' sakes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_M...on_of_Brenchley

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 12:32 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 23 2009, 12:32 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(bgeh @ Nov 23 2009, 12:28 AM)
He isn't an authority on man-made global warming. He's like Al Gore, they're both not authorities, but they're pushing/popularising some agenda/point of view. You don't see me quoting Al Gore on his beliefs and using that as evidence of some argument do you? Look at his qualifications for goodness' sakes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_M...on_of_Brenchley
*
Again, character assassination. As I said, debate his points and not pick his qualifications to discredit him as an authority.

And I repeat, the climategate hacking scandal has vindicated him in some way.

It appears to me your modus operandi of debate is to discredit a person when you could no longer take their points apart.

From throwing the conspiracy theorist label around your opponent to character assassinating a person based on his qualifications, don't start giving me the ideas that you belong with the Hadley CRU crew. rolleyes.gif

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 01:01 AM


Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,814

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(manami @ Nov 23 2009, 12:32 AM)
Again, character assassination. As I said, debate his points and not pick his qualifications to discredit him as an authority.

And I  repeat, the climategate hacking scandal has vindicated him in some way.

It appears to me your modus operandi of debate is to discredit a person when you could no longer take their points apart.

From throwing the conspiracy theorist label around your opponent to character assassinating a person based on his qualifications, don't start giving me the ideas that you belong with the Hadley CRU crew.  rolleyes.gif
*
If you say so. Let's start with the video:

World government:

I've been looking at that blog and saw the paper he must've been quoting here - (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf). Checked it out and this is quite likely the pillars' he's talking about:

QUOTE
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three
basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization
of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on
adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds
and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will
operate as such, as appropriate.
(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund
including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to
address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance,
rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation
window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest
incentives relating to REDD actions.
© The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for
adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology
action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on
adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting
and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and
verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of
technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The
secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for
information exchange.
- COP being Conference of the Parties, defined in page 12, i.e. this 'world government' is controlled by the parties that sign the treaty, i.e. our national governments! Note that you already have similar things, e.g. International Criminal Court

- I don't see what's wrong with a financial compensation mechanism. Again, suppose man-made climate change is true, then suppose you have sea levels rising, etc, etc. You have many island nations in the Pacific swamped and disappear. If CO2 emissions were the cause of it, why shouldn't the governments that have polluted the most pay for them for losing their homes and countries if it's completely swamped?

- They're agreeing to let this panel enforce payments, else this panel will just be able to issue statements asking to pay and the national governments can tell them to screw themselves. Of course the US is going to pay the most, they're the largest carbon dioxide emitters per capita! What does that have to do again with 'world government' controlling every single thing? Look at that statement; it only pertains to climate change, not every single government function!

Read the statements above. Do you see, with the statements I've put above, show anything resembling his (darn over exaggerated IMO) claims?

And to make it clear: The Copenhagen summit he talks about so much isn't going to end up as much at all. Take a look:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8360982.stm

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 01:19 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hazairi
post Nov 23 2009, 01:27 AM


http://awekcunz.blogspot.com
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 2,506

Joined: Feb 2007
From: KL


I think there's no problem in overpopulation.
Technology is getting better. People can live in flats or apartments.
Transportation can be improved..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 23 2009, 01:30 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(bgeh @ Nov 23 2009, 01:01 AM)
If you say so. Let's start with the video:

World government:

I've been looking at that blog and saw the paper he must've been quoting here - (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf). Checked it out and this is quite likely the pillars' he's talking about:
- COP being Conference of the Parties, defined in page 12, i.e. this 'world government' is controlled by the parties that sign the treaty, i.e. our national governments! Note that you already have similar things, e.g. International Criminal Court

- I don't see what's wrong with a financial compensation mechanism. Again, suppose man-made climate change is true, then suppose you have sea levels rising, etc, etc. You have many island nations in the Pacific swamped and disappear. If CO2 emissions were the cause of it, why shouldn't the governments that have polluted the most pay for them for losing their homes and countries if it's completely swamped?

- They're agreeing to let this panel enforce payments, else this panel will just be able to issue statements asking to pay and the national governments can tell them to screw themselves. Of course the US is going to pay the most, they're the largest carbon dioxide emitters per capita! What does that have to do again with 'world government' controlling every single thing? Look at that statement; it only pertains to climate change, not every single government function!

Read the statements above. Do you see, with the statements I've put above, show anything resembling his (darn over exaggerated) claims?

And to make it clear: The Copenhagen summit he talks about so much isn't going to end up as much at all. Take a look:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8360982.stm
*
This is assuming AGW is the be all end all holy truth, which it was not, thanks to the climategate scandal. If this treaty was ratified and AGW is in fact a lie and not exposed by the climategate scandal, then fabricated scientific data would've been continued to be produced and the people behind the fabricated data can reap trillions.

The AGW theory team from Hadley which is leading the research could cook the books and not proof how they obtained the data and hence, global extortion through carbon taxation using scientific fraud. This is what monkcton was talking about, sovereignity being compromised.

Those who've followed the climategate scandal would know these frauds do not intend to publicize their research/data for peer review and plan to engage in exact manner of how I despise certain people of using intellectual terrorism to shut their opponents up, ie, labelling them as kooks, conspiracy nuts.

Financial compensation is bunk when the AGW theory is bunk and nothing but scientific fraud.

But once ratified, the people behind the numbers call the shots and can decide what data to cook up to extort money from nations while not publishing in full how they come to obtain the carbon data.

This was the scam that monkcton talked about, and how it could be used to bankrupt a nation.

It's the same thing International Financiers gain control of a country, through their money supply.

Which is also why our PM is vehemently opposed to letting outside banks unfettered access to our country.

I think you need to read up more on how finance and creative accounting works.


Creative science data manipulation might be new to you but creative accounting is an oldie in the financial world. rolleyes.gif



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 23 2009, 01:31 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(hazairi @ Nov 23 2009, 01:27 AM)
I think there's no problem in overpopulation.
Technology is getting better. People can live in flats or apartments.
Transportation can be improved..
*
You confuse overpopulation with overcrowding.

rolleyes.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hazairi
post Nov 23 2009, 01:35 AM


http://awekcunz.blogspot.com
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 2,506

Joined: Feb 2007
From: KL


QUOTE(manami @ Nov 23 2009, 01:31 AM)
You confuse overpopulation with overcrowding.

rolleyes.gif
*
I mean, by the time we are reaching the limit of the population, we should already have the technology to overcome the prob.
Hows dat sound?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 01:47 AM


Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,814

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(manami @ Nov 23 2009, 01:30 AM)
This is assuming AGW is the be all end all holy truth, which it was not,  thanks to the climategate scandal. If this treaty was ratified and AGW is in fact a lie and not exposed by the climategate scandal, then fabricated scientific data would've been continued to be produced and the people behind the fabricated data can reap trillions.

The AGW theory team from Hadley which is leading the research could cook the books and not proof how they obtained the data and hence, global extortion through carbon taxation using scientific fraud. This is what monkcton was talking about, sovereignity being compromised.

Those who've followed the climategate scandal would know these frauds do not intend to publicize their research/data for peer review and plan to engage in exact manner of how I despise certain people of using intellectual terrorism to shut their opponents up, ie, labelling them as kooks, conspiracy nuts.

Financial compensation is bunk when the AGW theory is bunk and nothing but scientific fraud.

But once ratified, the people behind the numbers call the shots and can decide what data to cook up to extort money from nations while not publishing in full how they come to obtain the carbon data.

This was the scam that monkcton talked about, and how it could be used to bankrupt a nation.

It's the same thing International Financiers gain control of a country, through their money supply.

Which is also why our PM is vehemently opposed to letting outside banks unfettered access to our country.

I think you need to read up more on how finance and creative accounting works.
Creative science data manipulation might be new to you but creative accounting is an oldie in the financial world.  rolleyes.gif
*
What you've done is claim that it is bunk; where's the proof for that? You've only shown a few controversial emails, some in which the scientists themselves are expressing privately their frustration against people who disagree with them, shock horror. Heck I'd only consider one of the emails somewhat controversial; the others look like they're just b*tching against sceptics

Also, you have not said anything about climate research from other universities; instead you've made a generalisation which your evidence absolutely does not support. So, step forward and show the proof

Your next claim is that they'll cook the numbers up and extort money from nations, proof of that please, or are you going to make more baseless assertions again?

You make claims and claims that AGW is false when you have not stepped up with any proof it is false. Why are you attacking all of climate science when what you've shown is a few emails from a set of emails over 10 years, and of all things, one research unit out of the probably tens to hundreds available? Heck, if it were truly a conspiracy surely we would get more than just 30-50 controversial sounding emails from 10 years worth of emails from an entire research unit.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 01:47 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 23 2009, 02:02 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(bgeh @ Nov 23 2009, 01:47 AM)
What you've done is claim that it is bunk; where's the proof for that? You've only shown a few controversial emails, some in which the scientists themselves are expressing privately their frustration against people who disagree with them, shock horror. Heck I'd only consider one of the emails somewhat controversial; the others look like they're just b*tching against sceptics

Also, you have not said anything about climate research from other universities; instead you've made a generalisation which your evidence absolutely does not support. So, step forward and show the proof

Your next claim is that they'll cook the numbers up and extort money from nations, proof of that please, or are you going to make more baseless assertions again?

You make claims and claims that AGW is false when you have not stepped up with any proof it is false. Why are you attacking all of climate science when what you've shown is a few emails from a set of emails over 10 years, and of all things, one research unit out of the probably tens to hundreds available? Heck, if it were truly a conspiracy surely we would get more than just 30-50 controversial sounding emails from 10 years worth of emails from an entire research unit.
*
So you're still defending the indefensible. It appears to me your domain of knowledge is limited to only one area and you do not take human greed factor and financial fraud into account.

I do not attack climate science. As I've said before I admit there's climate change. But what I have issues with, is AGW, blaming it all on humans alone. AGW is bunk and please do not lump it with climate change as the same thing. It is not. AGW is just part of the big picture but it was twisted to blame humanity on being the major factor of climate change. Solar cycles, polar shifts are other theories that should be pursued but since you cannot pin it on humans, you cannot tax them. It would be much easier to tax nations/humans than to try and tax the sun or the earth. There's no money to be made on studies that blames mother nature itself for global warming, unless there's a way to tax GOD himself. biggrin.gif

I think it's time I stop wasting my time debating with you because your domain of knowledge is too limited to understand the big picture. You really should start reading up on the Federal Reserve, and how banks and money really work.

I end my discussion with you on this area unless you wanna go into how we could solve overpopulation when it reaches alarming levels, especially in the context of financial collapse arrival and economy could no longer sustain even reduced populations, ie money becomes no good anymore which would redefine overpopulation due to lack of jobs to go around, and more and more people get hungry even though there's technically enough food on the planet but no one has enough money to buy them.






User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 23 2009, 02:08 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(hazairi @ Nov 23 2009, 01:35 AM)
I mean, by the time we are reaching the limit of the population, we should already have the technology to overcome the prob.
Hows dat sound?
*
Yes, how does biological weapons sound? Solve our population problem instantly, cheap and self replicating. Nobody would believe we scientists are the ones doing it because we've taught them to dismiss all conspiracies as theories.


It's awesome to be able to throw away all ethics to achieve this and yet conveniently we could blame it on nature and god's wrath.

That is exactly how I would do it if I am a scientist being given this task and I am left with no morally acceptable choice to save the planet.


tongue.gif

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 02:13 AM


Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,814

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(manami @ Nov 23 2009, 02:02 AM)
So you're still defending the indefensible. It appears to me your domain of knowledge is limited to only one area and you do not take human greed factor and financial fraud into account.

I do not attack climate science. As I've said before I admit there's climate change. But what I have issues with, is AGW, blaming it all on humans alone. AGW is bunk and please do not lump it with climate change as the same thing. It is not. AGW is just part of the big picture but it was twisted to blame humanity on being the major factor of climate change. Solar cycles, polar shifts are other theories that should be pursued but since you cannot pin it on humans, you cannot tax them. It would be much easier to tax nations/humans than to try and tax the sun or the earth.  There's no money to be made on studies that blames mother nature itself for global warming, unless there's a way to tax GOD himself.  biggrin.gif

I think it's time I stop wasting my time debating with you because your domain of knowledge is too limited to understand the big picture. You really should start reading up on the Federal Reserve, and how banks and money really work.

I end my discussion with you on this area unless you wanna go into how we could solve overpopulation when it reaches alarming levels, especially in the context of financial collapse arrival and economy could no longer sustain even reduced populations, ie money becomes no good anymore  which would redefine overpopulation due to lack of jobs to go around, and more and more people get hungry even though there's technically enough food on the planet but no one has enough money to buy them.
*
- Question: Why is AGW bunk? Have you addressed what I've raised yet? Note: The Hadley Centre is a climate science research centre, which is even why I'm talking about you attacking climate science, if you want to confirm it, check their website

- Solar cycles have been pursued, and mind you, we're under a solar minimum right now and temperatures are still pretty darn high right now. So what does that say about that hypothesis?. I've not been able to find any papers except unproven claims on the pole shift hypothesis causing the current warming, so there you go.

- How money works has absolutely nothing to do with the science. The carbon tax idea is a tax on this negative externality, caused by the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

You want to talk about overpopulation? I have, except that you seem to have started the carbon tax issue, i.e. see post #15.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 02:17 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 23 2009, 02:21 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(bgeh @ Nov 23 2009, 02:13 AM)
- Question: Why is AGW bunk? Have you addressed what I've raised yet? Note: The Hadley Centre is a climate science research centre, which is even why I'm talking about you attacking climate science, if you want to confirm it, check their website

- Solar cycles have been pursued, and mind you, we're under a solar minimum right now and temperatures are still pretty darn high right now. So what does that say about that hypothesis?. I've not been able to find any papers except unproven claims on the pole shift hypothesis causing the current warming, so there you go.

- How money works has absolutely nothing to do with the science. The carbon tax idea is a tax on this negative externality, caused by the emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

You want to talk about overpopulation? I have, except that you seem to have started the carbon tax issue, i.e. see post #15.
*
Money is an important source of funding for scientific research.

Nobody would fund a scientific research without a way to obtain returns. Most of the world is in a capitalist system, mostly made up of corporations and profits are a big motivation.

You really should also read up on how medical science research is being conducted in pharmaceuticals and the purpose they're done.

I think I really need to stop wasting my time with you. rolleyes.gif

Get yourself a copy of books related to finance, investments, entrepreneurship.

Being stuck in the academic world is very limiting and it exposes one's limited knowledge of the real world.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hazairi
post Nov 23 2009, 02:22 AM


http://awekcunz.blogspot.com
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 2,506

Joined: Feb 2007
From: KL


QUOTE(manami @ Nov 23 2009, 02:08 AM)
Yes, how does biological weapons sound? Solve our population problem instantly, cheap and self replicating. Nobody would believe we scientists are the ones doing it because we've taught them to dismiss all conspiracies as theories.
It's awesome to be able to throw away all ethics to achieve this and yet conveniently we could blame it on nature and god's wrath.

That is exactly how I would do it if I am a scientist being given this task and  I am left with no morally acceptable choice to save the planet.
tongue.gif
*
No no, dont get me wrong..
what i meant for technology advancement on this was not on reducing the population, but the technology for the overpopulated world to adapt.
For example:
underwater city..
flats, apartments..
artificial foods and nutrients and many more..

Those are just examples, doesnt mean it can be implemented..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 23 2009, 02:24 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(hazairi @ Nov 23 2009, 02:22 AM)
No no, dont get me wrong..
what i meant for technology advancement on this was not on reducing the population, but the technology for the overpopulated world to adapt.
For example:
underwater city..
flats, apartments..
artificial foods and nutrients and many more..

Those are just examples, doesnt mean it can be implemented..
*
Won't work. To make something you have to take it from somewhere. Everything is taken from the earth. But there's a limit to how much we can take.

Unless we have a 'replicator' like in the Star Trek, there's no way we can solve this without taking from the planet even more.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hazairi
post Nov 23 2009, 02:26 AM


http://awekcunz.blogspot.com
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 2,506

Joined: Feb 2007
From: KL


QUOTE(manami @ Nov 23 2009, 02:24 AM)
Won't work. To make something you have to take it from somewhere. Everything is taken from the earth. But there's a limit to how much we can take.

Unless we have a 'replicator' like in the Star Trek, there's no way we can solve this without taking from the planet even more.
*
hmm.. i have to research more on this..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 02:31 AM


Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,814

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(manami @ Nov 23 2009, 02:21 AM)
Money is an important source of funding for scientific research.

Nobody would fund a scientific research without a way to obtain returns. Most of the world is in a capitalist system, mostly made up of corporations and profits are a big motivation.

You really should also read up on how medical science research is being conducted in pharmaceuticals and the purpose they're done.

I think I really need to stop wasting my time with you.  rolleyes.gif

Get yourself a copy of books related to finance, investments, entrepreneurship.

Being stuck in the academic world is very limiting and it exposes one's limited knowledge of the real world.
*
If you think so, then you will be surprised that the LHC, a 6 billion dollar project even exists in the first place.

Why are you even bringing in the financial system, when we're discussing the issue of overpopulation, and how to control it? Have you said anything yet about financial methods to control overpopulation yet?

And please stop accusing me of wasting your time when you're the very same person bringing in the Lisbon treaty, world government (through that video) into a discussion about population.

You have not proved plenty of the things you have claimed above, instead I've been accused of wasting your time. So again, as a person wanting to know the evidence that backs your assertion, where's the proof?

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 02:34 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
manami
post Nov 23 2009, 02:46 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 50

Joined: May 2009
QUOTE(bgeh @ Nov 23 2009, 02:31 AM)
If you think so, then you will be surprised that the LHC, a 6 billion dollar project even exists in the first place.

Why are you even bringing in the financial system, when we're discussing the issue of overpopulation, and how to control it? Have you said anything yet about financial methods to control overpopulation yet?

And please stop accusing me of wasting your time when you're the very same person bringing in the Lisbon treaty, world government (through that video) into a discussion about population.

You have not proved plenty of the things you have claimed above, instead I've been accused of wasting your time. So again, as a person wanting to know the evidence that backs your assertion, where's the proof?
*
The proof is in the pudding. You can't find it if you won't open it up. doh.gif


I am sure there're reasons to fund the LHC, and the result could introduce more profitable ways of doing things that could be related to space travel for future colonization of other planets. This is just my theory, but only the people who fund the project would really know what they want and could do with the data and discovery. I do believe space travel is the biggest reward, to travel faster than light.

If the LHC succeeds, then more money would pour in for faster than light space travel technology/research and this means colonizing other planets, to rape their resources, of course.

There is no reason to fund anything just out of curiosity unless you can reap benefit from the research, whether financial or other types of gain that are material or could be a source to achieve other material gains.

Yes, I do find that you waste my time because there's not much to be learned from you at all, honestly. You think from a one track mind, not much to learn from your perspective.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 07:01 PM


Regular
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,814

Joined: Jan 2003
Actually I'll admit it, I have been ignoring your stuffs about the financial conspiracies. It would be much easier for you, if I had a more 'open mind' and I accepted your assumptions. Problem is, you've not shown any of your claims are true to for me to be even able to take a step into discussing the thing you want to talk about.

It's like accusing me in not having an open mind about the idea of a fairy godmother, when you've not shown that the statement that fairies exist is even true yet.

Show proof of your claims, and we can discuss, but if you continue saying your claims are true a priori without any proof, there's no point in any discussion, because I could prove anything I want to if I took some set of assumptions under which my claims were automatically true. The key is to show your assumptions are true or plausible enough, and you have not met that test yet.

So show me the proof, or show me the pudding and I'll look for the proof myself, because you've not shown any proof, or the pudding, except for the claim that it exists, when the evidence you show has not been strong enough to support your claims.

This post has been edited by bgeh: Nov 23 2009, 07:05 PM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
arthurlwf
post Nov 24 2009, 02:06 PM


Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 2,345

Joined: Jan 2003


Interesting... we can have mini-chat war on Overpopulation topic...
Imagine this brings to the real world, this mean war is unavoidable...

Anyhow, back to the topic...
We definitely need advance technology to bring us to another era to resolve the overpopulation issue... Currently, we are using suppression approach, and morality is against to kill a human for the sake of population control.

Just look at cow, once the grass is eaten, they have to migrate to another place that have grasses. Or else the cow will die from hunger.
This analogy applies the same to human.

Can we afford to buy a bottle of milk that cost RM 500 on our current salary standards? The basic answer is NO.
Therefore, without technology to bring us to another era, then it's sad to see that war is the solution...

Food will become scarce... therefore we need genetically modified food to grow faster to cope with the population..
Clone cow is already in production in US to cope with the demand..

Accommodation can be resolve by technology by building taller building, underground land, reclaimation land, and etc

Transportation can be resolve by technology by using the internet to buy stuff, better highways with toll vmad.gif , faster car/train to move ppl faster

Cloths... hehehe.. seems the modern era people are wearing less and less... icon_idea.gif thumbup.gif


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jetyap
post Nov 24 2009, 03:18 PM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 166

Joined: Sep 2004
From: PJ, SS2, Selangor


Here's a different outlook:-

In Japan the population decline has caused worry for future generations to sustain their productivity output and therefore they are heavily investing in machinery to overcome the population issue.

Regarding the food matter, if everyone became vegetarian and therefore the need to keep all the livestock to sustain mankind becomes relatively easier. I'd imagine if the 10kg of grain to obtain 1 kg of meat is consumed instead, it would be able to feed many more people.

One other thing to note is that it's not the fact that there isn't enough food, but people are wasting them without thinking twice. Have a look at the supermarkets, restaurants, and coffee shops. People waste food!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anthrax33
post Nov 24 2009, 10:48 PM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 234

Joined: Jan 2003


i think the major cause of overpopulation is being caused by fossil fuel.

fossil fuels made the industrial revolution possible hence farming and food production had since became more and more efficient.

according to one guy in the documentary "the 11th hour", the actual human population that earth can sustain is less than 1 billion if we rely on the daily sunlight (plants, and everything). what we are doing now is actually tapping on ancient sunlights (ancient plants and animals which has become fossil fuels) to enhance our food production and thus leading to fossil fuel addiction.

can you imagine that back in the 60s, our population was only 3 billion. i took us just 40 years to double ourselves. what happened in those 40 years was the introduction of hypermarkets. with the introduction of hypermarkets, food can be distributed much more readily to the population. so there are no worries when it comes to food and hence there are no any worries for the human population to continue growing.

the nightmare will come when alternative forms of energies are not found if fossil fuels are depleted in the future. without fossil fuels, combine harvesters cant work and trucks that transport food cant work. this will force them farmers to use traditional farming techniques which are not as productive as the modern ones. this will lead to a shortage of food and many might die because of a massive famine.

thats why i'm not a big fan of using my own tupperware for take aways and all those stuffs because i dont think it would help much. the only solution to save the earth is to reduce ourselves i think.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
arthurlwf
post Nov 24 2009, 11:07 PM


Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 2,345

Joined: Jan 2003


QUOTE(anthrax33 @ Nov 24 2009, 10:48 PM)
i think the major cause of overpopulation is being caused by fossil fuel.

fossil fuels made the industrial revolution possible hence farming and food production had since became more and more efficient.

according to one guy in the documentary "the 11th hour", the actual human population that earth can sustain is less than 1 billion if we rely on the daily sunlight (plants, and everything). what we are doing now is actually tapping on ancient sunlights (ancient plants and animals which has become fossil fuels) to enhance our food production and thus leading to fossil fuel addiction.

can you imagine that back in the 60s, our population was only 3 billion. i took us just 40 years to double ourselves. what happened in those 40 years was the introduction of hypermarkets. with the introduction of hypermarkets, food can be distributed much more readily to the population. so there are no worries when it comes to food and hence there are no any worries for the human population to continue growing.

the nightmare will come when alternative forms of energies are not found if fossil fuels are depleted in the future. without fossil fuels, combine harvesters cant work and trucks that transport food cant work. this will force them farmers to use traditional farming techniques which are not as productive as the modern ones. this will lead to a shortage of food and many might die because of a massive famine.

thats why i'm not a big fan of using my own tupperware for take aways and all those stuffs because i dont think it would help much. the only solution to save the earth is to reduce ourselves i think.
*
true, reduction is the only solution if there is no technology evolution... war, natural disaster, pandemic disease, abortion/suppression approach

Say, if technology advancement have improved tremendously, we may live on sea, sky, earth's orbit.... and soon, to new planet thumbup.gif


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AiRseaL
post Nov 27 2009, 10:21 PM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 235

Joined: Oct 2005
From: K.L.



Lazy to read all post.. But just refer to any population of any species.. They have to kind of increments.. And i am not sure what both were call alde.. But I am sure humans is the second one sumthing like the 'rapid increment and ending will burst and extict one'.. Left back will have a few fella on earth only..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
slimey
post Nov 28 2009, 11:31 PM



*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,613

Joined: Apr 2007
in nature, natural predators control the population of a species together with available resources.

since man do not have natural predators, the only factor that control human population is resources.

important resources are land, food, fresh water and energy.
when these resource is very limited, there will be competition over it, resulting in wars and increase in price for the resource. this will control the human population. this is the situation we see in some countries in which there is no growth or sometimes negative growth of population.

i believe what we need now is not radical methods of population control. we need to change our method of producing goods to be more sustainable and more efficient so there is less or no damage to the environment.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
b3ta
post Nov 29 2009, 01:07 AM


responsible poster stormtrooper
****
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 660

Joined: Apr 2007
From: malaysia


QUOTE(manami @ Nov 22 2009, 11:05 PM)
What if that does not work? We're in the context now where nobody wants to follow mainstream advice of reducing your own population or family count.

If this works then we wouldn't have famine anymore or cause any global warming/carbon emission problems according to global warming proponents.
Traditional and religious values are still very strong in the quest for increasing our 'family' numbers for inter-dependence.
If education actually worked on everyone, China wouldn't need to force one child policy on their population.
*
the right to propagate is part of human rights. the ethical way is not to impose a regulation that forces people to not propagate, but instead to have them make a conscious choice instead. there is where education comes in. when this doesnt work and governing bodies start imposing a restriction, this is where the issue steps into the grey area. as with all other controversial topics, this has 2 sides to it too with plausible stands on both sides.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
weegee
post Nov 29 2009, 06:29 AM


New Member
*
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 22

Joined: Sep 2009
the irony of our survival in this planet is to breed, and therefore to keep our bloodline grow and bloom, yet this is the ultimate downfall to mankind.

the more we populate, the more we consume. more we consume, the faster we drain the natural resources that upkeep the wellbeing of this planet. funny how things work.

and on a macro scale, its rather clear that, rather crudely, the dumber kind would die first in line. as an analogy, a kid shouldnt be told not to cross the road without observing the traffic. smart ones would observe, and cross the road safely to further grow up and inherit his good genes to his offspring. dumber ones might just run into a car and die, and therefore his incompetant traits are off the pool of future generations.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
linkinwayne
post Nov 30 2009, 11:14 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 236

Joined: Apr 2008
From: Elsewhere


To be more precise, there isn't an overpopulation problem at all. The only problem occurs when you want to fit people into the most popular cities and metropolises.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Awakened_Angel
post Dec 3 2009, 11:44 PM


Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 2,381

Joined: May 2007
From: where you need wings and awakened to reach
QUOTE(slimey @ Nov 29 2009, 12:31 AM)

important resources are land, food, fresh water and energy.
when these resource is very limited, there will be competition over it, resulting in wars and increase in price for the resource. this will control the human population. this is the situation we see in some countries in which there is no growth or sometimes negative growth of population.

*
watch a documentary recently.... imagine this... human habitat VS natural ecosystem...

explore and exploit VS preservation....

which win?

QUOTE

i believe what we need now is not radical methods of population control. we need to change our method of producing goods to be more sustainable and more efficient so there is less or no damage to the environment.


when living is good and easy, people will multiply....

reminds me of agent smith in The Matrix... he said: you humans are like a plague... virus... you just keep multiply and multiply and multiply and exploit and used up everything untill nothing is left"

the movei 10,000BC also delivers such message
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
teehk_tee
post Dec 5 2009, 08:48 AM


busy ♥
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 5,052

Joined: Apr 2005
From: Kuala Lumpur

i wouldn't believe the world is overpopulating. the replacement ratio is 2.1, while in most developed countries it's way below it.

you'll notice a couple countries with an aging population. numbers will stagnate soon enough (not in this decade)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Mr HellAngelOfFire
post Dec 6 2009, 01:11 AM


Getting Started
**
Group: Junior Member
Posts: 183

Joined: May 2008


nahh
i think i live in a big city n see many PATI soo thats why u think its over population

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Bump TopicReply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic
 

> Find Us on Facebook

 
Switch to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.1045sec    1.17    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 24th April 2014 - 07:48 AM