Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Science Overpopulation (Population control), Controversial topic.

views
     
bgeh
post Nov 22 2009, 07:51 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

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.
bgeh
post Nov 22 2009, 08:40 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

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.
bgeh
post Nov 22 2009, 10:45 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

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
bgeh
post Nov 22 2009, 11:32 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

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.
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 12:07 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

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.
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 12:20 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

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
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 12:28 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

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
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 01:01 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

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
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 01:47 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

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
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 02:13 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

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
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 02:31 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

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
bgeh
post Nov 23 2009, 07:01 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

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

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0171sec    0.48    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 04:14 PM