These damn environmentalists have it all wrong! Pollution is NOT the problem!!!

[Deathlok]

The problem is People! Pollution is a symptom, there are too many people on this planet.

WHat is the source of pollution.... P E O P L E ..... less people produce less pollution... so the answer is population control. BUT of course these environmentalists are polly correct types who DO NOT WANT TO ADDRESS THE REAL ISSUE...... so they go on & on about recycling or some other crap....

Besides, mother earth is on MY side! The planet cant sustain the current rate of pop growth.

http://www.susps.org/overview/population.html


The Sierra Club has stated that:

"... all of our environmental successes may be short-lived if they do not include efforts to address population growth."

If public policies are not reformed, the quality of life of our descendents and the biodiversity of our environment will suffer. Twice as many people will mean twice as many houses, roads, schools, hospitals, and office buildings and twice as much sprawl, traffic, overcrowding and congestion. It will place twice the pressure on our dwindling natural resources and the resources that we draw from other countries. We will have to build practically an entire new infrastructure equal in size to our existing infrastructure in order to sustain this new population. The environmental consequences of this doubling will be significant.

[Aelo]

I must say. I never thought about it like that...

[pennywisdom]

so the answer is population control.
Specifically?

I don't think you're wrong, I just think you should elaborate on your hypothetical population control solution.

[Forefinger]

I would go as far as requiring people to have a license to have children. I'm not talking about forced sterilization or anything, just some fines or something. Way too many people are reproducing.

[Aelo]

I would go as far as requiring people to have a license to have children. I'm not talking about forced sterilization or anything, just some fines or something. Way too many people are reproducing.

And just what would this licensing process be like? How many kids should people be limited to exactly? What determines who gets to reproduce and who don't?

[Deathlok]

And just what would this licensing process be like? How many kids should people be limited to exactly? What determines who gets to reproduce and who don't?


well someone better make these decisions ...... staying the current course
dooms everyone.

[TinMan]

One of my teachers in college told us that ,scientifically speaking, the Earth can only sustain 500 million people and continue to renew itself naturally. We have about 6.5 Billion on the planet, thats 13 times the renewable limit. In essence, our overpopulation is keeping the Earth from handling what we put into it and change. Its only gonna get worse.

Of course I didn't read those statistics personally, so I don't know if those numbers are 100% accurate, but if they are, we're fucked.

[Aelo]

well someone better make these decisions ...... staying the current course
dooms everyone.

But who? Who's gonna come up with a plan to limit human population? And just how would it be enforced effectively?

[TinMan]

And just what would this licensing process be like? How many kids should people be limited to exactly? What determines who gets to reproduce and who don't?

They alreay do this in China. Its limited to one child per household, if a woman gets pregnant after that they have to get an abortion.

I think the abortion part would be inhumane (cause I disagree w/ abortion unless its a rape case, or health reasons), but I could definitely see other things that they could use as birth control incentives. Like the fact that if you have children you get so much in tax breaks, well don't give any tax breaks past 1 or 2 children, thats like losing $3500 bucks a year per child.

[Tadhg Adams]

Interesting, since you know the birth rate in the US and much of europe has fallen below the replacement rate and yet the amount of pollution produced by those countries has increased.

[TinMan]

Interesting, since you know the birth rate in the US and much of europe has fallen below the replacement rate and yet the amount of pollution produced by those countries has increased.

Yes, but more pollution is being created BECAUSE the population is high. Consider it this way, if we only had 50 million people in this country, then at most we would only need 50 million cars. But since we have, what, like 200+ million at least, that means we need more than 50 million cars just for individuals.

The higher population is driving our industries to create more product, thus create more pollution. Its all cause and effect, snowballs rolling downhill, ya know.

[Tadhg Adams]

Yes, but more pollution is being created BECAUSE the population is high. Consider it this way, if we only had 50 million people in this country, then at most we would only need 50 million cars. But since we have, what, like 200+ million at least, that means we need more than 50 million cars just for individuals.

The higher population is driving our industries to create more product, thus create more pollution. Its all cause and effect, snowballs rolling downhill, ya know.

But saying "THE PROBLEM ISN'T POLLUTION, IT'S PEOPLE!" is overly simplistic, unhelpful, and relatively pointless.

[pennywisdom]

One of two things would have to happen:

1) People would voluntarily stop reproducing. Not fucking likely.

2) The government forces people to stop reproducing. Not in America.... we don't live in a dictatorship.

Maybe humanity is a plague and our only ends on earth is to ravage and destroy until everything's gone.

To quote Bill Hicks "We're a virus with shoes, okay?"

[Winslow]

The biggest polluting nations and continents have negative or zero population growth.

[TinMan]

But saying "THE PROBLEM ISN'T POLLUTION, IT'S PEOPLE!" is overly simplistic, unhelpful, and relatively pointless.

Well, to a certain extent. But ultimately that is the point of origin, the more people, the more land and wood gets processed, the more product needs to be created, the more natural resources are used, then more pollution is created.

We're so far into it now that there is very little we CAN do to change it. Even if we killed off most of the worlds population it probably wouldn't help to much honestly.

On a side though: I heard an interesting fact the other day that I really would like to authenticate. One volcanic eruption actually puts more pollutants into the atmosphere than humanity has in the last 100 years. If thats true, then we aren't doing shit to the planet compared to what its been doing to itself for Millenia after millenia.

[Winslow]

well someone better make these decisions ...... staying the current course
dooms everyone.

Ahhh . .fascism.

It's for everybody's "good."

[Deathlok]

well to stay the current course is certain doom, no doubt about it...... so we better start trying something else FAST!

[Winslow]

well to stay the current course is certain doom, no doubt about it...... so we better start trying something else FAST!

The "Doom" is dabateable . . . having said that . . .

I am a strong advocate of reasonable environmental protection legislation.

I am opposed (almost to the point of violence) any legislation that would undermine constitutional liberty.

The day the government tells me how many kids I can have, is the day I consider putting on my Guy Fawkes mask (geeky V for Vendetta reference)

[Deathlok]

Don't worry, the Illuminati already has a plan in place to reduce the population by 2/3. Just give it time.

[Winslow]

Don't worry, the Illuminati already has a plan in place to reduce the population by 2/3. Just give it time.

Isn't that the Skull & Bones?

[Valmore]

But saying "THE PROBLEM ISN'T POLLUTION, IT'S PEOPLE!" is overly simplistic, unhelpful, and relatively pointless.

Well that's about 90% of Deathlok's typing, and yet there's no thread mentioning how he's causing our doom.

Which NFL team is he pulling for this half-hour anyway?

[Deathlok]

Da Cardinals & Bears & lions & Vikings!

maybe the browns too ( cards will draft Vernon davis, mark me!)
:eek:

[Valmore]

But he does have a sense of humor.

Anyhow, the pollution problem comes from bad practises by humans, not simply just from too many humans. Too many humans in a small space with bad practises spells disaster - much like most of North-Central New Jersey. Which is the problem with having a desirable area - more people want to live in certain areas for different reasons. There's plenty of space in Wyoming, but for whatever reason, its the least populous state in the nation, and people would rather cram into New Jersey or Rhode Island.

Also, technology is slow to adapt in general due to lower costs of the system in place. Hybrid cars seem wonderful, but they're generally more expensive, and with a budget crunch on someone's wallet, the alternative of a normal car seems a better solution. However, more people in the past decade have bought gas-chugging SUVs which tend to cause more pollution.

And solar energy? For the love of me I don't know why the "Sunshine State" can't figure out a way to get the cost of solar power under control, since its a viable option - much better than the coal plant being built out in some other county from Leon.

[Charles RB]

Well, there's only one logical solution Deathlok- you're going to have to kill yourself and everyone around you for the good of the environment.

[Winslow]

Well, there's only one logical solution Deathlok- you're going to have to kill yourself and everyone around you for the good of the environment.

I came to the same logical conclusion.

Nothing like "Mother Earth" facism.

(I'm being a little silly here - if that's not obvious)

[K'Nort]

Actually, the really crowded metro areas put out far less pollution (and use up less electricity, more importantly) than the wide open spaces. There's a bunch of literature being pumped out on it now. Heating-related things, mostly.

As birth rates in countries drops, their pollution (and landfill use) goes up because the people are more prosperous and thus can buy (and produce) all kinds of useless crap instead of just necessities. And that's the stuff that's hardest on the planet.

[Calybos]

Good point. So in addition to the (seemingly) automatic drop in birthrates coming from civilized nations, we also need governmental intervention to stop the worst offenders when it comes to polluting processes and products.

It won't be a simple solution, of course. But I'm much happier putting restrictions on corporate and commercial activities than I am trying to control individual activities (like mating and breeding).

And the alternative solution--increasing the death rate--isn't very appealing either. Although we DO seem to ignore plagues and starvation when they happen in overcrowded nations, as a matter of evil policy.

[Tadhg Adams]

One of my teachers in college told us that ,scientifically speaking, the Earth can only sustain 500 million people and continue to renew itself naturally. We have about 6.5 Billion on the planet, thats 13 times the renewable limit. In essence, our overpopulation is keeping the Earth from handling what we put into it and change. Its only gonna get worse.

Of course I didn't read those statistics personally, so I don't know if those numbers are 100% accurate, but if they are, we're fucked.

Your teacher is making stuff up if they are presenting that as FACT. I have seen numbers from 1 billion to 1 trillion. No one knows, they're all making guesses and working from different assumptions.

[Dennis K]

Somebody's been reading a geography textbook.

[Phrozen]

Ya know everytime some has predicted that the Earth can only hold so many people they have been dead wrong. So pardon me if I take your proclamations with a grain of salt.

[ragnarok_2012]

We're a Lazarus Pit away from a super villain, people :)

[Typo Lad]

If Earth's too full (which I don't buy), let's coloniuze the Moon and Mars already.

[tricksterpup]

If public policies are not reformed, the quality of life of our descendents and the biodiversity of our environment will suffer. Twice as many people will mean twice as many houses, roads, schools, hospitals, and office buildings and twice as much sprawl, traffic, overcrowding and congestion. It will place twice the pressure on our dwindling natural resources and the resources that we draw from other countries. We will have to build practically an entire new infrastructure equal in size to our existing infrastructure in order to sustain this new population. The environmental consequences of this doubling will be significant.
What do you think the Bird Flu is for?? Its for cleaning house.

[Iangould]

1. "Population" is not the problem by itself. If the world's population were 3 billion and they were all consuming resources at the rate we do in the west today, we'd be polluting more than we do today.

Similar, a population of 8 or 9 billion with the resource consumption of the Chinese or Indians woudl pollution less than we do currently.

2. All the data says the world's population growth is slowing and will continue to slow and some time around 2050 the population will actually start to fall.

[Iangould]

They alreay do this in China. Its limited to one child per household, if a woman gets pregnant after that they have to get an abortion.

I think the abortion part would be inhumane (cause I disagree w/ abortion unless its a rape case, or health reasons), but I could definitely see other things that they could use as birth control incentives. Like the fact that if you have children you get so much in tax breaks, well don't give any tax breaks past 1 or 2 children, thats like losing $3500 bucks a year per child.

Actually that's how the Chinese system is supposed to work (yes there are reports of forced abortion.)

Have a second child and you don't get government benefits for that child, have a third child and they fine you.

[Phrozen]

If Earth's too full (which I don't buy), let's coloniuze the Moon and Mars already.

IIRC if the we all lived in a population density of NYC all the people in the world could fit into an area the size of South Carolina.

[Paul McEnery]

Actually that's how the Chinese system is supposed to work (yes there are reports of forced abortion.)

Have a second child and you don't get government benefits for that child, have a third child and they fine you.
I wish I could find a practical way to support the idea of getting rid of child benefits. I mean, personally, I think having children is hideously self-indulgent, but that's just me. Nonetheless, I think of it as a privilege rather than a right.

Oh, and the last number I saw with some backing was 10 billion as the total number of people the planet could support -- but what sort of cutbacks we'd need to get away with that number, I've got no idea.

[Alex]

I wish I could find a practical way to support the idea of getting rid of child benefits. I mean, personally, I think having children is hideously self-indulgent, but that's just me. Nonetheless, I think of it as a privilege rather than a right.
.
Making childen a privilege rather then a right would solve a lot of problems.
I just don't want to live in a place that has a government who can force people too not have children. I figure, if women currently have the ultimate right to choose whether their child dies, they should be able to maintain the right to choose if it lives or is created at all.

[Paul McEnery]

Making childen a privilege rather then a right would solve a lot of problems.
I just don't want to live in a place that has a government who can force people too not have children. I figure, if women currently have the ultimate right to choose whether their child dies, they should be able to maintain the right to choose if it lives or is created at all.
Well, yeah.

Hey, at least I win consistency points on this one.

Mind, it's simple. I just think of everything the Pope says, and go the other direction.

[Alex]

Well, yeah.

Hey, at least I win consistency points on this one.

I was hoping someone would read it and see if they could rationalize the two beliefs into one.
Yknow, i have a friend who honestly beleives you should need a permit too give birth, and i thought he was a bit wacky (First time he mentioned this too me, i was rereading 1984). I'm kinda shocked too see people here thinking it's a valid plan.

[gary bolt]

IIRC if the we all lived in a population density of NYC all the people in the world could fit into an area the size of South Carolina.

Ya, but how much farmland would be needed to feed such a mega city, how much forest land to provide timber for housing, where would all the waste go. Etc.

By the way, many cities have sprawled over the years and swallowed up some of the best farmland available.

[K'Nort]

Ya, but how much farmland would be needed to feed such a mega city, how much forest land to provide timber for housing, where would all the waste go. Etc.

By the way, many cities have sprawled over the years and swallowed up some of the best farmland available.

On the other hand, it's specifically because the cities have started to sprawl. Rather than doing actual dense traditional urban develpment, they do suburban, with single-family homes and yards. That's where it gets wasteful. Blocks of high-rise apartments with commercial usage on the first couple floors -- much more earth-friendly.

[cable guy]

Well, there's only one logical solution Deathlok- you're going to have to kill yourself and everyone around you for the good of the environment.

I knew that answer was coming. :D

[gary bolt]

On the other hand, it's specifically because the cities have started to sprawl. Rather than doing actual dense traditional urban develpment, they do suburban, with single-family homes and yards. That's where it gets wasteful. Blocks of high-rise apartments with commercial usage on the first couple floors -- much more earth-friendly.

Agreed. Very few cities are planned worth a damn. They just happened.

[cable guy]

If Earth's too full (which I don't buy)

I find that hard to believe as well.

[K'Nort]

This is the main article I read on all of this, by the way:

http://www.greenbelt.org/downloads/resources/newswire_11_04GreenManhattan.pdf

[Nick Soapdish]

Agreed. Very few cities are planned worth a damn. They just happened.

It's tough to plan a city well without totalitarian methods.

You can hope that developers want to develop high rise apartment buildings with commercial understories, but you can't force them to and even if you do, you can't force people to live there. People tend to prefer living in the burbs with big yards. Myself included.

While you can encourage certain types of development through zoning, developers can be very persuasive when trying to rezone property and when it does get rezoned, it's tough to zone back because it can be considered taking property.

[Phrozen]

Ya, but how much farmland would be needed to feed such a mega city, how much forest land to provide timber for housing, where would all the waste go. Etc.

By the way, many cities have sprawled over the years and swallowed up some of the best farmland available.

If it is the size of South Carolina you have the best farmland in the world available since about 95% of the population would be in that city. The rest would be farming, ranching, fishing or mining.

[Gumbo Maximillian]

Well, to a certain extent. But ultimately that is the point of origin, the more people, the more land and wood gets processed, the more product needs to be created, the more natural resources are used, then more pollution is created.

We're so far into it now that there is very little we CAN do to change it. Even if we killed off most of the worlds population it probably wouldn't help to much honestly.

On a side though: I heard an interesting fact the other day that I really would like to authenticate. One volcanic eruption actually puts more pollutants into the atmosphere than humanity has in the last 100 years. If thats true, then we aren't doing shit to the planet compared to what its been doing to itself for Millenia after millenia.


Don't forget the sea weed nor the cows as well.

But basically yeah; populations really not that much of an issue, build up and farm up and we should be pretty much capable of surviving.

Thats excluding what no technologies we might have, hypothetically speaking in a hundred years we might be using vehicles that don't pollute at all and totally different energy systems to power us.

[Ultraman Max]

The birthrate in many modernized countries is on a steady decline, to the point where some villages in Japan are paying women who have children. The largest growing segment in U.S. population is the elderly, and despite living longer than past generations they won't be around too much longer when compared to a countries' or even the world's projected "lifespan".


But hey, if things do get too bad I hear that Soylent Green is pretty tasty once you get used to it. ;)

[warspite1805]

It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it." -- Al Gore, (former) Vice President

[Calybos]

Hey, at least he didn't think it all came from trees, like Reagan did.