Should global warming protocols define the maximum allowable population by nation?
Question by Quasi Moto: Should global warming protocols define the maximum allowable population by nation?
Would that get to the root of our environmental problems?
What happens if we ignore population control?
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html
Thanks for the responses. It’s very interesting. I asked a question yesterday – Is the reason for global warming really overpopulation? Arguably 50% +/- agreed that over population is the cause. Today I asked SHOULD global warming protocols define the maximum allowable population by nation? ( Not could… ) So far virtually all responses have been negative. No one has addressed the follow on question of what happens if we ignore population control. Does this mean that mankind us unwilling to take control of it’s population issues and will be at the mercy of whatever befalls it? Plague, War, Starvation…….
Best answer:
Answer by Franklin S
Oh brother
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
| Print article | This entry was posted by environmental4u on February 17, 2013 at 12:46 AM, and is filed under Environmental Problems. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 months ago
What a frightening scenario. Chilling, just chilling. I think the global warming thing is getting out of hand just a bit.
We have plagues and war to control population, don’t we?
about 3 months ago
Not in a million years…
about 3 months ago
not quite. That there is an optimal carrying capacity for any given eco-shere is known. Translating that into a policy for the world is another matter
about 3 months ago
Not unless you’re willing to give up your individual human rights. Personally, I’m not ready to demote myself to the level of an insect. If it’s that important to you, get yourself sterilized. THAT is your right. But you don’t have the authority to force such views on the general population. Thank God!
about 3 months ago
The Muslim nations firmly believe that they must rapidly increase their populations so that they may achieve dominance and the ability to impose Sharia law on the rest of the world.
Have you ever considered what it would take to enforce population control on the Muslim nations?
The level of military force required and the amount of terrorism Muslim nations would make in response to your proposed limits will make the current war in Iraq look like a Sunday School picnic by comparison.
The Muslim nations will never give up their right to expand their populations as rapidly as possible.
It would be easier to make Iran stop pursuing nuclear weapons than to impose population limits on Muslim nations.
You can forget about maximum allowable population limits.
What military force do you propose to use to enforce those limits?
about 3 months ago
Yes, this is probably the only reasonable way to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to avert the worst consequences of global warming.
Figure out what level of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are acceptable in the atmosphere (somewhere between 500 and 550 ppm of CO2), figure out how much CO2 each person can emit to go no higher than this concentration (around 0.8 tons of carbon per person per year), and then give people a carbon allotment. If they need more carbon credits, they can buy them from people who don’t use their entire share. That way the richer people can still live comfortably while poorer people will benefit economically by selling unused credits. It’s a very good solution.
*edit* oops I misread “population” as “pollution”. Pollution control would be a far better solution.
about 3 months ago
Haha amazing. The chinese did it because there was no more space. I dont think exhaling is the problem in this situation but the fact that more people mean more cars on the road, more resources are needed to keep people alive. Yes people breath but they also drive and create waste and require food, and all can add to the strain that is currently placed on the environment. If the only reason was to prevent additional people from breathing it is a rediculous proposition but if you are asking for the purposes of all factors it may be a last resort option but not a well percieved one.
about 3 months ago
I really don’t mean any disrespect, but your question is a reflexion of how utterly ridiculous the global warming rhetoric is getting. The real problem with global warming is that people that believe it is man made (there is absolutely no prove whatsoever to support this theory) will do whatever possible to jeopardize economical growth worldwide. That could very well be the culprit. Vegetarians are already using global warming as an excuse to limit the amount of tasty beef available to people (they claim the poop is causing hurricanes and devastation). It is about time we stop listening to losers like Al Gore and Hollywood types, and start applying a little common sense to this subject. Attempting to directly answer your question is equivalent to accepting your premise which is completely misguided.
about 3 months ago
No, because population is not the problem. How we are producing and using energy is the problem.
The world population growth is slowing–and will stabilize around 11 billion in a few decades–well within sustainable levels–PROVIDED we shift to alternative means of energy production.