The global population needn’t be the problem that it is. Earth is currently running at a carrying capacity of 2.3, for there to be long-term sustainability for both the planet and human race the capacity needs to be 1.0 or less. We can achieve that by better utilisation of resources and making simple changes to the way we do things, and we don’t have to give up any of our modern conveniences in the process.
One solution to global warming would be less people but you seem to be assuming this is the only solution, there are many others which don’t involve eugenics or similar practices. We can remove just over half the problem simply by reforesting when trees are cut down and using alternatives to fossil fuels – not difficult.
The problem per se is not how many people there are, but the impact of each person. The population can increase, as long as their "impact" (footprint) is decreased or sustainable.
A family with rainwater tanks, solar panel systems, recycled/reused greywater schemes, growing their own produce, living in a high thermal mass, solar passive home etc. etc. will have a significant less impact than someone who requires town water, coal power stations, isn't conscience of water/energy usage, buys imported produce, uses their air con/heater year round etc. etc.
The old adage is very true ... it isn't quantity but quality.
Before advocating sterilization, invest a moment in learning about how sterilization was developed as a eugenic tool of Social Darwinism. In the highly unlikely case of there ever being a legitimate reason for widespread resort to it, sterilization should clearly be applied not to the fittest and most intelligent members of society, but those who cannot write English at an 8th grade level or pass a test in 10th grade science, and who waste their lives lying about science online.
About sterilization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforced_st...
"Under the German law [of 1933], all doctors in the Reich were required to report patients of theirs who were intellectually disabled, mentally ill (including schizophrenia and manic depression), epileptic..."
About climate science (U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010):
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Revie...
http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/qand...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
"... all of the world's major problems are caused by there being too many humans."
That is true but not in the way you think. Only humans worry about stuff.
No humans: no worries.
On the other hand, how many humans are there? If the world population trebled it would still be able to stand on Rhode Island. It only fills Guam at the moment. Whatever would Hank Johnson think?
Actually I have a step-son and no natural children, but I think this whole AGW things is entirely exaggerated. Sure, there is some warming due to our output of CO2 and we should look to reduce our output, but it is not nearly as bad as they make it out to be.
UN Agenda 21 is all about population control. They demand to reduce the population from 7.5 billion to 500 million. Just think of how many abortions will have to happen to reach that goal. The libs and AGW cultists will need to be burning an awful lot of dead babies to make electricity and heat hospitals.
gary K. Why is it that your green energy is always the most expensive form of energy in regards to cost and the environment?
A first world lifestyle is substantially more carbon intensive than the rest of the world, though the rest of the world is trying to catch up.
It could be the person bought the hybrid to save money on gas.
What if your child is the one that writes the unified theory on the chalkboard?
Interesting!
One part of me wants to agree with some of your thinking, while the sensible part of me says that you are a fool!
I wish my parents had used "birth control" methods before I was conceived, as I also wish your parents may have done so also.
So called "Global Warming" has NOTHING to do with the parasite that we call HUMANS!
Your comments are even more extreme than the normal lunatics on this site!
We are all animals at the end of the day, we are bred to breed for a lot of us it's a need just like any other species. It's difficult to tell people to stop breeding as much as it's hard to tell people not to breath.
Having children does not have to increase carbon footprint, living the modern ideal will increase carbon footprint for anyone.
It's an ongoing battle, we are forced from living greener lives because too many of our political leaders depend on the market of oil, we keep the rich happy without realising it.
We are nothing but pawns!!
Edit
Renewables are expensive because too many people still suckle from the crude tit. Oil is a messy business, enough for people to sign up and die for!!
Having a child is the single worst thing anyone can do for their carbon footprint. Anyone that truly wants to reduce CO2 output should get themselves sterilized.
Nobody wants to admit it but all of the world's major problems are caused by there being too many humans. If global warming is caused by humans, the solution is kinda obvious - less humans.
To paraphrase Doug Stanhope - "the next time you see a hybrid car with a baby seat in it, smash the window, steal the baby seat and leave a condom in its place. See if you can send a message."
"Sodomy is green and abortion is eco-friendly"
On one hand, you denialists talk about realists as if we are trying to take away your freedoms. Yet what do you think will happen to our freedoms if "warmists" get the idea that having children is bad?
And babies don't force you to drive an SUV or to have an accident in your pants whenever the toilets back up at nuclear power plants.
And global warming is physics. Physics doesn't ask us whether we like it. Stop denying global warming and support real solutions, such as solar, wind and nuclear power.
It's not hypocracy if it's a religious belief with a path to forgiveness. It's especially convenient when that forgiveness doesn't require anything more than belief, that you condemn all who don't believe, and promote the belief that only government can identify and solve problems.
It's like an obese person claiming drinking a 64oz soda is ok because they park farthest from the door, while simultaneously blaming the soda companies for making the soda and supporting government action to ban or limit soda because your incapable of controlling your actions, waiting on your fat *** for the lawyers to make the greedy soda companies pay for making you fat.
And if our children adopt the clean renewable energy solutions that we are developing, they will have a major impact on the mitigation of AGW.
If you are complaining that having children is the worst thing anyone can do for their carbon footprint, then why would you have a problem with them working to offset that by driving a hybrid?
Me thinks it is you who is the hypocrite.
-------
EDIT: @James - why is green energy always the most expensive form of energy? My rooftop solar system has paid for itself and I have a surplus of power which is fed back into the mains grid. My electricity bill is currently in credit.
What is it about climate change that attracts all the idiots? The discussion is like what I think it would be like if they had Free Bacon Day at an International Retard Convention.
You like the sodomy thing, dontcha?
