I agree

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50554460...ience-science/

"Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now," he said.

evidence....

Attachment 190160

Well, the Earths a pretty big place.

If you took every living person on the Planet and stood them side by side, shoulder to shoulder, all bunched up, you could fit them into a space about 1/3 the size of the State of Rhode Island.

In the whole scheme of things, that isn't very much.

That's short minded .
Calculate everyrhing we consume/affect.
Garbage, water use for food and livestock to feed us.
Pollution from our vehicles, carbon monoxide and dioxide from numerous sources.
The list goes on and on...... magnify that by 2billion in 1st world countries alone and its a staggering amount of bullshit we introduce into our environment. Then ponder the nievity of your statement ,
Jackie.

Paul R. Ehrlich wrote the book "The Population Bomb" in 1968, predicting this bullshit. He was wrong.

So, the question is, who do we kill first? I'm asking for volunteers.

The truth is, there is plenty of food, plenty of land. The problem is not too many people, it is too many corrupt dictators and not enough freedom.

Ehrlich wasn't wrong, he just didn't account for advances in technology that would allow us to increase food production, reduce waste production, and reduce the effects of technology on the environment.

The simple fact is, population increases at an exponential rate, while our capacity to increase food production is not exponential. If we were to graph our population increase, and graph our food production capacity, the two lines would not be parallel. Eventually the two will intersect - there is just no way to predict when that will happen. Not within the next century at least.

Of course, there is always the possibility that some new plague, asteroid, or some other disaster will come along well before we reach that intersection, which knocks us back to the stone age. Or, something. I'm sure Nostradamus wrote it all down somewhere.

Pollution from our vehicles, carbon monoxide and dioxide from numerous sources. Originally Posted by UB9IB6

I love it when liberals demonstrate their utter lack of even basic education in elementary school science.

I love it even more when they demonstrate it in public.

And I get positively ORGASMIC when they're this clearly PROUD of being deliberately, willfully ignorant.

...

And then I get a little sad, because the fact that such ignorance is so widespread says horrible things about the state of basic education in the United States of America.

...

The carbon cycle used to be taught in elementary school life science. It was taught again in middle school life science, and AGAIN in high school biology. It was taught YET AGAIN at college level, although most people don't go to college, and a lot of the ones who do don't take biology.

The basic concept of the carbon cycle is this: animals breathe in oxygen, use it to burn food, and exhale carbon dioxide. During the day, plants take up carbon dioxide, water, and energy, in the form of sunlight, and use that to make food, for animals, and oxygen.

The basic chemistry can be oversimplified as:

6 CO2 + 6 H2O + energy --> C6H12O6 + 3 O2

That's carbon dioxide and water on the left, SUGAR (carbohydrate) and oxygen on the right. The reaction binds energy in the sugar molecule.

The reaction goes both ways, of course. Animals eat sugar and inhale oxygen; they exhale carbon dioxide and pass water in various ways. The digestion process releases energy, which the animal uses to continue living.

Summary: Carbon dioxide is NOT A POLLUTANT. It is the raw material for plant growth. It is what grows wheat, corn, cabbage, avocadoes, you name it.

This is what makes carbon dioxide sequestration an idiotic policy: it is throwing food away, PERMANENTLY. It is also what makes corn-based ethanol an idiotic policy: it is BURNING FOOD.

Paul R. Ehrlich wrote the book "The Population Bomb" in 1968, predicting this bullshit. He was wrong.

So, the question is, who do we kill first? I'm asking for volunteers.

. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It is not a matter of killing those alive, it is a matter of manging the future...much like entitlements. Had you read the whole article , you would not have had to turn to such a ignorant question.


Even so, that doesn't mean forceful measures must be taken. "Government propaganda, taxes, giving every sexually active human being access to modern contraception and backup abortion, and, especially, giving women absolutely equal rights and opportunities with men might very well get the global population shrinkage required if a collapse is to be avoided," Ehrlich said.



In fact, providing free, reliable birth control to women could prevent between 41 percent and 71 percent of abortions in the United States, according to a study detailed in the Oct. 4, 2012, issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The truth is, there is plenty of food, plenty of land. The problem is not too many people, it is too many corrupt dictators and not enough freedom. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This problem is just like the problem with entitlements...it is not that we have a problem, it is that we will have a huge problem in the future.

Anybody that knows anything about herd mangement knows that there is a limited supply of resources.

Shit storm.

I don't know how you assholes get your veggies...after all who picks em?

Anyone who thinks this won't lead to government deciding who lives and who dies is ignorant.

Shit storm.

I don't know how you assholes get your veggies...after all who picks em? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Whoever wants to get paid to do so. In season, at least.

I know a social worker who mentions drug addicts who are allowed to have babies. One in particular has been pregnant 10 times and every one of those children are taken at birth and put in foster care.

I don't believe that a drug addict or anyone that irresponsible should be making babies like that. But what can you do. If a drug addict was sterilized against her will you would have human rights advocates and religious people fighting for her rights.

Anybody that knows anything about herd mangement knows that there is a limited supply of resources. Originally Posted by WTF

WTF's world.

You oughta see the view from the other side!

Do it the Democrat way.....eugenics. Or the commie way..... through genocide.

Great move titled Idiocracy that depicts what happens when intelligent people limit their reproduction.

The reality is that we as a people have been working harder and harder to eliminate the deaths that occur from "natural" causes, like the flu, small pox, plague and such.


You know, once the resources start to decline, there will be a thinning of the herd.

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE

I love it when liberals demonstrate their utter lack of even basic education in elementary school science.

I love it even more when they demonstrate it in public.

And I get positively ORGASMIC when they're this clearly PROUD of being deliberately, willfully ignorant.

...

And then I get a little sad, because the fact that such ignorance is so widespread says horrible things about the state of basic education in the United States of America.

...

The carbon cycle used to be taught in elementary school life science. It was taught again in middle school life science, and AGAIN in high school biology. It was taught YET AGAIN at college level, although most people don't go to college, and a lot of the ones who do don't take biology.

The basic concept of the carbon cycle is this: animals breathe in oxygen, use it to burn food, and exhale carbon dioxide. During the day, plants take up carbon dioxide, water, and energy, in the form of sunlight, and use that to make food, for animals, and oxygen.

The basic chemistry can be oversimplified as:

6 CO2 + 6 H2O + energy --> C6H12O6 + 3 O2

That's carbon dioxide and water on the left, SUGAR (carbohydrate) and oxygen on the right. The reaction binds energy in the sugar molecule.

The reaction goes both ways, of course. Animals eat sugar and inhale oxygen; they exhale carbon dioxide and pass water in various ways. The digestion process releases energy, which the animal uses to continue living.

Summary: Carbon dioxide is NOT A POLLUTANT. It is the raw material for plant growth. It is what grows wheat, corn, cabbage, avocadoes, you name it.

This is what makes carbon dioxide sequestration an idiotic policy: it is throwing food away, PERMANENTLY. It is also what makes corn-based ethanol an idiotic policy: it is BURNING FOOD. Originally Posted by Sidewinder

You missed the point, asshole.
When im done with my meetings for the day, ill come back and readdress this issue.
Ill even provide a link or two. Until then ..... have a day.