Science chief: cut birthrate to save Earth »
Posted By capn_caveman 1 year, 11 months ago in Science & TechnologyNew museum head says lower population would cut CO2 at a fraction of renewable energy cost
Read Full Story at observer.guardian.co.uk »
48 Views Share Story 13 Comments Report
Submitted By:
capn_caveman
I'm an engineer that loves 'anything' science. I'm interested in physics, astronomy, space exploration, Earth sciences, and mathematics to name just a few ...
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 19 (view all)
-
0%
TechnologyExpert1 year, 11 months ago
It's not just CO2 ... it's everything. The world cannot sustain the population predicted for 2050. Besides global warming, we need to worry about sufficient food, water, and energy, especially as we start to run out of oil.
Reply -
0%
agentX1 year, 11 months ago
Some countries already have a shrinking birthrate. Now if we can only adjust the birthrate in other areas.
One good step would be to end abstinence only education. Yeah, like that crap ever really worked.
Reply -
-
-
0%
Aidenag1 year, 11 months ago
That is true, most Americans(self included sadly) produce as much Co2 as some villages do in the 3rd world.
I think what he is getting at though is that nothing else we can do will have the impact that stopping population growth or putting it into negative numbers for a while would have. And i gotta agree, not only is it the easiest remedy, its one that keeps the planet the way humanity has loved it. Not destroyed and without nature. The fact we are going through an extinction period right now should be a wake up call to everyone that we have changed the natural balance beyond the tipping point.
Sadly its a very taboo topic, and i doubt anything will get done about it during this century. Not when you have religious leaders from all faiths telling their followers to pump out the babies as fast as we can.
Reply
-
-
0%
drunkenhunter1 year, 11 months ago
And then a miracle occurs...the miracle is convincing third world men to father just one baby in their entire lives...yes the whole world would be rich and happy in one generation if they did that but their machismo would suffer. If you are poor-- machismo, some kids--well what else DO you have?
Reply-
0%
queenb7271 year, 11 months ago
While the third world should control their birthrate also, it's the west that uses up more resources. But less people would definately approve their standard of living.
Reply
-
-
0%
UBCONFUSE1 year, 11 months ago
This is an excellent story, and I agree with many of the above comments. The problem with controlling population growth is the interruption of cultural sexual practices cannot be changed without the use of force. Poor people use their genitals as their primary source of recreation. Unprotected sex is the norm for 75% of the world's people.
The Chinese have been successful in limiting births to one child, but years of killing female children in favor of a male is now a major social issue.
For the planet Earth, we, the West, have to practice some tough love with the third world.
1) Stop all food aid in the third world.
2) Stop all medical intervention in the third world.
3) Erect heavy barriers to immigration to all but the brightest minds and allow them in as a gene pool for the displaced.
4) Stay out of the internal affairs of the Third world, aka, ignore genocide as tribal warfare was historically responsible for stable populations.
I did not say I like this. It would be effective.
Reply -
0%
simonsez1 year, 11 months ago
You could put ALL the people in the WORLD in Texas and have less than half the density of New York, Hong Kong or Tokyo.
In a year or two, it will become clear that CO2 was bad science.
The biggest problem we have at the moment is what to do with all these water bottles. Maybe the best thing we can do for the planet is drink tap water
Reply-
0%
Bkumm1 year, 11 months ago
simon, that's not true. We've been to this movie before. If you put every body in Texas, including on the lakes, rivers and streams you would have a population density of 25,218 persons to the square mile. That's more than the 'worst' number I could find for either Tokyo or New York. The most crowded city on Earth (pop density wise) is probably Dehli with a pop density of 26,330. Even so, it's a misleading argument. However, it may have been true when you heard it. Population has been increasing at a staggering rate.
Water bottles are a problem and so is clean drinking water.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
4mogger1 year, 11 months ago
Another benefit is that the gene pool is also well served by your position...
Reply
-
-
0%
Tigra1 year, 11 months ago
this isnt rocket science. Most of the developed world live longer than our predecessors, and the overpopulous will take its toll on the earth's climate overall. It's nice in theory to say "cut the birthrate", but how does one enforce that? doing what China does?! I dont think so!!
Reply -
0%
4mogger1 year, 11 months ago
Fortunately, global warming will dramatically increase the production of food crops throughout most of the world--particularly in northern regions with traditionally short growing seasons.
AIDS will also become a major population limiter in the decades to come.
On the upside, Muslim Extremists are outpopulating every segment 10 to 1. This should also dramatically reduce the global population through massive death tolls from terrorist attacks.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.