Lets have a global "one child" policy

[MrJonno]

Point I was making 2 billion people living at 1st world standards is far more of a drain than 1 billion and 9 billion living in poverty
China and India are going to be the resource eaters and I don't either of their populations are going on much these days

[Coito ergo sum]

Why do you think people are really serious about saving the planet?

Best point on the thread. No one is serious about "saving the planet".

Particularly those who try to sell carbon credits, or promote their sale, and other modern day boondoggles. Guys like Al Gore, who don't do a damn thing to reduce their own carbon footprint, fly all over the world on private jets, drive huge fleets of vehicles, and live in houses 50 to 100 times larger than is necessary to house their families. If they were serious, they wouldn't be so hypocritical about it.

That term is nonsense at any rate since the planet will be around long after humans. The planet has been through far worse than anything measly humans can do to it. Saving animals and plants, OK, the planet? The planet will shake us off like a bunch of fleas. As for saving animals and plants, no one gives a shit. The global "we" are short sighted, only care about our own lifetimes and are far more concerned with consuming and making profits than saving some fish, rainforests, endangered animals, or even ourselves. People may talk the big talk about "saving the planet" but it's nothing more than another consumer fad. Green this green that, recycle this, organic that. The consumer machine itself is the problem, that problem will not be solved by recycling your cans and paper or buying an organic banana.

Your point here is taken. The planet doesn't know humans are here. We're no more the purpose or end goal of the planet than fleas or rocks. There were billions of years before humans when the planet was still spinning and moving around. There will be billions more after we're long gone.

And, people are only concerned about the planet insofar as it is a minor inconvenience, or some cost-free mode of feeling like they are "saving the planet." Make sure you put your aluminum cans in the recycle bin. Oh, we'll do that. But, turn off your a/c, and/or have a family of 5 living in an 1200 square foot house? Not going to happen.

I get all kinds of shit for supposedly being Mr. capitalist, libertarian-ish, who scoffs at environmentalists. However, from what I can see, those that talk the loudest about environmentalism do just about the least. I know couples - just two people - that live in houses 3,000 and even 4,000 square feet, and who claim to be liberal environmentalists. I'm the evil libertarian, and I have a 5 mile commute and a house (paid off) that is under 2,000 square feet for 3 people, and I cut my own grass with a non-powered "reel" mower, and trim my hedges with a muscle powered hedge clipper. My liberal environmentalist friends I just referred to each have lawn services and power leaf blowers. They water their lawns. My sprinkler system is off. Sure, they'll do the bullshit -- the easy stuff -- separate paper and metal in their garbage -- but, ask them to exchange their lawn mower for a non-powered variety, or turn off the a/c....lol

[Coito ergo sum]

Why do you think people are really serious about saving the planet?

Best point on the thread. No one is serious about "saving the planet". That term is nonsense at any rate since the planet will be around long after humans. The planet has been through far worse than anything measly humans can do to it. Saving animals and plants, OK, the planet? The planet will shake us off like a bunch of fleas. As for saving animals and plants, no one gives a shit. The global "we" are short sighted, only care about our own lifetimes and are far more concerned with consuming and making profits than saving some fish, rainforests, endangered animals, or even ourselves. People may talk the big talk about "saving the planet" but it's nothing more than another consumer fad. Green this green that, recycle this, organic that. The consumer machine itself is the problem, that problem will not be solved by recycling your cans and paper or buying an organic banana.

Of course I'm not talking about saving the rocks.
Personally, I'm talking about the scandal of extinction. Extinctions of whole habitats.

I'm highly dubious about global warming, but the avalanche of extinctions just can't be denied.

We are wiping out species at an incredible rate, and that is a true crime against nature, to me.
If the human population can be cut, the rate of extinctions could be halted, because we wouldn't need to destroy habitats.
In many countries, the way that population rise is halted is by education of women, and in many cases just by a culture change. In Brazil, it seems to have been hugely affected by soap operas, of all things.
The conventional attitudes were turned on their heads, by story lines in popular soaps.
Not an expensive way to get the message across.

Just out of curiosity, would you specify some examples of species that have been rendered extinct, say, in the last 50 years?

[MrJonno]

have a family of 5 living in an 1200 square foot house? Not going to happen.

1200 square foot is actually quite a bit of space for 5 people, very few British houses are that big

[Coito ergo sum]

have a family of 5 living in an 1200 square foot house? Not going to happen.

1200 square foot is actually quite a bit of space for 5 people, very few British houses are that big

American houses are larger than Brit houses. Here, 1100-1200 square feet gets you a 3 bedroom house, with small rooms, and with 3 kids that would mean kids would be sharing a room. Average home size in the US is 2300 sq ft or 214 sq meters, and in the UK it's 76 sq meters or about 820 sq feet, or thereabouts. Going down to 1100 or 1200 sq feet in the US would be cutting home size in 1/2.

My point is that environmentalists here won't do what really helps reduce carbon footprints, etc. --- they'll throw a can into a recycle bin, but they won't reduce their standard of living. Not here, anyway.

I think the Brits never got into bigger houses, so I wouldn't expect them to be able to drop from 76 sq meters average. Hard to cram a family into that space, I think.

[MrJonno]

Basically environmentalism isnt compatible with democracy, human beings arent compatible with thinking about anything on a global long term basis.

How many people really make genuine sacrifices in their quality of life for anything other than their immediate familes. That's not to say people don't give to charity but rarely enough that is has any great affect on their lifestyles. The people who do are the exceptions which is why they stand out

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think humans could live with the planet if they evolved beyond needing material possessions to survive. Of course they'd no longer be humans, strictly speaking, but that's not a bad thing for the rest of life on this planet I think.

[Drewish]

3 possible approaches to this problem:
- Family size limitations and lowered standards of living brought about through environmentally justified legislation.
- Stop helping the poor and subsidizing kids, then let a combination of reduced birth rates and starvation do your work for you.
- Ignore the problem or claim that it will work itself out.

We can disagree regarding going with #1 or #2, but #3 seems to be what the world wants to go with because anything to delay dealing with an issue.

[Coito ergo sum]

The solution to the problem is expansion of the human race to other worlds.

Unite as one people, and direct the energy and resources we now expend on war to harvesting resources from outer space and eventually putting some, if not most, of our eggs in other baskets.

[MrJonno]

3 possible approaches to this problem:
- Family size limitations and lowered standards of living brought about through environmentally justified legislation.
- Stop helping the poor and subsidizing kids, then let a combination of reduced birth rates and starvation do your work for you.
- Ignore the problem or claim that it will work itself out.

We can disagree regarding going with #1 or #2, but #3 seems to be what the world wants to go with because anything to delay dealing with an issue.

Still confused about where helping the poor and subsidising kids actually happens. It certainly doesnt happen where the population increases are . There a very high % do die in birth and starve if they don't.

Family sizes are tiny in the 1st world not sufficient to replenish those who are here without immigration

[Drewish]

3 possible approaches to this problem:
- Family size limitations and lowered standards of living brought about through environmentally justified legislation.
- Stop helping the poor and subsidizing kids, then let a combination of reduced birth rates and starvation do your work for you.
- Ignore the problem or claim that it will work itself out.

We can disagree regarding going with #1 or #2, but #3 seems to be what the world wants to go with because anything to delay dealing with an issue.

Still confused about where helping the poor and subsidising kids actually happens. It certainly doesnt happen where the population increases are . There a very high % do die in birth and starve if they don't.

Family sizes are tiny in the 1st world not sufficient to replenish those who are here without immigration

You're forgetting that our population is increasing due to immigration.

[Seth]

If we were REALLY serious about saving the planet, we should do what China did.

Abandon their "one child" policy because it turned out to be an incredibly bad idea? You are aware that's what China has done, right? Or did you miss that small fact?

Spread it right round the world. If you're going to have loads of kids, you have to pay the price.

Dump socialism and make people pay to raise their own children and population control works itself out quite nicely.

What's more important? Freedoms today, or a viable planet for the next 100 years?

Freedom today. The planet will remain viable no matter what. It may be somewhat unpleasant for some group of humans in the far future, but who cares, I'll be dead by then and it'll be up to them to handle the challenges of nature just as everyone else has had to do over the millennia.

Right now, people obviously don't take the threat to the planet seriously, or they would be willing to give up having big families.

Actually, they have big families BECAUSE of the potential that some or even most of them won't survive. That's how evolution works, you see.

So it's time for the law to take over, and remove ALL incentives to breed more than one child. ie, remove all state benefits over and above the amount for one. As a start.

I'm fine with removing all state benefits of any description whatsoever for anyone, child or adult.

[MrJonno]

Net immigration into the UK is tiny compared to the general population, population issues simply dont exist in the 1st world

[laklak]

1200 square feet? Where would the pool table go? What about the home theater? The gun locker? Or, most importantly, the BAR? Nah, fuck that.

[Seth]

Personally, I'm talking about the scandal of extinction. Extinctions of whole habitats.
I'm highly dubious about global warming, but the avalanche of extinctions just can't be denied.

Natural selection in action. What, you don't like Darwinism anymore?

We are wiping out species at an incredible rate, and that is a true crime against nature, to me.

Oh well. We're the apex predators of the planet, so it belongs to us and we can do as we please. Who needs all those evolutionarily inferior Darwinian dead-end species that are incapable of adapting to changing conditions anyway? Extinction is the process by which new species are created and get their chance at carving out a niche. If the Preble's meadow jumping mouse goes extinct because humans have converted the riparian habitat it needs to survive into croplands, well, the field mouse will flourish in its place and the environmental niche will be filled.

Most of the "species" we're wiping out are useless, weak remnants of species that are not able to adapt, and their absence will have little or no effect on the continued viability of life on earth precisely because they were doomed to extinction, just like the dinosaurs, by their genetic inferiority.

The whole "tipping point" canard is just so much bullshit. There is no "tipping point" there is only change. If we strip the seas of all the fish we like to eat, then fish we do not like to eat will evolve in their place. If we wipe out every other species on the planet, we will either adapt and overcome or we will die, and new creatures will evolve.

The earth abides, and life goes on. No need to worry about it because nothing catastrophic is going to happen in YOUR lifetime, and the problems of the future are for future generations and species to adapt to...or not.

If the human population can be cut, the rate of extinctions could be halted, because we wouldn't need to destroy habitats.

Humans are the apex creatures on the planet. It belongs to us to use as we will, and fuck everything else. It's ours to manipulate, protect or destroy at our will because we have the intelligence and capacity to do so. That's how evolution works. It's harsh and unforgiving and if some critter somewhere can't adapt to our presence and our activities, then it deserves to go extinct because it's genetically inferior.