Science – New museum head says lower population would cut CO2 at a fraction of renewable energy cost
The problem I find with his argument is that, as far as I can see, developed nations, which are the most polluting, already have a really low birth rate.
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.
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.
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
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.
I think it is true. I think I saw 8.3 million people in the NY area ... I did not find the square mile number, but the equivalent number would allow for approx. 320 square miles.
The point is we are not overpopulated and I doubt that we will ever be. Somehow nature takes care of this. At the moment aids may be the culprit, but a pandemic of any sort would re-adjust us. We have no idea what a "tipping point" of poulation might be, but I don't believe we are anywhere near it.
As far as I can tell, clean water is a "perceived" problem at this point. Proper treatment facilities can provide clean water. I don't know of any area of the USA or Canada which has dangerous drinking water. You probably know that distilled water is dangerous to drink for long periods of time. We have excellent tap water where I live.
Ok. Let's say the rest of the world is absolutely destroyed and we all live in Texas. Where do we put waste? Where do we grow food, or keep domesticated animals. What about schools and jobs? Where will people sleep? Have sex? Where are the cemetaries. Do we have room for a fire department or police?
If everyone in the world lived in Texas, all we'd be able to do is wait around to die of starvation, dehydration, exposure, or murder from people ticked off about lack of space.
queenb: If the planet were the size of Texas and we all lived in it, yes, we would have a significant problem.
Fortunately, it's much bigger than that.
I was responding to comments that we can all fit in Texas so we don't need to worry about damage we may be causing the environment. The problem is, if we continue to consume the way we do, we could face problems much like the ones presented in my last comment.
It doesn't matter how large the planet is if there aren't any more resourses on it. It would just be a bunch of useless space.
It depends on what one considers the 'area' of New York. I found four different numbers. The point is that those numbers are misleading. Sure, we could stack people on top of each other until they reach the sky, but there are other considerations.
We have great tap water where I live, but there are parts of Nebraska where the water is unsafe to drink due to nitrates or Atrazine. There are other places in the US where this is also true, never mind lead, mercury, et al.
What seems to take care of it the best is getting everyone to a fairly high level of economic development. If one adjusts for immigration all of the G-8 have decreasing populations, including the US.
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.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
mikedammann
pawfoots
Jomarie
thesonofhob
jcolman
Beeboppin71
queenb727
miklkit
GraceCheng1
Neophile
Waterkeeper
saltyveruca
Ciera Marie
lenseview
simonsez
Helixbuilder
Bkumm
avpd85
qilla
creatza5555
Malaika111
plopplop70
drunkenhunter
deathray
TimALoftis
juvel
Prismoon
urmil2
rider87
Hullios
carsreview
Aidenag
Jayson
STONERS
Rigel
BronxBomber
dadesider
jordan11
AmericanIdiot
texangelwings
agentX
gfarral
uncogito
Deidre
Heloise00
popbob
TechnologyExpert
idyll
Monte G
capn_caveman
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
19)
Vote
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.