Methane releases, well we've got that underway and still no one showing any real concern, and that could be the trigger point where we pass the point of no return, so let's burn some more coal and drill some more oil wells, is seems the cars so important we will sacrifice the planet, just try suggesting we lower the speed limit to conserve oil and you will see what I mean.
so lets push onto. with a few decades or centuries for each event,
Oceanic oxygen depletion,
Hydrogen sulfide releases,
Ozone deletion,
Extinction.
It's possible the reason for the worst extinction event ever, so are we trying for a rerun, going for the double, sorry no prizes for this one, the older I get the stupider I think the human race is.
The debate is whether mankind is causing this or not.
Scientists can link carbon dioxide levels with temperature on a geological time scale.
So we know carbon dioxide contributes to warming.
But, the way people go about trying to solve the problem is all wrong.
I believe population control is the way to go. Over a long time scale, the world population should be reduced to 3 billion. Whats the big deal with doing that?
I went to the Gareth Hughes (a Green MP) "unf&%k the world" talk at lunch time today. It was highly amusing :P
I think one of the big differences between me and the Greens it they're very pessimistic while I'm optimistic that the human race has powerful capabilities to adapt.
wreck90: I believe population control is the way to go. Over a long time scale, the world population should be reduced to 3 billion. Whats the big deal with doing that?
And what methods would you suggest for that? Global genecide??
If Global Warming is a myth then why is it that the global governments are considering a Geo-engineering project to oppose this mythological threat?
Without a doubt, there is in-fact methods that are being put in place to stop the potential threat of global warming. One of the methods is aerosol spraying or in scientific terms; geo-modding the sky to block out the suns harmful rays on Earth's ozone layer. This method in-fact has been occurring long before Global Warming was opposed to be any potential threat to Earth & it's inhabitants.
The problem with geo-engineering is the affects it could have on mankind & the environment over a long period of time. The scientist's that have input on the geo-engineering scheme need and must apply vigorous study or else it's us (humanity) that will be on the receiving end?
wreck90: I believe population control is the way to go. Over a long time scale, the world population should be reduced to 3 billion. Whats the big deal with doing that?
And what methods would you suggest for that? Global genecide??
Unfortunately we have no mechanism to bring down the population fast enough that it can occur in a gentle way, how do you get across to religious people that they must stop breading, with the go forth and multiply preachings. we are behaving like any other animal that has an abundant food supply, we breed up to the supply limit, then nature knocks the population back again, how far the population goes back depends on how far we push the worlds resources into over shoot.
When I was growing up the worlds population was just over 2 billion, in another 70 odd years it's unlighted to be any higher, I was brought up on the idea of no more than the 2 child family, that, in today's world is to high a birth rate.
Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.
Most population models predict a peak of about 10 billion, then a decline after that. You tend to get an increase in population growth as improved health care and lower infant mortality reaches into areas which need it, then (the theory goes) you tend to get a decline in population when a society reaches an advanced industrial stage of organisation capable of providing for its citizens in old age, at that point the birth rate starts declining.
There was a population control initiative in Haiti where some American population foundation was paying on a per-woman-sterilized basis with pretty much all the horrible stuff you can possibly imagine going on around that. Also, China too has some horrible stories to tell about compulsory population control policies.
Certainly the population peak will be challenging. But we have the technology to meet that challenge. The idea of compulsory reducing of population to avoid meeting those challenges is simplistic, unrealistic, and something only a dictatorship would consider.
It would be great if that happens, but if you look at what happened on Easter Island the population dropped from 15000 to between 2000 to 3000 in less than 100 years, and we are doing what they did, destroying our environment, but on a bigger scale, we are polluting our water, rivers and aquifer's, land, air and sea, we are responsible for an extinction of plants and animals on a scale not seen since the asteroid impact that destroyed the dinosaurs,
We have the ability to turn it around but I don't believe we have the time, we are too reliant on oil for fertilizer and insecticides that fueled the green revolution, I agree the population started to grow when they started to get on top of disease, in the 1850s Manchester's infant mortality was 56% before the age of 5 but that was better than London a century before which stood at 74.5%, the poor in the towns died young the rich fared much better living in the country, but it wasn't until the mid 1950s that they could cure TB, and I see know that's starting to make a comeback.
BS: Unfortunately we have no mechanism to bring down the population fast enough that it can occur in a gentle way, how do you get across to religious people that they must stop breading, with the go forth and multiply preachings. we are behaving like any other animal that has an abundant food supply, we breed up to the supply limit, then nature knocks the population back again, how far the population goes back depends on how far we push the worlds resources into over shoot.
When I was growing up the worlds population was just over 2 billion, in another 70 odd years it's unlighted to be any higher, I was brought up on the idea of no more than the 2 child family, that, in today's world is to high a birth rate.
yup, some people already think we're close to the peak
others think the peak is higher (like the 10 billion said earlier)
but few people now think we're still on unbounded growth forever
So the real question in regards to global population is - what agenda do the global governments appose or are considering to this fast paced industrialised economy we live in??
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
