Preventing natural behavior can be done without the kinds of human rights violations we see in China? I mean, as Famine pointed out it can be punishable by torture and death and people still violate the law. You probably don't have an answer, but what kind of friendly and humane way would make people not have children?
That's right I have no answer. I still do think it's the problem though.
And that cán be possible.
Just to point out, you think it's all said and done with natural behavior.
Famine said he was primarily a biologist. But natural behavior only came to be natural behavior because it worked out for us as a species before.
It's the first time we threaten to actually hit a population limit on earth here at all. It provides even more reason to suspect that while it might not be possible for us to stop reproducing (with or without population controll), it still doesn't mean we're going to get away with it at all.
Because it would be the first time a species would have to stop (or more like.. limit) reproduction in order for use to substain ourselves.
So there's no realistic scenario imaginable to think that we have enough discipline for that. It was never needed in the first place in the history of evolution.
Actually, it'll keep on killing species if we can't get this urge to reproduce out of our systems at some critical stage in time. It'll happen all over and over again. If species will keep on becoming anywhere near as succesfull at all.
Because there's no denying the limits of our own earth.
Don't ask me if it's possible. It's necesarry IMO.
Could be all dependant on how population numbers are going to change. But if increasing it has to be done anyway. Whether it be natural or unnatural.
It's the only example we have of any state attempting to bulldoze human rights and legislate childbirth.
Of course, bulldozing human rights isn't really a problem for the Chinese state - they're quite hot on denying any and every human right they think helps the Party. But even when they lock up, torture and execute people for breaking the rules - even when they have people aborting female foetuses so their one child is male and will carry their name to the next generation - they still have a population growth three times higher than the entire G7 put together.
I just want to repeat that. The Chinese state imprisons, tortures and kills people who break the law and yet they have a net population growth of 6.4 million people a year.
It. Doesn't. Work.
Though I understand the things you describe, I still don't think this excludes it from being possible at all. It can only show.
And if proven necesarry we're just going to have to máke it possible.
It's based on the same things I said to FoolKiller. Because if it's necesarry, we will have to. Doesn't matter in "what way" or whatever.
Unless we make it worse than the actual consequences caused by global warming itsself.
It's irrelevant.
The right answer is the right answer. A wrong answer is a wrong answer, no matter how urgent or pressing it is. The bigger the problem and the larger the consequences, the more important it is to have the right answer, rather than any. If you accept that global warming is a massive problem with the entire human race at stake, then you have to agree that getting the answer right is absolutely crucial.
Is in some way true, but only to a certain extend.
First of all, there's a difference between answers and solutions.
Answers are for human-created questions. Often with "right" or "wrong" answers. Solutions have got to do with reality.
It might sound real good and safe while actually preventing all kinds of risks.
Reality/nature works even móre complicated than that though, still featuring the possibility of not finding a perfect solution at all, and featuring solutions with a low probability and with a high probability.
You can't take that away and stamp it off like it's "irrelevant". That's why there's a danger in thinking you can come up with a right or perfect solution.
There is no question, nor will there probably be a perfect answer.
And while being in search of that we'll still have more time ticking away, whatever the limit might be.
It seems somehow that this perfect or right solution of yours requires it to have no consequences at all. How can you know for sure that this solution will come?
Implementing a wrong answer could well reduce the amount of time available to us. We'd also be wasting time trying to implement it that we could spend getting it right.
There is no convincing argument you can come up with to advance the notion that, in the case of a planet-changing problem that we don't really understand, we must try anything, right this very second rather than being patient and getting it right.
Time could be convincing enough. Should be at least. Just merely by itsself. No, I don't know it what it is at the moment or how much time we can still have. But if I did, it should be able to be enough for me to convince you of a so called "wrong solution" now rather than a "right solution" later.
Because the way you describe it, this wrong solution is a solution simply with a low(or, lower) chance of succes. In your opinion at least, after comparing it with the succes China has had so far.
Humans for example could prove to be very willing to limit some of this "freedom to reproduce". It could be introduced globally to such extend that people will start realising the reasons for this to be done.
Offcourse, that's a 1 in a billion lottery ticket. But if I was going to be shot down right now without any chance, or with still a chance of 1 in a billion, I'd still take the 1 in a billion.
There is also another thing. You think the entire population on earth is only capable of doing one thing at a time. If you introduce measures to reduce the global population steadily now, you can still always in the meantime try to come up with different and better solutions anyway. But don't risk ending up with no possible solution anymore at all after the time runs out.
Who can say?
If it's so urgent, we must get it right, rather than risking everything and wasting time on answers that we cannot know are correct. Especially when the answer you propose is considerably more likely to harm the human race if it was successful (when the only example we have of it is not) because it has been proposed with no understanding of the mechanisms involved.
There's a difference again between time urgency, and solutions that "listen carefully(I believe it was called)" if that's what you're after. If so, you are talking about a different sence of urgency than the one that really applies. The urgency to get it right has not been proven yet. It could be that there are actually all kinds of possible solutions for it, as long as CO2 emmisions decreases to
some certain value or number).
But the urgency of time is very likely to exist, seeing some of the possible symptoms of this global warming effect are still worsening though as we speak.
You have no reason to believe that any change in population numbers will do anything. Luckily, science is not carried out based on "belief". There is no research that says 6.8 billion people is worse for global warming than 6.7 billion people was. We don't have to kill those 100,000,000 people now.
As long as CO2 is proven to be caused by factories, it's the science of economy wich is all you need. Decrease in population decreases the demand for cars and luxury.
I shouldn't have to explain that.
Unless you can imagine people to be born who naturally don't have the need of food, water, shelter, jobs, money etc etc etc. This is not a crime, to have those needs. But to keep "producing" those needs in the end can be considered as such IMO.
I pretty much think it's criminal for an almost starving African women to produce 10 more children to support their mother.
It's obviously not working.
Now, some news on our news channel appeared mentioning the forest and land burning down in russia wich has caused russia to stop export of grain and other certain products.
They say that that will cause the grain price to go up in the rest of the world because of that, but that it was already rising at the moment because of the
increasing world population and increasing world demand. The prices will rise even further now because of Russia though.
This is not science at all, you just have to be aware a bit and look around to already see the signals of overpopulation. Offcourse it would only be overpopulation in terms of grain if the price would rise too much in the end.
nikki
And what country has the highest CO2 production per capita
Can I just point out that whatever country that may be, it probably is because it's supporting the western habbits at the moment.
Judging from driftkings comments, it's still the US. Per capita.
So if all this global warming is happening just because we're maintaining this lifestyle for merely 2 of the 6,8 billion people at the moment, I have enough reason to be worried about developing nations at the moment.
I don't know why you're asking this though. As it doesn't even matter who or what country decreases in population IMO. It would be obvious that the most high polluters decrease first. I think living in wooden huts is less of a possibility than population controll is, if you are thinking about the "succes rate" of a solution actually being able to work. Wooden huts is definately not going to work. Again don't come with this "show me proof" story all over again. It's just not realistic. It involves way more than actually just trying to decrease the population through some kind of birth controll system as no country will ever voluntarily drop all of their technology without the neighbours at least doing the same thing. It would create a lot of tention to say the least.
)
