Population Control

ChrisO

Registered User.
Local time
Tomorrow, 07:48
Joined
Apr 30, 2003
Messages
3,202
With all the talk about global warming these days it appears that the focus has been set on things such as carbon emissions. The simplistic aim seems to be that by reducing our emissions the planet will be saved.

Total emissions would seem to be average unit emissions multiplied by units. As units increase the average unit emissions must fall to maintain total emissions in order to save the planet.

Can the planet be saved by simply reducing one side of the equation and ignoring the other?

Chris.
 
Reducing population growth reduces consumption and tax revenue. I don't think I need to elaborate further to explain the focus of government policy.
 
If you reduce the number of units (ie people) the amount of emissions would reduce and equally if you could reduce the amount of emissions each person produces the total would fall. Now, obvioulsy, the UN is not about to advocate a cull of the human population :eek: (that os something the EU might come up with :p) which is why the emphasis is on people reducing their contribution.

Incidentally, On a UK tv program the other night, there was mention of some expert who had figured out that 1 medium size dog (German Shepherd) had a greater carbon footprint than that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year. Even smaller pets have worse footprints than othet vehicles and gadgets. Have a look here http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2987848/Save-the-planet-time-to-eat-dog
 
I think you are correct.

It also appears to be a push pull situation.

The push seems to come from revenue.
The pull seems to come from not discussing anything that might see them thrown out of office.

I guess that 'units' also include dogs and cows and everything else which goes to support humans.

Chris.
 
Often Westerners point to the burgeoning populations of countries like India as something to turn the attention away from their own need for reducing emissions.

However that argument falls over when you realise one average Westerner produces more emissions than ten average Indians.
 
The problem there though is not the people but the goverments need to become this great 'powerhouse' and burn so much fosil fuel. It has an almost child like attitude; well you have been using fosil fuels for x00 years, so we can do the same untill we catch up.

All the while you have individuals who believe "leave it to the next generation" and goverments who believe "we didn't start it, it will cost too much" it will not get 'fixed'. Its similar to the financial troubles, goverments get cornered and have to come up with harsh austerity measures, only for the people to protest because its 'unfair on me, i had nothing to do with it'.

I say leave it to 'Mother Nature', she has a way of sorting things out. Floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions etc In the 'old days' we had wars to reduce the population, but generally we are too 'civilized' now:rolleyes:.
 
The problem there though is not the people but the goverments need to become this great 'powerhouse' and burn so much fosil fuel. It has an almost child like attitude; well you have been using fosil fuels for x00 years, so we can do the same untill we catch up.
The wealth of the western world is built on this pollution. Morally we should be the ones leading the way with technologies to not only change our dependence on fossil fuels but to also help developing nations.

I say leave it to 'Mother Nature', she has a way of sorting things out. Floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions etc In the 'old days' we had wars to reduce the population, but generally we are too 'civilized' now:rolleyes:.

Climate Change will certainly respond to what is going on and sort population out eventually but not in a fair or intelligent way. Those least responsible for the pollution will suffer the most. The children and the yet to be born as well as those living in low and environmentally vulnerable places.

I know we can do better but unfortunately the nay sayers continue to loudly repeat the propaganda fed to them by those with vested interest in fossil fuels.
 
Humanity is good at growing the last 100 years and industrial revolution has all been about growth.

I suspect things will unravel a bit though as we are hitting the limits of space and resources. Peak oil looks like its happening now and certainly there are massive constraints now on space and land.

I doubt very much the hard decisions that will need to be taken will be taken until we get some kind of reprimand from the environment.

In this respect I think peak oil will actually be quite a good thing. Force us to live closer together and be a bit more economical in our travel expectations. Likewise the financial disaster is going to force governments to live within their means which will hopefully lead to better investment decisions. That whole promise things now that others will have to pay for has to stop.

There are a lot of positives.
Space exploration seems to be entering a new era
3D manufacturing is exciting as is new developments in Solar
The crystalization of the standard model may lead to as yet unknown benefits ground breaking knowledge tends to lead to new industries.
Computers look set to improve and I suspect Moore's law will continue for some time there are still a number of things that can be done to get round the perceived plateaus.
Robotics are very interesting as well.

Can the planet be saved by reducing one side of the equation... Yes it can.

Too controversial for anything but dictatorships to tackle though.
 
I doubt that people will have the ability to collar their breeding to levels to maintain or reduce the population count, we will just have to trust natural (or unnatural) selection once the population becomes big enough to be unsustainable.
Humans just do not learn well when it required lifestyle changes. Back in the late 60s early 70s there was a big "save the planet" push trying to get people in North America (dont know about the resto of the globe back then) to do the 3Rs - "Reduce, Reuse and Recycle" - in order to save the planet. Driving down the road today I noticed that most of our neighbours on the road still have not understood the concept after 40 some years. They have two or three blue boxes overflowing with all sorts of packaging and materials in front of homes there 3 or 4 persons reside. So they seem to have missed out on 2/3 of the equation to cut down on excess pollution.
 
Humans just do not learn well when it required lifestyle changes. Back in the late 60s early 70s there was a big "save the planet" push trying to get people in North America (dont know about the resto of the globe back then) to do the 3Rs - "Reduce, Reuse and Recycle" - in order to save the planet.

I definitely agree with the first part. Every time I hear about an oil company wanting to drill in some hazardous area, and the people that support it saying "we need lower prices on gas", I have to chuckle. We'd rather risk seriously injuring or destroying the local ecosystem than pay more for gas. It's very short-sighted thinking.

As far as the 3 R's though, at least in my area, I've noticed a big difference from 20 years ago. Everyone has their recycling bin out front on garbage days now. On a recent week-long vacation I was on, my sister-in-law actually set aside all of our recyclables and took them home to place in her bin.

At the hospital I work at, there is actually a Green Team that promotes recycling and travels around to various departments instituting changes to encourage it.

I think overall the 3 R's has been a successful campaign, and as I seem to encounter a lot of younger people that are motivated to go green (most of the stubborn individuals I've noticed are in their late mid to senior years), I'm optimistic about the continued success of such programs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom