NationStates Jolt Archive

So says a "green thinktank," Optimum Population Trust. And it's probably true. Lots of things are bad for CO2 levels, and population is probably one of them.

My last thread regarding non-essential air travel (vacations) being bad for the environment was pretty interesting. A good number of people here agreed that it is ethically right to stay off planes and conserve fuel unless absolutely necessary, for the good of the planet and its CO2 levels. This one's in the same vein, and I would phrase the question in this way:

Will you consider the environment when deciding to have children, or how many children you want?

This doesn't mean having fewer or no children.. it only means factoring the environment into your decision.

Inspired by this article:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21684156-5009760,00.html

Poll coming.

Edit: No poll. Ah, my first botched thread. :)

Will you consider the environment when deciding to have children, or how many children you want?


Though it will most likely be determined by how many times i forget a rubber, money will probably be the determining factor.

i like the idea of having a dozen little versions of me running around. But i hope they don't put me through what i put my parents through.

No, it really doesn't. When I'm considering the environment, I consider the quality of life for future generations. Having children = caring about the environment, because otherwise the environment only needs to suit your present needs. (Unless you really care about other people's children, or humanity as an abstract concept.)

My last thread regarding non-essential air travel (vacations) being bad for the environment was pretty interesting. A good number of people here agreed that it is ethically right to stay off planes and conserve fuel unless absolutely necessary,

I still disagree with that and say that if you want to travel by air for whatever reason, then you should be allowed to and not be taxed to death because of it, or be made feel guilty because you're not being Econ-Friendly. Airplanes pollute as much as cars do, actually even less since there's less aircrafts in the air at any given time than cars, so really if you want to be "Eco-Friendly" you should ban cars.

I still disagree with that and say that if you want to travel by air for whatever reason, then you should be allowed to and not be taxed to death because of it, or be made feel guilty because you're not being Econ-Friendly. Airplanes pollute as much as cars do, actually even less since there's less aircrafts in the air at any given time than cars, so really if you want to be "Eco-Friendly" you should ban cars.

In practice, a flight tax would only really keep the poor from visiting swanky vacation spots built for yuppies, which won't really bother anyone. Gas taxes impact the poor the most, but no one really cares. Anyway, it's not going to keep you from flying a piper cub between small airfields. In any case, it's up to the large airlines to decide. After all, an eco-friendly image is good policy for any transnational corporation, and good PR is worth more than a few customers.

But that's the past. Today's issue is family size and the environment. ;)

In practice, a flight tax would only really keep the poor from visiting swanky vacation spots built for yuppies, which won't really bother anyone. Gas taxes impact the poor the most, but no one really cares. Anyway, it's not going to keep you from flying a piper cub between small airfields. In any case, it's up to the large airlines to decide. After all, an eco-friendly image is good policy for any transnational corporation, and good PR is worth more than a few customers.

But that's the past. Today's issue is family size and the environment. ;)

The Flight Tax (User Fee) has already been proposed in Congress, and it died a slow and painful death, mainly because senators and congressman fly corporate jets and don't want to be taxed themselves. Also the tax would affect everyone, from the Piper Cubs fliers all the way up to the corporate jet, it would cost more to operate an aircraft, and more people like me who are average joes, would find it more expensive to fly their small single engine airplane. Also, the airliners were the one behind the User Fee idea, and that did not work out well for them.

So General Aviation pilots with the help of AOPA = 1

Airliners and Eco-Friendly freaks who supports User Fees = 0

and who says that the rich (Congressman and Senators) don't help out the middle and lower class? :D

The Flight Tax (User Fee) has already been proposed in Congress, and it died a slow and painful death, mainly because senators and congressman fly corporate jets and don't want to be taxed themselves.

We'll see.. the hysteria hasn't achieved anything close to its potential. Also, the fee might not be in the form of a tax, but rather a rate hike by the airlines used to discourage vacation travel for PR puposes. We'll see. We're just getting started. This stuff's only going to get more intense.

We'll see.. the hysteria hasn't achieved anything close to its potential. Also, the fee might not be in the form of a tax, but rather a rate hike by the airlines used to discourage vacation travel for PR puposes. We'll see. We're just getting started. This stuff's only going to get more intense.

Ok, WHY would the airliners tax their own customers just for the sake of saying "Look at us, we're Eco-Friendly! We may be losing customers, but we're still Eco-Friendly!"

Instead of taxing the customer, they (and they are) building more efficient engines, better designed aircrafts and more efficient fuel systems for the aircrafts. Which is what they should be doing instead of this tax/fee crap.

Children aren't bad for the environment. Waste and inefficiency are bad for the environment.

What's bad for the environment is the way we use it; carrying capacity is utterly meaningless if we make adjustments to our lifestyle. If anything, we need plenty more children to keep the population and economy growing. That's the only way technology advances, pollution is brought under control, and overpopulation can be made irrelevant.

You need to grow in order to save the environment...it sounds counterintuitive, but it is true.

Ok, WHY would the airliners tax their own customers just for the sake of saying "Look at us, we're Eco-Friendly! We may be losing customers, but we're still Eco-Friendly!"

Instead of taxing the customer, they (and they are) building more efficient engines, better designed aircrafts and more efficient fuel systems for the aircrafts. Which is what they should be doing instead of this tax/fee crap.

1. Most people won't notice the fee, especially if it starts small.

2. Wait until global warming really gets political. It's going to be ugly. Think of what Wal-Mart spends on PR, and they've never been accused of destroying the planet. We'll see.

Children aren't bad for the environment. Waste and inefficiency are bad for the environment.

What's bad for the environment is the way we use it; carrying capacity is utterly meaningless if we make adjustments to our lifestyle. If anything, we need plenty more children to keep the population and economy growing. That's the only way technology advances, pollution is brought under control, and overpopulation can be made irrelevant.

You need to grow in order to save the environment...it sounds counterintuitive, but it is true.

Import those people necessary to economic growth from the third world.. they're already there. That, or outsource the work to them. No need to have children when there's already a glut. According to the article, the Earth will add 2.5 billion people by 2050, almost all in the third world. Their kids don't emit much CO2, while Western kids do..

1. Most people won't notice the fee, especially if it starts small.

2. Wait until global warming really gets political. It's going to be ugly. Think of what Wal-Mart spends on PR, and they've never been accused of destroying the planet. We'll see.

1. They'll notice it sooner or later, and when they do start to notice it, they'll stop traveling the airlines and go by other means like car. So instead of taking a mass transportation like an airliner, they're now traveling in personal cars, great...

2. It's not already really political? Beside, PR is overrated.

Import those people necessary to economic growth from the third world.. they're already there. That, or outsource the work to them. No need to have children when there's already a glut. According to the article, the Earth will add 2.5 billion people by 2050, almost all in the third world. Their kids don't emit much CO2, while Western kids do..

That's pretty much what we're doing. But then again, as places develop economically, they have fewer kids, so the problem sort of solves itself. Add in the fact that technology is advancing faster and faster, and you're going to have some serious downward pressure on these problems, especially as people use them more and more in their everyday lives. The reason why Western kids produce so much CO2 per capita is entirely due to the automobile; remove the need for fossil fuels in transportation, or at least in personal transportation, and CO2 emissions will plunge.

Also, replace coal power with natural gas, renewables, and nuclear. That would further slash CO2, probably as much or even more than getting rid of oil in vehicles.

That's pretty much what we're doing. But then again, as places develop economically, they have fewer kids, so the problem sort of solves itself. The reason why Western kids produce so much CO2 per capita is entirely due to the automobile; remove the need for fossil fuels in transportation, or at least in personal transportation, and CO2 emissions will plunge.

Also, replace coal power with natural gas, renewables, and nuclear. That would further slash CO2, probably as much or even more than getting rid of oil in vehicles.

That's true. The birthrate is already dropping rapidly. However, I think the article is from an Australian source.. Australia's fertility rate was actually around 2.0 a couple years back, so they have some catching up to do on population control, I suppose. :p

That's true. The birthrate is already dropping rapidly. However, I think the article is from an Australian source.. Australia's fertility rate was actually around 2.0 a couple years back, so they have some catching up to do on population control, I suppose. :p

The US has an elevated rate too, compared to most of Europe or Canada. I think the higher immigration rates for the US compared to Europe or Canada might affect it, since immigrants typically have elevated birthrates that might take a generation or two to harmonize with the average.

In the words of myself: "Screw the environment."

That is all.

My children emit gamma rays. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Baby.jpg

The Greatest Threat To Our Future...

I certainly won't be having more than two kids. Maybe not any. I don't understand the desire for more than that.

And yes, overpopulation is bad for the environment. This should be a no-brainer.

In the words of myself: "Screw the environment."

That is all.

Well then screw you.

An additional child would just cause an increase in CO2 simply because s/he breathes... well then, why don't they just kill themselves now? They are also contributing CO2, you know. And in that way, not only they have eliminated one current CO2 belching machine, they can't produce any more CO2 belching machines.

Stupid proposition.

So says a "green thinktank," Optimum Population Trust. And it's probably true. Lots of things are bad for CO2 levels, and population is probably one of them.

My last thread regarding non-essential air travel (vacations) being bad for the environment was pretty interesting. A good number of people here agreed that it is ethically right to stay off planes and conserve fuel unless absolutely necessary, for the good of the planet and its CO2 levels. This one's in the same vein, and I would phrase the question in this way:

Will you consider the environment when deciding to have children, or how many children you want?

This doesn't mean having fewer or no children.. it only means factoring the environment into your decision.

Inspired by this article:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21684156-5009760,00.html

Poll coming.

Edit: No poll. Ah, my first botched thread. :)

Clearly the Human race should stop reproducing. Since we have such a horrible effect on the environment the only logical, and moral solution would be to allow us to go extinct. Save the planet, don't have children.

I don't care about global warming. This seems to be nothing but paranoia, I'm sure it is not caused by human activity.

I never was going to have kids anyway, but any-one who follows what "green think-tanks" say is completely clueless or brainwashed. It's always like "CO2 is bad! Lets get rid of it! We don't care that it naturally comes from some things!"

So no, I would not consider the environment in such a sitiuation. The environment does not come first wit everything. I'm not that much of a hippie. Same thing goes for air travel (the planes still fly even if you're not on it), and any other propositions you have posted.

My children emit gamma rays. :)

prove it.

prove it.

Here is a picture of my son playing with legos:link (http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/2006-0731burst.jpg)

Here is a picture of my son playing with legos:link (http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/2006-0731burst.jpg)

No it's not. Trust me, i've seen that pic before.

No it's not. Trust me, i've seen that pic before.

:eek:

You've seen pictures of my son playing with legos before?!? :eek:

OMG!!! STALKER!!! :mad:

Here is a picture of my son playing with legos:link (http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/2006-0731burst.jpg)

awwww:) so fun to see kids playing.

here my six month old clapping link (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/MountRedoubtEruption.jpg)

awwww:) so fun to see kids playing.

here my six month old clapping link (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/MountRedoubtEruption.jpg)

And people say children are bad for the environment. ;)

So says a "green thinktank," Optimum Population Trust. And it's probably true. Lots of things are bad for CO2 levels, and population is probably one of them.

My last thread regarding non-essential air travel (vacations) being bad for the environment was pretty interesting. A good number of people here agreed that it is ethically right to stay off planes and conserve fuel unless absolutely necessary, for the good of the planet and its CO2 levels. This one's in the same vein, and I would phrase the question in this way:

Will you consider the environment when deciding to have children, or how many children you want?

This doesn't mean having fewer or no children.. it only means factoring the environment into your decision.

Inspired by this article:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21684156-5009760,00.html

Poll coming.

Edit: No poll. Ah, my first botched thread. :)

Yes. The environmental inmpacts of overpopulation impact my reproductive decisions. Concern about overpopulation and the economical implications tie for the top two reasons why I have yet to decide to breed.

I don't care about global warming. This seems to be nothing but paranoia, I'm sure it is not caused by human activity.

I never was going to have kids anyway, but any-one who follows what "green think-tanks" say is completely clueless or brainwashed. It's always like "CO2 is bad! Lets get rid of it! We don't care that it naturally comes from some things!"

So no, I would not consider the environment in such a sitiuation. The environment does not come first wit everything. I'm not that much of a hippie. Same thing goes for air travel (the planes still fly even if you're not on it), and any other propositions you have posted.

Wow I am not so sure that environmentalists are brainwashed dullards. Looky here, it isn't just about C)2 levels it is also about the destruction of natural habitats! More people has meant more natural areas being destroyed to make room for more houses, schools, stores, roads, etc. This is more of a concern to me. I think that every nation on Earth should increase natural habitats by at least 0.5% for at least 100 years. We need to undo a lot of the damage that was caused to natural habitats over the past couple of centuries.

Zoos should be an educational place, we should not have to need them to provide the majority of habitat for some species, this is disgusting.

So says a "green thinktank," Optimum Population Trust. And it's probably true. Lots of things are bad for CO2 levels, and population is probably one of them.

My last thread regarding non-essential air travel (vacations) being bad for the environment was pretty interesting. A good number of people here agreed that it is ethically right to stay off planes and conserve fuel unless absolutely necessary, for the good of the planet and its CO2 levels. This one's in the same vein, and I would phrase the question in this way:

Will you consider the environment when deciding to have children, or how many children you want?

This doesn't mean having fewer or no children.. it only means factoring the environment into your decision.

Inspired by this article:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21684156-5009760,00.html

Poll coming.

Edit: No poll. Ah, my first botched thread. :)

Using that logic, they should see themselves as an environmental threat, and jump off the nearest tall building.

Clearly the Human race should stop reproducing. Since we have such a horrible effect on the environment the only logical, and moral solution would be to allow us to go extinct. Save the planet, don't have children.
Then surely you get the ball rolling by killing yourself? Every little bit helps in the battle to save mother earth.

I'm all for trying to reduce environmental damage, but this whole thing is taking the piss a bit.

Then surely you get the ball rolling by killing yourself? Every little bit helps in the battle to save mother earth.

I'm all for trying to reduce environmental damage, but this whole thing is taking the piss a bit.

Sarcasm.

Sarcasm.
Ooooh right. Apologies. But I have actually read people saying that sort of insanity before on the internet.

You know, not having kids (or not having too many, at any rate) is important to me because I strongly believe that population control is essential for the environment. If I have kids, I probably wouldn't have more than one (unless I accidentally get twins or something) so as to minimize my environmental footprint.

Using that logic, they should see themselves as an environmental threat, and jump off the nearest tall building.

Well, I'll stick my neck out on this one and make it clear that I support people who want to off themselves too. I'd be sad if it was somebody I love, of course, but I'm not against self-inflicted death as a matter of principle.

Personally I don't think it will do anybody any good to throw themselves off a building. You would just be causeing more problems. One thing that we need to promote is to leave no trace and get cleaner programs so we can reduce the amount of grabage that we throw away.

Personally I don't think it will do anybody any good to throw themselves off a building. You would just be causeing more problems. One thing that we need to promote is to leave no trace and get cleaner programs so we can reduce the amount of grabage that we throw away.

Interestingly enough, yes...throwing oneself off a building would create a big mess that somebody would have to clean up. It might even be considered littering.

Personally I don't think it will do anybody any good to throw themselves off a building. You would just be causeing more problems. One thing that we need to promote is to leave no trace and get cleaner programs so we can reduce the amount of grabage that we throw away.

See, they shouldn't kill themselves by throwing themselves off the building. Because they'll just be adding to the garbage on the street. Tsk tsk. Not environmentally-friendly. How 'bout burying themselves alive in the organic vegetable farm? Humans make good fertilizers.

This is probably the most terrible thing I have ever heard. First of all, yes, we should be concerned about overpopulation, simply due to the countries that are reproducing the fastest:

Niger, Mali, and Uganda are the top three, with roughly 50 births per 1000. The United States ranks 137th, or 154th with only 14.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate

In all honesty, I do not believe these people use cars and airplanes anywhere near as much as those countries considered developed do. We should be worrying about overpopulation and poverty over in their countries rather than CO2 levels. You may believe CO2 is the main cause behind global warming, but it is not; CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, but a very small one.

Solar radiation and the Sun are the main causes behind global warming. Click this link if you wish to know more. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming&hl=en) If you are too hell-bent and unwilling to learn, do not click that link. The enviromental extreme activists are the liberal version of the far-right fundamental movements that occur.

Believe me, I am a liberal. But do not let these claims scare you. This article is based on the theory that CO2 will destroy us all; which is absolutely false. I have many geologist friends that agree this is a false claim. But of course, the media likes to put the most fantastic and scary things on front-page. You know this to be true. This is nothing but political propoganda.

I certainly won't be having more than two kids. Maybe not any. I don't understand the desire for more than that.

Simple. The more kids you have, the more might survive childhood diseases; the more likely you are to have people working on your family farm or taking care of you in your old age; the more likely at least one member of your family will grow up to become successful; et cetera.

It's an evolutionary mechanism to ensure the survival of the species. Of course, in areas in which the survival of the species is no longer in question—such as First World nations—reproduction rates are stabilising or decreasing because people no longer need so many children.

See, they shouldn't kill themselves by throwing themselves off the building. Because they'll just be adding to the garbage on the street. Tsk tsk. Not environmentally-friendly. How 'bout burying themselves alive in the organic vegetable farm? Humans make good fertilizers.

Aha.. that probably calls for a different thread. I heard recently that cremation causes global warming. Maybe we need a separate topic on whether it's ethical to have oneself cremated.

See, they shouldn't kill themselves by throwing themselves off the building. Because they'll just be adding to the garbage on the street. Tsk tsk. Not environmentally-friendly. How 'bout burying themselves alive in the organic vegetable farm? Humans make good fertilizers.

So whack them in the head with a shovel, and throw the body into the compost heap...

Aha.. that probably calls for a different thread. I heard recently that cremation causes global warming. Maybe we need a separate topic on whether it's ethical to have oneself cremated.

Breathing causes global warming, because breathing releases CO2. STOP BREATHING. Donate your life and your body to the nearest organic farm. Have yourself buried alive and be fertilizer for the poor plants who are hard at work absorbing all those CO2.

Also, the Feed the Animals Campaign looks for live humans who want to be fed to the starving animals whose habitats are in danger due to global warming. ACT NOW!!!!!

---

So... no cremation, please. Somebody might confuse it as talcum powder... which, by the way, can cause air pollution. And STOP SCATTERING THOSE ASHES!

I don't care about global warming. This seems to be nothing but paranoia, I'm sure it is not caused by human activity.

I never was going to have kids anyway, but any-one who follows what "green think-tanks" say is completely clueless or brainwashed. It's always like "CO2 is bad! Lets get rid of it! We don't care that it naturally comes from some things!"

So no, I would not consider the environment in such a sitiuation. The environment does not come first wit everything. I'm not that much of a hippie. Same thing goes for air travel (the planes still fly even if you're not on it), and any other propositions you have posted.*blinks* You're really denying that climate change is in any way part due to human activity?

I don't care about global warming. This seems to be nothing but paranoia, I'm sure it is not caused by human activity.

I never was going to have kids anyway, but any-one who follows what "green think-tanks" say is completely clueless or brainwashed. It's always like "CO2 is bad! Lets get rid of it! We don't care that it naturally comes from some things!"

So no, I would not consider the environment in such a sitiuation. The environment does not come first wit everything. I'm not that much of a hippie. Same thing goes for air travel (the planes still fly even if you're not on it), and any other propositions you have posted.

So tell me, if we misuse the environment.... where else will we live?

Breathing causes global warming, because breathing releases CO2. STOP BREATHING. Donate your life and your body to the nearest organic farm. Have yourself buried alive and be fertilizer for the poor plants who are hard at work absorbing all those CO2.

Also, the Feed the Animals Campaign looks for live humans who want to be fed to the starving animals whose habitats are in danger due to global warming. ACT NOW!!!!!

---

So... no cremation, please. Somebody might confuse it as talcum powder... which, by the way, can cause air pollution. And STOP SCATTERING THOSE ASHES!

Exactly. One group says we need to go back to the horse-and-buggy days, and shrink to Earth's population to less than 500 million.

Link:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070506180903.aspx

Exactly. One group says we need to go back to the horse-and-buggy days, and shrink to Earth's population to less than 500 million.

Link:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070506180903.aspx

Pass. Let 'em kill themselves.

Why all these eco-extremist crap? I mean, I'm for preserving the environment sensibly, but these freaking ideas are getting more and more outrageous.

There is a fundamental flaw in all of these, and I won't even go in there. 'Cause tell a lie again and again, it'll sound like the truth.

Pass. Let 'em kill themselves.

Why all these eco-extremist crap? I mean, I'm for preserving the environment sensibly, but these freaking ideas are getting more and more outrageous.

There is a fundamental flaw in all of these, and I won't even go in there. 'Cause tell a lie again and again, it'll sound like the truth.

You're forgetting that a lot of scientists apparently see disaster as being imminent. Al Gore's calling global warming a "spiritual crisis." Lots of people seem to think we're in a serious crisis situation.

You're forgetting that a lot of scientists apparently see disaster as being imminent. Al Gore's calling global warming a "spiritual crisis." Lots of people seem to think we're in a serious crisis situation.

Al Gore is not a scientist, nor is he a pastor.

Even if everybody believes in something, that doesn't necessarily make it true.

I am a scientist, but if I say that a limaçon can be produced with a degeneration of the Poisson equation, that doesn't necessarily make it true. In fact, it's likely that I am incorrect as I am no mathematician.

Let's get back to the scientific method, and do not treat opinions and hype as fact.

Al Gore is not a scientist, nor is he a pastor.

Even if everybody believes in something, that doesn't necessarily make it true.

I am a scientist, but if I say that a limaçon can be produced with a degeneration of the Poisson equation, that doesn't necessarily make it true. In fact, it's likely that I am incorrect as I am no mathematician.

Let's get back to the scientific method, and do not treat opinions and hype as fact.

"The debate is over," remember. Scientists apparently have come to a near-unanimous agreement, according to the UN, Al Gore's documentary, etc. Sounds like the scientific method has proved that humans cause global warming. I'm not a scientist either, but according to basically every major media source I've seen, the debate is over.

"The debate is over," remember. Scientists apparently have come to a near-unanimous agreement, according to the UN, Al Gore's documentary, etc. Sounds like the scientific method has proved that humans cause global warming. I'm not a scientist either, but according to basically every major media source I've seen, the debate is over.

The debate is over? Says who? Remember that "the debate" about the earth being at the center of universe had been "over" for hundreds of years until Copernicus proved them wrong.

Science is not constant. It is dynamic, ever-changing. That is the nature of the scientific method. Hypothesize, test/experiment, come up with conclusions, re-test for validity and repeatability. Scientific theories are not absolute truths. They are simply the most logical and reasonable explanation for a particular phenomenon, given the present evidence.

And the media? Seriously? "Science" by press release is not science, buddy.

Scientists apparently have come to a near-unanimous agreement, according to the UN, Al Gore's documentary, etc.
Near-unanimous. Still, doesn't make it all true. If every podiatrist here on earth wakes up one day and suddenly decides to meet up and declare that a pedicure every week is absolutely essential for the survival of human beings, it won't make it true. It needs to be tested. The scientific method does not rely on opinions, it relies on evidence.

People just don't want to believe that we're destroying the earth because it's too big and scary to think about, and they don't want to change their lifestyle. It's easier to just deny it and hope it all goes away.

Near-unanimous. Still, doesn't make it all true. If every podiatrist here on earth wakes up one day and suddenly decides to meet up and declare that a pedicure every week is absolutely essential for the survival of human beings, it won't make it true. It needs to be tested. The scientific method does not rely on opinions, it relies on evidence.

There's lots of evidence. This thread isn't even about this...it's accepting that our actions are changing the environment, and not for the better. This thread is asking whether you would consider the environment in your family planning. Obviously, your answer is "no." Thank you for your weigh-in.

The debate is over? Says who? Remember that "the debate" about the earth being at the center of universe had been "over" for hundreds of years until Copernicus proved them wrong.

Science is not constant. It is dynamic, ever-changing. That is the nature of the scientific method. Hypothesize, test/experiment, come up with conclusions, re-test for validity and repeatability. Scientific theories are not absolute truths. They are simply the most logical and reasonable explanation for a particular phenomenon, given the present evidence.

And the media? Seriously? "Science" by press release is not science, buddy.


Near-unanimous. Still, doesn't make it all true. If every podiatrist here on earth wakes up one day and suddenly decides to meet up and declare that a pedicure every week is absolutely essential for the survival of human beings, it won't make it true. It needs to be tested. The scientific method does not rely on opinions, it relies on evidence.

There's still a few people who'd argue that the sun revolves around the Earth, or that the Earth is flat, remember. :p So really, it's only near-unanimous.

But, by all accounts, the global warming debate is over, just the same. There's supposedly all kinds of conclusive data, testable experiments, etc. And it's not just Al Gore. Seriously, post a thread asking the simple question, whether or not global warming is "reality." You might be the only one voting "no." ;) People seem to want action now.. that's all I'm saying, as a non-scientist.

awwww:) so fun to see kids playing.

here my six month old clapping link (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/MountRedoubtEruption.jpg)

Cleaning up after your child must be a bitch...

I will certainly consider population issues when deciding how many children to have, if I choose to have children at all. I don't know what conclusion I'll reach, but I consider it rather irresponsible to make any decision so major as that without weighing all its consequences.

There's still a few people who'd argue that the sun revolves around the Earth, or that the Earth is flat, remember. :p So really, it's only near-unanimous.

But, by all accounts, the global warming debate is over, just the same. There's supposedly all kinds of conclusive data, testable experiments, etc. And it's not just Al Gore. Seriously, post a thread asking the simple question, whether or not global warming is "reality." You might be the only one voting "no." ;) People seem to want action now.. that's all I'm saying, as a non-scientist.

Nope. I don't think people's beliefs can be painted as simple as that. It's not black-and-white. Here is mine, to clear it up.

Is the world really warming up? Yes.
Is global warming caused by humans? Not entirely. There is still a huge gap in our knowledge to even point to a single cause. Heck, it might be a combination of factors, you know.
Should we try to reduce our impact? Yes.
Is the matter over-exaggerated? It isn't bad to be concerned, but I think it's going way too far. Simple freaks of weather are always linked to climate change. Every natural calamity are automatically linked to man-made activity.
Are all the information in the media correct? No.
Is global warming entirely bad? Maybe yes, maybe no. Some may benefit, others may be harmed.
And more importantly:Are we doing enough? No. Aside from trying to reduce our impact, we must bear in mind that even if we do not emit any CO2, the world can still warm up for other reasons, reasons we keep on forgetting and pass over in our haste to point a finger at our activities. It is best to be prepared too and look for ways for mankind to adapt to the changing situation.

I'm all for managing the environment, but we must do it sensibly. Reducing children? Perhaps it'd be better if we just turn to alternative energy to reduce our impact, or try to save energy. The point is, these increasingly outrageous ideas are targeting things of minute significance/impact, whilst we keep on forgetting the bigger issues.

Again, it's my opinion as what I've gleaned from reading present evidence. I might not be entirely correct, but I would just like to prevent people from misrepresenting my views on the matter. ;)

I'm all for managing the environment, but we must do it sensibly. Reducing children? Perhaps it'd be better if we just turn to alternative energy to reduce our impact, or try to save energy. The point is, these increasingly outrageous ideas are targeting things of minute significance/impact, whilst we keep on forgetting the bigger issues.


Hmm, minute significance. Well, what about the fact that the earth is a finite space, and we are going to run out of room if the population continues to exponentially expand? I don't know about you, but I like to have a little personal breathing room. ;)

Hmm, minute significance. Well, what about the fact that the earth is a finite space, and we are going to run out of room if the population continues to exponentially expand? I don't know about you, but I like to have a little personal breathing room. ;)
But what do you do about it? Birth rates in the developed world are mostly below the replacement rate, but the developing countries more than make up for that. If they're going to carry on breeding there's bugger all that we can do about it.

Any attempt by western countries to have less kids is like pissing in the ocean. Particularly because when our birth rates will decline, our governments will just make up for it by letting in more immigrants. Then when these immigrants settle in they'll lead lifestyles which strain the environment just as much as any other westerner.

But what do you do about it? Birth rates in the developed world are mostly below the replacement rate, but the developing countries more than make up for that. If they're going to carry on breeding there's bugger all that we can do about it.

Any attempt by western countries to have less kids is like pissing in the ocean. Particularly because when our birth rates will decline, our governments will just make up for it by letting in more immigrants. Then when these immigrants settle in they'll lead lifestyles which strain the environment just as much as any other westerner.

Well, first of all, people in less-developed countries have tons of kids cause a) some of them end up dying due to malnutrition, disease, etc, and b) because they have little access to birth control and sex education. They aren't exactly flooding the planet because they have high infant mortality rates and low life expectancies.

Once these issues are fixed, then they will also need to (and be able to) control the number of children they have as well.

Hmm, minute significance. Well, what about the fact that the earth is a finite space, and we are going to run out of room if the population continues to exponentially expand? I don't know about you, but I like to have a little personal breathing room. ;)

Minute significance for this issue on global warming, my dear. ;)

But I believe that Thomas Malthus' essay had already been disproven by another branch of science: economics. Malthus said that food production increases arithmetically; population grows exponentially. It's the same thing Paul Ehrlich had been using to predict that entire humanity would starve and would be sardine packed on earth... and he'd never been correct. The reason: technology. Technology allowed food production to keep up with population. And technology can probably still sustain us and help us find new places to live, or manage the space, if we all want some breathing room. We can't underestimate the power of 6.2 billion sapient minds thinking of ideas on how to make the world, (or worlds!) better. Now, I'm not saying that technology would surely save us; I'm just saying that the Malthusian theory had largely been disproved. And I am puzzled why it is still taught as 'science', when in fact it had been disproven by the scientific method...

Also, according to a recent UN statistical report, with the birth rates going down, the world's population will most likely peak, and then go down within the next 50 years or so. Two countries already have a smaller population than in 1950s: Bulgaria and Guyana. All of Europe except the Faeroe Islands is under the replacement rate, meaning, their population will shrink if it not for immigration... Now I'm not against family planning, because it's we have the right to self-determination, and we are the ones to determine if we want children or not...

Oh my goodness. I'm babbling and rabbling about things now. Pardon me, it's the wee hours of the morning here. Gotta get to bed. :) Good day/night! (as the case may be)

That's true. The birthrate is already dropping rapidly. However, I think the article is from an Australian source.. Australia's fertility rate was actually around 2.0 a couple years back, so they have some catching up to do on population control, I suppose. :p

If you lived in Australia I would pay you 3 grand to have a kid. Well, the country would pay you.

If you lived in Australia I would pay you 3 grand to have a kid. Well, the country would pay you.

Yeah, it's something like $1500 here. :p Great incentive for recent immigrants, but I doubt the average native cares much.

Yeah, it's something like $1500 here. :p Great incentive for recent immigrants, but I doubt the average native cares much.

I am not sure if recent immigrants here can get it or not.

Cleaning up after your child must be a bitch...

actually its a great way to get dust out of a room, shock wave an all.
Generally she just gets mittons. SAve alot of hassle

If you lived in Australia I would pay you 3 grand to have a kid. Well, the country would pay you.

is that per child? do you get double for twins?

is that per child? do you get double for twins?

It is per child. Unsurprisingly there has not been a massive increase in children being born from the higher tiers of the wealthy and even with the average person the birth rate hasn't increased by much.