|
Posted by 3D Peruna on June 10, 2007, 8:43 pm
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> I'm already aware of all the above, but in the context of the climate change
> 'discourse' nobody is mentioning the obvious impact of population
> replacement on future energy demand. I'm proposing a "future carbon" tax on
> kids ; )
Climate change is happening... it has always happened. It will always
happen. But, every day, I see more actual evidence that the whole
"global warming" thing is not real...not at least from humans must do
something quick to avert certain disaster. (The latest is that the 20th
century weather station network has so many problems that it's really
impossible to know if we've 'warmed' at
all...http://www.surfacestations.org/about.htm, and
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm)
>
>> Of course, you create other problems, too. I think population problems
>> (and poverty) are political, not natural.
>
> Sometimes they are but I can imagine scenarios where they aren't.
>
>> One other point, though... It's nobody's damn business how many kids any
>> of us have or don't have. I spend days driving across vast unpopulated
>> areas of the country.
>
> It is in China, and the landscape cannot be all residential. I've tried it
> on Sim City.
Somebody once figured that the "ideal" town size was about 30,000
residents with farms between them, located about 10 miles apart. But,
they lived in an agrarian 19th century, so what did they know about cars
and Internet and all that stuff. I put the same faith in that idea as I
do in the developers of Sim City.
>> You could give every man woman and child on the planet 1,231 sq. ft. and
>> we'd only fill up Texas. Granted, Texas is a big state, but it's only
>> .467% of the earth's total land mass (even if you exclude Antarctica and
>> Wyoming, you've still got a lot of places to live).
>
> The discussion is not about elbow room. There are finite resources, even in
> a static climate model. There's topsoil depletion for example, and that's
> before the Great Plains are commandeered to produce fuel for Arnold's
> Hummers. If you want to be really "green" and sustainable, one of the things
> you'd seem to want to "reduce" is your numbers. After the last boomer cashes
> their last Social Security check, who needs more people?
I'm telling you that 1) climate is a terrible reason to change anything
because we can't do anything about climate, except adapt; 2) Topsoil
depletion can be dealt with--good farming techniques solve this problem.
But it does mean that 3) we stop thinking corn and soybeans are our
savior from oil; 4) You missed the point of my post. Provide vast
prosperity to the world and the world will stop having children. And
"vast prosperity" doesn't mean everyone lives a north American
lifestyle. It simply means they have the opportunity to feed
themselves, house themselves, educate themselves and create jobs for
themselves. If they cannot do it on their own, then it won't happen. I
just read this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/12/AR2006021201150.html.
Something to consider.
(for the record, my undergrad school does a lot of work in Africa
teaching the locals how to obtain microcredit, clean water, grow crops,
and feed the malnourished--due to political upheaveals and droughts. I
support these efforts because the are very targeted and local, leaving
the governments. for the most part, out of the picture).
The peoples of the world have, for the most part, forgotten the purposes
of government. Government is not there to provide anything to anyone.
Go read the Federalist Papers
(http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm) and the US Constitution
(http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html) to get an understanding of
what governments are for.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap