Climate pole

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I voted the last option for each question. The whole global warming debate seems to be mostly politically motivated (by both sides.) To me, it's just "I hate hippies" vs. "I hate big greedy corporations."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I prefer the patented Mosdef balanced approach of hating everybody (except pvn).

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
How about 'I am not sure' but DO CARE?

[/ QUOTE ]


If you cared you would have an opinion already.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
You forgot the following option:

Man is contributing to global warming and if we don't cut C02 Emissions ASAP we'll be doomed by 2015-2020 because it will be too late.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that not in there?

[Phil153]

Not the best poll.

The reality: Global warming is real and the range of scenarios include: -(unlikely) little to no effect
-(likely) small to moderate effect, mostly the predictions made by the IPCC working report
- (unlikely) large to catastrophic effects.

Effect of man:

- Man is responsible for the majority and it will increase in future if CO2 is not cut

How:

It's not either/or. Both state and private enterprise is the way to go. The market has failed terribly at limiting environmental damage of various kinds, and especially CO2 emissions.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I voted the last option for each question. The whole global warming debate seems to be mostly politically motivated (by both sides.) To me, it's just "I hate hippies" vs. "I hate big greedy corporations."

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I prefer the patented Mosdef balanced approach of hating everybody (except pvn).

[/ QUOTE ]

So maybe you might agree with me that less human population would be a good thing?

1) it would solve the human-increased part of the global warming matter (if it's not too late already)

2) there would be fewer people around to aggravate you and for you to hate

3) the world would be better for other species.

Reducing birth rates is key, and the gist of the increased human population pressures and problem (of which global warming and pollution are just two aspects) is coming from lesser developed countries. There is no emotionally palatable solution to this so maybe the best thing for the future of the globe and humanity is to just forsake the most troubled areas, let them overpopulate and then they will kill each other off and die of disease and whatnot. Note that this won't work as well if the more developed countries don't curb rampant immigration.

Just a few rambling thoughts and no offense meant to anyone. There may actually be good reasons for non-interference in the affairs of other countries besides the arguments usually put forth.

Since I'm not in favor of slaughtering vast numbers of humans, and since it will take decades for lower birth rates to substantially reduce or reverse population growthh pressures, maybe the time for non-intervention in the Middle East and Africa is now. It's not like intervention has worked well in the past anyway and it sure produces a lot of costs and blowback.

If 15-25% of the world killed each other off it would be tragic and horrific indeed and nobody would want to be there. The truth is though that it would probably be better for the planet, the environment, and possibly the human species as a whole. It's bad for moose and deer to overpopulate so why shouldn't it be bad for humans to overpopulate ?????????????????

Why should humans be exempt from the natural law that overpopulation produces hardships, slaughter, disease and famine? I don't think humans are exempt from that order of the natural world, regardles of how special humans think their own species is.

Do humans actually think they can continue to increase population indefintely without the problems like global warming and pollution and dread diseases getting worse and worse??? Talk about hubris, wow.

Nature doesn't care about the same things humans care about. Humanity is bringing misery and destruction upon itself by refusing to curb birth rates. The whole business about global warming COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED if people weren't so insistent upon overbreeding. I guess we will see who is smarter and stronger, nature or humans.

Thanks for reading this semi-rant. It just amazes me that the human race picks bones about all sorts of problems that stem directly from overpopulation BUT NEVER REALLY FACES AND ADDRESSES THE CAUSE OF ALL THESE PROBLEMS.

The first problem is Overblown Egos which causes all the power struggle problems which are not directly related to struggle for necessary resources (and this is why the humility and example of the love of Jesus Christ is so important, as a countervailing force to the evils of Ego). The second problem is Overpopulation. If most of humanity cannot come to grips with these two problems the human race may be doomed. GG over-ego'ed species, we don't fully realize the peril that approaches.

[mosdef]

Geez, my post really set you off. Fine - I hate everyone except pvn and you, you big baby.

While your post has a nice "Modest Proposal" feel to it, it is evidently true that a curtailment of the human population could increase the quality of life for those that remain (provided you don't reduce the population to, like, eight people who would be forced to devote all their energy to just surviving).

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Geez, my post really set you off. Fine - I hate everyone except pvn and you, you big baby.

While your post has a nice "Modest Proposal" feel to it, it is evidently true that a curtailment of the human population could increase the quality of life for those that remain (provided you don't reduce the population to, like, eight people who would be forced to devote all their energy to just surviving).

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, I didn't take the hate part personally. People get on my nerves too, and the more of them are around me, the more that usually happens. I'm not one to become a total hermit, though.

I wasn't trying to write a "modest" post or any other kind of a post except a true post. I really think overpopulation, and overblown egos, are the two biggest dangers humanity faces, and has yet to face. And heartless as it may sound, it actually may be unwise to try to stop genocides from occurring in other parts of the world (not to mention costly and often fruitless).

[zasterguava]

Nielso, what is your opinion on global warming? I know you are against state intervention and presumably the state in intself (as am I) but whether you like it or not, the state exists and your existence is in their hands.

You live under a state that dictates how you should and should not live your life. If the state decides to take precautionary measures to curb climate change with minimal effect on your life is this something we should be spending our efforts opposing?

Also, how does proposing private property curb climate change. I know you won't like this, but I'm pretty sure the answers for saving the natural world are opposite to your capitalist/free-market leanings. In the words of Bookchin: "Captialism is fundamentally hostile’ to humans as social beings, to. women, and to the natural world"

[NickMPK]

I am reasonably convinced that global warming exists and is man-made.

However, I am not so convinced that it can be reversed with any reasonable efforts on our part, unless we are willing to keep the developing world in poverty forever.

I tend to think it might be more useful to ramp up our efforts to colonize other planets before the most serious effects of global warming occur.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Geez, my post really set you off. Fine - I hate everyone except pvn and you, you big baby.

[/ QUOTE ]