Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 7722 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2017, 01:37:56 pm »
World population has nearly doubled since the 70's. Are you saying population growth is no longer an issue? Do you think the planet can support an infinite number of people? You preface your argument on the principle we have learned nothing and are incapable of doing so.
No - i am saying that we now know that human populations appear to naturally limit themselves as wealth increases. The net result is human population is expected to peak this century and start to decline without any special government interventions. However, such a outcome was considered inconceivable in the 70s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb
Quote
"What needs to be done?" he wrote, "We must rapidly bring the world population under control, reducing the growth rate to zero or making it negative. Conscious regulation of human numbers must be achieved. Simultaneously we must, at least temporarily, greatly increase our food production." Ehrlich described a number of "ideas on how these goals might be reached."[6] He believed that the United States should take a leading role in population control, both because it was already consuming much more than the rest of the world, and therefore had a moral duty to reduce its impact, and because the US would have to lead international efforts due to its prominence in the world. In order to avoid charges of hypocrisy or racism it would have to take the lead in population reduction efforts.[7] Ehrlich floats the idea of adding "temporary sterilants" to the water supply or staple foods. However, he rejects the idea as unpractical due to "criminal inadequacy of biomedical research in this area."[8] He suggests a tax scheme in which additional children would add to a family's tax burden at increasing rates for more children, as well as luxury taxes on childcare goods. He suggests incentives for men who agree to permanent sterilization before they have two children, as well as a variety of other monetary incentives. He proposes a powerful Department of Population and Environment which "should be set up with the power to take whatever steps are necessary to establish a reasonable population size in the United States and to put an end to the steady deterioration of our environment."[9] The department should support research into population control, such as better contraceptives, mass sterilizing agents, and prenatal sex discernment (because families often continue to have children until a male is born. Ehrlich suggested that if they could choose a male child this would reduce the birthrate). Legislation should be enacted guaranteeing the right to an abortion, and sex education should be expanded.
That quote is long but it is useful because it *exactly* mirrors the argument being made by climate change alarmists today.

Now you would like to argue that we learn as we move forward, however, learning requires humility. The arrogance and exaggerated certainty that under pins the climate doom mongers' arguments today suggests that they have learned nothing.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 01:42:35 pm by TimG »