Climate change denial

[Estro Felino]

Why do people still believe this nonsense of non-stop population growth, and so think we need to stop reproducing to "save the planet"? It's total nonsense. It's outdated crap from the '60s and '70s.

We know the population is slated to reach about 10 billion then it's going to decline - the decline will start before the end of the century, even! - as the majority of countries are below replacement level in their birthrates. Some countries are catastrophically below replacement levels, like Italy! You're on a similar level with Japan, and Japan's population is slated to be halved by the end of the century. Yours, too, unless you import a bunch of foreigners to replace your plummeting numbers.

This is causing a huge bulge in the number of elderly people in the population of developed nations, with post-industrial service oriented economies being hardest hit. (China is also facing a severe population crash due to its policies.) That means there's going to be less young, working age people and more and more old people for the foreseeable future. This is not sustainable, economically or otherwise. This is also a major reason why globalists like to push immigration in developed countries, to literally replace the declining population.

So what we need to do is encourage young people to have children. This isn't a future issue. It's already a problem now. It's also a reason why our political leaders tend to be so old, instead of young and vital.

World population is projected to peak at 10.3 billion in 2080s, UN says

The world’s population is expected to grow by more than 2 billion people in the next decades and peak in the 2080s at around 10.3 billion, a major shift from a decade ago, a new report by the United Nations said Thursday.

www.nbclosangeles.com

No...the growth rate says the growth is exponential. So...2-4-16-
That is, in 40 years the number will be 16 billion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No...the growth rate says the growth is exponential. So...2-4-16-
That is, in 40 years the number will be 16 billion.

Yeah, if you don't use critical thinking on the problem.
I mean in effect you are assuming that induction holds and that there are no complex set of factors at play.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah, if you don't use critical thinking on the problem.
I mean in effect you are assuming that induction holds and that there are no complex set of factors at play.

I use logic and mathematics.
I mean:
1940s = 2 billion people 1980= 4 billion people 2020= 8 billion people

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I use logic and mathematics.
I mean:
1940s = 2 billion people 1980= 4 billion people 2020= 8 billion people

Math is in itself not a causal factor for the in effect natural world.
You are thinking in your brain and then claiming based on that thinking alone that it will hold in rest of the world as independent of your thinking.

As for logic you have to learn the difference between valid and sound. It is in effect logic 101.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why do people still believe this nonsense of non-stop population growth, and so think we need to stop reproducing to "save the planet"? It's total nonsense. It's outdated crap from the '60s and '70s.

What's outdated is the idea that we need to produce people for the public good, which comes from a time when people died much more frequently as babies, in childbirth, from infections, from accidents, and from war. The welfare of the tribe or town depended on a certain number of able-bodied people to defend it, and rules were made to promote childbearing. Hence, the Catholic church still forbids abortion, contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, and divorce, and encourages girls to marry when fertile and forbids them to withhold sex. It's all about keeping every fertile womb busy from menarche to menopause.

I just recommend that young people have at least a couple of kids on average to balance things out and help us out a bit in the future, is all.

You ask too much. Our household was and is childless. As a result, we lived a life not possible with children. My wife and I traveled two or three times a year to exotic destinations. We ate out most nights. We performed live music a few times a month (both of us). And we retired at 55 years of age and expatriated. We own our home outright and have no debt. Inflation isn't an issue for us.

And I don't like being around kids.

So no to me having children to support you. Why would I give all of that up and trade it for a life that sounds unappealing? We paid it forward a different way. The taxes of older generations paid for the roads and schools that benefitted me growing up, and I did the same for your generation.

How about you? How many kids are you raising to help the world out as you understand it? None as best I can tell from your previous posting. Would having that expense and responsibility improve your life or worsen it?

Would you call me selfish for my choices? Probably. If so, what about you? Is your womb my business or yours? Is how you choose to live your life my business or yours?

 

[fantome profane]

If we don't drill for our supply, we import it. Oil is oil. Better to drill our own than buy it IMO.

Why? Why is that better? I know that is the common wisdom in the U.S., in both parties actually. But why is it better?

If oil is a limited recourse, and it is, isn't it better for your own national security if other nations deplete their supply by selling it to you and you reserve your natural supply as long as possible?

 

[I Am Hugh]

Let me ask you a question: what is your stance on immigration? If more people = better, then I expect you to welcome every immigrant. Am I right?

For me personally this is a really good and unexpected question for me to contemplate on an intellectual level. I like that. So, I could probably go on about it in more detail than you or the reader would be interested in. Given that I will keep my answer as brief as I can. It's sort of a controversial subject, political but I'm apolitical. Overly complicated. Hmmm.

In short, I do welcome every legal immigrant.

I don't have "a stance" on immigration because I don't believe in national borders or divisions based upon that or race, social, cultural divides. In answering and just contemplating this question I would put myself in the position of an imigrant. It would be extremely important to me, then, to make sure I did two things right. 1. Obey the laws of the country I was immigrating to and 2. Learn the language and adopt the primary culture as if I were a resident. Some cultural aspects of the country I'm from I'm not necessarily keen on, but I'm talking about obvious important aspects. For example, if my former culture thought that men holding hands and kissing was non-sexual and the norm but the culture I was immigrating to didn't I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't want to do that anyway though even if in my former culture that was the norm. Of course, my personal preference is likely due to the culture I actually am from.

 

[Heyo]

No...the growth rate says the growth is exponential. So...2-4-16-
That is, in 40 years the number will be 16 billion.

This simple maths doesn't apply to real life. Growth rates in biology often follow a natural growth curve which is indistinguishable from an exponential curve until the limiting factors play a role.
And even the natural growth function is too simple for the development of human populations. We tend to not react to limiting factors and reproduce far beyond our natural limit.
In a predator-prey situation, population growth follows the Lotka-Volterra equations, but that is also too simple for us, as we prey on multiple sources. It is to expect that we'll have a very steep population decline when all our sources run dry simultaneously. Or maybe we get a clue before that and manage a slow descend to a sustainable level.

 

[We Never Know]

How about something like this:
Give every woman who reaches menopause having had zero kids, a $500k retirement bonus
Give every woman who reaches menopause having had one kid and $250k bonus

During breakfast this morning I brought this up among some others. One woman pointed out it may increase abortions.

When asked why her reply was along the lines of if a 34 year old woman gets pregnant, she could weigh out, have a child and lose out on gaining half a million later or get an abortion and collect half a million in 15+/- years.
She described the woman as having a job that pays minimum wage or a little higher with no or little retirement.

Do you think your idea will have any effect on abortion rates?

 

[icehorse]

During breakfast this morning I brought this up among some others. One woman pointed out it may increase abortions.

When asked why her reply was along the lines of if a 34 year old woman gets pregnant, she could weigh out, have a child and lose out on gaining half a million later or get an abortion and collect half a million in 15+/- years.
She described the woman as having a job that pays minimum wage or a little higher with no or little retirement.

Do you think your idea will have any effect on abortion rates?

Yes, I suspect that use of birth control and of abortions would both go up. But they need to.

If we don't find humane, compassionate ways to reduce human population, then the planet will find cruel heartless ways to do it for us.