Birth control to save the planet

Andem

dev
Mar 24, 2002
5,643
128
63
Larnaka
Study finds parents' carbon footprint multiplies 5.7 times per child

August 07, 2009

Environmentalists tend to avoid the topic of population control. Too touchy. But the politically incorrect issue is becoming unavoidable as the global population lurches toward a predicted 9 billion people by mid-century. Will there be enough food? Enough water? Will planet-heating carbon dioxide gas become ever more uncontrollable?

Now comes a study by statisticians at Oregon State University focusing on the elephant in the room.

The findings: If you are concerned about your carbon footprint, think birth control.

The greenhouse gas effect of a child is almost 20 times more significant than the amount any American would save by such practices as driving a fuel-efficient car, recycling or using energy-efficient lightbulbs and appliances, according to Paul Murtaugh, an Oregon State professor of statistics. Under current U.S. consumption patterns, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of CO2 to the carbon legacy of an average parent -- about 5.7 times a person's lifetime emissions, he calculates.

Given the higher per-capita consumption of developed nations, the study found that the impact of a child born in the U.S., along with all his or her descendants, is more than 160 times that of a Bangladeshi child. And the long-term impact of a Chinese child is less than one-fifth the impact of a U.S.-born child. But as China, India and other developing nations hurtle toward prosperity, that is likely to change.

Canada does nothing but feed this crisis of over population by allowing the overflow of immigrants from developing nations into Canada by upto 1 million every 3 years. Sometimes it makes me wonder if many of these conspiracy theorists are right when they refer to governments practicing population control... well, not really :)
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
The question should be can Canada keep her sovereignty it she controls her birthrate? Will a over populated world leave you alone to do your thing? Look what is happening here in the U.S., we are changing and nothing to do with "Change" the slogan.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,912
11,193
113
Low Earth Orbit
Kid's aren't fashionable anymore ironsides . If it were in fashion to show off how many kids you can support like it was for thousands of years, a white, sovereign north america would be assured.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
It says a lot about people that conservation isn't the issue, but rather, 'just don't have kids'. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to tackle the issue of our ridiculous rate of consumption? Perhaps attempt to nip some of our consumerism in the bud?

Naw.... stop breeding.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Try that talk with the non white races, families still mean something to them. Sure, lets bring civilization to a stand still, that would solve all the problems. Seems education brings on dumbness.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
There are NO LIMITS to growth.

That has been proven over and over. Thomas Malthus drew up the conceptual framework of the 'danger' of population in the 19th Century when he postulated that an arithmetic increase in food production would be unable to support a geometric increase in population.

It was used to rationalize some of the great holocausts of that century.. the lack of any remedies of the die offs of agricultural workers in India and the Carribean.. or of any governmental response to the Irish Potato Famine.. all seen as healthy reductions of excess and inferior populations.

It all fits into the massive frauds that have perpetuated themselves in the media and popular culture. Global Warming is the most prevalent lie, and easily disprovable for anyone with sense to look at the facts and the tawdry 'science' behind the theory.

But it all stems from an Atheological Pagan Postulate, of the evil nature of human 'infection' of pristine Mother Earth. It will produce nothing but chaos. Nothing will be more damaging to the biosphere than a collapse of the human population.
 
Last edited:

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
There are NO LIMITS to growth.

That has been proven over and over. Thomas Malthus drew up the conceptual framework of the 'danger' of population in the 19th Century when he postulated that an arithmetic increase in food production would be unable to support a geometric increase in population.

It was used to rationalize some of the great holocausts of that century.. the lack of any remedies of the die offs of agricultural workers in India and the Carribean.. or of any governmental response to the Irish Potato Famine.. all seen as healthy reductions of excess and inferior populations.

It all fits in the massive frauds that have perpetuated themselves in the media and popular culture. Global Warming is the most prevalent lie, and easily disprovable for anyone with sense to look at the facts and the tawdry 'science' behind the theory.

But it all stems from an Atheological Postulate, of the evil nature of human 'infection' of pristine Mother Earth. It will produce nothing but chaos. Nothing will be more damaging to the biosphere than a collapse of the human population.

Speaking of frauds, where do you come up with crap like this? A collapse of the human population would allow the natural life cycles and species of the earth to recover from the devastating effects of human interference. The human population is killing itself off, as well as thousands of other species, by creating a garbage heap of the planet and destroying much of the natural habitat.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
It says a lot about people that conservation isn't the issue, but rather, 'just don't have kids'. Wouldn't it make just as much sense to tackle the issue of our ridiculous rate of consumption? Perhaps attempt to nip some of our consumerism in the bud?

Naw.... stop breeding.
Yeah. I don't think North America has a problem with birth control. I think in the States and Canada it's about 12 births/1000 of pop. Mexico is probably higher and the rest of North Am I have no idea. However, we import hundreds of thousands of people from places that breed like rabbits. India is 22 births/1000 pop. Pakistan is 28/1000. China calmed down to about 13 or 14/1000 but was waaaay up there before the 1 child per familything. Then you get places like Kenya and Congo; 34/1000 and 36/1000 respectively.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
There are NO LIMITS to growth.

That has been proven over and over. Thomas Malthus drew up the conceptual framework of the 'danger' of population in the 19th Century when he postulated that an arithmetic increase in food production would be unable to support a geometric increase in population.

It was used to rationalize some of the great holocausts of that century.. the lack of any remedies of the die offs of agricultural workers in India and the Carribean.. or of any governmental response to the Irish Potato Famine.. all seen as healthy reductions of excess and inferior populations.

It all fits into the massive frauds that have perpetuated themselves in the media and popular culture. Global Warming is the most prevalent lie, and easily disprovable for anyone with sense to look at the facts and the tawdry 'science' behind the theory.

But it all stems from an Atheological Pagan Postulate, of the evil nature of human 'infection' of pristine Mother Earth. It will produce nothing but chaos. Nothing will be more damaging to the biosphere than a collapse of the human population.
What a load of opinionated (as in not based on evidence) nonsense.
Keep increasing the population of the planet and we won't starve to death anyway, we'll die of thirst.

Overpopulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
The greenhouse gas effect of a child is almost 20 times more significant than the amount any American would save by such practices as driving a fuel-efficient car, recycling or using energy-efficient lightbulbs and appliances, according to Paul Murtaugh, an Oregon State professor of statistics. Under current U.S. consumption patterns, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of CO2 to the carbon legacy of an average parent -- about 5.7 times a person's lifetime emissions, he calculates.

Ma che cazzo dice?

Under current U.S. consumption patterns, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of CO2 to the carbon legacy of an average parent -- about 5.7 times a person's lifetime emissions, he calculates.

That makes no sense. Let us say I use X amount of carbon in my life. As a child I use 5.7X carbon? Wouldn't that be included in X?

In any case, any increase is probably due to the fact that children are given huge numbers of plastic toys (not very enviro friendly), disposable diapers (landfills keep filling), food in tiny packaging (more and more garbage), and give parents an excuse not to walk the 1 km to their friend's house.
 

Francis2004

Subjective Poster
Nov 18, 2008
2,846
34
48
Lower Mainland, BC
This article discussed how a Dog takes up twice the Carbon footprint of a SUV.. I am not sure how far we are going to go on this topic but I think there is a limitation on what we need to look at as far as what pros and cons of carbon footprint needs to be.

According to their figures, feeding a medium-sized dog for a year has twice the environmental impact of driving a luxury SUV for 10,000 kilometres.

The Vales based their calculations on the amount of acreage needed to sustain the dog's diet of 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals in a year – both figures measuring food weight before it is dried and processed into kibbles.

The Vales based much of their research on work done at the University of British Columbia in the early '90s. Researchers there created the framework to gauge a person's ecological footprint. Called a "global hectare," it measures how much useful land each of us – and now our pets – use to sustain our lifestyles.

Man's best friend, mankind's worst enemy? - thestar.com
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
:roll:Sure, we should sterilize all humans, that will save the planet.:roll: How far do you want to take this? Not directed to anyone.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
Speaking of frauds, where do you come up with crap like this? A collapse of the human population would allow the natural life cycles and species of the earth to recover from the devastating effects of human interference. The human population is killing itself off, as well as thousands of other species, by creating a garbage heap of the planet and destroying much of the natural habitat.

What a load of bs. The whole purpose of Creation revolves around the human cause. Things without a purpose or plan quickly devolve into entropy, disorder, chaos. Without man, and without God, there is no nature.
 
Last edited:

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
What a load of opinionated (as in not based on evidence) nonsense.
Keep increasing the population of the planet and we won't starve to death anyway, we'll die of thirst.

Overpopulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia eh.. our new Holy Book. God help us. :roll:.

There really are NO LIMITS to growth. Depopulation will be a disaster for the environment. Depopulated societies are those reduced to desperate measures, stoop labour, for survival, and couldn't care less about the environment.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Wikipedia eh.. our new Holy Book. God help us. :roll:.
That's it? That's the extent of your refutation? Nothing scientific to contradict what it said? How very feeble. Show where the science people have written into Wikipedia is mistaken and I will accept your opinion. Otherwise, I will still call BS. Since you refuse to post anything that backs your weak opinion .... BS
BTW, I am not holy nor am I into holy books. Wikipedia isn't a book anyway; it is a series of webpages.

There really are NO LIMITS to growth. Depopulation will be a disaster for the environment. Depopulated societies are those reduced to desperate measures, stoop labour, for survival, and couldn't care less about the environment.
Like I said, death is a limit to population growth. Death is usually what results when you die of thirst.

Fresh Water Resources Around the World - Earth Web Site

Human Appropriation of the World's Fresh Water Supply

Planet Earth : Fresh Water: Discovery Channel

Peak Water: Aquifers and Rivers Are Running Dry. How Three Regions Are Coping

Science magazine issue on ecology: 7/30/97

Overpopulation of one species starts a chain of events that is harmful to various ecologies.
Look at the messes Australia has had in its history, for instance. Rabbits, cats, mice, now toads. It's one disaster after another.

FeralFeast! - Rabbits - History of Rabbits in Australia

World's Worst Mouse Plague: Millions of Mice Attack Australia. - Neatorama

The Feral Cane Toad (Bufo marinus) - Invasive species fact sheet

Humans are an animal. Your version of biology is plain scary.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
What a load of bs.
Exactly, you really are spewing a load of bs.
The whole purpose of Creation revolves around the human cause.
Laughable, arrogant, and egotistical nonsense.
Things without a purpose or plan quickly devolve into entropy, disorder, chaos. Without man, and without God, there is no nature.
roflmao Here we have a real life Archie Bunker, folks.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
What a load of bs. The whole purpose of Creation revolves around the human cause. Things without a purpose or plan quickly devolve into entropy, disorder, chaos. Without man, and without God, there is no nature.
I guess if you think there is a god that created man in his own image, that image you have makes sense. Only problem is, it is all in your imagination and has no practical application in the real world. Humanity has raped and pillaged his way to the top of the garbage heap he has created of this planet with his imaginary god. Humanity is not the top of the evolutionary scale. He is far from it. His habit of crapping in his own drinking water puts him far below most mammals. You might notice that the only other animals that do that are ones that have been domesticated by man.