Birth control to save the planet


Andem
#1
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
 
AnnaG
#2
Interesting, but I knew this.
 
ironsides
#3
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
#4
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
#5
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
#6
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
#7
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 by coldstream; Oct 29th, 2009 at 01:44 PM..
 
Cliffy
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

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
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

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
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

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
#11
 
Niflmir
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Andem View Post

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?

Quote: Originally Posted by Andem View Post

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
#13
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.

Quote:

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
#14
Sure, we should sterilize all humans, that will save the planet. How far do you want to take this? Not directed to anyone.
 
coldstream
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

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 by coldstream; Oct 30th, 2009 at 01:38 PM..
 
coldstream
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

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. .

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
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

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

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.

Quote:

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
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

What a load of bs.

Exactly, you really are spewing a load of bs.
Quote:

The whole purpose of Creation revolves around the human cause.

Laughable, arrogant, and egotistical nonsense.
Quote:

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.
 
TrapperSnapper
#19
Does not the size of a carbon footprint depend upon the size of one's boots, or is this just one more of those hackneyed phrases. (ret)
 
Cliffy
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

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.
 
Cliffy
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by TrapperSnapper View Post

Does not the size of a carbon footprint depend upon the size of one's boots, or is this just one more of those hackneyed phrases. (ret)

Carbon footprint is a bit a misnomer because it doesn't give an accurate description. A "garbage footprint" would be a little more accurate.
 
coldstream
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

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.

Man is at the fulcrum of the natural and divine. He is, potentially, the peak of creation, but can easily fall into the most degraded depths imaginable.. but not as you state.

He does so by removing himself from God, by pandering to all and only that which is animal within him.. the carnal, the selfish, the futile (like homosexuality ). And yes by doing so he can scatter all that is human, and descend to that which is purely animal within him.

But unlike other animals, he has no excuse, so i suppose you are half right, cliffy.
 
AnnaG
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Carbon footprint is a bit a misnomer because it doesn't give an accurate description. A "garbage footprint" would be a little more accurate.

Pollution/intrusion footprint would be as close as one can get.
 
AnnaG
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

Man is at the fulcrum of the natural and divine. He is, potentially, the peak of creation, but can easily fall into the most degraded depths imaginable.. but not as you state.

He does so by removing himself from God, by pandering to all and only that which is animal within him.. the carnal, the selfish, the futile (like homosexuality ). And yes by doing so he can scatter all that is human, and descend to that which is purely animal within him.

But unlike other animals, he has no excuse, so i suppose you are half right, cliffy.

lmao
Perhaps humans are the fulcrum of the divine, but hardly the fulcrum of the natural. The Earth and life on it was doing quite well before man decided he could manipulate nature better than nature. After that everything started going downhill and humans stopped being a symbiote and became a parasyte. There's no basis in fact or science for your Creationist aSSumptions.
 
coldstream
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

lmao
Perhaps humans are the fulcrum of the divine, but hardly the fulcrum of the natural. The Earth and life on it was doing quite well before man decided he could manipulate nature better than nature. After that everything started going downhill and humans stopped being a symbiote and became a parasyte. There's no basis in fact or science for your Creationist aSSumptions.

'Science' without a basis in the Truth of Creation, is not about fact either, it is just its own form of occult belief system.
 
AnnaG
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

'Science' without a basis in the Truth of Creation, is not about fact either, it is just its own form of occult belief system.

Cool. I didn't think you'd actually admit to being so ignorant, but there it is in black and white.
 
coldstream
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

Cool. I didn't think you'd actually admit to being so ignorant, but there it is in black and white.

But science founded on Truth, is the only real science, everything else is a pretender. That is why Theology is called the Queen of Sciences.. it is the root in which all real knowledge originates. Sorry to disappoint you, Anna, but you've totally misinterpreted my black and white assertion.

What we have seen in contemporary science is an inundation of psuedo and 'social' sciences.. all products of political agendas.. masquerading as real science. The 'science' of population is one of those. In fact most of the 'environmental' sciences are too, the most aggregious of those is Global Warming, which is an outright fraud, aimed at enriching the ilk of Al Gore.

They ignore transcendent realities, and, get lost in a reductive rationalism that is intended to prove a predetermined outcome. Hence you start with 'population will ruin the planet' and work backward from there. That when any circumspect and objective analysis of history will show you just the opposite is true.

Population growth has consistently led to advances in technology, social organization, culture and art. Population decline produces poverty, famine, environmental degradation, and an exhaustion of civilizing impulses.
Last edited by coldstream; Nov 3rd, 2009 at 02:10 PM..
 
Cliffy
#28
And theology starts with the preconceived idea that all things were created by a god and works backwards from there. Your selective reasoning is no different than the sciences you rail against. You choose to approach life from your angle and others from theirs. There is no difference. What you fail to understand is that there are no absolutes except in your little world.

Every religion has its own theologians who base their study on their particular brand of dogma, so within the theological community there is no consensus of opinion either. Your transcendent realities are all relative to the particular dogma of the observer. Your whole argument is as full of holes as that you accuse science of.
 
ironsides
#29
Snip-Snip
 
AnnaG
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

But science founded on Truth, is the only real science, everything else is a pretender. That is why Theology is called the Queen of Sciences.. it is the root in which all real knowledge originates. Sorry to disappoint you, Anna, but you've totally misinterpreted my black and white assertion.

What we have seen in contemporary science is an inundation of psuedo and 'social' sciences.. all products of political agendas.. masquerading as real science. The 'science' of population is one of those. In fact most of the 'environmental' sciences are too, the most aggregious of those is Global Warming, which is an outright fraud, aimed at enriching the ilk of Al Gore.

Perhaps I did misinterpret your B&W assertion. But, theology is the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences. It is basically a part of cultural anthropology. I would hardly call it the basis of knowledge.
I agree that there has been a lot of political and other nonsense attached to the science of a lot of things. But that is not science. That is editorialising ABOUT science.
Prove global warming is a fraud. You can't. Any of the science I have seen regarding it has been pointing to it as fact. There are a few people here and there who present pretty good arguments against the idea that the globe is warming, but no-one can refute the data and the data shows a general long-term warming.warming.
Asw far as what is a science and what isn't goes, a social science like cultural anthropology is just as much a science as mathematics or psychology. It is basically the study of humans.

Quote:

They ignore transcendent realities, and, get lost in a reductive rationalism that is intended to prove a predetermined outcome. Hence you start with 'population will ruin the planet' and work backward from there. That when any circumspect and objective analysis of history will show you just the opposite is true.

Show me how the reduction of biodiversity, fresh water supplies, overcrowding farmlands with more and more people will be healthy for the planet.

Quote:

Population growth has consistently led to advances in technology, social organization, culture and art. Population decline produces poverty, famine, environmental degradation, and an exhaustion of civilizing impulses.

lmao You are warped.