Or you can just grow more food.
After all, food is just carbon, hydrogen and sunlight, and we’ve got more than enough of those. We just have to get better at utilizing them.
Well, yeah. Unless GMOs, fertilizers, and a host of other supporting items are banned that prevent food from being produced in sufficient quantities. And the impact of all those people on the environment is ignored. Even if all the energy produced is green energy, then there will still be an impact on the environment if people cover every inch of the globe. “Mark of Gideon” from Star Trek comes to mind.
I was under the belief that Europe is having the opposite problem, a negative birth-rate, and leaders there are worried there won’t be enough people in generations to come. “Make love, not war, we need the kids …”
Human population growth rates have been slowing down, and we’ll probably stabilize at around 10 billion or so in a few decades. That number won’t drop, though. There’s no going back to the past, and we have to accept that. As always, the environment will have to adapt to us.
My guess was EIA coal reserves, but the only numbers I’m seeing are in the hundreds of years, not tens of thousands. Granted that tends to be “proved reserves,” which doesn’t account for new production techniques and new deposit discoveries.
Well, assuming that fertility rates stabilize a bit under replacement, then world population will decline, just very slowly. A fertility rate of 1.9 would give you a drop from 10 billion to 1.4 billion after 20 generations, so by AD 2700 or so. It looks like Latin America and eastern Asia are on track to follow the lead of Europe/North America/the Soviet bloc and end up with fertility below replacement. Sub-Saharan Africa (and to some extent parts of South Asia) are the big open questions: they’re the parts of the world where fertility is still really high. I don’t know where their birth rates will eventually equilibrate.
Interestingly, there’s just about one example of a rich, developed country with a high fertility rate (not including the Gulf petrostates and some small Pacific islands), and that’s Israel.
My guess, since we’re talking about agriculture, is potash reserves. That still seems to be hundreds of years not thousands. Looks like the big known reserves in Canada and Russia are about 400 years worth at current production.
You keep using that word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.
Statements are logical when they follow directly and reasonably from previously established facts, according to rules of sound thinking. If a person can present the series of prior statements and reasons that lead to a particular statement, then it’s logical. If a person is unable to defend his statements, and instead just sputters out insults and nonsense when asked to do so, he’s being illogical. You’re being illogical in this thread, to state the obvious.
Let’s look at what you wrote:
What is the root cause of anthropogenic pollution? People. Logical.
How to stop pollution? Get rid of people. Logical.
My solution is to prevent them from breeding at such a level as to increase the population. Logical. The morality of doing so is debatable.
Pollution is caused by processes that pollute. Let’s say there’s a coal-burning power plant. The pollution that it emits is determined by the amount of coal burned, and methods and details of how carbon dioxide and other pollutants are emitted or not emitted from the plant. It’s not determined by how many people use power from the plant. Whether the number of people using the power is 100 or 10,000 or 1,000,000 doesn’t affect the amount of pollution. Only the physical processes in the plant affect the amount of pollution. The root cause of pollution is the burning of coal, not people.
Getting rid of people will not stop pollution. Just consider the three individuals in modern history who got rid of the most people: Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung. Did any of them stop pollution? I’m pretty sure the answer is no. That proves that getting rid of people does not stop pollution.
There is only one country that limits how many children its people can have. That’s China, of course, with the infamous One-Child policy that’s been in effect since 1979 and will soon be abolished. So since China prevents people from freely having children, according to your “logical” argument, China must have stopped all pollution. In reality, pollution in China is the worst in the world and rapidly increasing. This proves again that getting rid of people does not stop pollution.
Ah right, I’ve been focused on nitrogen for work and was only thinking about hydrogen from hydrocarbons as an input to Haber-Bosch. Despite potassium and phosphorus being mentioned upthread.
there are also several centuries of the proven reserves of the posphate bearing rock, so that there is not huge effort to confirm more reserves.
Processes don’t run themselves. Processes need a trigger. Coal plants don’t run for the sake of running, but to produce electricity so people can turn on a light. The trigger is the person turning on the light. If a process is run once vs 2 or more times the negative results of that process, in this case pollution, would be significantly less. If only one person needs a light, then he doesn’t build a coal fired power plant that could power 1000000 lights to get it.
Given the choice of improving technology or improving people, I’ll take the technology. I’d rather not try to make people better.
So what you’re proposing is a massive violation of everyone’s human rights, with poor people targeted particularly hard. That’s what.
The right to found a family is guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I will point out that in your original post, you stated that you wanted to take away the right to have children from many people for many reasons, but you didn’t mention “can’t keep their kids from starving” as one of those reasons. Now you’re trying to change the subject.
You’ve said that you want to stop people from having children by force. Obviously, as long as this country remains a democracy and the majority of the voters are a great deal more intelligent than you, they won’t adopt such an idiotic policy. But you’re still advocating for it.
All right, general question for all readers of the thread: how many of you have changed your reproductive decisions based solely on what Uzi said.
Anyone?
Aaaaaannnnnyyyooooonnnnneeeeeee?
Did you count for all the new immigrants coming in just this year? I’ve heard that like 1/4th of the women coming in are pregnant.
And that brings another issue is that this new wave of immigrants IS having lots of children, way more than the old native population so soon Europe will change.
The funny thing is that your average subsistence farming family, ten kids and all, uses a fraction of the resources of one small American family. The earth can support a lot more poor people than rich people.
Of course, the only thing that lowers birth rates is wealth. So assuming that we continue to make progress on making ourselves a wealthy planet, we can assume the birth rate will continue to drop.
If you want to avoid the negative effect of pollution from two people turning on lights and causing a coal-fired power plant to emit pollution, there are many ways to do that. The people could live but not turn on light bulbs, or turn on more energy-efficient lightbulbs, or power their lightbulbs with means other than coal, or use coal but capture and store the resulting carbon dioxide. Any of these solutions is feasible, unlike your solution of preventing the people who use the lightbulb from existing.
Yet you ignore these solutions, and instead say that “my solution is to prevent them from breeding”. That begs the question, why do you ignore the feasible solutions that don’t involve massive human rights abuse, and instead claim to support an infeasible solution that does involve massive human rights abuse?
I don’t ignore them. It damages the environment more to build two solar power stations than one. It damages the environment to build two waste disposal plants than one. Even if we had unlimited and clean energy, there is more damage to the environment by having more people than less.
So? What right do they have to inflict their condition upon their future children?
Don’t know what the link you posted is supposed to prove. Here is the actual text UDHR. It says you have the rightt to have a family. No mention of numbers of family members or if conditions can’t be placed upon it.
Notice in Article 13 Section 2: ‘(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.’ Yet, I need a passport to do so. A restriction placed upon my freedoms that no one seems to think is unreasonable as every single country (that I know of) does it.
I see you have difficulty understanding what ‘provide’ means in this context when used with the word ‘minimal’. Did you think I meant Ferraris? That people can’t breed until they can provide a Ferrari for each kid? Sorry for the confusion, but that isn’t what I meant. If your current circumstances don’t allow you to feed your children properly, then no matter what any document says about you having the freedom to spawn, you probably shouldn’t do so. It isn’t fair to your potential children and it isn’t fair to those who have to take up the slack on the choices you have freely made.
If they can’t take the responsibility on their own to stop it, I’m not entirely sure how else they would be prevented from doing so.
So, you think the earth can support 7 billion subsistence farmers? Colour me :dubious:
Yeah, why should anyone believe what you say about what damages the environment? You haven’t even defined what you mean by damage to the environment, much less provided any basis for your claims about what damages the environment.
Should every activity that damages the environment be stopped? Do you ever damage the environment? Surely the computer or tablet you use to post on the SDMB consumes electricity, and thus according to what you’ve written, it damages the environment.