Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by sawyer, Aug 27, 2017.

  1. Deckel

    Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    Messages:
    17,608
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think they are called pre-owned, not used. All about the marketing you know. Anyway, people should avoid having children anyway. Why force some future person to die in an apocalypse of fire, brimstone, sulfur and frogs raining down on them if it can be avoided.
     
  2. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well let's do the math here. Instead of putting sixty tons of C02 into the atmosphere per year let's say you managed to cut it to fifty tons. I think I'm being generous here plus it simplifies the math. Now let's say your two kids each have two kids and let's say everyone follows grampas example and only puts fifty tons of C02 per year into the atmosphere. So now instead of 100 tons a year for you and your wife there is 400 tons a year being put into the atmosphere with the six extra breathers you are responsible for creating. I think your tiny efforts at wind and solar are a bit overwhelmed by the math here and effectively you are whistling into a hurricane and claiming that doing so is reducing the force of it's winds.
     
  3. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh wait - throughout my working years, I rode my bicycle to work, year-round. If you were really generous, you would take off some Sawyer CO2 tons. I also plant a garden - how about those apples? Wait, wait, wait - I helped some friends build zero-energy homes. C'mon Sawyer - ante up those Tons. Wait - I'm Vegetarian - how about that - must be worth at least 300 tons. Hurray - I'm negative! My kids are negative! My wife makes up for all of us :)
     
  4. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    10,833
    Likes Received:
    4,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, that is one way to help reduce CO2 emissions. We should also be investing more in alternative energy and getting our economy off its dependence on fossil fuels.
     
  5. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only in your mind and your wildest wet dreams are you negative. In the real world you and your children and their children are putting hundreds of tons of C02 in the atmosphere every year.
     
  6. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I must admit that I do have this problem with flatulence :)
     
  7. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And this is what happens when you paint a cult member into a corner with facts and figures, they go completely off the rails. You just can't stop someone from drinking the Kool-Aid with any amount of logic. Fine with me and all I ask is they don't insist I drink the Kool-Aid too.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2017
  8. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd point out that population growth within our immigration community maps back to their countries of origin, The US didn't magically expand from 275M in the 80s to 325M today with "zero" growth.

    I would also point out that the point of climate change legislation is to vastly increase the economic outputs and consequently the CO2 production of those economies. So, the logic of the AGW faithful conflicts with their marketing. The point is that improved economies in the second and third world will only exacerbate the problems they whine about.

    The original observation is correct though. Less kids
     
    sawyer likes this.
  9. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tongue-in-cheek is the only way to address a thread like this. Do you actually think it is profound to say that less children would improve climate change? Sure, if we wiped out humanity, it would also improve climate change.

    This said, the birthrate in the US has been steadily declining. It currently stands at about 1.9 births per woman. Now take a country with 3x that birthrate - a few years back, Egypt was at 6. If we produce 3x the carbon as Egypt, then it's a WASH, regarding climate change.
     
  10. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All a way of evading the fact that there are now eight carbon producers instead of two because you and your wife chose to have two children who in turn had two children.

    "The profoundest instinct in man is to war against the truth; that is, against the Real. He shuns facts from his infancy. His life is a perpetual evasion. Miracle, chimera and to-morrow keep him alive. He lives on fiction and myth. It is the Lie that makes him free. Animals alone are given the privilege of lifting the veil of Isis; men dare not. The animal, awake, has no fictional escape from the Real because he has no imagination. Man, awake, is compelled to seek a perpetual escape into Hope, Belief, Fable, Art, God, Socialism, Immortality, Alcohol, Love. From Medusa-Truth he makes an appeal to Maya-Lie."
     
  11. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If all humans stopped reproducing or even disappeared from the planet, the stuff we already added to the atmosphere will take a century to dissipate and 50 years to even be fully felt. Go ahead and get busy folks, do the nasty all you want, just accept that any Grandkids are probably gonna have a tough time. Once the permafrost seriously melts this increased warming speed will seem a snails pace and what we call a hot summer will look like a nice spring day in retrospect.
    Be happy if your over 50 because you will be long dead before others begin doing the same.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
  12. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As per my most recent post n here if you are a true believer.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...of-2014-no-denying-it.513898/#post-1067970524
     
  13. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The deforestation for that lumber, the carbon footprint to mill and process and ship the lumber and bricks and flooring, the electricity to heat and cool and light, don't bode well for your dedication to saving the world.

    Why is your comfort so much more valuable than the human race? Why do you want to kill millions of children?
     
    sawyer likes this.
  14. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You are too late. The Population Bomb, 1968, by Paul Ehrlich, predicted exactly what you just posted. But he claimed humanity would suffer mass starvation by 1980. And he wasn't the only one, in 1970 Life magazine predicted by 1985 pollution would cut off half the sunlight, global cooling was the disaster fad in the 1970's also. Peter Gunter in 1970 claimed that by 1975 a world wide famine would start and grow worse through 2000. Ken Watt predicted all the oil would be used up by 2000.

    So many liberals, so many predictions of disaster, so many failures.
     
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about trying to cut population growth in the countries that have the highest population growth?
    Doesn't that make the most sense?

    Sounds the fairest to me. And since these other countries are often poorer, incentivizing these populations to have less children would also be cheaper.

    Since all this is voluntary, there's nothing preventing us from taking these government programs to other countries. They'd probably be happy for the extra money.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2017
  16. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, if you read my post, I mentioned that "I'm sure there is more I can do in this regard". How about you? What is your zero-energy home like? BTW, I have a wind turbine and solar panels for electricity. Capeche?
     
  17. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When a true believer questions the lifestyle of a non believer it rings hollow. A Christian is bound by his beliefs whereas a non Christian has no duty to live by Christian values. Same goes for AGW true believers, it's incumbent on you to practice what you preach but it's not incumbent on the rest of us to practice what you preach although you would like it to be through law and regulations.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  18. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, I don't understand the thread, or those who started the conversation. Our liberal friends seem schizophrenic here. A) admonish to have less kids, and B) support unrestricted illegal immigration. Ok, so who are we telling to have less kids? The US population is either stable or declining, until you factor in third world immigration to the US where the populations are exploding. Doesn't B cancel out any validity of A?
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  19. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nice attempt to shift the blame but the fact is in poor countries with high population growth there is an associated low carbon footprint per person due to their pathetic lifestyle. One person in America has the carbon footprint of hundreds of people in a poor country where they don't own a car, take vacations, heat and cool a house eat heartily etc etc.

    "Around half of the world's population -- slightly fewer than 3 billion people -- survives on less than $2 a day. None of them are likely to go shopping for an automobile any time soon in a bid to reduce on their greenhouse gas emissions; and investing in photo voltaic solar panels to put on their rooftops probably won't be a priority, either.

    Comparing the average annual per capita carbon footprints of the rich and poor certainly makes for unsettling reading: The average American's annual carbon footprint -- 20.4 tons -- is around 2,000 times that of someone living in the African nation of Chad. And the average Briton will emit as much carbon dioxide (C02) in one day as a Kenyan will in an entire year."

    http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/02/17/eco.class/
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2017
  20. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The warmers say we need to drastically reduce C02 emissions and if they truly believe that the single biggest thing they can do is not bring another C02 producing human into the world. They do and say anything to avoid this fact though which proves to me they don't really believe what they say and it's all political, all about anti industrialization and anti America.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  21. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have to agree here. The faith has reduced their argument into irrationality. It simply no longer makes sense, and requires one to suspend rational thought in order to follow the new rule set they wish to legislate on the backs of the rest of us.

    Every time I hear the "the planet is dying" I ask why Al Gore consumes as much as he does, and still has the stones to preach to the rest of us about being conservative, or the need to lower our lifestyle to stone age dependence so he might still enjoy his perks. The inherent immorality of that is still something that is unrecognized within the AGW faithful. It reminds me of the expression of blind devotional faith and the catholic church in the dark ages. Live in poverty, filth so that the church can reign in splendor.
     
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2017
    sawyer likes this.
  22. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not the one trying to push an agenda on other people. You are.

    All you have done is show that although you claim the future of humanity is at stake, you are not willing to sacrifice your comfort to save humanity. If you truly believed AGW, that the life of your kids and grandkids was at stake, then you would live like it, and you don't.
     
  23. Media_Truth

    Media_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    2,776
    Likes Received:
    1,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your confusion is only exceeded by your lack of a cohesive argument.
     
  24. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    That's your standard reply when you have lost the argument.
     
    sawyer likes this.
  25. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "When debate is lost slander becomes the tool of the loser"
     

Share This Page