[Jolly2 (OP)]

Maybe there are too many people on Earth, what's wrong with being a Malthusian?

[charles1948]

Maybe there are too many people on Earth, what's wrong with being a Malthusian?

Is it, because most of the population growth is in non-white people, so if you criticise it, that makes you a white racist.

[Bored chemist]

Maybe there are too many people on Earth, what's wrong with being a Malthusian?

One problem with noticing that Malthus is right; the  planet is finite and so we need to limit our population - is that you get grief from fools when you point it out.
For example, I recently saw this exchange on a web site somewhere.
"The question is whether it will be achieved by disease and starvation (as has been the case for several thousand years), genocide and civil war (since the 1950s), or education and economics (as promoted by the Gates Foundation)."

"All dooms day nonsense and hype used to justify agendas that are unnecessary.".

[Kryptid]

Whether it's ethical or not would depend upon how you go about doing it, in my opinion. Making efforts to slow population growth (through education and making birth control readily available) would be a better option than murdering people.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Maybe there are too many people on Earth, what's wrong with being a Malthusian?

One problem with noticing that Malthus is right; the  planet is finite and so we need to limit our population -

I disagree limiting consumption or limiting the amount or resources the people use, is more about a select few wanting as much as possible for themselves and their agendas, then it is about a finite planet.

is that you get grief from fools when you point it out.
For example, I recently saw this exchange on a web site somewhere.
"The question is whether it will be achieved by disease and starvation (as has been the case for several thousand years), genocide and civil war (since the 1950s), or education and economics (as promoted by the Gates Foundation)."

"All dooms day nonsense and hype used to justify agendas that are unnecessary.".

We can have and sustain far more people then we currently do. It's simply a choice to take a different approach.

108.20 on

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Whether it's ethical or not would depend upon how you go about doing it, in my opinion.

Interestingly if we allowed 3rd world countries to develop properly, almost all these issues disappear.

Wealthy people have less children by choice, wealthy people care more about the environment and act accordingly.

With more environmentally sustainable production, we can have more people, a better environment and all the other benefits of society.  The only thing stopping it is the current system we live under that demands poverty.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Maybe there are too many people on Earth, what's wrong with being a Malthusian?

Is it, because most of the population growth is in non-white people, so if you criticise it, that makes you a white racist.

That's more an expression or the reality that most white countries are wealthy. Its poverty not race that is driving population.

We have environmentalists trying to stop 3rd world countries developing and historically malthusains seeking to supress countries to stop them having population explosions and in both cases these groups are causing the opposite of what they have intended.

[Bored chemist]

You can cut per capita use of resources but, in the end we need a smaller population to be sustainable.

wealthy people care more about the environment

Trump is a billionaire.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

You can cut per capita use of resources but, in the end we need a smaller population to be sustainable.

Define sustainable.

wealthy people care more about the environment

Trump is a billionaire.

So what? I wouldn't say Trump doesn't care about the environment,  he doesn't believe in climate change,  neither does Jeremy Corbyns brother,  there are plenty of scientists that dont agree with the global warming Hypothesis.  Some argue a mini Ice age is comming again with the Solar maurder minimum starting in 2024.

Ice cores show massive fluctuations in temperature and Co2 levels historically. The biggest issue I see as always is habitat destruction and the lost of species,  Co2 is increasing acidification of the sea which is certainly an issue. But the suggestion we in anyway actually know the reality of how badly humans are interefering with the climate, isnt correct.

Climate is another area of science highly politicized, we need politics out of the equation.

[Kryptid]

So what? I wouldn't say Trump doesn't care about the environment,  he doesn't believe in climate change,  neither does Jeremy Corbyns brother,  there are plenty of scientists that dont agree with the global warming Hypothesis.  Some argue a mini Ice age is comming again with the Solar maurder minimum starting in 2024.

Ice cores show massive fluctuations in temperature and Co2 levels historically. The biggest issue I see as always is habitat destruction and the lost of species,  Co2 is increasing acidification of the sea which is certainly an issue. But the suggestion we in anyway actually know the reality of how badly humans are interefering with the climate, isnt correct.

Climate is another area of science highly politicized, we need politics out of the equation.

Please don't tell me you're also a climate change denialist. The number of scientists who reject it are in the tiny minority. The overwhelming majority of climate experts (the people who actually have access to the evidence firsthand) agree that it's happening.

[alancalverd]

It was politics that excluded China and India from the original Kyoto protocol and took the US out of the Paris conference. As long as the world is run by parasites, we are doomed to the effects of ignorance.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

So what? I wouldn't say Trump doesn't care about the environment,  he doesn't believe in climate change,  neither does Jeremy Corbyns brother,  there are plenty of scientists that dont agree with the global warming Hypothesis.  Some argue a mini Ice age is comming again with the Solar maurder minimum starting in 2024.

Ice cores show massive fluctuations in temperature and Co2 levels historically. The biggest issue I see as always is habitat destruction and the lost of species,  Co2 is increasing acidification of the sea which is certainly an issue. But the suggestion we in anyway actually know the reality of how badly humans are interefering with the climate, isnt correct.

Climate is another area of science highly politicized, we need politics out of the equation.

Please don't tell me you're also a climate change denialist. The number of scientists who reject it are in the tiny minority. The overwhelming majority of climate experts (the people who actually have access to the evidence firsthand) agree that it's happening.

No at all, rather I'm suggesting that climate is more complicated than the narrative we see expressed in the general media as portrayed currently. Made worse by the reality Business doesnt want to change its behaviour,  so is pushing a narrative that blames the population,  when 100 companies produce 75% of all C02 mankind is releasing.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

It was politics that excluded China and India from the original Kyoto protocol

Disagree while politics made the final agreements, the people driving the decisions were from the corporate world.

and took the US out of the Paris conference.

To a degree, but it was again more driven by other factions of the business world that sees climate change as a communist conspiracy to destroy America, not that the American elites need any help destroying their own country in pursuit of greed.

As long as the world is run by parasites, we are doomed to the effects of ignorance.

I agree.

[alancalverd]

climate is more complicated than the narrative we see expressed in the general media as portrayed currently.

Regrettably, this is one point in which we agree.

[Bored chemist]

neither does Jeremy Corbyns brother,

Do you understand just how stupid that comment is?

Climate is another area of science highly politicized, we need politics out of the equation.

OK, lets go with the science; here are two statements.

There were 3 blankets on the bed; we added a fourth.
It's now warmer.

The denial of anthropogening climate change is saying that the two statements are not related.
There are practically no qualified  scientists saying that.

So, anyone who does say it and refers to the tiny minority of scientists who dispute the fairly obvious, is doing it for political reasons, rather than scientific ones.
We should stop listening to them.
Trump is quite high on that list.

[charles1948]

If we got rid of all the animals, and replaced them by humans, leading their lives in a properly controlled scientific environment, wouldn't that be the answer?

[Bored chemist]

If we got rid of all the animals, and replaced them by humans, leading their lives in a properly controlled scientific environment, wouldn't that be the answer?

If that's the answer, I think you asked the wrong question.

[Kryptid]

No at all, rather I'm suggesting that climate is more complicated than the narrative we see expressed in the general media as portrayed currently.

Then don't ask the media. Ask actual climate scientists.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

neither does Jeremy Corbyns brother,

Do you understand just how stupid that comment is?

It's the truth, you can hear him say it himself here.

'Climate change' "it's delusional nonsense and founded on fraud."

Climate is another area of science highly politicized, we need politics out of the equation.

OK, lets go with the science; here are two statements.

There were 3 blankets on the bed; we added a fourth.
It's now warmer.

No its the same temperature, its people not blankets that add heat to a bed. DOH!

The denial of anthropogening climate change is saying that the two statements are not related.
There are practically no qualified  scientists saying that.

There are plenty of scientist disagreeing with the climate science narrative, they just get no air time in the media,  so you don't see them

So, anyone who does say it and refers to the tiny minority of scientists who dispute the fairly obvious, is doing it for political reasons, rather than scientific ones.
We should stop listening to them.
Trump is quite high on that list.

Not listening to scientists, it's the very scientific approach I'm used to from you, as usual.

Rather we should listen and dispute. Discuss the evidence they have and not put our fingers in our ears.
Honestly why dont you get a Job at CNN your brain washing is almost complete, youd fit right in, chemists corner, you could discuss the wonders of roundup and stuff.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

No at all, rather I'm suggesting that climate is more complicated than the narrative we see expressed in the general media as portrayed currently.

Then don't ask the media. Ask actual climate scientists.

I don't ask the media anything, I'm minding my own business then some presenter appears to tell me what I should think.