In order to address AGW we need to scale back CO2 emissions by about 50% by 2050, and to effectively 0% of current emissions by 2100 at a minimum.  I have to wonder how it is you intend to address even the first target by "reducing our numbers"?

Even if we have a mandatory and enforced replacement rate only birth rate (ie, 1 child per person, or 2 children per couple), the global population would still increase in the short term due to increasing life expectancy.  To actually reduce populations we would need a global, mandatorally enforced below replacement birth rate.  To achieve that, in turn, we would need totalitarian control of the world's population.

comment 51, http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=69&&n=3018#comments

I think church mandated anti-contraception policy is probably a very small contributor to over population. Its mainly Catholic and many of them use contraception.

The Pope’s stand on environmental issues is reasonable, and its about time the various churches started addressing real problems here on Earth instead of the hereafter.

Ban religion? I don’t know. It might be easier to ban stupidity first.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2015 at 1:08am:


Wow, you actually got the thread title right...population control IS a red herring in this case..

I think the third world would do a lot of good in halting their breeding, just so that we can get some breathing room. All that carbon that the greenies are pissin' on about would be reduced, too.

Ajax wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 12:15pm:


Oh yes, that's right. The first world are paying them to get all those natural resources out of their grounds. And that, according to ajax, is called "rape and pillage". Never mind all those funds being channeled in to helping alleviate the self-inflicted suffering that the third world has imposed on themselves.

How is it that the Chinese can vastly improve their standard of living from third world to first world standards, yet they have fewer resources to do so? But the rest of the third world can't lift a finger to get themselves out of destitution, even when they have resources to make themselves super rich.

Ajax, for the past 30 years, the first world has been sending the third world all kind of food aid, and assistance to help them manage their way out of poverty. We can't compete with a continent that has low wage labour force that outbids our workers in various industries, and that which our trading partners might consider from buying. It's why the first world does like to see them lift themselves out of a poverty trap, rather than trying to see a country drag their knuckles in half-assed productivity.

Trillions being spent over these decades have had mixed results. Some are progressing with new industries, and should be able to get themselves to a respectable standard of living. Whilst the rest of them, they have been spending their time waiting for the next shipment of foreign aid to help them feed and breed themselves into a bigger poverty circle.

Time to cut our losses with them.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 3:05pm:

Go circular logic, yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

Hey, mummy: i vote liberal and hate the kids too!!