Is having children considered "carbon output" since we're all carbon based organisms?

Question

Is that why people like Ted Turner is pushing for "one-child" policies like China has--even though he has five and even though there are many countries that are experiencing zero or even negative population growth these days (an increasing trend)?

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

--Ted Turner (back in 1996)

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/04/05/ted-turner-pushes-one-child-policy-pbs-interview

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/zero.htm

Answer 1

Sounds like a case of "do as I say, not as I do," or hindsight.

A one-child policy isn't the answer.  There are nations currently experiencing population declines because of birth control and strong immigration policies, and it is impacting their economies.

That said, the days when you could have 5 kids and brag about it are over. In my case, I believed I could support two children comfortably, and that this was a sustainable number in terms of population, in essence a replacement policy.  But some people never have kids, others are entitled to have 3 or 4 if they can accomodate that appropriately.  

Your question reminds me of an old Star Trek episode, where the aliens talked about the carbon units (the crew of the Enterprise).

Nice answer, Bob.

Answer 2

NO

Answer 3

What people don't consider is the fact or problem that humans are living longer. Sure we put our elderly who can't take care of themselves into a home, but never think when's enough is enough. When have they crossed over from still having individual dignity to just lying on a bed waiting to die.

I feel we treat our animals with more respect than our elders. (I'm not talking about the ones that are still active and having fun - I have a few aunts in California that are well into their 80's and still extremely active.) I'm refering to the ones we hold onto who are living in constant pain and can't do anything for themselves. We need to start learning how to let go and say goodbye to these people and give them a pain free death, just like our animals that suffer the same as they do.

Answer 4

Yea, Algore spouts the same nonsense as he has his 4 kids already.  It sad to see these democrats trying to tell women what they should do with their bodies.

Currently everyone on Earth can have a 5 acre plot of land.  Everyone in the world could fit into Jacksonville Florida city limits, and everyone could live in a house with 4 people on a 1/4 acre of land and take up only 5 Western States, leaving the rest of the world for producing food.

The Earth clearly could handle 5 times the number of people we have now.  It's just some people can't grasp the concept of large numbers.

Answer 5

Yes, this one of the areas governments will control our lives as well as raise taxes if the global warming hoax continues to be successful.

Answer 6

Absolutely.  

You're talking about falling birth rates, primarily in developed countries, representing 20% of world population.  Developing countries contain 80%, and have the highest carbon pollution growth rates AND high birth rates.  India passed 1 billion in 2000 and may hit 1.8 billion by 2050.  Their impact on the planet will be staggering.

Train Wreck Ahead: Global Warming and Overpopulation

http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/arch...

The earth is heading towards an unsustainable point of no return in the growth of world population. The population is expected to increase from its current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050, with some estimates predicting up to 12 billion. If we fail to act on both overpopulation and global warming, the outlook for humanity is bleak. There are, simply, not enough resources to keep the burgeoning population alive and healthy, not to mention jobs, housing, and health care for everyone. A recent article in the Observer by Juliette Jowit, notes that while there is much attention being paid to various policy ideas seeking to address the crisis of global warming, the focus is only on the emissions generated, not how they are generated. She notes that “All the standby buttons and low-energy light bulbs are dwarfed by the pressure of a global population rising by the equivalent of Britain every year.” In other words, despite advances in “green” technologies, increased usage of renewable energies, and changes in lifestyle, if the world population rises to the projected 9.2 billion, each person would have to slash their emissions by 72% to meet a goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 60% by 2050, as the recent Climate Change Bill in the UK sets as its goal. This is clearly unattainable.

---

Population Growth and the Environment.

http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Env...

"The rate of human population growth peaked around 1963, but the number of people living on Earth, and sharing finite resources has topped out at over 6.6 billion today. Human population is expected to exceed nine billion by 2050. Many if not all of the environmental problems are either caused or exacerbated by population growth.

Trends such as the loss of the planet's forests, the depletion of fisheries, and the alteration of atmosphere and climate are related to the fact that human population expanded from millions in prehistoric times to over six billion today. Population growth is behind the clearing of 80% of rainforests, the loss of plant and wildlife species, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and the development of about half of the Earth's land surface. Half of the world's population will be exposed to water-scarce conditions and difficulties in meeting…consumption levels.

In less developed countries, lack of access to birth control, as well as cultural traditions encourage women to have babies, and lead to rapid population growth. The result is an increasing number of poor people suffering from malnourishment, lack of clean water, overcrowding and inadequate shelter, and AIDS and other diseases.

While population numbers in developed nations are leveling off or diminishing, high levels of consumption make for a huge drain on resources. As more residents of developing countries get access to Western media, or immigrate to the U.S., they want to emulate the consumption-heavy lifestyles."

---

India Heading for 2 Billion Population.

http://www.prb.org/pdf07/FuturePopulatio...

---

Bob -

It appears you misunderstood the question (the children themselves are not the carbon, LOL).  Or are you truly arguing that each person added to the planet does not add to the greenhouse gas, black carbon, deforestation and other global warming impacts?  I would be very surprised (since that argument seems totally illogical, I would not expect it from you).  At somewhere between 1 and 6 billion people we passed the planet's ability to absorb our impact in natural sinks such as forests and the ocean.  

We've overshot that limit, so we have 1000 years of elevated carbon levels to look forward to:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

We don't know at what higher levels temperatures will stabilize, so we have no evidence whatsoever that carbon reductions alone will be adequate to stop warming and carry even 3 billion humans forward successfully.  Plans to slow carbon emission growth aren't even being discussed for China and India.  You're willing to take a blind stab in the dark regarding future carrying capacity because... of what?  Even if our chances of failure are only 10%, would you put a ten chamber gun with one bullet in it to a family member's head?  100 chambers?  1000 chambers?  (Ex-spouses don't count!)

No, we can't afford to take the huge risk of population growth, and its guaranteed result of increased warming.

Some people may suffer cognitive dissonance on this portion of the topic due to some religious dogma that they subscribe to, but increasing global population is not a safe or rational move.

Amy L -

Do tell... how is China's one child policy affecting their economy?  It seems to be making them the country with the fastest-growing affluence on the planet.

Answer 7

I think it's real easy to tell others to sacrifice after you've done all you wanted to.  Mostly I'm interested in where Dr. Jello got the facts listed in their post?

Answer 8

no but they will use more of the earth's resources so indirectly you could be releasing carbon.

the problem is that the earth cannot support our current rate of consumption forever. fish stocks are shrinking underground water is being used up and eventually we will need to start using less.

Answer 9

I have made it a rule to never quote, or listen to Ted Turner about anything. It seems to be working out pretty well.

Answer 10

No.  The fact that we have a lot of carbon in our bodies is completely irrelevant.  To understand global warming you need to understand the carbon cycle.

There are a great many natural sources and sinks for carbon dioxide.  But the present global warming is (mostly) the result of man made CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

There is a natural "carbon cycle" that recycles CO2.  But it's a delicate balance and we're messing it up.

Look at this graph.

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/qu...

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2.  The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast.  That's a problem.

Man is upsetting the balance of nature.  We need to fix that.

By the way, where Jello is wrong is in his neglect of the need for things other than simply space.  The world is running short of both fertile land, and fresh water, which is the MAIN reason why we're starting to have problems with food supplies.  5 times as many people could not possibly be fed.

Answer 11

ther's nothing wrong with having children, but keep it limited.  no more than 2 or 3 is good because people are giving birth faster than people are dying off.  therfore, eventually we won't all fit.  watcha gonna do then?

Answer 12

lol did you read this from al gores book of BS well anyways im going to read something important

by the way good facts jello man

Answer 13

Yes, but since liberals believe in abortion it's okay...

Answer 14

Convince all the treehuggers of that logic and the world would be a brighter place, they wouldn't reproduce and have offspring to indoctrinate into their flawed way of thinking.

Answer 15

I guess it could be, it's quite a stretch, though

Answer 16

Ok this is for all u global warming deniers!

1. even if global warming doesn't exist, it's not gonna kill you to help the environment and make the world a better place for ur kids and grand kids!

2. if u thing this is some thing the UN cooked up to make us all work together then consider it a good thing and a step further to world peace

3. No it is not considered carbon out put since carbon out put is the amount of carbon you release into the atmosphere in 1 year.  so unless u throw ur kid into the stratosphere its not carbon output

4. I think  ted is thinking about how the human pop could be reaching its carrying capacity