The answer for environmentalists?

Question

if you believe in global warming and also believe it can be reversed. where has your logic led you? it could only be changed by a reduction in humans. better stop your finger pointing and whining before some "expert" decides on the "solution".

Answer 1

by god,andy,i think you've hit the nail on the head.

Answer 2

reduction of humans isn't the only answer.

recycling all of waste products to make industrially useful raw materials, would be a better and more realistic option.

we have the means to recycle just about any waste we create just like we do water. we just haven't been doing so.

we will soon.

Answer 3

are u suggesting mass murder? thats what it sounds like but there should b ea law for each family one child i think that could help

Answer 4

Yes if everyone practiced birth control then we would have less human activity to pollute the world. That alone would not work we must all reduce our waste. When you shop buy products with minimal packaging. All so look for things made from recycled products. This is how we make a difference. It,s a team effort people. GO TEAM!

Answer 5

yes, decreasing the human population can somehow lessen the degree of global warming.  Mass killing isn't going to work, obviously, and pregnancy-prevention seems to be the only true method of being aware of over-population and such.  However, there's still a problem...let's take the U.S. for example.  The ratio of children per family (on average) is about 2.0, which is an awesome balance.  No problem with population in our country, but the amount of waste we dish out daily is comparable to at least 10 (guessing the ratio) families in let's say, China.  Where else would you find a country that has Cosco or garage sales?  Being materialistic proves to be very damaging to the economy...and such damage can be comparable to a country with little needs, but a large proportion of people.

Answer 6

IS THERE A FINAL SOLUTION?????

In 1998

an American statesman said at a Bilderberg group meeting in Copenhagen that the Agenda demanded a reduction of 60% in the world population.

How this could be achieved was not disclosed

on tends to think of soylent green.¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¡¡

but many strange things have happened since

It is suspected that controlling factors have been in play already for quite a while .

--------------------------------------...

Overpopulation is the primary cause of most of the world problems .

Polution,desertification,water shortage ,food shortage ,deforrestation,loss of animal habitat ,you name it

People use and need land,so more and more is being changed to accomodate human growth and devellopment,the necessary flora ,which permits life as we know it, is disappearing.

Eco-systems are being exchanged for desserts , concrete and tar.

An environmentally destructive wave is in motion, caused by expanding populations,and expanding agriculture,And the hunger for energy.

An increase in desserts definately affects the global climate. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

World population has doubled in the last 50 years exceeding the growth of 4 million years (since we became homo sapiens).

To satisfy the growing demand farmers are cultivating unstable lands , too steep or dry to be sustainable.

Mono cultures ,aided by chemicals Exhaust and pollutes the soil .

Adding to this the effects of overgrazing has resulted in large scale desertification.

Each year billions of tons of topsoil are blown or washed away by storms. Due to desertification ans subsequent erosion.

Arable lands and their farms are lost all over the globe. Many farmers sons abandon farming and head for the cities. The farmers that are left have to feed some 70 million more people than the year before but with less topsoil.

Northern China is drying up, what once were millions of food producing people, are now hungry refugees ,running for their lives from the all consuming dust storms.

This will have a great effect on world food prices when they start buying at what ever cost, to feed their people. And drastically affect the stabilities and control of world governments.

Over the last half century,

Population growth & rising incomes have tripled world grain demand from 640 million tons to 1,855 million

In the near future the global farming community will not be able to feed every body ,food prices will continue to rise.

We are responsible for a lot of Environmental destruction that is indisputable ,With much worse to follow,If the Ethanol Bill goes through .

Humanity will replace most of the indigenous forrests and all of its wild life and bio-diversity of medicinal plants etc ,----for chemically grown monocultures ,that need a lot of irrigation with water that is more needed by the surrounding comunities,and that will be infested with plagues of insects ,that will be combated with pesticides

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

So a cut in the population would take the pressure of our Natural resources and the need for energy.

--------------------------------------...

SOLUTIONS

But how do we ethically control overpopulation?

In many cultures the number of sons determines the mans status or security in old age.

So it is reasonable to assume that unethical methods can be expected.



Population control in the past and present.

War (past .present and future)

Natures way disease(today,past and future)

Manufactured disease(suspected today)

cures that kill(suspected today)

Poisoned consumer goods (suspected today)

making children infertile or g*y,by raising the PH level in drinking water or even drinks (suspected today)

Birth control,(in the past the Olmecs women ate yams to make them infertile,today we have several methods but most reach only the educated ,

I handed out condoms to an native Mazatecca comunity in Oaxaca ,and the church retrieved them all )

Education on birth control(not enough,again the poor regions are excluded )

laws that limit childbirth per family(China)

A possible fanatic future viewpoint brought on by the instinct for survival could be to bring back human sacrifice ,the gods would be over the moon ,the by products could fertilize some of the millions of hectares that modern agriculture has destroyed with its chemicals.

Pressure would be lifted of the coming potable water shortage and Food production.

And with all the full moons we got during the year ,it would have a marked effect on the population growth .

--------------------------------------...

The Americans manauvering for a nuclear war is also suspicious,this would archieve the 60 % in a flash

--------------------------------------...

But even if we did any or all of that we would not stop Global warming,the Sun is also in on the act

Humanity with all its destructive powers even colaborating as one is an insignificant force compared to Nature

But we sure as h**l could be more economic and responsible with our behaviour to make what we got, last as long as possible ,whilst we are still here ,

We still need the forests to give us Air,Water ,Soil to grow food with and a climate to make that posible and to make life bearable for us.Not to speak of the absorbsion of harmfull gasses .

And it is silly to contaminate that which we need

Chief Seatle said about 100 years ago that those who live(sleep) in their own trash will die in  it .

We should prove him wrong, But so many insist on ,making him right .

Will humanity ever reach sanity ,your guess is as good as mine

Answer 7

Isn't global warming a natural process that the Earth goes through every few hundred thousand years, anyway?  I mean, we've been coming out of an ice age for how long now?  

Like everything environmentalists say, it's just over-hyped bullsh*t.

Answer 8

not a reduction in humans... a reduction in farm animals.  a world of vegetarians would slow global warming.

"...the United Nations (U.N.) said that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined. "

Answer 9

Hmmmm ok Wesley but if you create that law then we'll get here what has happened in China.....female babies being murdered because "they" want a son to carry on the family name...

Answer 10

Yeah Kill yourself hahahaha