Re post #115.
Quote:
|
Janice, some time ago you said you went to a Methodist Church and in another thread you said you lived on a farm for some time. Were you embellishing your life simply for effect to prove your points at the time. Surely not. Surely.
|
Surely not is right. I have not been a Methodist and I have not said I lived on a farm. Produce those threads if you can.
Nor have I ever said:
In the name of progressivism millions of Democrats are for genocide.
Misquoting, inferring and ad hom are amateurish ways to debate. Let me help you with your argumentation skills.
You remember: "We were also told that the earth was cooling so fast that in a few years, crops wouldn't survive the change and we'd all starve". But Charlie, old chump,
The existence of one past untrue prediction, whether popular or not, does not prove that all predictions are incorrect.
Quote:
|
Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.
|
That said:
Quote:
Current Population is Three Times the Sustainable Level
Global Footprint Network data shows that humanity uses the equivalent of 1.6 planet Earths to provide the renewable resources we use and absorb our waste.1 If all 7+ billion of us were to enjoy a European standard of living - which is about half the consumption of the average American - the Earth could sustainably support only about 2 billion people.
It is crucial to understand that the longer we continue consuming more resources than the Earth can sustainably provide, the less able the Earth can meet our resource needs in the future - and the fewer people the planet can support - long-term.
Evidence of unsustainable resource use is all around us. Global aquifers are being pumped 3.5 times faster than rainfall can naturally recharge them.2 Eventually they will run dry and hundreds of millions will suffer. Topsoil is being lost 10-40 times faster than it is formed.3 Feeding all 7+ billion of us will become increasingly difficult. Oceans are being overfished, and a primary protein source for over 2 billion people is in jeopardy.4 Worldwide, we have lost half the vertebrate species in the air, water, and land since 1970.5 How many more species can we lose and how many more ecosystems can we destroy before humanity’s own existence is threatened?
It is important to note that the depletion of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels, metals, and minerals that make a European standard of living possible are not included in Global Footprint Network data. This includes all the tons of oil, coal, iron ore, copper, and hundreds of other minerals and metals that make modern life possible. Taking these non-renewable resources into account suggests 2 billion people living at a European standard of living may be the upper limit of a sustainable global population.
Climate change will only add to the strain on the planet’s ability to support all 7+ billion of us. Climate scientists are warning us to expect lower crop yields of major grains such as wheat, rice, and maize.6 Rising sea levels could create hundreds of millions of climate refugees. And climate disruption is likely to create increasing levels of resource conflict and civil unrest.
Adaptation to climate disruption will be much easier with a much smaller global population. We can achieve a smaller global population tomorrow by beginning a dramatic reduction in births today.
All of us want a viable, sustainable global home. If we allow overpopulation and overconsumption to continue, the evidence is mounting that billions will suffer and that we will leave future generations a much harder, bleaker life.
Reducing birth rates now can save us from the likely increase in death rates that awaits us if we do nothing. Solving overpopulation is essential in building a sustainable future.
|
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.or...es_sustainable
And no, Charlie, it isn't babies who are to blame. It is ignorant and misinformed adults.
Before you put your other foot in your mouth too, let me make it clear that I have not said that abortion is the only, or even the most important, path to combat overpopulation. But for the INDIVIDUAL WOMAN it is an inalienable right and far more important than a so-called right to tote a firearm in a public place.