Posted on 11/01/2014 8:21:13 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The equation seems fairly simple: The more the world's population rises, the greater the strain on dwindling resources and the greater the impact on the environment.
The solution? Well, that's a little trickier to talk about.
Public-health discussions will regularly include mentions of voluntary family planning as a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies and births. But, said Jason Bremner of the Population Reference Bureau, those policies can also pay dividends for the environment.
"And yet the climate-change benefits of family planning have been largely absent from any climate-change or family-planning policy discussions," he said.
A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences looked at the link between policies that help women plan pregnancies and family size and global emissions. The researchers predicted that lower population growth could provide benefits equivalent to between 16 and 29 percent of the emissions reduction needed to avoid a 2 degrees Celsius warming by 2050, the warning line set by international scientists.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Hey - unfair!
Margaret double taps the Jews...
The morons who write this kind of drivel have NEVER stepped foot outside their tiny little apartments, much less their cities, to find out exactly how BIG this country and planet really are, as well as the awesome abundance of natural resources.
It's just laughable.
I thought it was going to suggest killing muslims
Paging mr. ehrilic, mr. malthus or mr. hugh. genisist. Please pick up the courtesy phone. What? No barf alert? Or was it implied in the title. An answer to a problem that doesn’t exist except in the minds of the controllers.
Liars all. Advanced technological societies reduce waste as a function of their improved lifestyle. If there were any correlation between degradation of the environment and human population growth natural systems would have taken care of it. The realist is that increases in human population insures the continued growth and health of the natural environment. Bottom line is every environmentalist is a homicidal maniac bent on the extermination of themselves and every other human.
Environmentalism is anything but. It treats the most advanced species as an aberration.
The entire climate change problem would end today if we were just willing to sacrifice the lives of every single socialist and communist, and obliterate every trace of the life of Karl Marx and his kind.
> I thought it was going to suggest killing muslims
We do have one Muslim trying to stem the white Christian population using the (UN) Affordable Healthcare Act death panels
Isn’t it great to know that the liberals hate you just because you’re alive. What’s the word for that? Oh....yeah.....liberal bigots.
The two-child limit is a winner for Muslims. They will continue to reproduce at triple that rate and will anihilate countries hat are foolish enough to adopt population limits. The winner gets to use all the resources they want when the losers are extinct.
Same socialist elitist claptrap they’ve been spouting for decades.
“NO MORE BABIES (for European women for 10 years)”
Margret (Sanger) ‘Slee’ President of America Planned Parenthood in 1947:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChCjgYGTL4Y
It always strikes me as odd that all the self hating humans who rail against the evil humans don’t set a good example by eliminating themselves first.
They love Darwin so much, just let nature take its course.
They want the West to die so that the socialist elites can push the underclasses about. Same as Charlie Manson (at least according to the crackpot conspiracy theory cooked up by Vincent Bugliosi).
Not entirely.
Assuming we remain limited to this one planet and its resources, quite an assumption, any positive rate of exponential growth in population will eventually result in collapse of the ecosystem.
Especially if the growing population at the same time expects a continuous increase in standard of living.
Given any closed system, exponential growth rates are by definition not infinitely sustainable.
An article to make Malthus proud.
Knowledge grows exponentially too, as does our ability to modify the “closed system.”
We’ll know these bastages are serious when they start volunteering, individually, to lead the way toward population reduction.
Anybody remember “The Population Bomb” by Paul Ehrlich? This over-population canard has been around a LONG time! But the left just LOVES to drag it out every once in a while. I guess since almost no one is buying the “climate change” nonsense anymore so it’s necessary to promote a different disaster scenario to keep the remaining troops mesmerized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
BTW, Japan is in a serious economic doldrums because of their shrinking population and Russia’s in the same boat.
I thought they were talking about all out nuclear war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.