Reducing Births

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

No. It's scientific fact, and I'm not arguing in favor of mass murder. I'm arguing in favor of economically incentivizing people to use birth control to have smaller families -- rather than our current situation, where unlimited child tax credits and other subsidies for children incentivize large families.

No it isn't.

it's enviro-nazi propaganda.

shove your nazi bullshit in your skank hole.

[Mina]

it's enviro-nazi propaganda.

What makes you think that, specifically?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

What makes you think that, specifically?

what makes you think we must reduce births?

[MAGA MAN]

It was, indeed.

You changed my post. Buh bye.

[Mina]

You changed ...

Don't we all?

[Mina]

what makes you think we must reduce births?

Happy to answer your question, but since I asked first, I'll wait for you to answer mine, first.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Happy to answer your question, but since I asked first, I'll wait for you to answer mine, first.

at least you admit there is no science behind your overpopulation lies.

thanks for that.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

for any propagater of overpopulation hysteria,

what is the optimal carrying capacity of planet earth, according to your science?

[Mina]

at least you admit there is no science behind your overpopulation lies.

As you know, I didn't.

[Mina]

for any propagater of overpopulation hysteria,

what is the optimal carrying capacity of planet earth, according to your science?

I've never met a propagator (or propagater, for that matter) of overpopulation hysteria. However, for those who recognize the role a large population has in making it harder to attain a sustainable pollution output level, there's no fixed number, because it depends on technology. One of the toughest parts of the climate equation to solve is carbon output. It's what you get when you multiply carbon output per capita with population. If you address the first part of that equation, you get more leeway on the second. So, for example, if we were to develop a highly economical, scalable, low-carbon energy generation technology, that would allow us to have generalized prosperity at a low per-capita carbon output, and thus we'd be able to get away with a much larger population. With current technology, though, we can't even get away with current population, because the per-capita carbon output is just too high to be environmentally sustainable when multiplied across the current population.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I've never met a propagator (or propagater, for that matter) of overpopulation hysteria. However, for those who recognize the role a large population has in making it harder to attain a sustainable pollution output level, there's no fixed number, because it depends on technology. One of the toughest parts of the climate equation to solve is carbon output. It's what you get when you multiply carbon output per capita with population. If you address the first part of that equation, you get more leeway on the second. So, for example, if we were to develop a highly economical, scalable, low-carbon energy generation technology, that would allow us to have generalized prosperity at a low per-capita carbon output, and thus we'd be able to get away with a much larger population. With current technology, though, we can't even get away with current population, because the per-capita carbon output is just too high to be environmentally sustainable when multiplied across the current population.

you are a propagater of overpopulation hysteria.

you never met yourself?

unlikely.

[Mina]

you are a propagater of overpopulation hysteria.

I'm simply pointing to the facts. Right now, human beings are churning out more CO2 than the environment can take up. That has resulted in CO2 levels in the atmosphere rising at a pace never before seen in the history of human civilization, which is giving rise to an unprecedented pace of climate warming. And it's not stabilizing -- although we've managed to decrease per capita carbon output in the advanced nations, it's rising in the developing nations at they increasingly emulate our consumer economies. Counting on a deus ex machina, like cold fusion, to come along and drive global per capita carbon output dramatically down any time soon is a wildly risky gamble. So, it makes sense to come out the problem from the population perspective, as well. The more we can slow population growth, and maybe even reverse it a bit, the easier the math gets for achieving sustainability. Incentivizing birth control, in ways like I've suggested here, makes the rest of the climate challenge easier to tackle.

[Damocles]

It was, indeed.

If you change a post you must change the name so that folks will know it is not their original post. It must be obvious. Please read the rules.

[Damocles]

Don't we all?

You did it twice. If you make me edit stuff constantly I will do more than edit.

[Mina]

If you change a post you must change the name so that folks will know it is not their original post....

That's what the ellipsis was for.