Whoa! I didn’t assert that the only way to stop population growth was killing each other. I’m asking if we have the intelligence and the willpower to control our population size morally; ethically; and NOT killing one another.
2 Likes
I didn’t intend to imply you did.
Population as an individual act of course is controllable and obviously as a group it is not to date as the world population has grown and grown. Developed countries as it has been shown have zero growth or even negative growth. Education is part of it as is economics and I’m sure some of it is ways of prevention and ways of terminating. All these factors are not applicable in the same ways to underdeveloped populations. The life expectancy in developed countries is also longer.
We live in a developed country and tend to see the world thru our eyes. It could be said we have already solved the population problem and in turn the climate problem if it was just up to us. The rest of the world not so much. I don’t personally buy that we are setting ourselves out to be an example for places like China. I don’t think they want to follow our lead I personally think they would like to destroy our style of life.
Why would China want to destroy our style of life? It’s our style of life that buys so much stuff from them. It’s our style of life that puts us in debt to them. It’s our style of life that makes people spend hours and hours on Tik-Tok, giving them lots and lots of juicy free data. If we all adopted a more frugal style of life China would not be happy.
2 Likes
I can’t disagree with that. You answered your own question.
They would like to bleed us dry and then do as they wish with us.
We as of late have been making that very easy for them.
The frustrating thing to me is that the tariffs Trump put on Chinese imports and largely kept by Biden may make us feel like we’re fighting back, but not so much. Import tariffs raise prices for American firms importing the stuff and American taxpayers paying more at retail. They don’t cost the Chinese firms at all unless we stop buying it and they can’t find other markets. Then we pay more anyway for stuff that’s made somewhere else.
1 Like
This is true unless the American company that sent it there in the first place then says if we have to transfer this price across we might as well make it here and we pay the real price as a consumer rather than a unreal low price based around child labor, no environmental concerns, cheapened materials with no testing. They don’t have OSHA and don’t care how many fingers or hands get chopped off in a press. They have a billion replacement workers. In the 80s I worked on tech transfer at my company with China. It was the only way they would let us into their market. We gave them everything they wanted and what they were most interested in was the way we did things before automation. They didn’t have any labor issues and automation was the last thing they wanted, well next to the last thing safety standards came in last.
I love the idea of going to Wal-Mart as much as the next guy and buying something so cheap I wonder how they can make it for the cost of the package and shipping it halfway around the world. But in getting that deal I have to be giving something away.
Agree 100%. But no administration, regardless of party, wants to be held responsible for raising prices so we have to vote with our wallets and pay more for non-Chinese goods. I do look for country of origin and wish it were required on all labels.
1 Like
Manufacturers move production to other countries to beat tariffs.
NYC saving the world!
yes …
From ice cream to ice…
Another piece of the puzzle that science has been documenting. The link is about current impacts on the Arctic and Antarctic.
Arctic, low. Antarctic, whoa. | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis (nsidc.org)
Actually it has been methane not CO2 that has been responsible for past mass extinctions.
Oh, oh, and I had sausage and cabbage for dinner, sorry, folks 
2 Likes
hope you’re not drinking milk either cows are BAD. I think my dog ripped one he’s got to go now.
Soon the trainer is going to throw the towel in the ring for me. Hope it’s before the big bang.
Yes, methane is a potent greenhouse gas and is currently part of the atmospheric carbon pollution we need to deal with. In fact, before cyanobacteria started producing oxygen the earth’s atmosphere was mostlyCO2, H2O, and methane no O2. The addition of O2 caused the “Great Oxidation Event” which caused an extinction of much of the anaerobic life living at that time 2.7 billion years ago. We only have O2 in the atmosphere because of photosynthesis and the web of life that evolved as a result.
In the article you posted they contribute methane as the driving causal force for that one extinction event. There have been many, many more in the history of life on this planet. From many different causes.
You must not have read the link to the actual study that started this topic. It’s up at the beginning and presents an overview of causes of extinction and quantifying the possible % of species lost in an extinction event. It’s worth reading if you are interested in understanding the topic of extinction events and how that relates to oceanic species diversity, and why that is important in light of atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidification.
I forgot to add the link to the Great Oxidation Event.
The Great Oxidation Event: How Cyanobacteria Changed Life (asm.org)
I happen not to drink milk. Raised the kids on venison, and so we used very little beef. I am not a vegetarian but love my vegies. Yes, I do eat beef on occasion, but it still is not a standard in our house. I think flatulence comes with age. That’s my story… 
On a positive note, if we can reduce the amount of methane we generate in addition to natural sources, we may see results relatively quickly. Methane lasts about 12 years in the atmosphere while CO2 lasts hundreds.
1 Like
This is so far off topic at this point. It is a classic case of deflection. At least plausus posted about methane being a cause of a mass extinction. It is on topic and demonstrates how serious greenhouse gases can be for life on the earth.
1 Like
The idea that rising CO2 from 280 to 420 that parallels industrialization is responsible for higher yields in agriculture is new to me. Is there a correlation ? For sure. But whether or not there is a causal relationship is a different question. If their hypothesis ignores the post-WWII development of better varieties, better soil fertility, better pest control, and irrigation - all of which measurably contributed to higher yields - then I think it’s incomplete.