New York Times: Children Bad for Environment

so go get fixed..

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/

 

thats the plan, eventually

 

Hm, well I think selfish, materialistic people are worse for the environment than children are, because their main concerns are me, myself and I. Give me more, more, more.

After all, children are the future. They can make or break what happens later on down the line, so teach them well.

 

Are you certain there is a future?

 

How about instead of wondering what our carbon footprint is in this country, we start with recycling, and other simple things that for some reason, the US is slow to implement. Or less dependence on meat, cars, plastic, etc.

 

i'm not positive, but i think malthusian theory will pull through for us and the world population will be substantially decreased before long.

the troubled times we're getting into right now may be the beginning of, or a harbinger of, the greater troubles ahead, but who knows. i certainly don't.

still, its projected that by 2050 the world will have more than doubled it's population from 1950, despite wars, disease, disaster, and famine

perhaps what with economic issues and all we won't be able to afford the technological infrastructure necessary to maintain the current state of the world, and much of it will collapse into war and plague spread easily in areas of dense population with poor sanitation.

just one of many possible scenarios. while we hear a lot about deforestation and environment and such, the US and canada have a ton of more or less unused land. if worse comes to worse, i still think north america can probably find self sufficiency, even though it hasn't truly been self sufficient since european colonists took over. but the resources are there. maybe not to maintain society as we currently know it, but to survive just fine, if not comfortably

i really don't know though

 

You're depressing as hell.

 

i don't find it depressing at all

 

At least we have hell to look forward to. :cheers2:

 

Seems about everything is bad for the environment.

 

not at all, if it is true that the earth cannot support an infinite number of people, and if we really are approaching the end of the earth's capacity to support our species, then there will be a significant depopulation in one form or another, but it will affect different parts of the world differently.

if this does happen, then in the end the remaining population will eventually stabilize and manage to get back on its feet.

selfish and egotistical perhaps, but i really think north america would be among the least effected by this scenario, except in that we rely on other countries for trade. were we purely isolationist, there are plenty of resources to be completely self sufficient. we talk a lot about deforestation and environment, but truth is that compared to many countries the US and canada have a LOT of unused land with a lot of untapped resources. in my opinion its good to save these, for now, but someday we may need them.

the places that will be hardest hit will be nations that are extremely densely populated, don't have the best sanitation, don't have much capital, and don't have a ton of useful resources. this is where epidemics will be most efficient at killing off people, where starvation is most likely, and where dissent and outrage will lead to more wars.

if the US were to stop getting militarily involved in a new country every month, we'd probably be alright if we sat tight and protected our borders if such an unpleasant scenario were to arise.

 

The elite are eugenicists and want to kill off 80-90% of the population, not because they care about the environment, but because they are psychopathic murderers who see themselves as more evolved than us cattle and the bottom, who have toiled to build up their system and manufacture our own shackles of enslavement.

 

Oh really? Wow. Just wow! So which blue-blooded psychopath gets to determine who lives and who is sent to be gassed? Seriously, Hitler had a belief very much along the lines of what you are espousing and what these eco (green) nazi pseudo-scientists are proposing.. The earth is not overpopulated and is nowhere near overpopulation.

 

actually the UN is estimating a "natural" population decrease globally begining by 2050..

yeah seems decreased fertility rates are a driving factor.

decreased fertility rates you say? say it with me,,,HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM...

thats right be good little chattel and keep eating your GM foods and standing in line for your vaccinations.. your doing your part for population control without even knowing it..

 

Explains the increase in octuplets...and all the following reality shows.

 

By definition, people are "bad for the environment" (while, supposedly we're concerned about the environment because of our own sustainability as a species).

The NYT oxymoron, if anything, points to the hysterical contradictions within Malthusian primitivist thinking.

Or what we choose to call environmentalism today.

 

in vitro fertilization withstanding..

 

there doesn't need to be anyone calling shots like that, and you KNOW i'm not espousing ANYTHING along the lines of the atrocities hitler and similar people caused.

like i said, i think that malthus was more or less right. once we get too over populated, these things will happen -on their own-

famine, plague, and even inevitable wars

you KNOW that there is a finite number of resources, and you KNOW that the population increases steadily and has been for years. you know that the rate at which it increases is speeding up.

i'm not saying we're getting all that close to it, i'm saying it will eventually, down the line, become inevitable that we simply will not be able to manage to keep it up.

 

But who was Thomas Malthus? He was an ECONOMIST for the British East India Company. It was all about there being too many "useless eaters" taking away from "OUR" (meaning their) resources. It wasn't about "are there enough resources to sustain the population and keep everybody happy." A lot of the scarcity that exists in the world is artificial scarcity. Why do you think so many people in Africa are starving, in what is one of the places most rich in natural resources in the entire world? It's because corporate interests have come in, paid off the local authorities, and funded tribal groups to wage warfare and remove people from the land that was rightfully theirs (which they once used to grow their own food), so these corporate interests can come in and take over.

Also, the population rates in the developed world are in a steady decline.

 

There are overpopulated areas on Earth, though. Large groups of people are dying of diseases in Africa that are controlled in the US and more developed countries.