Aluckyguess wrote:
"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Aluckyguess wrote:
If so should we limit the growth of the human population to save
the planet also?


In the long term this is an essential part of the solution because
we have many effects on the earth other than greenhouse gasses,
many resources that we need are running out and many pollutants
that we make, including greenhouse gasses, are harming the
environment. You can reduce the rate of using up resources and
generating pollutants per head but unless you do something about
the number of heads too you are only delaying the date of collapse
as you cannot reach stability. Those who suggest that there is no
need to limit human population
(say because of technological advances) will find that it is
limited for them, or for their descedants, nontheless. It will be
limted by the Four Horsemen.

My chemistry is week. However, this "Nathan Fiala" is an economist
not a chemist or biologist. After all, Does any economist of this
world know what they are saying, let alone how this world
operates?

You do have to wonder.

David

We can not damage the earth, we can only damage ourselves. The
planet will heal itself its just a matter of time.

Is producing pollution that affects other organisms and climate not
harming the earth? Is the human-caused extinction of species not
harming the earth?

Nope

Your definition of "harm" is so odd that I doubt we can have much
conversation about it.


How long would you be prepared to wait for the eco-system to
re-balance? What do you think would be happening to humanity while
you wait?

What is balance? What about the ice age. There were dinosaurs when
they went did that balance things.

Sure there are non man-made changes in the environment, some take place over
millions of years, this is no reason to assume that man-made ones don't
exist or will never be significant.

You don't understand the big picture. We are insignificant, just a
small spec in time.

Well the facts simply don't support that. The numbers of humans and our
capacity to effect change in the environment are now such that we can and
will influence the future of the planet. But if you cannot see that
destroying species (just as one example) is harmful we are not even on the
same page about exhausting resources, large scale pollution and
over-population.

Humans will come and we will go.

If we take up your philosophy obscenely large numbers will have a fine
chance of going - and right soon. Why are you so fatalistic?


Why do you think our eco-system is out of balance, Al gore?

From the evidence that I see from many sources, Gore is just one speaker,
the issue does not hinge on the veracity of Gore or if you like him or his
politics. I don't follow him or anybody faithfully. There is much more to
this than climate change although that is a big issue.

This whole global warming thing is a crock. We should put money into
more important things.

Tell me who told you that global warming was a crock and why do you believe
them?

Even if climate change wasn't happening it would still be worth developing
renewable energy sources as the current ones are going to become impossibly
expensive fairly soon. If you think that there are more important things to
spend money on than securing stable and affordable energy sources into the
future please say what they are.

David