Flat screens hurting global warming!

[Irresponsible]

I won't deny that rapid industrialization is also a problem. But why compound the problem by continuing to exponentially grow the population. Not sure if industrialization is happenning aexponentially. Hopefully technology becoming more efficient will help the problem.

Imagine if China did not have population control measures.

How can our society can continue to support itself. Most of the countries with a high population are not doing well.

A factoid.

"The US has the resources to sustain less than half of its current population of 300 million. If all 6 billion people were to share the world's resources equally, Americans would have to reduce consumption by 80%."

Do you really think we can maintain this? I think things will move toward equilibrilum and that is not good for us.

I don't disagree with you; we should all be conscious of our effect on the environment. But, the over-population scare is overdone.

Paul Ehrlich breathlessly proposed such a fiasco in 1968 with his book, "The Population Bomb." Julian Simon counteroffered with a famous $10,000 bet. Google "Simon-Ehrlich wager" for some interesting reading. It will calm your fears.

[jaretac]

So if flat screens are "hurting" global warming, does that mean they are good for the environment?

[twojman]

Maybe the nazi's that want population control are correct. Since humans breathe out so much CO2, we should kill all humans. I guess we need to kill every living creature that exhales CO2 as well. We cannot these organisms destroying Earth.

[ISUboi12]

It's amazing how opinionated people are, clearly none of us are experts and know much more than what we read in the newspaper about this. In reality, I think even the top researchers and scientists in the field struggle to answer these same questions.

The shocking thing is that many responses just simply refute the observation because they attribute it with the liberal agenda. I hope in real life you are not so politically binded to a single side that you decide an issue based on affiliation without researching it and gathering facts.

Staying away from climate change, to claim overpopulation is a myth and scare tactic is absolutely false. Like someone pointed out if you need an example just look at any country with a population greater than the US. I don't think anyone knows for certain where our population is most stable. However, at a certain point I promise that the increasing population is going to put pressure on the competition for vital resources, subsequently increasing prices, and in effect increasing the amount of people who can afford less and less. Then you start to see the number of people at or below the poverty line start increasing at an alarming rate.

[Phaedrus]

It's amazing how opinionated people are, clearly none of us are experts and know much more than what we read in the newspaper about this. In reality, I think even the top researchers and scientists in the field struggle to answer these same questions.

The shocking thing is that many responses just simply refute the observation because they attribute it with the liberal agenda. I hope in real life you are not so politically binded to a single side that you decide an issue based on affiliation without researching it and gathering facts.

Staying away from climate change, to claim overpopulation is a myth and scare tactic is absolutely false. Like someone pointed out if you need an example just look at any country with a population greater than the US. I don't think anyone knows for certain where our population is most stable. However, at a certain point I promise that the increasing population is going to put pressure on the competition for vital resources, subsequently increasing prices, and in effect increasing the amount of people who can afford less and less. Then you start to see the number of people at or below the poverty line start increasing at an alarming rate.

One of the best ways to limit population growth, is to become wealthy. Creating and spreading wealth has, in the course of human history, resulted in almost universal population shrinkage...

People who have "things" (and also tend to have an education) tend to forgo making children. There are just too many other things to do.

Centrally controlled and planned population control tend to end very, very badly.

So if we want to control populations in the future, the best course of action may be to INCREASE industrialization and capitalism, not vice-versa...

Of course, a mass nuclear exchange would probably fix the problem, as well. But I prefer that peace thing....

[Cyclonepride]

One of the best ways to limit population growth, is to become wealthy. Creating and spreading wealth has, in the course of human history, resulted in almost universal population shrinkage...

People who have "things" (and also tend to have an education) tend to forgo making children. There are just too many other things to do.

Centrally controlled and planned population control tend to end very, very badly.

So if we want to control populations in the future, the best course of action may be to INCREASE industrialization and capitalism, not vice-versa...

Of course, a mass nuclear exchange would probably fix the problem, as well. But I prefer that peace thing....

Ah, the dichotomy of the green agenda. It's much easier to just wish for a global plague.

[jaretac]

to claim overpopulation is a myth and scare tactic is absolutely false.

I won't worry to much about overpopulation, it is only a matter of time for another great war. That is the underlying problem with this world, even if you fix one evil there are a million more waiting. By the time you get to the millionth you have to start over again.

[Broodwich]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0"]YouTube - Idiocracy - Trailer[/ame]

[Psyclone]

If you read the article closely the scientist admitsthey have no idea if any of this gas is even escaping into the atmosphere. I'm sick of these gobal warming scare tactics. I was watching a television program the other day and the reporter insinuated that the only way to stop gloabal warming was to reduce human population on the earth. Kind of scary if you ask me.

I think these "scare tactics" actually hurt the cause more than help it.

[Wesley]

I won't deny that rapid industrialization is also a problem. But why compound the problem by continuing to exponentially grow the population. Industrialization is not happenning exponentially. Hopefully technology becoming more efficient will help the problem.

Imagine if China did not have population control measures.

How can our society can continue to support itself. Most of the countries with a high population are not doing well.

A factoid.

"The US has the resources to sustain less than half of its current population of 300 million. If all 6 billion people were to share the world's resources equally, Americans would have to reduce consumption by 80%."

Do you really think we can maintain this? I think things will move toward equilibrilum and that is not good for us.

What resources are we tlking about here?
Coal? Check.
Water? Check?
Food? Check.
Natural gas? Check. Air?
Check. Forests? Check.
Gold? No check? Platinum? No check.
Oil? No check?
Copper? No check.
Looks like we need to add some states like Iraq.