fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: July 11, 2009 04:28PM
Novus ordo seclorum
new
world order
Onyma Report This Comment Date: July 11, 2009 04:29PM
I tend to agree with his intent, but not the methods. It's a purely scientific
view though, it would never become reality. The author of the article is
fear-mongering by presenting a purely scientific outlook to an emotional
population.
IMO the only way to preserve the future of our species is through a mass
population reduction. My preferred method would be to ensure that for one
generation every 2 people are permitted only one child. 50% population drop in
1 generation and a 50% easing on our demand for the earth's resources. I think
we are WAY past the sweet spot population wise, too many mouths to feed, not
enough jobs to employ everyone, a global economy that can't afford to pay out
what it requires to take in, too much 'natural space' taken up for housing...
it's all on the brink of collapse to me.
Of course you can't implement any of this in a politically correct society but I
don't believe even tech is going to be able to make a bright future out of our
exponential population growth. Quite frankly I'm pleased I won't be around to
see what I think is coming.
Just my 2c
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2009 04:31PM by Onyma.
madmex2000 Report This Comment Date: July 11, 2009 06:29PM
This planet called earth has been spinning for millions of years.
Man's presence on this rock had been in the last few hundred thousand years.
a brief flash of time for us when compared to everything around us.
But according to you its over populated and cramped and on the brink of
destruction from overpolulation or resource scarecity.
What a noble little monkey you are . It must be hard to live on a planet of
monkeys not as smart as you.
Listing to your reasoning is like listing to children talk. So nieve and yet so
sure of them selves.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: July 11, 2009 06:39PM
Kinda agree with the ideology of the report but certainly not the methodology
posed as the way to move forward. It's not too difficult to understand how over
population leads to increased levels of consumption and the impact it has in
that eventuality upon our planet as a whole.
The scary parts in this "scientists" collaboration on cause and effect
vs, solutions sadly all seem to hinge on oppression by socio-political measures
that step far aside of science and seem to be based more upon "one world
utopian" ideologies that should scare the shit outta anyone capable of
sifting through the diatribal hen scratchings and actually see what's behind the
subterfuge of "science" to see it's purely more of the "we know
what's best for you and don't care one whit for what you think of our
ideologies, much less the emotional cost such implementations would bring about
or how these factors might effect society in general, and legally or morally
....... our conclusions should be above reproach". Very Hitleresque to say
the least.
True scientists typically tend to work outside the confines of socialistic
agendas, but this cat certainly doesn't. That alone is enough to give
reasonable pause to anyone believing him to be a scientist at all, much less
anyone capable of heading a federal office whose intent is to address and
regulate scientific activities on the part of our government and society.
Yep, Obamas actual ideas of "change" seem to be becoming more and more
apparent and seem to be more far reaching in scope and intent than anything he
stumped for in his campaign .... whatta surprise
Onyma Report This Comment Date: July 12, 2009 03:11PM
@madmex - were you replying to me? If so I didn't mention one word about the
fate of this planet as a whole but spoke specifically of the state of our
species on it. This planet's future existence could care less about what we do
to it... it's a self renewing ball of rock that will continue to orbit whether
we exist or not. It has the potential to go through a dozen more cycles of life
before being swallowed into the sun; that's a foregone conclusion.
What I discussed was the future of humans in particular and our foreseeable
quality of life on this ball of rock that isn't getting any bigger. To that end
there are predictions afoot that we may naturally self limit around 10 billion
by the end of the century which would be good. Others predict we may hit that
mark by 2050 and still be climbing. The high and low scenarios for long term
(year 2300) have us between 35 billion on the high end, to as low as 3 billion
if we suffer a severe population crash (disease, food supply collapse, etc.)
The reality of course will fall somewhere in the middle.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: July 13, 2009 10:21AM
War, human nature's solution to overpopulation. Bomb the crap out of North
Korea and Iran.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: July 17, 2009 04:54AM
john
holdren
this asshole actually said this:
"Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that
seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility
control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and
social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant
exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable,
such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be
uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and
despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must
be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on
members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock".
jgoins Report This Comment Date: July 17, 2009 11:14AM
Still think war is the best method of population control, but we would have to
change or policy on war. We would need to keep the countries we defeat in the
war instead of giving it back to them.
