"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:29:12 -0000, "Peter Hearnden"
wrote:

"Dave Ludlow" wrote in message

Also, you won't read much about the point of view that we should stop
trying to meddle with Nature (whether by increasing *or* decreasing
greenhouse gases). That is, that we should instead spend our money
learning how to *adapt* to the changing conditions we think we can
predict...

But, Dave, isn't that a bit like saying 'we were wrong to heave all this
filth in this beautiful gin clear lake but we'd be wrong to stop doing
it'.
Don't agree I'm afraid - at all...

You assume that's my preferred solution; it isn't. Some people
(especially Americans) think that way, though. Anyway, the lake is
already polluted so we already need to learn how to adapt. So let's
prepare the contingency plans and costings anyway, in case we fail to
stop GW whatever we do.

Seeing the true costs of adapting to "live with GW" (or that
adaptation is impossible) might shock a few more politicians into
action.

--
Dave

It read like your preffered solution . But I agree with this.

Just get to the root of the problem, TOO MANY HUMANS!!!

What happens when the Chinese require the same standard of living as western
nations and we all start warring over earth resources?

It isn't that there are too many people on the planet but the fact that
they each, on average, consume too much energy. Thinking along the lines of
reducing energy consumption by reducing population levels is quite pointless.
It is the equivalent of cutting off a leg to try and lose weight. Try eating
less!

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Reading OK! magazine would make anyone depressed, such is its
frivolous content. But it is a mistake to assume that what hairdressers
or
doctors or dentists, come to that, may think is suitable reading for those
in
the waiting room is really what interests people, and the fact that they
actually may read it doesn't mean they're incapable of understanding
anything
more important.

You surely don't think the doctors, dentists and hairdressers actually
_decide_ which magazines they have in their waiting rooms? IMO the reason
for the reading material you find in such places is that previous
patients/customers have already pinched all the ones worth reading. I have
been experimenting by leaving my used magazines in the local surgery (which
they always welcome with great enthusiasm), and it is very interesting to
see how few are left there next time I am in there. And my dentist's has
aviation magazines, golf magazines, country life and birding magazines,
reflecting the interests of the partners, as well as the more usual tattered
women' magazines and gossip rags like OK! and Hello!

Anne

TudorHgh wrote:

Just get to the root of the problem, TOO MANY HUMANS!!!

What happens when the Chinese require the same standard of living as western
nations and we all start warring over earth resources?

It isn't that there are too many people on the planet but the fact that
they each, on average, consume too much energy. Thinking along the lines of
reducing energy consumption by reducing population levels is quite pointless.
It is the equivalent of cutting off a leg to try and lose weight. Try eating
less!


Take 100 people, each consuming one unit per annum making 100 units of energy
pa.
Lets assume that they reduce their energy usage by 50% ? quite a large reduction I
would suggest.
At this reduced energy usage, how long will it take to increase the population to
a level which consume 100 units of energy per annum? Does the world population
double every 20 Years? (Genuine question, I don't know the answer)

Bob

In message
"Jim Webster" wrote:


"John Hall" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob writes:
Just get to the root of the problem, TOO MANY HUMANS!!! there are only
two
countries that have tried to address the problem, India giving away
transistor
radios and China trying to limit size of families.
Why can't people see that reducing global population is the only answer,

How do you propose to do that, short of genocide? The best that we can
hope to achieve in the short to medium term is to reduce the rate of
increase.

I think that climate change may have a biofeedback mechanism, in that if it
brings about falling agricultural yields, this will lead to falling human
populations. Whether the populations that fall will be the ones that are
doing most of the polluting is doubtful, but famine of biblical proportions
should at least concentrate the minds, even of OK magazine readers

Jim Webster


The traditional method of reducing population is of course war. Once there
are insufficient resources to support the population we will fight over them.
This fighting will continue until the population is reduced sufficiently.

It's hard I know, but that is what will happen.

Of course the wars will result in even more pollution, perhaps even rendering
parts of the earth uninhabtable (as parts of Belarus are now). So the
population it can support is reduced even more.

But to believe that, you have to believe that Malthus was ultimately right!

Martin

--
Created on the Iyonix PC - the new RISC OS computer.