So your solution is to slow the population growth so we can continue to pollute the f**k out of the joint ?
I like it !![]()
well no ... if we had a fraction of the population, there would obviously be a fraction of the pollution
The only graph that seems to make sense to me is the rapid population growth in the last 50yrs. Considering the planet has been around for 1000s of year. Maybe more it's extraordinary how much its increased in the last 50-75yrs. But no one speaks about it. Almost like it is our purpose to keep multiplying.
.
There's no need to squirm mate. I was of the opinion that the worst greenhouse gasses were methane and other shit. Although after witnessing your fixation on carbon dioxide I did some research and have now decided that it's unlikely that more carbon dioxide is better than the right amount.Squirm, squirm, squirm, little PouPou.
Once again, the topic and subject were clearly established.
Squirm, squirm, squirm, little PouPou...
It's actually not agricultural runoff. That was a trick. It's urban development.
Declining birthrates will catch up with the third world. Best estimates are that by about 2150 the world population will begin to decline.Whats gonna happen in 2090s to flatten out? ... Everyones gonna die? ... Good thing i will be gone
So Thanos wasn't really the bad guy?Well people throw in all this shit about global warming and other fancy words. The only graph that seems to make sense to me is the rapid population growth in the last 50yrs. Considering the planet has been around for 1000s of year. Maybe more it's extraordinary how much its increased in the last 50-75yrs. But no one speaks about it. Almost like it is our purpose to keep multiplying.
For me the answer is simple. Reduce the population and sustain it at a healthy level. It's all about balance. If each individual amount to so much emissions and collects so much junk and plastic in its lifetime then less people on the same amount of space means less pollution.
Hmm yes. I think we need a nomination system for who will get the chop.
I’ll start.
View attachment 33309
I like the look of that list.
No you haven’t solved the problem at all. You have regurgitated a concept peddled by racsists in this country who wish to cap immigration.Exactly.
If we had 2 billion people and not 10 then we would consume and pollute 1/5th of the amount.
Perhaps Gronk was confused cause he knew I made perfect sense and he is aware it's the solution.
Hindy111 does it again. Solves all the problems.
No you haven’t solved the problem at all. You have regurgitated a concept peddled by racsists in this country who wish to cap immigration.
So you want to do this on a world scale ? How are you going to action it ? I look forward to reading how you will implement a population growth anchor on third world, emerging economies and OECD countries. It’s a massively complex concept and has economic flow-on effects which on the whole stagnate economies.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244017736094
Instead of disincentivizing the population to limit offspring to 1 or 2 (good luck with that in Asia, South America and Africa ) you’d be better off with a carbon tax on industry.
The bible predicts 1/3 of the population will be wiped out before our LORD returns. I'm guessing a world war is most likely.
Hmmmm.![]()
The bible predicts 1/3 of the population will be wiped out before our LORD returns. I'm guessing a world war is most likely.