Global Warming's Real Problem, Please Read?

Say the hippies got what they wanted, an entire green planet with everyone doing their part to protect the plant and all living together in peace.








At the time of posting there are 6.8 billion people on this planet. In 1979, 29 years ago, there were 4.4 billion people and in 2037, 29 years from now, there will be an estimated 10.3 billion people on this planet. If anyone has looked at a population graph of the world, and has an IQ number higher than my shoe size, 14, you will know it to be an exponential graph. Which means that the population is increasing at and rapidly increasing rate. Then you would also understand the idea of carrying capacity. A simple definition of carrying capacity is “Carrying capacity refers to the number of individuals who can be supported in a given area within natural resource limits, and without degrading the natural social, cultural and economic environment for present and future generations (gdrc)” So basically, if you have more food, you can have more rabbits. If you have less food, some of your rabbits die from starvation, population decreases.








Does anyone see a problem?The UN itself said that the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 than transport (fao). "The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector (fao)" So agriculture is growing fast, population is growing fast, CO2 is going to shot through the roof weather we stop driving or not.








This is the main reason that I don’t care if my 1969 dodge doesn’t pass smog, or if I burn plastic, Styrofoam, or fart.








Never, in history of the planet, has the whole world come together as a whole to do anything but kill each other. Say you do get the world to ban together and help the planet. So you are going to convince the whole world not to eat meat?








So I said all of that to say two things. The first one is best said by one of my favorite antagonists








"I'd like to share a revelation during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. (Agent Smith)”








My opinion on fixing the problem, everyone is entitled to one, is mass genocide. Why, because it’s either that, or the world will fail, which really doesn’t bother me either, because I will not be around.








Sources:http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006...





http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock's...





http://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/carry...

Global Warming's Real Problem, Please Read?
What's your question?
Reply:"Never, in history of the planet, has the whole world come together as a whole to do anything but kill each other."





And rather ironically, that seems to be the answer to the question you pose.
Reply:World genocide? You're talking about mother nature making her correction to the overpopulation problem.





People forget that we're living organisms. The only law we ultimately live under is natures law.
Reply:You're definitely correct, mass genocide would be a highly efficient way to end the crisis. But who do we kill off? Obviously no body wants to die, but some people need to. This poses a problem, and trying to figure out who to kill off would likely lead to our own destruction. Problem solved! Wait....





Or:





Nature takes it course and our "boom" in population liekly leads to a "bust", which will ost definitley happen very soon. Either way, we're screwed as a species.
Reply:Okay, let's assume your most reasonable assumption to be the case, that human growth will continue according to your estimates, that no huge plague or famine will come along, that no country besides China introduces a one-child policy, that the naturaly population decline in prosperous Western European nations neither spreads nor intensifies, which as I say is reasonable, there are still some issues.


For a start your argument for not doing your bit to help reduce global warming ammounts to "it's pointless unless everyone else does it too and I'll probably be dead by then anyway". Really, for all you research, all your reasoning and rationalising, your argument boils down to "I can't be bothered" and is effectively a product of selfishness and laziness. Also you seem to disdain environmentalists, your use of the term hippies seems derisive. I'm guessing you are politically rather than scientifically motivated,but intelligent enough to realise that the "it's not happeneing" and "humans are not a cause" lines you were given for years are not true, but continue to emotionally attach yourself to one side of an issue and set about searchingfor reasons to support a position as close as you could find to your previous one. In other words you have use circular logic, and you ought to realise that that will never lend itself to a coherent argument. Also your willingness to support mass genocide points towards sociopathy (also hinted at by your apparent selfishness and use of the term hippies to dismiss others).


Incidentally, the UN report you cite excludes that the leading contributor to CO2 emissions is industry.


You asked for an opinion,I prefer conclusions,and based on your answer I conclude you are an intelligent but culturally deluded individual with a potential for sociopathic behaviour. I hope am incorrect regarding the sociopathy.