Indeed. Farmers are often paid to not grow everything they could have otherwise. Part of that is price stabilization, but part of it is because we'd just have too damn much. (Then those farmers join Tea Party rallies and rail on about not wanting to have a government....as long as those US Treasury checks keep on comin'. )

Actually, I never called anyone a nazi. Nazis were not the only proponents of eugenics. Within the progressive movement you'll find many individuals who have argued for eugenics. I'm simply stating that claims of unsustainable population growth have been made in the past, many times. The world's population has continued to grow, and yet we're still sustaining the current population. It's my view that we'll continue to sustain growth of population in the future.

Part of the problem is that many people who make claims about the sustainability of population size use modeling of population growth that is far too simplistic. They take current (for the period) food production levels and extrapolate from there, ignoring the human race's incredible ability to increase efficiency of production through technological and scientific breakthroughs.

If you don't want to argue this via food availability, but rather, energy or something along those lines, I maintain that new technologies will have just as strong an impact in these areas. When they started drilling for oil, I'm sure there were all kinds of oil deposits that were beyond their ability to access. Yet advances in technology have opened up new sources. Deep sea, oil shale and the like. I could make the argument that oil will eventually run out. But who's to say that 100 to 150 years from now we won't have the technology to take organic waste matter and transoform it into crude? It's silly to try to model something like this so far out into the future simply because the human race makes such amazing strides in sceince and technology that we really can't predict what life will be like at that time.

That is all.

Ham

_________________
Do you believe yet?

Little late on that one Hammy. These guys have it figured out: http://ls9.com/

_________________

it's not ignored, it's not able to be managed

Just call me Khan Noonien Singh

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

Oh my God! Marty, I'm from the future.

Ham

_________________
Do you believe yet?

I wasn't talking about "per capita", and that wouldn't make a difference if humans are actually impacting climate change. You actually supported me by stating how China has become the biggest carbon polluter. Russia isn't far behind, and considering the other industrialized nations the US's percentage of world carbon pollution is closer to 30% at most. Now consider just how effective emission laws are on the US portion of pollution. We could expect a 20% reduction in a perfect world, which would equate to a world wide reduction of 6% in fantasy land, not to mention that our return in that highly skeptical assumption of a better climate would be maybe 5% of that considering our land mass.

...Also, I don't have any ridiculous notions of making a difference in law enforcement. I'm a cop because I want to catch bad guys, and I believe in doing it the right way, and I get paid for it. There has been crime through all of human history, and it won't change because humans are imperfect. There is no comparison to climate change. The reasons behind it are at least 99% natural, and whatever impact humans have ever had is not yet determined. If humans have an impact, the solutions are not fully known or entirely inadeqaute so far.

As I stated in my first post, this issue is astonishingly political. That's because power and money hungry politicians don't give a shit about the climate, they only know that the issue has been made into a buzz topic that many people will base a vote on (thanks, Al Gore). Once a vote is in play, they will pay any amount to biased research, twist results, trump up their favorite version while ignoring the info that doesn't support their chosen side. Those that take strong stances, vote for certain politicians and the laws they "support" only fuel the mass fiasco. Remove climate change as a political issue, allow scientists to work free from political grants, appointments, and bribes, and wait for an accurate answer and go from there. Nah...to hard.

BTW, the "independent" investigation, wasn't.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 14140.html

Well, unless you consider an investigation commissioned and paid for by the people being investigated as independent.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...