30-08-2011, 05:50 PM
Mark,
You've been attempting to make this personal for a number of posts. Stay on the topic and don't attack the person. Population Growth ALARMISM -- is the key phrase--ALARMISM. I am not advocating population growth. I am questioning the catastrophic view of the world as promoted by Malthus, in which he says that there is not enough to go around. Obviously if there IS currently plenty to go around (as every source reports from the United Nations to private hunger organizations) then there is no need for any to be starving to death as they now are. The problem is not with supply it is with distribution and with various political/economic factors.
Are you incapable of comprehending what I said about over population not being the source of increased C02? Try to stay with me on this one: If it was true that over population is the reason for increased C02, then the United States, which is not over populated, would not be the world's largest contributor to C02 emissions--India would be. But, as it is, the United States is the highest contributor and not over populated--so there is no direct correlation between population and increased C02.
You may not like THE FACTS, but there they are. If you doubt them--do some research for yourself and report back. If you find that I'm wrong from your facts I will investigate and honestly admit if I'm in error.
You've been attempting to make this personal for a number of posts. Stay on the topic and don't attack the person. Population Growth ALARMISM -- is the key phrase--ALARMISM. I am not advocating population growth. I am questioning the catastrophic view of the world as promoted by Malthus, in which he says that there is not enough to go around. Obviously if there IS currently plenty to go around (as every source reports from the United Nations to private hunger organizations) then there is no need for any to be starving to death as they now are. The problem is not with supply it is with distribution and with various political/economic factors.
Are you incapable of comprehending what I said about over population not being the source of increased C02? Try to stay with me on this one: If it was true that over population is the reason for increased C02, then the United States, which is not over populated, would not be the world's largest contributor to C02 emissions--India would be. But, as it is, the United States is the highest contributor and not over populated--so there is no direct correlation between population and increased C02.
You may not like THE FACTS, but there they are. If you doubt them--do some research for yourself and report back. If you find that I'm wrong from your facts I will investigate and honestly admit if I'm in error.
Mark Stapleton Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:You are completely off base. I do not advocate population growth. Are you dense or something?
But you do advocate population growth. The evidence comes from your own posts.
In post #109 you state: Over population does NOT seem to be the main contributing factor in the miniscule increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Way back in post #1 you state: The Malthusian/Darwinian paradigm limits our ability to truly support the human race because of its inappropriately catastrophic view of population growth
And there's the title of the thread itself: Population Growth "Alarmism" as a Deep Political Control Device.
Your inexplicable inability to recognise exponential human population growth as the root cause of all our current food, resource and environmental problems renders me speechless, but I wouldn't call you dense.
However, I think Malthus was more rational than you are. Maybe that's because he wasn't a real estate agent.
GO_SECURE
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)
monk
"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."
James Hepburn -- Farewell America (1968)