This just leaves me absolutely speechless. I had no idea it was this bad.

[phacemeltar]

if humans dug down instead of building skyscrapers, then we could have more surface area to produce oxygen/food. also, there are vast amounts of land that is yet uninhabited.

not to be too unrealistic, but according to the rate at which technology has developed, there is a good chance that off-world colonies will exist in the near-future.

i dont get this whole overpopulation mess. except about how humans are negatively impacting the livelihood of other species, that is a serious issue imo.

[Sidelle]

Originally Posted by Tune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

climate change bigger issue i would think

Overpopulation leads directly to negative climate changes. The article explains it better than I so here's a quote for you.

Clearly, assertions that the Earth might be able to support a population of 10, 15, or even 20 billion people for an indefinite period of time at a standard of living superior to the present are not only cruelly misleading but almost certainly false. Notwithstanding our current addiction to continued and uninterrupted economic growth, humanity must recognize that there are finite physical, biological, and ecological limits to the Earth's long-term sustainable carrying capacity. And to judge by the growing concerns about maintaining the quality, stability, and/or sustainability of the Earth's atmosphere, water, forests, croplands, fisheries, and so on, there is little if any doubt that many of these limits will soon be reached, if they haven't already been surpassed. Since at some point the damage stemming from the mutually reinforcing effects of excessive human reproduction and overconsumption of resources could well become irreversible, and because there is only one Earth with which to experiment, it would undoubtedly be better for our species to err on the side of prudence, exercising wherever possible a cautious and careful stewardship.

By the way, I am not quoting this creepy stuff in the article because I am on board with these kind of drastic actions to save the planet. I think it's horrifying. But it's starting to ring true that it's too late to fix it by recycling, buying a Prius, consuming less, smaller carbon footprint, etc. Especially if the population keeps growing at such an alarming rate because it will overwhelm those efforts. More people means more production means more greenhouse gases, which leads to climate changes...I think that's what I wanted to say. Lol... ok. I'm done. Stayed up wayyy too late. Forgive my post, I'm tired. Bye. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Sidelle]

Originally Posted by BigHurb [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-ground.html

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's amazing. I like.

[Azure]

Global thermonuclear winter will have a long term sustained affect on global climate.

Originally Posted by BigHurb [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-ground.html

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

^^^ someone likes to play minecraft 2 damn much

[Glenzig]

I notice in all the articles espousing overpopulation as the main culprit to climate change, there is a phrase that goes unnoticed by most. "Standard of living". You do realize that humans can live without power plants, and cell phones and computers right?
Besides which. The standard of living they are actually referring to is not yours and mine, but the top 5%. I don't know about anyone else, but I've never exploited the earths natural resources to turn a profit. But yet we are the ones that are made to feel guilty. The finger is always pointed at "the consumer", and never at the manufacturer.

[Scikala]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I notice in all the articles espousing overpopulation as the main culprit to climate change, there is a phrase that goes unnoticed by most. "Standard of living". You do realize that humans can live without power plants, and cell phones and computers right?
Besides which. The standard of living they are actually referring to is not yours and mine, but the top 5%. I don't know about anyone else, but I've never exploited the earths natural resources to turn a profit. But yet we are the ones that are made to feel guilty. The finger is always pointed at "the consumer", and never at the manufacturer.

Obviously if we cared, we wouldnt buy the stuff..../s

[Azure]

Yet we have the technology for everyone to have a reasonable standard of living if the beucrats and lawyers would stay out of the mess and stop killing educated innovators who cut into the bottom line of their profits.

[r00t]

well I for one am NOT going stop using my phone to query google's server farms while driving my hotboxed tin can just cause of global warming alarmism

[this user was banned]

Originally Posted by BigHurb [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-ground.html

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It looks like that takes up just as much of a footprint as a skyscraper and its only intent was to circumvent the height restrictions on buildings. Can we just kill off all the religious nutfucks that think it's god's will that the earth is fucked rather than take responsibility?

[r00t]

if we built the towers underground we'd still have freedom