1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Global Warming Alarmists Propose Limiting Population... to the Point of Extinction

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Angus, Mar 19, 2009.

  1. Angus

    Angus Active Member

    5,064 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    March 19, 2009
    Global Warming Alarmists Propose Limiting Population ... to the Point of Extinction
    Gregory Young

    In a statistical study entitled “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals,” published in Global Environmental Change by Murtaugh and Shlax of Oregon State University, and again published here , the authors propose that the potential savings from reduced reproduction rates among humans are some 20 times more effective than the savings wrought by life style changes.

    It is clear that the authors follow the Liberal mantra of the ends justify the means. If we can reduce carbon emissions by reducing the number of children, then we should do it, they gloat. It appears that carbon reductions trump even “life” itself. They summarize:

    Much attention has been paid to the ways that people’s home energy use, travel, food choices and other routine activities affect their emissions of carbon dioxide and, ultimately, their contributions to global warming. However, the reproductive choices of an individual are rarely incorporated into calculations of his personal impact on the environment. Here we estimate the extra emissions of fossil carbon dioxide that an average individual causes when he or she chooses to have children. The summed emissions of a person’s descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him, may far exceed the lifetime emissions produced by the original parent. Under current conditions in the United States, for example, each child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions. A person’s reproductive choices must be considered along with his day-to-day activities when assessing his ultimate impact on the global environment.

    By the authors’ desires, if we would limit every couple to having only one child, we would solve the Global Warming problem for every one. Again, humanity itself is the cause of all the woe, and the best thing for us to do is just stop procreating -- or just drop dead. Living human beings are bad for the planet.

    Indeed, the authors purposely fail to mention that their proposal puts humanity on a fast-tack extinction curve, as reproduction rates fall below population replacement rates. Surely, as statisticians they know this well. Within a few generations, there wouldn’t be any one around to measure, least wise care, about carbon emissions. We would all be dead.

    But golly, we would save the planet! Just goes to show you, Liberals are all about death and destruction. They absolutely live for it!

    I’ve got a thought, why not have liberals first show us how it’s done…. Go ahead liberals -- take the lead in this thing. Limit your own population first, and the rest of us might, “maybe,” consider what you have to say.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/global_warming_alarmists_propo.html
  2. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,478 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    They need to join their buddies up at the North Pole.
  3. DFWJC

    DFWJC Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    22,263 Messages
    1,836 Likes Received
    Classic example of huge GW grant money being spend on worthless studies. They get the millions so they must produce something that justifies their existence.
    Comical
  4. mmillman

    mmillman Active Member

    2,146 Messages
    26 Likes Received
    I have another thought neo-cons why don't you adopt children instead of breeding more? That way we have less population growth, less stress on resources and it helps the abortion debate.
  5. ShiningStar

    ShiningStar Well-Known Member

    6,158 Messages
    511 Likes Received

    We're sorry, all the kids are left available for actors and actresses who need attention.
  6. Cajuncowboy

    Cajuncowboy Preacher From The Black Lagoon

    27,478 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    :lmao2:

    Oh brother...This keeps getting funnier and funnier.
  7. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    It's official...this individual is making me miss VCD.
  8. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Here is the ultimate paradox that Progressives have poured upon themselves...their ever-expanding desire for an ever-expanding welfare state requires what? More labor (i.e. more taxpayers). Especially with end-of-life entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare that will soon be paying out more than they take in as the baby-boomers retire. More future labor = larger future taxbase. You must actually *increase* the rate of population growth so the future tax burden is spread among more taxpayers so their individual burden is not so great.

    However, we must cull the herd! All to save ourselves from extinction! That means less labor = less taxpayers. Less taxpayers relative to benefit recipients means each taxpayer bears a larger individual burden to support those beyond their working and tax-paying years.

    We then must figure out a way to reduce the number of benefit recipients! How about rationing healthcare for the elderly? But how do you do that? Oh, yeah! Nationalized healthcare! And they've proposed PRECISELY that. Obama's team has already said that the older among our population must simply deal with health problems arising from old age when all healthcare is paid for by our dear leader Uncle Sam.

    Kill 'em in the womb, then kill the ones who survive long enough to claim benefits.
  9. jrumann59

    jrumann59 Well-Known Member

    3,721 Messages
    215 Likes Received
    The diehards have always believed that evn Al Gore did. Rather kill a billion people to save one polar bear.
  10. ChldsPlay

    ChldsPlay Well-Known Member

    6,121 Messages
    313 Likes Received
    Where are John Clark and Rainbow Six when you need them?
  11. irvin4evs

    irvin4evs Benched

    573 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I agree. I don't want none of them monkeys!
  12. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    28,107 Messages
    1,157 Likes Received
    you mean an extreme mindset is suggesting something extreme?

    knock me over with a granola bar grown by green energy.
  13. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    You left out the Cherokee Hair Tampon...:laugh2:
  14. iceberg

    iceberg detoxed Zone Supporter

    28,107 Messages
    1,157 Likes Received
    it's in the kitchen.

    i'm doing my part.
  15. lewpac

    lewpac Benched

    1,465 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Ya'all missed the clue that the nimrod who posted this isn't worth responding to.

    To this ilk, there's no "conservatives". Anyone who doesn't do the perp-walk, lock-step, lemming, talking point, brain-dead lefty dance is a NEO-whatever.

    That's why, to me, there's no "liberal/left/Dem". Only UBER-LIB "Usefull idiots" who will destroy this country from within. None of them has any original thoughts. They just recite their talking points from their cult leading brain-washers.

    You can't be an "uber-lib" unless your an intellectually lazy follower. The only requirement to be "on the team" is the need to be chic, modern and "with it". The only goal is to "get along" with all the other beatnick suckers at the local Starbucks. Just say "Hope and Change/Obama", and you're "cool" and "with it".

    Anyone who's vocabulary and talking points copies the Hollywood crowd, the Dixie Chicks, Nancy Pelosi, and Bumbak Boombabba is an idiot. No originality whatsoever. Just a tape-recorder who want's to be invited to the party of the "in" crowd.

    It takes ZERO courage to "go along" with the idiot popular crowd............
  16. irvin4evs

    irvin4evs Benched

    573 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    hahahahahahahhahaaha
  17. SuspectCorner

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,544 Messages
    25 Likes Received
    And your Party last had an "idea" that didn't involve a tax-cut for the wealthy or a military action/defense spending - like... when?
  18. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    28,721 Messages
    141 Likes Received
    I'm not wealthy... and I got a tax cut...
  19. SuspectCorner

    SuspectCorner Bromo

    7,544 Messages
    25 Likes Received
    Oh, I'm way past getting you trick. You'd imply that the past Republican-sponsored tax structure hasn't favored the wealthy at the expense of the middle-class on down.

    Sorry, bubba. You're as collaterally bankrupt as the pols your mindset aligns with. Now stand over there next to the Dodo - and say "cheese". Now turn to the right... which should come naturally enough fer ya.
  20. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,149 Messages
    281 Likes Received
    My view has always been that no one needs to have more than two children.

Share This Page