Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We will destroy ourselves based on what? That's the kind of statement that often requires lots of explanation. I mean look at all the explanation I gave in my original post, where not only did I not even go into everything related to global warming but it's only about one of at least a handful of topics that affect humanity's future. It's faster if you reply to individual points of mine.
I agree with the sentiment that too much money gets spent on military, OTOH.
So basically you do not think that WW2 casualties are high enouph compared to WW3 probability ? Not about War related death so much. More about natural population controls. All creates have em. If we do not over-polute ourselfs due to technology, there will other means of population control. I think this issue you are talking about is more dynamic. It's being presented as something to simple and having to few dimensions to it. But it will and has always about an ant farm examaple...
"We will destroy our selfs" is also context specific. Human genome is a few hundred thousand years old but evidence of civilizations is limited to homo-sapient-sapients and 2-3k years....
So basically you do not think that WW2 casualties are high enouph compared to WW3 probability ?
There's no reason I'm aware of to suspect a WW3 scenario that would be anywhere near as deadly (per capita) as WW2 to be imminent, if one happens at all.
Quote:
More about natural population controls. All creates have em. If we do not over-polute ourselfs due to technology, there will other means of population control. I think this issue you are talking about is more dynamic. It's being presented as something to simple and having to few dimensions to it. But it will and has always about an ant farm examaple...
Too vague. There are all kinds of reasons why past population controls don't necessarily apply to us now, as we're perhaps the most unique species to ever exist. In any case, this thread's focus is on why global warming won't kill us.
There's no reason I'm aware of to suspect a WW3 scenario that would be anywhere near as deadly (per capita) as WW2 to be imminent, if one happens at all.
Too vague. There are all kinds of reasons why past population controls don't necessarily apply to us now, as we're perhaps the most unique species to ever exist. In any case, this thread's focus is on why global warming won't kill us.
since WW2 we have created sufficient amount of doomsday devices. Nukes, biological weapons.... There is enouph nukes in the world today to end life as we know it, only armies are rated based on ability to create more nukes fast. also war has definition. In US a war is something declared by congress. If a president makes an executive order to bomb something, it's not defined as a war. Further US has the number 1 biggest and largest army in the world. Iraq's army was really far down in the rating. Avganistan, home made explosives and 100 year old mashine guns...
Will global warming kill us ? semantic/definitions.... to much politics involved in global warming discussion to be able to separate fact from fiction. The thing is, how much focus should be bring to global warming if there are more things that can kill us and even more imminent? We have weapons that can do it faster then global warming. And once we solve the global warming puzzle there will be other stuff to threaten us.
since WW2 we have created sufficient amount of doomsday devices. Nukes, biological weapons.... There is enouph nukes in the world today to end life as we know it
Based on a source estimating chances of a few various extinction threats happening by 2100, the combined threat of nuclear war extermination is only 1.03%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...isk#Likelihood
I think their 19% overall figure for all threats, by 2100, is overshooting it, but more on that in another thread.
Quote:
Further US has the number 1 biggest and largest army in the world. Iraq's army was really far down in the rating. Avganistan, home made explosives and 100 year old mashine guns...
These don't relate to human extinction threats.
Quote:
Will global warming kill us ? semantic/definitions.... to much politics involved in global warming discussion to be able to separate fact from fiction.
~97% of scientists educated in the field think that (1) global warming is happening, and (2) humans are contributing; so I'd call those items established fact. I was arguing here that it's not that big of a deal.
Quote:
The thing is, how much focus should be bring to global warming if there are more things that can kill us and even more imminent?
Humanity will not be around that long. Between the lack of food, climate change and the attitude of certain sects and governments I give us 100 years max.
I agree with you. Because of lack of food and unpredictable climate changes we will be destroyed. Also there is a serious irregular population increase problem that we already have.
I've read an article which is called as a ''Population Increase and Its Implications'' you guys should read too.
Honestly the problem at this point is overpopulation
And don't you find it odd that no one is talking about this? No one.
It's glaringly obvious that overpopulation is the issue. Humans are the destructive parasite contributing to the demise of Earth.
These are alarming statistics: The UNICEF estimates that an average of 353,000 babies are born each day around the world. The crude birth rate is 18.9 births per 1,000 population or 255 births globally per minute or 4.3 births every second (as of Dec. 2013 estimate). 154,889 deaths take place as daily average.
And don't you find it odd that no one is talking about this? No one.
It's glaringly obvious that overpopulation is the issue. Humans are the destructive parasite contributing to the demise of Earth.
These are alarming statistics: The UNICEF estimates that an average of 353,000 babies are born each day around the world. The crude birth rate is 18.9 births per 1,000 population or 255 births globally per minute or 4.3 births every second (as of Dec. 2013 estimate). 154,889 deaths take place as daily average.
Yeah it's crazy to think what the population of the world will be in 30 years. It needs to stop a lot of the people being born are people in third world countries that can barely afford to eat anyway.
Yeah it's crazy to think what the population of the world will be in 30 years. It needs to stop a lot of the people being born are people in third world countries that can barely afford to eat anyway.
The 4 top most populated countries right now are :
Look at how much pollution and green house gases those countries put out. It correlates perfectly with overpopulation compared to the amount of green house gases being put out.
And don't you find it odd that no one is talking about this? No one.
It's glaringly obvious that overpopulation is the issue. Humans are the destructive parasite contributing to the demise of Earth.
These are alarming statistics: The UNICEF estimates that an average of 353,000 babies are born each day around the world. The crude birth rate is 18.9 births per 1,000 population or 255 births globally per minute or 4.3 births every second (as of Dec. 2013 estimate). 154,889 deaths take place as daily average.
The good news is that population growth rates seem to reduce dramatically in first world nations with high standards of living. I bet this is for a few reasons. In first world nations we're not as dependent on our children to care for us in old age. It can certainly be helpful to have a spouse or a child to do that...but we have easily available cell phones we can quick-dial an ambulance if we have a heart attack, and even if we only have one kid that kid will probably live longer than we will due to better access to healthcare/clean water/food/etc. Also, people in first world nations tend to be less reliant on their children for growing food and maintaining the household. Having kids is a luxury, not a survival technique. We have better access to people we can hire to do all that stuff. We don't need little Susy out collecting firewood. Also, in first world nations it's more likely for parents to send their kids to college, buy their kids cars/computers/expensive toys/etc. Providing young people with all the toys and benefits they could use can be pretty expensive, so parents are more likely to have fewer children.
The bad news is that here in the first world nations we're more likely to waste, us nonrenewable fuels, and have much larger carbon footprints...so we have lower population growths, but each person is doing more damage.
Ideally there would be some middle ground...some culture or laws that advocate conservation-minded behavior, but allows for the high standards of living that tend to reduce population growth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
