China says population control key to Copenhagen deal

[ikki]

That's just fine and dandy as long as you're the one doing the killing, right? I guess since you think it's such a good idea, maybe you should volunteer to be amongst the exterminated. You know what they say: lead by example.

How would you feel if I shove this pistol in your mouth and said "you have to die because there's no room for you and you're destroying the planet" ?

im just being logical in the alternative reality wherein climate change is happening, is due to co2 and is somehow bad.

Lack of logic is to be a child, unworthy of being taken seriously.

Nw, there is no evidence whatsoever for that anything those climatebats are saying. Its nothing but bullshit engineered to enrichen the few and impoverish everyone else.
All in line with the previous 80 years and shrinking standards of living..

[Sol Invictus]

im just being logical

No, you're being a tool.

in the alternative reality wherein climate change is happening, is due to co2 and is somehow bad.

there is no evidence whatsoever for that anything those climatebats are saying.

Somehow indeed. Why don't you educate me since you seem to know something I do not. Infact, it's just been published that the U.S and much of the world have actually broken record lows in temperatures, and there hasn't been any groundbreaking increase in temperatures in any continent on earth since 1974.

Lack of logic is to be a child, unworthy of being taken seriously.

Yes indeed. So what does that make me?

[Monolith]

Mars, Pluto, and other planets are also proven with science to be heating up also, so since human activity isn't possible on those planets, how do we explain this phoenominon occuring other than blaming on the only source of heat, that being the sun.

Apparently, the climatologists say the Sun is responsible for but a fraction of the overall increase of temperature, and yet they hold it responsible for the Maunder Minimum and the ensuing Little ice age in late 1600s. Isn't that self-contradictory?

[Sol Invictus]

Apparently, the climatologists say the Sun is responsible for but a fraction of the overall increase of temperature, and yet they hold it responsible for the Maunder Minimum and the ensuing Little ice age in late 1600s. Isn't that self-contradictory?

No. It's called sun-spots -- they come and go.

[Monolith]

No. It's called sun-spots -- they come and go.

Yes, I know. But doesn't that mean that the sun itself caused a significant climate change, i.e. global cooling in this case? So why wouldn't it be able to cause a global warming?

[SwordoftheVistula]

That's another Myth; GMO food actually results in less food, not more.

How do you figure? Why would someone genetically modify a crop to produce less, and who would buy it if they did? Genetic engineering is just a speeding up of the process of 'selective breeding to make crops produce more.

Couple it with a steady influx of immigrants from these third world countries then you have an obvious problem, added to an already devastating crisis that can only be reversed if action is taken now.

Wouldn't there be a lot less immigrants from countries if they had a 'one child policy'? Not that many immigrants come to western countries from China anymore, comparatively.

Much better to go with population density as the base for how much to pay.

Not really, because there's all those desert countries and Africa which are overpopulated for what they can support even though their density is probably low, then you have countries like Luxemburg with a high density but also a high achieving population which can support itself.

[Sol Invictus]

How do you figure? Why would someone genetically modify a crop to produce less, and who would buy it if they did? Genetic engineering is just a speeding up of the process of 'selective breeding to make crops produce more.

It's a scam plain and simple. You modify the seeds so they can't reproduce.
Forces the farmer to come back to the owners of the patent each time he has to harvest, which in turn yields more money.

Wouldn't there be a lot less immigrants from countries if they had a 'one child policy'?

Maybe, but that sure doesn't help our cause to increase our numbers.
It makes it worse. There's plenty of room for more babies in Europe and in the North America, (Especially Canada).

[Lahtari]

and most of Europe is essentially already on a voluntary 'one child policy',

Source?

It's not an enforced policy, it's the state of reality. European countries generally have reproduction rates from just over 1 to around 1.7 children per woman.

One benefit of such a global policy would be that our present immigrants would also stop reproducing. But it wouldn't stop the pressure of already born people from the poor and already overpopulated third world. And, how the hell is anybody supposed to prevent people making kids in some God-forsaken third world hick county? By counting the people of a village once in 10 years and shooting the extra?

And even then, a one child policy would lead to a coming stagnation in Europe - just as it is now, as the vacuum is being replaced with immigrants by the morons who understand nothing about society. A global two child policy would be more optimal, although even then it would hinder our reproductional ability more because it would only target those few wanting to have bigger families. A better one would be an obligation for every country to drop their reproduction rate to two with no means specified, so the Laestadians could have their 10 child families and the city-yuppies their careers. But again, I doubt the third world countries would even try: their leaders are corrupt and cultures based around the family.

So I agree with you, global birth control would be harmful to us, and would fail to address the real problem which is reckless breeding in developing countries. Somehow I feel the Chinks might have a strategic interest of their own in mind. Like... India?

[SwordoftheVistula]

It's a scam plain and simple. You modify the seeds so they can't reproduce.
Forces the farmer to come back to the owners of the patent each time he has to harvest, which in turn yields more money.

Ok, even assuming that to be the case, how does that negate the fact that these crops are essential to maintaining the current quantity of food production, and without them we'd have a lot less food?

[Sol Invictus]

Ok, even assuming that to be the case, how does that negate the fact that these crops are essential to maintaining the current quantity of food production, and without them we'd have a lot less food?

I'm not going to keep repeating myself. Go back and read what I said.

It doesn't help food production, it makes it worse. And even if it didn't, that doesn't excuse the risks of using GMO on crops which will be consumed by humans.