Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-05-2007, 09:17 PM

Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Fred G. Mackey <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote
>>> The Real Bev wrote
>>>> Bill Baka wrote

>>>>> Not to the point of 6 billion people. If we mess the planet up enough then it will be very
>>>>> hard to produce food for even a few million. No food ==== no people.

>>>> Why do we NEED 6 billion people?

>>> We don't, but until you start considering forced abortions, genocide
>>> and euthenasia, there's not much we can do about the population.

>> We can always let the dregs die of lack of food.

> Okay, stop eating then.

No thanks.

> You've already demonstrated your "dregginess".

No I havent on that terminal stupidity of pumping out
a lot more kids than my circumstances can feed etc.

>>>>>> Plenty of areas that were much more viable in the past are still inhabited
>>>>>> today, and that was done using bugger all in the way of technology, fine.

>>>> And plenty of places are inhabited that really shouldn't be --
>>>> Bangladesh, for example, or New Orleans.

>>> I've never been to Bangladesh, but New Orleans is (yes, it STILL is) a wonderful place.

>> Irrelevant to whether it makes any sense to keep doing that there.

> I say let the people decide

Fine, if they are prepared to pay for whatever it costs themselves.

> - if people want to rebuiled NOLA and live in it, then you can stay the **** out of their
> business.

Not if they arent prepared to pay whatever it costs themselves.

The dutch clearly are.

> I'm not saying the federal gov't should pay for it, but let them rebuild.

Trouble is that they demand that the federal govt pays to stop it happening again.

> IMO, it's the best place in the US to visit for the culture (as opposed to the nature).

Irrelevant to whether it makes any sense to do that below sea level.

> The cuisine and the music are second to none in the world and the vices aren't half bad either.

Irrelevant to whether it makes any sense to do that below sea level.

Yes, if they are prepared to charge tourists like you what it costs to
continue to do that, and that produces enough money to do that, fine.

It wont tho.

>>> but you're the one who repeatedly asked why we "need" 6 billion people.

>> Its a perfectly viable approach if it turns out that increasing
>> CO2 levels mean we cant feed all those 6B anymore.

> Wow - what a fine solution you offer.

Thats the only 'solution' there is.

And we wont see us not being able to feed 6B anyway,
increasing CO2 levels make it EASIER to grow food.

>> And that can be done without deliberately killing anyone too.

And that sort of population limiting happens completely
automatically with increasing living standards anyway.