Finland - I've always said that overpopulation is THE environmental problem. Not global warming. Not SUVs. Not cutting down the rainforests.

Malthus was right. He just got the years off. Just wait until India and Pakistan go nuclear over water. It will happen. It's just a matter of time.

I've also always said the ONLY foreign aid we should be giving countries are contraceptives. That's it.

---

Just wait until Russia goes nuclear over us over water.

China is the only country whose had enough balls to adpot a way to stop overpopulating. More countries should start using it.

I recently saw a tv movie about an american religious family that is getting it's 15th child. That's just plain stupid. Ever heard of a rubber? Overpopulation in third world countries is bad enough and now you start pulling that shit too? Not good.

Also, a not-so-fun fact is that in Nigeria for example AIDS probably adds more people than it kills. Because so many children die of AIDS, families have like a million babies to ensure some would stay alive, while they would usually have less babies.

I can't believe I made a rant that's completely offtopic.

---

China is also loosening its restrictions on reproduction, because they are on the brink of a catastrophic population collapse. Within the next 20 years, over 60% of China's population will be 65 or older, a completely unsustainable model. Not to mention, after decades of selective abortions (recently made illegal, but they still happen), China now has a gigantic sex ratio disparity, with millions of men unable to find eligible partners. Families could only have one child, and most of them chose to have sons.

The new policy is that if both mother and father are only children, they are allowed to have two children. I'm not sure if the demographic shift will happen quickly enough to spare them the economic pains they're about to experience, however.

I must add that I find quite disturbing the unconscious elitism lurking behind proposals of handing out contraception to other countries. Talk about an indirect form of mass genocide.

---

I don't think it's as bad as some try to make it look. Wood is a renewable resource. Did you know that "old growth" forests are terrible places for animals to try to survive? If you don't take out some of the trees, the leaf canopy prevents sunlight and water to get to the ground. Thus, there is no new plant life that animals need to be able to eat. No plants for deer, rabbits, and any other grazing animals that eat plants. So those animals die, and now there are no prey animals for the predators to eat. You kill off all the animals that way.
There is nothing wrong with trying to take better care of what we have. Recycle, try to pollute less and all. But when you are told "We are killing the planet! We have to spend TRILLIONS to save it!" which is all an exageration, and really an all out lie, thats where i have a problem with it.
Did you know that companies can pay a "tax" that allows them to pollute? Yup......they can pay to pollute. If stopping polution is such a big deal, why allow a company to "buy off" it's responsibility? Why? Because as i have already said, it's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!
I believe one of the major companies making big bucks off the "green" movement is called "HARA". And guess who will make HUGE profits and is tied into it? His initials are A. G.
Surprised? I'm not.

---

Global warming is a fact. I just question the significance of human CO2 emissions in effecting global climate change. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by 18% during the 300-year period of industrialization, after nearly a millennium of relatively stable CO2 levels. Current atmospheric CO2 levels are approximately 300 ppm, but core studies show that there have been periods in the earth's past when CO2 levels were as high as 1000 ppm, and the globe seems to have survived those periods. From what I've read, the total human contribution is approximately 2.5%, with the vast majority of CO2 emissions coming from such sources as volcanoes, hydrothermal vents, and animal flatulence.

---

Huh?

Genocide is killing. Since when is contraception killing anything? My Lord. I thought you were pro-sex but I guess I was wrong. By that logic, I don't even want to think how many thousands of people I killed.

Finland - Yes, I fear for you. Resources will be scarce and I'm sure there are plenty of folks in Russia who still think they own you, although it won't be nuclear. They won't need to as they have plenty of disposable population.

---

Some day I am going to write an article explaining why "anarchism" IS the solution. Why in a world of globally cheap information, humanity must take the next risk in its political/social development, a move as profound as the move from feudalism to majoritarianism. How just as the rule of many by a few was the best possible in an agricultural society but utterly insane in a world dominated by trade and industrial production, majoritarianism was the best possible in an industrial world, but utterly outdated in a world of cheap information.

But for now, y'all will just have to assume I'm crazy. :)

Oh yes, almost forgot. Malthus is still wrong. :)

Neither natural resources nor human population is the constraint in 2010. Human ingenuity is the only constraint that matters anymore. We may have to worry about Babel and the consequences of our pride; but it won't be the carrying capacity of the land (or lack thereof) that destroys us.

---

I think he's thinking that by handing out contraceptives you'll lower the birthrate and eventually a country or region will simply stop reproducing enough to stay stable.

Ignoring the fact that AIDS rates in some areas are above 80%.

Contraceptives are legal in every first world country. They've stabilized population in the first world but the 3rd world, the population is going out of control which will no doubt create resource wars in the future.

A little trivia - you know what country has the world's lowest birth rate? Taiwan. Surprised me too.

---

This is something that's always had a small peak in my interest meter, but I don't think I seen anyone mention the fact that the gravitational pull from the Sun is getting stronger, meaning the Earth is getting closer to the Sun which could account for increased temperatures as well.

---