Poulation controll revisited - CO2 compensation through population control

HarveyH55 wrote:
You can't fight nature. Climate, or reproduction, doesn't matter, bother go their own way. Poor people having lots of children, is about survival. Not all of those kids make it to adulthood. The more kids you have, the more food and resources that a family can gather. As the parents age, they become less productive, themselves, more reliant on their children. Not all those children will be around to take care of the parents, some will have their own families to focus on. Here in America, sex is looked at, the same as sports and recreation, for many. Some women look at child birth as a source of income. They either get a husband, child support, or public assistance. Voluntary birth control won't really change much, since those who want to wait, or figured they had enough, already do practice birth control. Basically, you would have to provide a living income, for every woman, during their child bearing years. But, it's not just the money, most women want a provider and protector, a home, and children, it's that natural order.

Attempts to control nature, generally turn out badly, for something or somebody. Sometimes it works out for the greater good, but some will always suffer, pay the price.

Increased CO2, is actually a good thing. The plant life on this plant has been surviving on a starvation level for a long time, seem good enough, we get by pretty on natures bounty. We are all exist because plants pull in CO2, and convert it to food for everything else. All life on the planet is based on carbon molecules, which come from plants, and the CO2 in the air. A warmer climate, and healthier, faster growing plants, are very good things for all life on the planet, more natural food, and plentiful, for longer periods of time during the year. More death happens during the fall and winter months, than the rest of the year, cold is deadly. A couple degrees warmer isn't such a big deal, uncomfortable at times, but not usually deadly, other than through negligence.

Climate Change claims that the rapid rise in temperature (debatable) will cause crops to fail. Maybe so, but there are a large variety of food crops, best suited for different climate zones, check any seed catalog, for what grows best in your area. One crop does poorly, there are others to chose from. Nature works the same way, some plants will do better than others, the ones the do best in the local climate, will continue to do well, and be dominant, others won't, but not completely die out. Seeds get spread all over the world, all the time, they just don't sprout, where conditions aren't favorable.

We are more likely to starve ourselves to death, by reducing CO2, than we are just going about our business.

HarveyH55 wrote:
You can't fight nature. Climate, or reproduction, doesn't matter, bother go their own way. Poor people having lots of children, is about survival. Not all of those kids make it to adulthood. The more kids you have, the more food and resources that a family can gather. As the parents age, they become less productive, themselves, more reliant on their children. Not all those children will be around to take care of the parents, some will have their own families to focus on. Here in America, sex is looked at, the same as sports and recreation, for many. Some women look at child birth as a source of income. They either get a husband, child support, or public assistance. Voluntary birth control won't really change much, since those who want to wait, or figured they had enough, already do practice birth control. Basically, you would have to provide a living income, for every woman, during their child bearing years. But, it's not just the money, most women want a provider and protector, a home, and children, it's that natural order.

Attempts to control nature, generally turn out badly, for something or somebody. Sometimes it works out for the greater good, but some will always suffer, pay the price.

Increased CO2, is actually a good thing. The plant life on this plant has been surviving on a starvation level for a long time, seem good enough, we get by pretty on natures bounty. We are all exist because plants pull in CO2, and convert it to food for everything else. All life on the planet is based on carbon molecules, which come from plants, and the CO2 in the air. A warmer climate, and healthier, faster growing plants, are very good things for all life on the planet, more natural food, and plentiful, for longer periods of time during the year. More death happens during the fall and winter months, than the rest of the year, cold is deadly. A couple degrees warmer isn't such a big deal, uncomfortable at times, but not usually deadly, other than through negligence.

Climate Change claims that the rapid rise in temperature (debatable) will cause crops to fail. Maybe so, but there are a large variety of food crops, best suited for different climate zones, check any seed catalog, for what grows best in your area. One crop does poorly, there are others to chose from. Nature works the same way, some plants will do better than others, the ones the do best in the local climate, will continue to do well, and be dominant, others won't, but not completely die out. Seeds get spread all over the world, all the time, they just don't sprout, where conditions aren't favorable.

We are more likely to starve ourselves to death, by reducing CO2, than we are just going about our business.

fireflame wrote:
Population cotroll by the west and the rich was and allways will be egoistically motivated. Any Western or rich person who promotes the idea that population growth should be controlled (like me) should be aware and honest that such controll is egoistically even if it is done for the sake of preventing climate change.

fireflame wrote:
Because there would be other (but more costly) means to to it.

Permanent sterilisation in India was a major break of human rights, and I guess that it was enabled by Miss Gandhi wrongly framing it as an act of altruism to the best of the poor - instead of addmitting that it was the cheapest (and most violent) solution to the perceived environmental and economic problems of India.

Now if we are more honest of what we are doing, we might be able to design a population controll for the sake of the climate that minimize the harm to the poor. Not harming them is not possible, because wealth inequality is already harming them. For example many people are simply to poor to have children, or poverty made them to sick to care for children. Is that any more "human"?

If we are honest to why we want to controll births (Western people solving problems they largely cause themselve by paying the poor to clean up the mess) the relation with the poor becomes more equal and hence preserves their dignity.

Now population controll should never be done by sterilisation (permanent infertility). Instead temporary means of birth controll like spirals should be used.

But how do we convince poor women to not have children/have less children/have children more late although thiss makes them look valueless according to the traditional role models of their society? We must pay them.

This could be aranged by a contract that gives the participating woman an added monthly income in return for keeping to the rules of how many children they should have and when. If the women do later want more children they neeed to pay a contract fine (somewhat higher than the money already recieved) enabling them to withdraw the contract at any time.

Women empowerment anyway is considered to be the most effective mean against population growth, so I am sure that money would be usefull.

Where should so much money come from?

fireflame wrote:
In the moment there exist companies that sell voluntary CO2 compensation.

fireflame wrote:
For example: If you want to travel with a plane you pay a certain amount into an environmental project to repair the caused damage.

fireflame wrote:
This project would be more about preventing it, which is considered more effective.

fireflame wrote:
There are means to calculate or better estimate how much CO2 could be saved if a women has for example one instead of 4 children - and this is the price you would pay for such a compensation certificate.

fireflame wrote:
The project will cause a public outcry because it draws attention to the inconsistencies of our moral. For example I have spoken to many leftist people who, when I tell them that their lifestyle is not environmentally friendly, shift the blame to the poor of the developing countries, who are malthusian-style acccused of having to much children (so much for workers solidarity). Conservative people have that problem anyway because they tend to hold malthusian views together with pro-life views, while developing countries have the most trouble to prevent abortion through education BECAUSE of their poverty. But CO2 reduction costs money and development options so this as well impacts there ability to prevent abortions...Short summary: In the end everyone wants the developing countries to stay poor so that they produce cheap products for us. What ever goes wrong there is their fault.

But maybe there is still a market for such a product (CO2 population through population controll) in those people that are honest enough to admit their own egoism and prefere action over blame shifting? What are your thoughts?

fireflame wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
You can't fight nature. Climate, or reproduction, doesn't matter, bother go their own way. Poor people having lots of children, is about survival. Not all of those kids make it to adulthood. The more kids you have, the more food and resources that a family can gather. As the parents age, they become less productive, themselves, more reliant on their children. Not all those children will be around to take care of the parents, some will have their own families to focus on. Here in America, sex is looked at, the same as sports and recreation, for many. Some women look at child birth as a source of income. They either get a husband, child support, or public assistance. Voluntary birth control won't really change much, since those who want to wait, or figured they had enough, already do practice birth control. Basically, you would have to provide a living income, for every woman, during their child bearing years. But, it's not just the money, most women want a provider and protector, a home, and children, it's that natural order.

Attempts to control nature, generally turn out badly, for something or somebody. Sometimes it works out for the greater good, but some will always suffer, pay the price.

Increased CO2, is actually a good thing. The plant life on this plant has been surviving on a starvation level for a long time, seem good enough, we get by pretty on natures bounty. We are all exist because plants pull in CO2, and convert it to food for everything else. All life on the planet is based on carbon molecules, which come from plants, and the CO2 in the air. A warmer climate, and healthier, faster growing plants, are very good things for all life on the planet, more natural food, and plentiful, for longer periods of time during the year. More death happens during the fall and winter months, than the rest of the year, cold is deadly. A couple degrees warmer isn't such a big deal, uncomfortable at times, but not usually deadly, other than through negligence.

Climate Change claims that the rapid rise in temperature (debatable) will cause crops to fail. Maybe so, but there are a large variety of food crops, best suited for different climate zones, check any seed catalog, for what grows best in your area. One crop does poorly, there are others to chose from. Nature works the same way, some plants will do better than others, the ones the do best in the local climate, will continue to do well, and be dominant, others won't, but not completely die out. Seeds get spread all over the world, all the time, they just don't sprout, where conditions aren't favorable.

We are more likely to starve ourselves to death, by reducing CO2, than we are just going about our business.

As someone who has actually studied environmental science

fireflame wrote:
I will ignore people who I think have a to poor understanding of ecology

fireflame wrote:
or climate science

fireflame wrote:
and the impact of climate change

fireflame wrote:
- as my time is limited and I don't give free one to one tuition.

fireflame wrote:
I want instead to discuss with those people that already have a decent understanding of the subject and want to to something about climate change.

fireflame wrote:
Great. A double post from me and no function to edit or delete.

fireflame wrote:
I hate smartphones.

fireflame wrote:
I have no roughly calculated on the base of Mali what voluntary compensation would cost in this way and it is well above the market rate (indicating that poor people are not really producing CO2 which makes shifting blame on them a doubtful exercise). I will tomorrow calculate what compensating the total ecological footprint of a Westerner would cost. From my first impression the difference between rich and poor people's impact is less but while it is halfway known what carbon compensation is ecological footprint compensation is a new concept that would need a lot of education of the public.

fireflame wrote:
Population cotroll