CB: Regardless of global warming, if the rate of increase of the population were slowed, wouldn't that take some pressure off women who are having and caring for all the babies and children ?
(NOT, obviously, "get rid" of living people (!), but slow the rate of reproduction of future people,who don't exist yet.)
^^^^^^^^^
On 6 May 2006 at 13:44, Michael Pollak wrote:
On Sat, 6 May 2006, Marta Russell wrote:
> > If one cannot see the need for population control after reading this,
well
> > its hopeless LBOsters.
> That's a non sequitur, Martha. If population leveled tomorrow, but we
left > our energy patterns unchanged, we'd still boil in our own juice. >
Conversely, if we do nothing about population growth (which on current >
trends is projected to level off at 9 in 2050 IIRC) but drastically change >
our energy patterns, we'll be okay. Global warming is scary and might be >
literally apocalyptic but it's got nothing to do with the 1970s fears of >
"population bombs."> Have you been hanging out with a group of environmental
Malthusians lately? > This seems to oddly mesh with your recent thoughts on
immigration.> > For a more left environmentalist take on global warming, you
might consider > browsing Tom Athanasiou & Paul Baer's small book _Dead
Heat: Global Justice
> and Global Warming_.
>
> Michael