Global Warming: If People are the Problem shouldn't we all be Pro War?

Question

I mean if you think we have a problem now, just think of how horrible things would have been if we haven't had a violent history of wars that have served to thin out the human population. Even the plague has been greatly benificial in terms of its impact in regards to Global Warming. If we stop complaining and fearing war and actually fight and kill more, and if we stop trying to cure everything, and if we impose population limits such as China has, we could thin out the human population to the point where the Earth could better sustain us, and the impact of man upon Global Warming wouldn't be soo much a problem.

I think Environmentalists at least those against Global Warming should be Pro War, anti-medicine and health, pro-abortion, and pro-limmitting the human population.

Thoughts?

Answer 1

Yeah, I think nuclear winter is the solution.

Answer 2

In theory, I agree, not with the war idea (way too expensive in terms of money, energy, and other resources) but with the idea of population control. The human population explosion certainly is a big problem.



But in reality, I disagree completely. War is a massive amount of bloodshed that I don't believe can ever be justified. Denying people access to health care is also wrong, and so is abortion (in most cases) in my opinion. Limiting the number of children a person can have might not be so bad, but I think it would be infringing on personal freedom, and would inevitably lead to abortions and worse, as it has in China.

Answer 3

Global warming never would have come about yet because of just people. It is gonna take alot more"bean toots" CO2 to mess up the atmosphere from people. Inventors and manufacturers have copped out here and put the fault on us for products that they produce(without them first improving those products to be less harmful to the environment) 1 car is fine, 10,000 cars-more harmful but still it is OK;the breeze will clear the air 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, cars, now there is a problem.- the breeze is FROM the cars (and it is poisonous). So the product was put out to be sold before it should have been (if ever) Example of that...DDT. Now they are trying to blame JoeBlo for their errors while they walk away with the profits.

Answer 4

Socially speaking, going by the past 5,000 years of human culture, if women are allowed to control their own bodies and have access to contraception, without any outside influence population will become rather static at replacement values of two children per woman.



As soon as governments, religions and patriarchal societies prevent women from taking care of their family planning, over-population occurs.



So, put the blame where it belongs, humans don't naturally over-populate, that is a modern result of outside influences affecting the natural tendency of women to balance their lives.



If you really want to do something about it, give the women of the world choices, they will without any other influence handle this problem, until that happens forget it, ain't going to happen and you get massive slums growing at 400-600% a year in urban areas all over the world as we see right now.



As for global heating, all of our machines and power plants waste twice the amount of energy into heating the universe as they deliver as useful work.



This will overheat the planet regardless of whether our petty arguments about greenhouse emissions result in lower emissions or not.



So all you smart talkers, the problem to solve for you is to take the waste heat from burning gas and put it to useful work.



Simple, huh?



Maybe they don't talk thermodynamics on Fox News, we've killed over 750,000 people in Iraq already and still don't have it under control because our enemy is really ourselves and the thinking that you can dominate people as a strategy. Humans have proven the despots, totalitarians, authoritarians from history to be vulnerable to defeat in the end.



Vietnam.



Great war for America, we got another one going right now that'll end about the same. Then, once we're gone the people will pick up the pieces of their country and slowly move toward their culture's center, not the oppressor's.



Meanwhile the real affect of the expense of war is why the American economy is soooooooooo strong, soooooooooo healthy, it's why the world is buying dollars, they are worth sooooooooooo much.



But, that's too obvious to think about ... sorry, didn't mean to pop a global pimp for profit.

Answer 5

I think the issue is bigger than just global warming. The human animal is destructive to all things around it. It is like an invasive specie. I think the world will not see equilibrium until people kill off each other. We can only hope it is not too late to save the planet.

Answer 6

1. Wars need planes and tanks - they give off fumes as well you know? more so than the average car does.





2. cows give off more carbon dioxide than ud think, as do greenhouses. should we kill cows?



3. what on earth do u mean restrict population? so ur saying ud be perfectly happy with having a baby and then u mite be expecting another and cos uv already had one u have to kill it? whos right is it to say we cant have as many children as we like? china has massive problems with family & massive carbon footprints. children are still being born but a lot of them are put up for adoption. think about it.



4. the earth has been heating up for millions of years. it happens. there was the ice age, no humans were there destroying it then. it was going to happen but now its being sped up.



before reading ur question i didnt think anyone could talk so much bollocks

Answer 7

Although wars tend to get rid of people, they also use lots of energy. The *stress* of the war may cause many non-dying people to worry about the war rather than consider a more sustainable life-style.

Answer 8

You take a very extreme position. You could do all the things you say, but global warming would still exist. Industry is to blame for the speeding of global warming. But it would still have happened without the industry, only slower.

Answer 9

If global warming doesn't do it, something else will. Unless every human on the face of the earth dies, we will kill this planet somehow.

Answer 10

The environmentals would support downsizing the population with war except the carbon footprint would be too big. What they are trying to do with high energy and gas prices is artificially cause famine and freeze us to death in our homes. Less people and less carbon footprint. Drill Here, Drill Now, Lower prices.

Answer 11

i think U are right. To be effective we will need to kill at least 3 billion people...

Answer 12

I like the way you think. I wouldn't be as extreme about it but you have the right idea.

Answer 13

i think cutting down all the trees we have to make space for development is the actual problem. u cant say its ok for many ppl to die in a war...thats cruel.

Answer 14

Man killing man did not save the dinosaurs from dying off

Answer 15

You jump off first!