What he's trying to say is that Communism is in itself like a religion, especially if there's a cult of personality involved. JUst Look atNorth Korea. I saw a documentary of a woman from there worshipping that guy and acting exactly like old women act in Church over here.

Not to mention that dictators were simply against anyone who had an ideology different then themselves, something which Christians are guilty of doing also.

Well, I tend to side with you, Stalin killed everybody who held ideals differant than his own because they posed a threat to his regime.

No, it's a horrible travesty against human rights. The world has a LONG way to go before it is overpopulated, and we can learn to make do without renewable recources. With a one child policy Males tend to be favored because they are more likely to be able to support thier elders, they are stronger, they make good worriors, and in many cultures, they are seen as good luck. The males outnumbering Females in China is the consequence of the very policy you seem to think will "fix" that issue. This is sheer lunacy, really.

I addresed the falicy of your first two points, but the environmental impact of humans is minimized by highly advanced civilizations, such as the western world, we know how to take care of our environment, third world countries do not, nor do they have the money to. Sadly, the One child policy only enhances the poverty of those forced to live under it due to the lack of a good, plentyful workforce, and the overreaching control of government in those people's lives. Thus environmental care is not a top priority in those countries, nor will it ever be. Also, you are greatly exaggerating the effect humans have on the environment.

As a question that is related to my last point, do you believe in Evolution?

I said many things two of them were that:

Stalin killed Atheists as well and subsequently he killed anyone with an ideology that did not make him master.

/end ?

It's called totalitarianism.

I'm sorry, but what?

Numonex, I'm sorry for getting derailed in your troll thread, but I will not stand for this

^ People in developed countries are the ones destroying the environment

^ Your country getting richer increases its CO2 output, except in the case of Germany, France etc who actually bothered to switch to renewables

Again, increasing wealth increases environmental damage.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/11/22/recession-co2-greenhouse-gas.html - Recession reduces global CO2 output in 2010

I hate to sound arrogant, but this is not up for debate - this is the mainstream viewpoint of the relevant scientists. If you take any university courses on this sort of stuff, you will see your lecturer use these exact graphs (I know I did)

You realize of course that Carbon is not a greenhouse gas, there is simply no real scientific evidance to support that theory. At any rate, that study is pointless, China currently has the largest carbon output.

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_equivalent

The first is obviously a typo, or they simply divided the CO2e emissions by twice the mass of an oxygen molecule, which changes all the numbers by the same amount.

Yeah, all these studies look at per capita, as they say several times. China has the biggest output because it has a huge population. The conclusion that more people emit more CO2e should not shock anyone.

Regardless, most of these graphs are concerned with changes in CO2e, GDP within countries.

Facts are - in order to develop a country quickly, the fastest way involves doing exactly what China is doing now, what Russia did around 1920's-1930's.

Additionally, having more money means people buy more, they replace cars quicker etc, which adds to CO2e emissions

Additionally, please no-one quote my original post, I think I may have broken the thread. If you wish to have me notice your response, start it with @scottie

@ scottie or edit the original post?

So are you talking about industry or respiration it sounds like your talking about respiration honestly but the graphs  seem to just talk about it in general.

It's wierd how humans seem to think we aren't animals.

Anyway I would be more worried about the rapid destruction of forests around the world than how much CO2 we are emitting. Otherwise your dealing with symptoms.

On the topic of negative growth though yes less humans would mean less polution but doesn't that defeat the purpose or are you just happy your alive?

It's fine as is, but you sometimes see threads break, such that every post has less horizontal room than the one above, and I don't wanna risk killing off this lovely thread

I am fairly confident that those studies ignore the effect of us breathing, regardless, being as they are set out per capita, and are talking about changes in our output, then it wouldn't really matter if it included it anyway - our natural emissions due to breathing are not effected by our GDP or country of residence, one can only assume. Additionally, regardless of the cause, it is still evidence that increased wealth increases people's CO2e output, which is what I said

FYI, cutting down of trees will be counted in all these studies to a certain degree. There is a whole bunch of carbon stored within trees, and when they are removed and burnt, that carbon is emitted into the atmosphere. This is taken into account in all studies. More detailed models (ie more detailed than any study I've done) do take into account the removal of the trees both in terms of their emission of the C they store, but also in terms of the fact that they are no longer capturing CO2 and turning it into C. Regardless, you are very right that a full solution needs to include reform of our forestry process, which is as important as reducing our consumption of energy and the development of renewable energy. Tree farms can be quite profitable, and can be run in a way that is actually slightly better for the environment than if the tree farms didn't exist at all.

As for the actual on topic bit, it seems that we are losing the fight against climate change. I would support such an effort as a two child policy. 7B people living decent lives is a much better future than 12B living in poverty, famine and war.

Population control enforced by governments in developing nations with large populations, family planning, education and free contraception provided by health clinics.

India's population is expected to overtake China as the most populated country before 2050. High population does not guarantee strong economic growth. Over population can result in economic turmoil and huge social problems. Depletion of non-renewable resources, food shortages and out break of diseases associated with over population.