I think it's a pity that BBC writes this when one can simulate something very easy as _decrease_ in world population!!! That is, these people are not willing to go into handling _the OVERPOPULATION PROBLEM_ and this is a scientific weakness opening for contempt to IPCC and environment/ecology scientists. Please, change, you scientists!
This relates to Climate prediction: No model for success, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7381250.stm.
Therefore, I demand/want a computer simulation on world population growth, the negative, and world population decrease, the normatively positive!!!
Posted to WWF on Facebook, both the above and this, "I still think The Overpopulation problem should be the world's top priority, acknowledging that the world works on several issues at once, but speeding up/getting harder on this very important challenge for us... "Think about the Bluefin Tuna, all the animals on the verge to extinction (the white tiger)..." or with Michael Jackson, "Think about the world and how we can make it a better place..." *sob* *sob*"
"And with basic stuff too: "think about your sex-education and how you're expected to use contraception pills and condoms. To grow up and become responsible parents..." You know the lesson. Enjoy your weekend! :-)"
I don't know how it is, but I've managed to report on some old history of the BBC: the story is "last updated at 08:12 GMT, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 09:12 UK".
I cheer the BBC's question of "Where are you?" in "7 Billion and Counting" and I think with this, that Europe is better in addressing the Overpopulation problem than any other part of the World, even though China has its one-child-policy in place! So this is my "hurray" for this! It's about time Overpopulation gets big attention and it's going to be exciting how fast we can get in line, considering the necessary logic for dealing with this! Cheers!
ReplyDeleteEarlier then, from myself:
The Ecological Rule of Thumb Regarding Overpopulation
Various!Posted by Terje Lea 2011-05-15 23:30:43
A fine rule of thumb regarding ecological life in relation to Overpopulation (by Deep Ecology)
is to give birth to no more than 2 kids per woman, absolutely. That is, the women who choose to have only one or zero kids are providing "green-lungs" to the rest of the population. It doesn't mean that other people should compensate for the women who get fewer kids. No, that's why I write absolutely. If women choose to have fewer kids, it means that the society gives birth to fewer babies as well, if one is to live an ecological life according to this Rule of Thumb. You don't have to. It's just an option. I provide this writing simply to give people an easy guideline. People may think of only having a single child and then become depressed (by the thought of loneliness for this child) and forget about the whole thing. With this rule of thumb, you can either contemplate with others a possible friendship of growing your kids up together, 2 or 3, to avoid the usual syndrome of only having a single kid. Or, if all things go as planned, you get two happy kids with plenty of parental attention/quality time, which is often seen as good for making emotionally stable adults as they grow up.
Cheers!
I've also written several times now to all from WWF, Greenpeace, UNEP and IPCC! Bye!
Questions, given the Global Climate Change debate
ReplyDeleteDo animals die from 1% CO2 in the atmosphere?
What level of CO2 is "significant" in terms of specific heat capacity? What will 1% CO2 (rather than 0,03% CO2 as now) do to our atmosphere? Any clue?
Well, well, let me remind you that I'm with Skeptical Science on Global Climate Change issue.
Link to their website: https://www.skepticalscience.com/
Wikipedia, (Specific) Heat Capacity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity
Wikipedia, on the atmosphere of the Earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth