The Ecology Points - By Applied Ethics, Most Importantly and Further...

Combatting the Overpopulation

Suggestion for combatting Overpopulation, a dire condition that brings out the worst in people and against animals and wildlife the same:
The governments of the World issue a (steady) recommendation for only one or two children (for each woman, or other standard, issues may arise with homosexuals who desire children, but this needs separate resolve).
Under the recommendation then, this follows, a 3 pt. list,
1. that families will be required by law to pay partly or wholly for the 3rd child as incentive toward right behaviour.
2. that becoming pregnant with a fourth child or giving birth to a fourth child may provoke forced abortion or forced adoption.
3. that becoming pregnant with a fifth child and beyond may trigger forced abortions, forced adoptions, forced sterilizations and removal of legal rights in representing stupor below normal intelligence.

I hope you bother to take note and that we work together, in moving the politics toward better ecology and a better future for all, with as much people in the future gene-tree as possible! Thanks.

(Me? A hard-liner Ecology Philosopher? This files under Applied Ethics and only as suggestion for discussion. Also, point is made for making the discussion /move/ somewhere whatsoever.)

I've written a notice lately to WWF suggesting the Ecological Victory option to the Civ 5 (Sid Meier) games, such that 2 kids now make one's gene-tree 4 the next turn for your 2 kids. In this way, ultimately, one's genes become the World "some gene-steps" up the World history. This is also possible with only one kid, but takes a generation extra...! So contraception pills MUST be seen as World solution to all pollution problems, in overcoming Overpopulation toward 3.4 Bn people, figuratively speaking, "half the population of every nation now"!

Re-Issuing, the CO2 Problem

In relation to CO2 measurements, it's worth noting that CO2 level HAS NEVER BEEN HIGHER than today's at a little lower than 400 ppm. Over 800 000 years, it has never gone higher than than mere 300 ppm until lately. So not only do we suffer from high World population that distresses nature greatly, but we also guzzle ourselves down on own mass of people and gurp about in something like 385 ppm of CO2. I must say, this is a VERY interesting experiment and that I hold WWF, IPCC and Greenpeace the most responsible, even though, as much as Pugwash "boldly" says no to nuclear weapons, common people are now betrayed by their governments and intellectuals alike! (Heh-heh, unless they DO something... but /can/ they squeeze out the necessary words and the display the necessary leadership? Yet to see...!
(Still the words of Mr. Al Gore are ringing in the ears as GREAT! See the movie, please, An Inconvenient Truth!)

(I'll use this blog posting to highlight a very important ethics/applied ethics matter, one that seems to move slowly in terms of (acting/effectuating/legislative) politics...)

Also remarks to brilliant writers, activists, Greenpeace (who should pick up on /seriousness/), World Wildlife Fund, IPCC, the former Environmentalist movement, people who support Deep Ecology and other people who move the these matters into scope and place.

PS: Overpopulation is now centered on the most because I see it as /the/ most important ecological issue today.

Another Email to IPCC - What is their job after all?

Against my expectation, but to my pleasure, I've gotten the occasion 

to once again write IPCC! The email to them follow below.

From - Sat Oct 15 14:10:27 2011
[3 lines of info]
Message-ID: <4E997830.5060005@[info]>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:10:24 +0200
From: "Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea" <[info]>
User-Agent: [info]
To: ipcc-sec@wmo.int
Subject: Information you may be interested in... Points that may be key
Content-Type: [info]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: [info]

Dear IPCC

As I've written to WWF and Greenpeace recently, you may want the 
following information from me as well, for standing equal to them
for also being your responsibility, I'd like you to consider both "The 
Overpopulation Problem" and how it should be _easy_ for IPCC to compute 
a simulation of reduction of people. I also like to remind you of 
Carbon-Ice and how it can help us to reduce the ppm-rate of C-particles 
in the atmosphere!
The writing is the following: "A Reminder for Reduction of Carbon in the 
Atmosphere - Carbon-Ice" and it goes on my blog, 
whatiswritten777.blogspot.com:
"Hello people out there. This is a reminder of how to control the levels 
of carbon in the atmosphere. You produce Carbonised/Carbondioxide Ice 
and this can be produced (as usual) out of constituents in the air, thus 
reducing carbon in the atmosphere to a suitable level. This can be 
stored in any cold place, but it's probably best to store it on one of 
the Poles, the Arctic or the other. Happy burning of fossil fuel, people!"
So as a consequence of this "reminder", I would like the numbers worked 
out, and I think this idea is realisable/conceivable in highly realistic 
terms, the bottom line being that carbon-ice is shipped on a regular 
basis and dumped on the poles, either onto the surface by some kind of 
set-up, or just dropped into the sea. The surface option is probably the 
best because of the cold, but it's also the most demanding for making 
room or physical possibility for the dumps to happen. I have as of yet 
no clue for how much carbon-ice that's needed for reducing 
carbon-particles in the air from, let's say 350 ppm to 340 ppm. 
Therefore you get, partly, this new, little notice.
I think the idea will require no more than 1 percent of Oxygen, tops! 
Being 1:2 for creating it, CO2 and C being nr. 12 and Oxygen being nr. 
16. It takes only 3 "particles" of oxygen, by mass, to remove 1 particle 
of Carbon from the atmosphere. It now stands at about 370, I think.
Further: Saving the planet is only that helpful if you ignore duties to 
mass-communications. We can push the governments and I hope you see 
clearly what is to happen now as this is written. Come on, IPCC-people, 
let's do it!

There may also be a use for the following, that may be worth discussing 
with professionals like yourselves even though I agree the issue is 
fringe on the superficial level:
A psychological softening for NOT getting "10 kids" may go something 
like this, if only aiming/planning for 2 kids is enough for both 
carrying the family tree into the future, we can all agree that "we 
stand equal as human beings and we equally represent one another as 
people on Planet Earth. As we manage to get 2 kids, we have completed a 
certain biological requirement and are prepared to make this happy 
people as well and thus making the kids happy and able parents. By being 
moderate on kids and affirming equality as people of the Earth, it 
should be as worthwhile as ever to only have 2 kids and at the same time 
aiding the Overpopulation problem and making 2 very happy children with 
quality time. Rather this than something else." Good? I just like to 
note how important it is in removing the racism card where every 
ethnical group is likely to "compete" with other ethnicities for being 
superior. This needs to FALL! Even though one is here discussing the 
environment, I think racism needs to be addressed in this manner.
(A requirement to this end, is of course to also provide the means where 
this can happen, i.e., the contraception pills and condoms.)

This is still in line with the Deep Ecology Movement and I hope you make 
the appropriate haste from your inferences of this information if you 
haven't set forth actions of these considerations already.

I hope for some powerful statements from you in the time to come! Cheers!

Sincerely yours,
Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea
Author and Layman-Philosopher and Layman-Scientist
Email: [info] as Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea
(I'm sorry that my email this time doesn't reflect my name directly.)