11,000 Scientists

[tall73]

Here is some data on population growth:

Population growth rate by country - Thematic Map - World

Population growth rate by country, 2017
Angola 4
Malawi 3
Burundi 3
Uganda 3
Niger 3
Mali 3
Burkina Faso 3
Zambia 3
Ethiopia 3
Tanzania 3
Benin 3
Western Sahara 3
Togo 3
Guinea 3
Cameroon 3
Iraq 3
Liberia 3
Madagascar 3
Mozambique 2
Egypt 2
Rwanda 2
Equatorial Guinea 2
Nigeria 2
Senegal 2
Sierra Leone 2
United Arab Emirates 2
Congo, Democratic Republic of the 2
Afghanistan 2
East Timor 2
Yemen 2
Qatar 2
Bahrain 2
Ghana 2
Mauritania 2
Djibouti 2
Central African Republic 2
Congo, Republic of the 2
Jordan 2
Gambia, The 2
Oman 2
Cayman Islands 2
Somalia 2
Luxembourg 2
Namibia 2
Solomon Islands 2
Gabon 2
Chad 2
Guinea-Bissau 2
Vanuatu 2
Cote d'Ivoire 2
Singapore 2
Belize 2
Guatemala 2
Sao Tome and Principe 2
Papua New Guinea 2
Algeria 2
Kenya 2
Comoros 2
Sudan 2
Tajikistan 2
Honduras 2
Libya 2
Brunei 2
Philippines 2
Zimbabwe 2
Botswana 2
Cambodia 2
Bolivia 2
Israel 2
Laos 2
Kuwait 1
Saudi Arabia 1
Pakistan 1
Malaysia 1
Haiti 1
New Caledonia 1
Cape Verde 1
Ecuador 1
Panama 1
Venezuela 1
Iran 1
Antigua and Barbuda 1
Dominican Republic 1
Mongolia 1
Paraguay 1
India 1
Nepal 1
Costa Rica 1
Ireland 1
Iceland 1
Kiribati 1
Mexico 1
Turkmenistan 1
Swaziland 1
Bhutan 1
Kyrgyzstan 1
Kazakhstan 1
Bangladesh 1
Australia 1
Suriname 1
Tunisia 1
Norway 1
South Africa 1
Colombia 1
Nicaragua 1
Morocco 1
Peru 1
Uzbekistan 1
Vietnam 1
Argentina 1
Burma 1
Azerbaijan 1
Indonesia 1
Eritrea 1
Tuvalu 1
United States 1
Sweden 1
Bahamas 1
Liechtenstein 1
New Zealand 1
Spain 1
Seychelles 1
Chile 1
Sri Lanka 1
Macau 1
San Marino 1
Saint Kitts and Nevis 1
Canada 1
Brazil 1
Belgium 1
Switzerland 1
Jamaica 1
Fiji 1
Samoa 1
Mauritius 1
Nauru 1
Korea, North 1
Turkey 1
United Kingdom 1
Korea, South 0
Austria 0
Grenada 0
China 0
France 0
Netherlands 0
Palau 0
Finland 0
Hong Kong 0
Guyana 0
Saint Lucia 0
Albania 0
Thailand 0
Barbados 0
Lesotho 0
Uruguay 0
Malta 0
El Salvador 0
Monaco 0
Denmark 0
Italy 0
Dominica 0
Macedonia 0
Taiwan 0
Czech Republic 0
Portugal 0
Andorra 0 2017
Slovakia 0
Georgia 0
Greenland 0
Tonga 0
Greece 0
Russia 0
Poland 0
Germany 0
Bosnia and Herzegovina 0
Trinidad and Tobago 0
Armenia 0
Japan 0
Belarus 0
Hungary 0
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0
Montenegro 0
Cuba 0
Slovenia 0
Romania 0
Ukraine 0
Serbia 0
Croatia -1
Estonia -1
Bulgaria -1
Moldova -1
Latvia -1
Lithuania -1
Lebanon -1
Puerto Rico -2

 

[lordjeff]

11,000 scientists have finally come out with the underlying motive for climate change... population decrease. Do they think they can instill enough fear to self justify a reversal of population growth by any means necessary? Guess the infirmed and aged boomers better make out those wills.

Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’

Sarcasm here is understandable on this topic but not really applicable to the forum. I have a masters in earth science (my favorite subject since 7th grade). In the last couple years much of the alarmism has been debunked by creditable scientists. Suffice it to say that climate is complex but we have to get ourselves out the 1400 AD era of the Holy See thinking it was the center of the universe. The sun is the primary driver of climate because we are in receipt of its radiation & sometimes its solar assets. Our planet is at a logical distance & correct tilt that allow us just enough radiation so that we don't boil or freeze out. It is the unique properties of our landmass and ocean basin distribution (all of which changes over eons of time) that sets up the ebb and flow of the water currents & air currents. Every topographical structure serves as a way to redirect those items. A gaseous compound does not the weather create. CO2 absorbs in a very narrow range infrared light. It absorbs the photons for a nanosecond & then releases the photons. We are thankful that we have 3 large co2 sinks: the oceans & lakes, all vegetation, & limestone. All scientists agree that climate can change due to some quirks in the system; they don't all agree on cause. In the early stages of the alarmism they fell for the Gore theory but scientists have since pinpointed many fraudulent emails & modifications of graphs that were based on computer models. Even some university scientists, seeking their school to become a cash cow of govt grants, were willingto to lure the public along. Those in Europe were interested in turning the issue into penalties in the form of fines thru which they would redistribute to the 3rd world. However, when one looks at the heating/cooling sector, the transport sector, or the plastics sector, it is difficult to see which one is ripe for sacrifice. One will always need a fossil fuel central basis as it is the most efficient. You're not going to see a wind turbine power a car. What will people in Minnesota do for heat? No electric heat is not the answer because electric heat is still based on carbon fuels. At best the green energy devices could supplement the grid in order to reduce the stress on it in natural disasters. Solar does not store energy. Then you have politicians who want us out of our cars. Indeed we have doubled human population since 1970 so there are more cars & jets. In essence politicians probably do sense that the population is too high & unsustainable & they are up to their deceiving ways of how to persuade the population to self-extinguish. No different than the Final Solution. I don't care how you do it--by abortion, by denial of medical care by establishing long lines & delays, or convincing the elderly or disable to self-extinguish. Well I believe the Creator shall read these hearts. This is a usurpation of the power of God & He shall judge them accordingly.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Are they saying that population control is the "agenda", or are they saying that over-population is simply a contributing factor to an existing issue?

There's a big difference between the two sentiments...

 

[timothyu]

Are they saying that population control is the "agenda", or are they saying that over-population is simply a contributing factor to an existing issue?

There's a big difference between the two sentiments...

Either way the motive becomes one of reducing the population. The choice then remains, is it done over a long period of time where all may suffer, or quickly where those that already thrive may continue to thrive? If it were done in a civil way would euthanization or sterilization of those no longer an asset or to most likely overbreed, be on a voluntary basis or would perhaps a financial incentive be offered? How does man usually do these things?

 

[renniks]

Every couple should limit themselves to 2 children maximum.

By whose law? Hogwash.

 

[Tinker Grey]

By whose law? Hogwash.

Themselves. It was part of what you quoted.

 

[renniks]

Themselves. It was part of what you quoted.

It's still stupid.

 

[lordjeff]

I think it's both. Factually of course over population puts a strain on utility services. That becomes law of supply and demand thing. The scary thing is "agenda." I remember when the late congresswoman Gerry Ferraro was studying this because she realized the stress placed on any grid--the housing grid, the educational grid, the healthcare grid, the energy grid. However she was not implying euthanasia. In some very blue states they are starting to advocate the Dutch way of euthanasia. We have people becoming brain-washed about climate alarmism, the next could be this topic. Politicians with their persuasive use of words are trying to pass legislation for assisted suicide. That is a very complex, delicate issue & a road that should not be traveled because of the capacity to abuse. A minister friend of mine, testified in my state, last session, & helped shut down the bill for the time being. She delivered a very articulate address. Under the guise of trying to alleviate the infirm, such legislation can be used to identify & persuade anyone considered to be a burden to society. Having been a Holocaust scholar, I wrote in to my senator who sponsored the bill. This is what i term "usurping the power of God." Such person has no right or moral authority to encourage such legislation. And I think it's people like that where the Lord may deal harshly.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Either way the motive becomes one of reducing the population. The choice then remains, is it done over a long period of time where all may suffer, or quickly where those that already thrive may continue to thrive? If it were done in a civil way would euthanization or sterilization of those no longer an asset or to most likely overbreed, be on a voluntary basis or would perhaps a financial incentive be offered? How does man usually do these things?

Over a longer period of time would be the obvious answer to that. And I would imagine one way that it could be in terms of ZPG (zero population growth) tax incentives.

Right now, a person's tax break goes up and up the more kids they have. Simply flip that around so that couples that have <= 2 kids get a bigger break than those popping out 4-5.


But, in regards to my initial statement about "simply pointing out a factor/fact" vs. "an agenda to address it by force" being two different things,
...an example of what I'm talking about would be when the overpopulation argument happens, and people on the other side (who don't think we're overpopulated) bring up the stat that "we're not over populated, the entire human race could comfortably fit in Texas". That's not them advocating for land seizure of Texas citizens who already rightfully own the land or some sort of forcible land-redistribution scheme. That's simply a stat/logistics talking point in order to support their position.

 

[loveofourlord]

Over a longer period of time would be the obvious answer to that. And I would imagine one way that it could be in terms of ZPG (zero population growth) tax incentives.

Right now, a person's tax break goes up and up the more kids they have. Simply flip that around so that couples that have <= 2 kids get a bigger break than those popping out 4-5.


But, in regards to my initial statement about "simply pointing out a factor/fact" vs. "an agenda to address it by force" being two different things,
...an example of what I'm talking about would be when the overpopulation argument happens, and people on the other side (who don't think we're overpopulated) bring up the stat that "we're not over populated, the entire human race could comfortably fit in Texas". That's not them advocating for land seizure of Texas citizens who already rightfully own the land or some sort of forcible land-redistribution scheme. That's simply a stat/logistics talking point in order to support their position.

I've often thought a two surviving child policy is a good idea, the population will still decline as not everyone will want to have kids and such, but it just takes a more natural drop compared to china's 1 child.

 

[timothyu]

"we're not over populated, the entire human race could comfortably fit in Texas"

There are now more smart phones than people so they would need a state also.

 

[loveofourlord]

Over a longer period of time would be the obvious answer to that. And I would imagine one way that it could be in terms of ZPG (zero population growth) tax incentives.

Right now, a person's tax break goes up and up the more kids they have. Simply flip that around so that couples that have <= 2 kids get a bigger break than those popping out 4-5.


But, in regards to my initial statement about "simply pointing out a factor/fact" vs. "an agenda to address it by force" being two different things,
...an example of what I'm talking about would be when the overpopulation argument happens, and people on the other side (who don't think we're overpopulated) bring up the stat that "we're not over populated, the entire human race could comfortably fit in Texas". That's not them advocating for land seizure of Texas citizens who already rightfully own the land or some sort of forcible land-redistribution scheme. That's simply a stat/logistics talking point in order to support their position.

ahhh yes the old nonsense about fit in the state of texas, as if that has any bearing on how big a area of crops the everage person needs to feed themselves for a year, the problem is that there isn't enough growing area to feed people properly.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Better to euthanize and sterilize?

BEST TO TURN TO YAHUWEH,

TRUST only Him, and OBey Him.

The world is still doomed.

 

[timothyu]

BEST TO TURN TO YAHUWEH,

TRUST only Him, and OBey Him.

The world is still doomed.

Yes He is completely capable of dealing with the situation and if there is a culling it is those that don't like to share that will be surprised.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There are now more smart phones than people so they would need a state also.

hmmm....

"HOW SMART are they " ? ... made to last a few months to maybe 2 years, to be replaced with new batteries every year or so, to require electric outlets and chargers that keep changing ... costing hundreds of dollars more than they cost , and usually expensive to keep in use too.... (needlessly)

 

[timothyu]

"HOW SMART are they " ? ... made to last a few months to maybe 2 years, to be replaced with new batteries every year or so, to require electric outlets and chargers that keep changing ... costing hundreds of dollars more than they cost , and usually expensive to keep in use too.... (needlessly)

That is why they were called smart. The manufacturers were smart enough to con the public into playing along. They can't be blamed for the foolishness of man. So now man buys a poor camera every two years or less because it has a phone in.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

ahhh yes the old nonsense about fit in the state of texas, as if that has any bearing on how big a area of crops the everage person needs to feed themselves for a year, the problem is that there isn't enough growing area to feed people properly.

Oh, I'd agree 100% that talking point is nonsense...I was just bringing up the fact that when people trot out that math (to divide acres by people, etc...) and say "look, everyone could comfortably fit in texas" that's not them necessarily advocating for land-grabbing, it just them trying to illustrate a point. Likewise, when people bring up that overpopulation is a culprit for climate issues, they're not advocating for extermination of people (as another posted hyperbolically implied), just illustrating a point.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

11,000 scientists have finally come out with the underlying motive for climate change... population decrease. Do they think they can instill enough fear to self justify a reversal of population growth by any means necessary? Guess the infirmed and aged boomers better make out those wills.

Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of ‘untold suffering’

Lol, the best 11,000 scientists money could buy!

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

A tragic human suffering in its immensity is coming the likes the world has never see before.

Correct. And it will be the wrath of God poured out, not anything man made.

 

[loveofourlord]

Oh, I'd agree 100% that talking point is nonsense...I was just bringing up the fact that when people trot out that math (to divide acres by people, etc...) and say "look, everyone could comfortably fit in texas" that's not them necessarily advocating for land-grabbing, it just them trying to illustrate a point. Likewise, when people bring up that overpopulation is a culprit for climate issues, they're not advocating for extermination of people (as another posted hyperbolically implied), just illustrating a point.

ahhh okay :> hehe sorry just it's one of those arguments I hate hehe :> it's pretty much a deepity. Heck even if they were right about over population or climate change being wrong, it woldn't be a good argument as it doesn't show what they think it shows.