[Catfish]

@Skybird i speak about how things are, with evidence, based on scientific research. What the loony right and the loony left and loony greeners and others (who have their own special other agenda) do to promote themselves and satisfy their greed, is of no significance to what is.

Everyone tries to cook his own soup on what he/she believes, and finding "evidence" on the 'net for their opinion is easier than ever. Everyone can choose his own filter bubble he wants to live in. Which i think is a very bad way to understand the world and master it.

So you tell me the greens are becoming eco-fascists, the left (ab)uses the global warming to shoot against the right, while the right just plain denies any human pollution entirely to shoot against the left.
Yes, everyone has his own agenda, and whether he personally believes anything or not, he argues with what he wants to believe.


@August and Skybird yes "we" are too many. While the west has on average enough resources to live more or less comfortably and does not suffer a famine, it does not need much children to care for him when he reaches higher ages. This is not so in the poorer parts of the world where children are your life insurance when you get older.

Which is why no one of us western satisfied and relatively "rich" will be able to tell other peoples what is right and that they should abstain from getting more children. Patronising does not work, and even with the most righteous reasons it is perceived as arrogant. Gandhi's wife's intervention back then with "Two is enough" while castrating lots of Indians by force .. not the way.


Once more: Volcanoes emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. This is about 1% of human CO2 emissions which is around 29 billion tonnes per year.

For me the impact of humans on the pollution of the earth is clear as mud. From toxic waste, to plastic in the seas, to stuffing the air with the CO2 that had been buried and deposited for hundreds of million of years. You have to be delusional not to see what mankind is doing, even if you do not know details about coal and oil formation.


So you say "we are too many". This is true. So what do we do?

Logically, there are two ways:
1. Reduce the earth's population.
2. Inventing smart technology to minimize pollution of the earth and still live comfortably, if a bit different

To 1 i have to say that reducing the population by force cannot be the solution. Trying to do that by education ("Two is enough") is all good and well, but as long as 80 percent of the earth's population have not even enough to eat and survive, this education thing becomes a pure academical thought, apart from taking a long time – generations, that is. Also if already the "educated west" does not want to believe its own research, why should they?
Then there are those surely educated but still retro people who condemn abortion in the enlightened, educated West, for religious reasons.

Then, even if 70 percent of the earth's population gets killed and some "advanced civilisation" survives with its science and technology, does anyone really think that someone like Trump, Putin, younameit, would reduce pollution and waste then? Russia, China, USA? Never. And the EU while it tries is only doing a faint and bad job at it, too. It does not have much impact when exhaust regulations exist in Germany, but not in China.

No, the level of pollution would stay even with 70 percent less people, as long as the "civilised world" survives. It is not the poor population of the earth that is mostly responsible for the worldwide pollution.
(B.t.w. what the west does pollution-wise, atmosphere-wise, spread of radioactivity and so on is certainly felt over the whole world, not only where the poisoning initially happens)


About point 2, civilisation is beginning to understand that we can and are able to reduce certain "negative input" in the world's ecosystem.
Some people speak of "ecosystem" and "environment" as if we would not live in it, as if this would somehow exist outside the human existence. This works as long as we export waste to China and are spared the sight of waste, dying and decay.


Since there is already technology to reduce waste and pollution, and since there is even money in it, why the hell don't we apply it? Laziness? Putting our head in the sand and think "it will go by" is maybe human, but not the solution.


And then there are people who deny both points 1 and 2. "There is no pollution". Or "We can change the world if we introduce exhaust regulations alone in the EU". Or "There is no CO2 problem".

Then of course there are those who know better, but publicly ignore it to get votes, or personal gain, anything that feeds their greed.


Can we afford to let either delusional and uneducated people, or obvious egomaniacs set the way for the future?