Look folks, it was your descison to blow up a minor point of my initial argument into a completly different direction. But ok, here we go.

1. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019&full=1

2. There is a difference between facts and percieving. And I am not about facts here, but how the typical inhabitant down there sees the US through decades of quarrels, propaganda and american intervention. This means the folks will be set up extremly easily, no matter how harmless it appears to westerners. That is the problem with ignorant arrogance. The unwillingness to think oneself into the position of the folks down there, the unwillingness to even acknowledge that these folks may have actual reasons for their actions and feelings, for real or just imagined.
What caused terrorism much later is based on a long history and does not just come out of the blue.

Take it or leave it at that.

But I have presented an alternative and as far as i've seen the only one that would achieve the (stated) objective: Get our population growth under control. If we could reduce world population by 1-2 billion we wouldn't have the problems we're having (assuming of course human population has the degree of effect global warming advocates claim it does).

It's not a catch question. You're talking about reducing human generated Co2 levels right? Well apologies to your daily routine but obviously unnecessary luxury items like personal computers are something we should cut first before we start messing with peoples livelihoods or mobility, imo of course.

Use of computers may reduce the need for physical transportation. If the environmental impact for producing/using/disposing-of the puters is lesser than the impacts of transportation or whatever activity they "substitute" then it's OK.

Good point. I'd be interested in seeing an environmental impact study on that.

With all due respect, but you should ask before making presumptions. My Computer is part of what I do for work and as that essential for earning money. It's not a "luxury".

And then we come to your other point...reducing population. Now I am curious about your proposals to solve this problem.
Mass executions? Probably not what you ment. Sterilisation? A strict population control China style?
None of these are even remotely in line with human rights, are a "massive" interference with anybodies private life, yet are the only ways to actually enforce such a policy, unless you want to make it a money question, so getting children is a privilege of the rich. This is only doable in a dictatorlship like environment where ethics and morals are of second nature at best.
I hope you will understand it is hard to grasp that anybody could put that as a lighter and less instrusive method compared to cuts in livelihoods or mobility. Not having children of your own is nice and up to you, but to ask that of anybody else, especially without sacrificing anything oneself, is just whack and otherworldish, no matter how much I agree to you that overpopulation indeed is a problem, and an enormous one.

But ok, let's assume we "do" cut population by 2 billion to 4 billion ppl living on this planet. The problem is not the number as that. The problem is the number of ppl wanting to have a western style standart of living. Imagine China or India becoming as relaxed as the US when it comes to pollution, especially to pollution per capita.
Last question? what entitles you, or any other western nations inhabitant, to it's standart of living and usage and waste of all that energy? What makes you more worth then a chinese or a russian or an indian to have mobility and a good life? Because one thing is for sure..keeping this level is possible only by denying other nations the same. Only then current trends of climate change and pollution won't transform into a truly massive catastrophe in the long run. And if you try to enforce such a policy, you can be sure about world war 3, which will solve the whole matter anyways.

Well obviously Bewolf your computer isn't all about work or you wouldn't be posting on a subsim gaming forum and have that fancy SH signature, now would you? So ask yourself the same question: What entitles you to waste this energy? You're so very quick to attack my standard of living but it seems to me that you are just as "guilty" as anyone else in this regard. FWIW that's the kind of hypocrisy which makes me tend to doubt the motives of governments and organizations that push these wealth redistribution schemes.

As for population control. No, I am not in favor of mass executions or forced sterilization and I agree with you it'd be a very difficult thing to enforce, but difficulty and attractiveness is immaterial. The point remains; if we do not find a way to limit population growth somehow, then any other measure we take is doomed to failure.

What i'd really like to know is why you feel that my pointing out that a particular plan is doomed to failure justifies your accusation that all i want to do is "putting your hands in your lap and having a cig is the best course of action then, hm?"

Finally I'd like to challenge your idea that we have a lax pollution policy in the US. We have some of the most stringent environmental laws in the world. So stringent in fact that much of our manufacturing jobs have moved overseas, including to China and India, where the laws are far less restrictive. The progress we have made, especially in the past half century has been far and above the effort of any other industrialized nation. So before you consign me to a pre industrial life (where BTW i would be burning coal and wood to heat my house) perhaps you ought to consider what you are demanding.

They sure liked the American intervention when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in the 70's. But then they bit the hand that fed them....Dog eat dog I guess!

Population growth is one of the problems.