I have noted the comments in response to my question so far, and agree that the example of the disappearance of certain types of marine life can be caused by pollution and that CO2 emissions are not the sole cause of increasing sea acidity.
However, that was not the question.
That is why I chose the best answer in the way I did.
By describing the problem of global over-population as " media-hype " or the effects of the population on pollution which is leading to climate change - gradual or otherwise, in the same way, is to deny that anything is really happening at all.
In fact even to the extent that the whole " conspiracy " is purely to get us to pay more money in "green" taxation. That is what I call cynisism.
The example experiment of taking maggots and placing them in an enclosed glass container with enough food and air is the most graphic method of predicting our future.
More and more maggots are added to the container to simulate human population growthat present levels . Soon all the food is consumed, the faeces pollute their environment and they run out of breathable air, producing an eventual mass extinction.
However we humans manage the environment, if the population continues to grow exponentially, then inevitably the pollution that we produce will kill us, if not all, most.
All the arguements, bickering, money, wars, religions etc will not produce a change of direction unless there is a realistic - and doubtless to say, very harsh, global policy on limiting the population voluntarily.
This is a horriblr concept and morally unacceptable to many, but I believe, inevitable - or.........
The other alternative, of course, is to allow things to drift on as they are, always aiming for " sustained growth ",( in the words of the British Chancellor, Alistair Darling).
9 billion....11 billion.....15 billion...20 billion...................?
If we are having trouble feeding 6.4 billion, where are we going ?
And what of the waste products in sustaining such a population.?
When someone suggests " getting real " and that this is all " media-hype ", I suggest they start doing some basic maths.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to come to a logical conclusion.
However, that was not the question.
That is why I chose the best answer in the way I did.
By describing the problem of global over-population as " media-hype " or the effects of the population on pollution which is leading to climate change - gradual or otherwise, in the same way, is to deny that anything is really happening at all.
In fact even to the extent that the whole " conspiracy " is purely to get us to pay more money in "green" taxation. That is what I call cynisism.
The example experiment of taking maggots and placing them in an enclosed glass container with enough food and air is the most graphic method of predicting our future.
More and more maggots are added to the container to simulate human population growthat present levels . Soon all the food is consumed, the faeces pollute their environment and they run out of breathable air, producing an eventual mass extinction.
However we humans manage the environment, if the population continues to grow exponentially, then inevitably the pollution that we produce will kill us, if not all, most.
All the arguements, bickering, money, wars, religions etc will not produce a change of direction unless there is a realistic - and doubtless to say, very harsh, global policy on limiting the population voluntarily.
This is a horriblr concept and morally unacceptable to many, but I believe, inevitable - or.........
The other alternative, of course, is to allow things to drift on as they are, always aiming for " sustained growth ",( in the words of the British Chancellor, Alistair Darling).
9 billion....11 billion.....15 billion...20 billion...................?
If we are having trouble feeding 6.4 billion, where are we going ?
And what of the waste products in sustaining such a population.?
When someone suggests " getting real " and that this is all " media-hype ", I suggest they start doing some basic maths.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to come to a logical conclusion.