Reducing population is no environmental 'quick fix', modelling research shows

October 27, 2014
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

New multi-scenario modelling of world human population has concluded that even stringent fertility restrictions or a catastrophic mass mortality would not bring about large enough change this century to solve issues of global sustainability.

Published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, ecologists Professor Corey Bradshaw and Professor Barry Brook from the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute say that the "virtually locked-in" population growth means the world must focus on policies and technologies that reverse rising consumption of natural resources and enhance recycling, for more immediate sustainability gains.

Fertility reduction efforts, however, through increased family-planning assistance and education, should still be pursued, as this will lead to hundreds of millions fewer people to feed by mid-century.

"Global population has risen so fast over the past century that roughly 14% of all the human beings that have ever existed are still alive today – that's a sobering statistic," says Professor Bradshaw, Director of Ecological Modelling in the Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences. "This is considered unsustainable for a range of reasons, not least being able to feed everyone as well as the impact on the climate and environment.

"We examined various scenarios for global change to the year 2100 by adjusting fertility and mortality rates to determine the plausible range of population sizes at the end of this century.

"Even a world-wide one-child policy like China's, implemented over the coming century, or catastrophic mortality events like global conflict or a disease pandemic, would still likely result in 5-10 billion people by 2100."

The researchers constructed nine different scenarios for continuing population ranging from "business as usual" through various fertility reductions, to highly unlikely broad-scale catastrophes resulting in billions of deaths.

"We were surprised that a five-year WWIII scenario mimicking the same proportion of people killed in the First and Second World Wars combined, barely registered a blip on the human population trajectory this century," says Professor Barry Brook, Chair of Climate Change at the Environment Institute for this study, and now Professor of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania.

"Often when I give public lectures about policies to address global change, someone will claim that we are ignoring the 'elephant in the room' of human population size. Yet, as our models show clearly, while there needs to be more policy discussion on this issue, the current inexorable momentum of the global human population precludes any demographic 'quick fixes' to our sustainability problems.

"Our work reveals that effective family planning and reproduction education worldwide have great potential to constrain the size of the human population and alleviate pressure on resource availability over the longer term. Our great-great-great-great grandchildren might ultimately benefit from such planning, but people alive today will not."

"The corollary of these findings is that society's efforts towards sustainability would be directed more productively towards reducing our impact as much as possible through technological and social innovation," says Professor Bradshaw.

Explore further: World population likely to peak by 2070

More information: Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems, PNAS, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1410465111

Related Stories

World population likely to peak by 2070

October 23, 2014

World population will likely peak at around 9.4 billion around 2070 and then decline to around 9 billion by 2100, according to new population projections from IIASA researchers, published in a new book, World Population and ...

The bottom line on sustainability

September 25, 2014

Climate change, pollution, dwindling natural resources, diminishing fresh water supplies… the list of problems we face as a species in the twenty-first century continues to grow. Many of the environmental problems are sadly ...

How many will we be? Are population estimates off the mark?

February 20, 2011

In 2011 the Earth's population will reach 7 billion. The United Nations (UN) reports that the total number of people will climb to 9 billion in 2050, peak at 9.5 billion, stabilize temporarily, and then decline. Despite the ...

Recommended for you

Caves in central China show history of natural flood patterns

January 19, 2017

Researchers at the University of Minnesota have found that major flooding and large amounts of precipitation occur on 500-year cycles in central China. These findings shed light on the forecasting of future floods and improve ...

105 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JoeBlue
2.6 / 5 (19) Oct 27, 2014
If they really wanted population reduction, they would stop handing out welfare.

What they most likely want; is to have complete say in everything you do in your life.
freethinking
1.9 / 5 (18) Oct 27, 2014
The world would be in a far better shape if we get rid of all the radical environmentalists.

Just think of all the CO2 saved from all the private jets flown by supporters of Al Gore.
Just think of all the CO2 saved from all the Elite AGW'ist mansions and monster cars.
Just think of all the endangered animals not eaten at the Elite AGW'ist conventions.
Just think of all the garbage not generated at Global Warming/Earthday/Communist Day rallies.

Just think of all the food that would be saved.

Poj
3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2014
When we think about population, we must think about world population, not just our particular nation. In order to bring about population reductions, we would need to rethink the whole concept of reproduction on a global scale. Certainly not an easy thing to accomplish, especially when one considers the strong influences of culture and religion. I don't believe that forcing people to not have children would be successful, it would have to be a shared mindset for the sake of not just the planet, but the human race itself.
tritace
Oct 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2014
Well, so much for that conspiracy theory. We could have a nuclear war and it wouldn't help.

We need to reduce, reuse, and recycle everything we can, is the message, if we want results in our lifetimes. It's the only way that works.

Good luck convincing everyone of that. It's not what people want to hear; they want teh gummint to fix it right now. Getting people to do something that has results *next year* is hard enough, never mind decades downstream; as for future generations, they're on their own.
NOM
4.5 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2014
Well, so much for that conspiracy theory. We could have a nuclear war and it wouldn't help.
If they were considering death rates in WWI & WWII terms, I don't think they were considering nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
tritace
Oct 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
phorbin
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2014
If they really wanted population reduction, they would stop handing out welfare.

What they most likely want; is to have complete say in everything you do in your life.


I suggest you read Swift's "A Modest Proposal"
SciTechdude
2.7 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2014
I've said it before, and all along (if not here specifically)- If you want to create a socialist utopia where machines do all the work, and people just collect the paychecks and do whatever they want (The democratic ideal I guess?), then you absolutely have to have mandatory birth control. Like, a fertility chip or some crazy Dystopian dictator's wet dream of putting something in the food that makes everyone infertile unless they are given a drug to counter-act it. If people have spare time and no obligations, they will absolutely f*k like bunnies, and if you are setup to take care of their kids for them, why should they care how many they have? This is already common in welfare societies, including the US, where the lowest income folks have the most children. Partially because a lot of them come from large family backgrounds, but partially from entitlement and the fact that someone, not them but someone, will in fact pay for all of them to not die. Free meds, free food, free house...
aksdad
2 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2014
Contrary to the errant wisdom of pessimistic pundits with computer models, humans manage to thrive anyway.

Unsurprisingly, humans continue to innovate ways to sustain the growing population which is predicted to peak in the next 30 years or so and perhaps begin to decline. The major impediment to humans thriving everywhere on the planet is political: oppressive governments.

Also unsurprisingly, as countries become free and wealthy they begin to take much better care of their environment. The answer to environmental problems is to promote freedom and democracy so countries can become wealthy rapidly and take care of themselves better without having to denude their natural resources.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2014
Well, so much for that conspiracy theory. We could have a nuclear war and it wouldn't help.
If they were considering death rates in WWI & WWII terms, I don't think they were considering nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
Actually I don't think anything else but a really deadly pandemic could kill enough people to achieve those same death rates with the 6 billion we have today, far less the ten or fifteen billion we'll have by mid-century. We passed 2 billion in about 1935; the dead were about 85 million. In today's terms that would be about 260 million.

OTOH, I personally guesstimate by the time we're done at century's end, more than 3 billion will have died. And OTO,OH, that's still only about a third of the people who will be born between now and then.

This is gonna get really ugly, but it's not going to kill enough people to actually make a big difference. Only changing our behavior can do that.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2014
I've said it before, and all along (if not here specifically)- If you want to create a socialist utopia where machines do all the work, and people just collect the paychecks and do whatever they want (The democratic ideal I guess?)
Bye Dude.

Most people, in real life, LIKE working and making something important happen or come to exist. Ennui happens because they're convinced they're NOT making a difference. In a real utopia, everyone who wanted it would have a job, and everyone content to sit and watch TV all day would not have to. Eventually, any of the TV-watchers who had any gumption would go DO something. TV is BORING to anyone with gumption.
Surly
4 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2014
@SciTechdude: That's empirically false. The demographic-economic paradox shows that when people have more comfortable lives, they have fewer children.
Ormond Otvos
3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2014
A highly air-transmissible influenza spread on purpose by motivated individuals could spread worldwide in a couple weeks in every major city in the world. If transportation of food collapsed, half the population could die, even after cannibalism. Be serious.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2014
That would require much deadlier flu than any we've ever seen.

Since viruses evolve, a really deadly virus is self-extinguishing. The really widespread ones generally aren't very deadly; they'd kill their hosts too often otherwise. A virus is merely the cellular machine code (specific, of course, to a single kind of cell) for making more viruses; it inherently kills the cell it invades in doing so. It exists on the razor's edge between being fecund enough to reproduce and being so fecund it kills its hosts. The most successful virus (from a virus' point of view) doesn't kill, or doesn't kill many, hosts. But it makes most or all of them sick by stealing energy from their biosystems. This is the maximal number of viruses, which is pretty much a virus' definition of "success."
snoosebaum
3 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2014
So someone really is considering how to eliminate most of the worlds population? Once past a certain point things would get medieval for a looong time. And how dependant are we on supply systems? at least in the west, might not take much for it all to come undone.
Jeppe
Oct 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
phprof
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2014
There is a great idea. Murder a few hundred million people to "fix" the climate.
NOM
4.3 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2014
OTOH, I personally guesstimate by the time we're done at century's end, more than 3 billion will have died. And OTO,OH, that's still only about a third of the people who will be born between now and then.
If affluent countries have more people that they can feed, they will end up with death rates as bad, or worse, than the third world. It will be the poor and the children that die first.

Ebola seems to be spreading rather successfully, even while being so deadly.
Diseases don't even need to be particularly easy to catch to spread. HIV, or any STD, need people to have rather more than casual contact to infect them.
CJD needs contact with brain tissue, yet still manages to spread. OK, it would have a hard time thriving here at physorg.
NOM
4.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2014
There is a great idea. Murder a few hundred million people to "fix" the climate.
You have either missed the point entirely or aren't being ambitious enough. Killing a few hundred people barely makes a blip in the rate of population increase.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2014
  Earth can easily feed 50 to 100 billion if the economy is transformed so that it becomes a fair and effective. Currently many countries maintain artificially low standard to suggest the idea that the world is overpopulated and large populations can not only solve the problems. In fact only large cities are overcrowded, but on the Earth there is sufficiently large uninhabited fertile areas. The problem was created by stupidity and ego, but not because of lack of resources.
Wolf358
5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2014
A realistic model of WW3 would take out 75 to 95% of the population; it would be a near-extinction event, not a re-hash of WW1 and WW2. _That_ would slow humanity down a bit, I think...
fidh
5 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2014
Could it just be that humankind doesnt benefit from reproduction the way it has up until this point?
How would you go changing something that has persisted since the dawn of man and do we actually need to change anything or will humans just adjust like they have adjusted to increased reproduction in other periods in time?
Sigh
4.8 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2014
There is a great idea. Murder a few hundred million people to "fix" the climate.

As in a global war with a mortality rate like the last two? The article doesn't promote that idea, and further says it will make hardly any difference, so your comment says more about you than the people at whom you aim your sarcasm.

Also please explain to me what you don't understand about the following: population is jointly determined by birth rate and death rate. Limited resources impose a limit on population. If you don't want that limit to be imposed by an increased death rate, you have to reduce the birth rate. It is very simple. So why do you think population control is inevitably about killing people?
tritace
Oct 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
sourabhtheone
4 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2014
Their analysis missed one important factor: economic recession due to any catastrophe. It is like domino effect. If our financial system collapses, our economic system and subsequently emissions will collapse too. So, it is no longer about just population. If any thing disrupts oil supply, then economic recession. Anything affecting financial system will disrupt stock market etc.

Remember any apocalyptic movie? For example, any pandemic may cause quarantine of large number of people, may be entire city. This will reduce resource consumption. Also, if people who die happen to be engineers, doctors, or people who are actively maintaining our critical infrastructure, then suddenly lack of engineers in one place may lead to black outs or shut down entire grid. Remember, many qualified people are already dead or in quarantine.

loopy_martin
3 / 5 (1) Oct 28, 2014
Welll... how about a synthesis ? Scitechdude's and Sigh's points about birth control are valid. But people are vain and do want to fill up the earth with little copies of their selves. Rather than tweaking, say, H5N1 so pigeons can spread a man-lethal strain efficiently... how about a contraceptive virus? as Da Schneib says, stable, host-adapted viruses don't kill. But a suitable virus could spread laterally and be genetically maximally successful while effectively lowering host population numbers.
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
Depending one who is doing the research, I believe 20% of the population has 80% of the income, and 10% of the population has 90% of accumulated wealth.

If you took half of this absurd excess and distributed it to other people, their living standards would greatly improve and their labor needs would decrease, which would improve the (real) global economy.

Presently, the global economy produces some ~60% more than it needs to, in order to sustain the incomes of the very wealthy, or put another way, prices of goods and services are rigged such that the very wealthy benefit from economies much more than their fair share.

I am not for total communism like you think of Russia or China (even they have moderated in recent decades), but something has to be done in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Mark Zuckerberg strikes it rich. Over a few lines of computer code we make him a multi-billionaire? Dynamic Internet forums existed a decade and a half before facebook...
Returners
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2014
When will the special circus clown tax be implemented on athletes and entertainers?

I'm a CHRISTIAN and I want taxation on religious organisations. This does NOT violate the first amendment, and besides all that, the religious organizations are hypocrites, since Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's."
They owe taxes, at the same rate as everyone else both for individuals and organizations, and they should be subject to the same regulations as other businesses.

The reason for that is there are too many abuses in corrupt churches, including financial abuse and in some cases cult-ish sexual abuses, and as a Christian, I am sick of it not being dealt with by the government until some insider finally cracks and tells people.

In the long term, I believe this will actually improve the church both physically and spiritually.
Returners
2.2 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2014
I want an amendment moving the power of Legislative bodies to appoint themselves a raise to be moved to the Judicial Branch, especially at the State and Federal level.

Presidents appoint judges? The President should determine the Legislature's salary, the court should determine the President's salary, and the Legislature should determine the Court's salary.

The other way around would make the court have too much legislative power. They already legislate from the bench too much.

Now THAT is checks and balances.

Won't work together? Fuck you, I'll cut your pay.

No more giving yourself a 10% raise every year, while other people are lucky if they break back even with inflation...
swordsman
5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2014
This article is nonsense. The Chinese figured it out. If you limit the number of children per family to two, the population will stabilize in twenty years. Limit it to one, and it will stabilize more quickly. And ...... it seems to be working form them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2014
Religion is the problem. Every religion everywhere. Even the so-called benign religions agree that there is a god who will fix all their problems if they ask with enough sincerity.

"Give no thought for the morrow" they all say. All agree there is a god who grants all wishes including immortality in heaven for friends and hell for enemies.

And ALL that survive have done so by being better at outgrowing and overrunning their less prolific counterparts. They have done this by maximizing reproduction, by forcing women to do nothing else but bear children until it kills them.

This strategy is written into all their books. It is the BASIS of all their morality. What is the story of Israel but of how to conquer by outgrowing and overrunning?

These behaviors may moderate for a time, here and there, but the BOOKS never change. They all demand that the earth be filled with believers, and they describe exactly how to do this.

This is the only proper way to serve god.
Returners
2 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
This article is nonsense. The Chinese figured it out. If you limit the number of children per family to two, the population will stabilize in twenty years. Limit it to one, and it will stabilize more quickly. And ...... it seems to be working form them.


The run into a problem called "Demographic Winter". The U.S. and Europe also have this problem due to just self-regulation of couples, down from a half dozen children per woman a few generations ago to 2.1 to 2.3 per woman today. This issue causes the ratio of working age people to non-working age people to be lower for a couple generations. It makes younger generations practically slaves of the aging population for a period of about 30 years or so of their lives.

In the past this wasn't a problem because maximum life expectancy was much lower, and number of children was much higher, paying for the needs of the previous generation as they retired....contin...
Returners
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
Vaccines added to this problem.

the Streptococcus Pnuemonia vaccine alone has increased the lifespan of humans by probably more than a decade. Who knows really. You get one when you're young and another when you're 65, and then you live another 20, 30, even 40 years on retirement.

Why doesn't the government want to cure Staph? Simple...pharmaceutical companies make money by selling drugs, including antibiotics. This keeps working age people healthy longer, but then when they get too old to work the problem is it keeps old people alive longer too, which becomes a drain on hospitals and insurance and everyone else.

Hey, I'm not for offing old people, I'm just talking about the problem in terms of pure rationality that governments and corporations must see.

If they use the copper thin-films solution to destroy Hospital Acquired infections, then the elderly will live decades longer, on even more retirement and welfare programs nobody can pay for.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2014
The people of earth will never be able to live within their means until religion can be outlawed like all the other toxic sociopolitical systems we have learned to vilify. Fascism, despotism, communism. Religion. All based on the fantasy of divine providence. All proponents of the worst sorts of bigotry, misogyny, and the gross immorality of divine preference.

Humanity has no future while this most caustic of all ideologies which has ever existed, still exists. Wars will increase in frequency and intensity. The most horrific NBC tech will be used with no moral compunction. The environment will be destroyed. Humanity may be left with genetic damage and deformity that it can never fix and never recover from.

And all because there is a god who cannot tolerate people who have the audacity to deny him.

End religion before it ends us.
Returners
2 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
However, there is some light in the tunnel regarding staph.

If you could eradicate human and livestock strains of staph, the food economy would be greatly improved, and you'd actually increase the health and life expectancy of young and middle aged people. Fewer amputations, lost organs, lost eyes, etc, leads to healthier, more productive work force who may be able to work longer. Maybe the retirement age should be 70, instead of mid-60's. It needs to be pushed back 1 year per decade just to keep up with the lifespan trend, and since it's actually behind the trend, it needs to be pushed back about 1 year every 2 years for the next 10 years, followed by 1 year per decade after that.
Returners
3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
If they really wanted population reduction, they would stop handing out welfare.


You're an idiot.

Do yourself a favor. Go on an internet dating site, and look at the number of women who have 4 year college degrees in arts, education, or even administration, who currently work for minimum wage or "less than minimum plus tips" in some cases. Do you think they chose that? That's where they ended up because the "invisible hand" theory of economics DOES NOT WORK. In some cases they found out you can literally make more bartending, if you're in the right place, than what your bachelor's degree can earn you, so they said screw it anyway. Yet they end up needing government assistance in some cases just to live in this country. Consider fast food workers, and several of them have 2 and 4 year degrees. They are over-educated and over-qualified, and they can't pay their rent, but radical conservatives like yourself blame them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2014
Sorry Lrrkrrr I'm tired of slipping on your diarrhea. You and zephyr have been ignored. I suppose most of the people here will do the same. How does it feel for an egomaniac to be ignored? What's that? Sorry I can't hear you.
Returners
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
Sorry Lrrkrrr I'm tired of slipping on your diarrhea. You and zephyr have been ignored. I suppose most of the people here will do the same. How does it feel for an egomaniac to be ignored? What's that? Sorry I can't hear you.


Good.

If you've truly ignored me, I guess I won't have to read your personal attacks any more.

Piss off, and good riddance.

Your post got a 5 from me this time. It's one of the few times I've ever given you a 5. After all, sometimes you actually make sense. Sometimes.
gkam
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2014
With all of my disagreements, I had to freely give ghost a five for his rant about religion.

Indeed, we will not survive as a species unless we outgrow this pathetic need for a Santa for grownups, an Invisible Companion who tells us we really won't die. But we will die, of course, and will all return back to the nothingness from which we arose.

Why do we lie to ourselves? Are we really THAT scared? Can't we develop character worthy of us?
antigoracle
3 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
Here is a suggestion for those who want to decrease the world population, why don't you start the ball rolling with yourself.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2014
Here is a suggestion for those who want to decrease the world population, why don't you start the ball rolling with yourself.

Seeing how the goal is to improve quality of life for everyone, can you see why suicide might be a tad counterproductive?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
Free meds, free food, free house


If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Read more at http://www.brainy...TR8zc.99
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2014
Can't we develop character worthy of us?

What character is worthy of you?
The socialist character of murder, for example?
Two religions have commandments that say murder is bad.
The atheist/socialist religion does not.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2014
That's where they ended up because the "invisible hand" theory of economics DOES NOT WORK.

They are there because the visible hand of socialism does not work.
4 year college degrees in arts, education, or even administration, who currently work for minimum wage


What is the market demand for these degrees? How much money did the state loan them to subsidize the universities?
If you could eradicate human and livestock strains of staph, the food economy would be greatly improved,

Instead of degrees in art or education, maybe they should have chosen science or engineering so they could eradicate staph.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
This article is nonsense. The Chinese figured it out. If you limit the number of children per family to two, the population will stabilize in twenty years. Limit it to one, and it will stabilize more quickly. And ...... it seems to be working form them.

How is it working for them?
How many girls were murdered in China?
Socialist Romania attempted the opposite a few years ago by banning abortion and birth control with no increase in economic growth. The result was thousands of orphans and when they could the people executed the dictator with extreme prejudice.
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2014
ryggesogn2, thanks for reminding me to put you on the ignore list with goricle
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
rygg, what do you think the odds are that voting machines keep needing calibration to vote Republican?

http://baltimore....-claims/

Surely the Democrats don't cheat, lie, or try to steal elections would they?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
ryggesogn2, thanks for reminding me to put you on the ignore list with goricle


I'm not surprised. Socialists can't defend their faith.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2014
It has been shown that democrats and those that vote democrats have a significantly greater chance of being murderers, rapists, drug abusers, criminal aliens, dead, tax cheats, environmental hypocrites, racists, misogynists is it any wonder why only Democrats have issues with stopping voter fraud.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
Recent economic news from around the world suggests deflation is occurring.
Real deflation means the value of money is increasing and therefore goods they can purchase are become less scarce.
Like the 'Models of Doom' created by MIT and promoted the Club of Rome, more recent models of doom are just as likely to be GIGO.
There is a glimmer of hope as the author suggests technological innovation may improve the situation. But the socialists don't understand how to promote that innovation.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2014
I'm hoping that the Paid Progressive Government Trolls and all their sockpuppets will start using ignore buttons on Free Thinkers. Once they do, they shut themselves out of the debate.

However I'm thinking that once physorg, Progressives, and the Democratic National Congress start seeing ordinary people actually becoming informed by free thinking commentators on this board, knocking out each of the PPGT's and DNC's talking points without being personally attacked, they will ignore the ignore button and continue their personal attacks.
freethinking
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2014
Rygg, according to democrats, jobs are not created by Corporations and Businesses.

Here is what the Highly Influential and Powerful and likely Democratic 2016 presidential candidate said at a campaign event last Friday for Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate:

"Don't let anybody tell you that it's corporations and businesses that create jobs," Hillary Clinton said in Boston.

No wonder the USA has such high unemployment, under employment, and employment participation rate. If you vote for a democrat you vote for Corruption, Incompetence and just plain stupidity in economics.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
"In some California parallel universe, the new Senate President Kevin de Leόn, announced last week during his flagrant swearing-in ceremony, "Reliance is the 'American way.'""
"De Leόn's "extravagant bash" was held at the Disney Concert Hall where "corporate interests — oil, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals and others who lobby Sacramento — paid for the $50,000 bash through the Latino Legislative Caucus Foundation. National Review Online called the bash a "Kim Jong Un–Style Coronation.""
http://www.thefed...ican-way
How is California any different now than the other turd world states?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2014
ryggesogn2, thanks for reminding me to put you on the ignore list with goricle
Boy this thread just got a whole lot shorter.
dan42day
5 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
Reducing population is no environmental 'quick fix', modelling research shows


Apparently, neither is warning the population about climate change due to rising carbon-dioxide levels.
Sigh
5 / 5 (1) Oct 29, 2014
The socialist character of murder, for example?

Quoting you from a while ago (http://phys.org/n...s.html):
Muslims need to demonstrate tolerance before they can ever join with civil societies

But that doesn't apply to you? I bookmarked the page because I was sure I wouldn't have long to wait until you demonstrated your own intolerance.

Two religions have commandments that say murder is bad.

Rather more than two. Perhaps you need to learn more about religions other than your own.

The atheist/socialist religion does not.

Atheism is not a religion. Religions are belief systems involving supernatural entities or mechanisms (like karma). Atheism (slightly misnamed) is the opinion that religions do not have good empirical support in their belief in supernatural entities or mechanisms. See the difference?

Atheism is also different from socialism. Neither requires the other.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2014
ryggesogn2, thanks for reminding me to put you on the ignore list with goricle

Another AGW Chicken Little presses the stupid button. It's the only way he can make himself feel intelligent.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
Rather more than two.

Good. Too bad socialists don't pay attention to 'don't murder'. Ends justify the means, right?

According to the SCOTUS, atheism is a religion.

Most Muslims are not terrorists, and most atheists are socialists.
Sigh
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2014
Rather more than two.

Good. Too bad socialists don't pay attention to 'don't murder'.

A bit difficult to work out what you would consider evidence, seeing that you consider the USA to be socialist. By that standard, I don't see any country that is not socialist. But perhaps you would agree that Scandinavian countries are more socialist? Then the murder rate there should be higher than in the USA? Is it? Perhaps you have a more comprehensive data set relating murder rates to degree of socialism? Surely you didn't just pull that claim out of your backside.

According to the SCOTUS, atheism is a religion.

I don't care a lot. The specific legal context in which the supreme court makes its decisions can distort definitions. But I am curious what definition the court used. Care to provide a link?
Sigh
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2014
It has been shown that democrats and those that vote democrats have a significantly greater chance of being murderers, rapists, drug abusers, criminal aliens, dead, tax cheats, environmental hypocrites, racists, misogynists

When making such sweeping claims, please do link to the evidence, this being a science site and all.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2014
According to the SCOTUS, atheism is a religion.

No. According to the US courts atheism is simply accorded the same protection under the free excercise clause of the first amendment.
(Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religious beliefs, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof)

..i.e. atheist are not prohibited from excercising their lack of belief.
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
How does one positively exercise a lack of belief?
Atheist chaplains are required some places.
freethinking
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
Here you go Sigh, evidence that shows criminals vote democrat.

Marc Meredith, PhD, Assistant Professor of Political Science and Business Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Michael Morse, Research Fellow at Stanford Law School, stated the following in their Nov. 18, 2013 article "Do Voting Rights Notification Laws Increase Ex-Felon Turnout?," published in the Annals of the American Academy of Political Science:

"[In New York] ex-felons who are registered overwhelmingly register as Democrats. Of those discharge records that match to at least one voter file record, 61.5 percent match only to Democratic voter records. In contrast, 25.5 percent match only to voter records with no affiliation or an affiliation with a minor party, while 9 percent match only to Republican voter records...

...[R]egistered ex-felons in New Mexico tend to be overwhelmingly Democrat: 51.9 percent match to only registered Democrats, 18.9 percent match to only registered Republicans,
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
More proof criminals support democrat.

George F. Will, PhD, Contributing Editor at Newsweek, stated the following in his Mar. 13, 2005 article "Give the Ballot to Felons?":

"Sentimentalism and cold calculation combine to make felons' voting attractive to liberals. They know that criminals often come from disadvantaging circumstances and think such circumstances are the 'root causes' of criminality. As for the calculation, it is indelicate to say but indisputably true: most felons - not all; not those, for example, from Enron's executive suites - are Democrats. Or at least were they to vote, most would vote Democratic."
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
Even more proof democrats support criminals:

The Washington Times wrote in a Mar. 8, 2005 editorial titled "Felons and Democratic Politicking":

"The bill [...] would mandate felon voting across the country, regardless of state law.

The bill shows that Democrats are more interested in the potential voting bloc than what the Constitution allows or what Americans actually want. [...]

If Congress passes the bill [The Count Every Vote Act of 2005, which failed to pass], Democratic electoral gains would be an estimated 1.2 million new voters."
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
Any guess who criminal aliens vote for? Any guess why Democrats don't want voter ID's?

http://dailycalle...t-an-id/

Any guess why Democrats fight to keep dead people on the voting rolls? Any guess why so many 112 year olds keep voting democrat? http://www.examin...e-of-112
freethinking
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2014
If every honest democrat would vote republican, that still won't offset the dead, criminal, criminal alien, election machines changing republican vote to democrat, vote for democrats.

Progressives, Democrats and election fraud go together like hate and radical Muslims.

If you vote democrat you vote for criminals, incompetence, and corruption.

So sigh, enough information to prove the point?
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2014
Another AGW Chicken Little presses the stupid button. It's the only way he can make himself feel intelligent
@antigorical
no, they ignore the trolls who have nothing to contribute to the discussion
@antiG, free, etc
here are two studies for you to read:
http://www.scienc...abstract

http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

give me empirical evidence that is of the same caliber as what is presented in the studies, from a reputable peer reviewed source, refuting the above studies
I kept is very simple for you on purpose
i kept it to CO2 and how weather is affected by the warming climate
it "should" be easy for someone who is so adamant in their belief, right?
you should have plenty of studies on hand for refute, right?

your refusal to accept the science is simply conspiratorial and delusional in nature: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
The fundamental trait of all 'progressives' is the need to have the power to control others.
'Progressives' delude themselves into believing they do not want the power for themselves, but only to help others.
Thus they will do anything, lie, cheat, murder to obtain that power because it is for the greater good.
China bans children resulting in millions of murdered children. Romania banned birth controls resulting in thousands of orphans.
Many who post here believe they can and should use state power for force everyone to life the way they believe they should live. But all they really want is the power.
Many politicians, mostly 'liberals' can readily be identified as years of such delusion takes a toll.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
"The Colorado secretary of state is investigating allegations that some Boulder County Republican election judges are actually Democrats in disguise.

Boulder County GOP Chairwoman Ellyn Hilliard initially raised the alarm when visiting polling locations where she didn't recognize some of the GOP judges who are tasked with comparing voter signatures on mail ballots to protect against vote fraud.

She became alarmed when she noticed some ballots whose signatures clearly didn't match those on file for the voter being accepted."
http://www.thefed...colorado
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
How does one positively exercise a lack of belief?

The case that apparently sparked this was a prison inmate being forbidden from forming a group that discussed atheism (wheras it was allowed for other groups to discuss a religion).
The courts ruled that he was covered by the first amendment.

Atheist chaplains are required some places.

A chaplain (or a church) is not the same thing as a belief. Note that there are registered 'churches of atheism' in the US (mostly mock ones, but nevertheless).
Sigh
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
Here you go Sigh, evidence that shows criminals vote democrat.

That wasn't your claim, though. Putting it in the proper notation, you claimed p(murderer|democrat) > p(murderer|not democrat), and the same for a list of other crimes, and being dead or a misogynist. Now you claim something quite different, that p(democrat|felon) > p(democrat|not felon). You changed the condition from a specific list to unspecified felonies. Even if I insert an item from your original list instead of an unspecified felony, you also have a different conditional probability. Those are two elementary mistakes in interpreting evidence. Please defend your original claim before I ask you questions about your new claim.
Sigh
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
How does one positively exercise a lack of belief?

In a way that should appeal to you: protesting against the use of tax money to promote religion, for example through tax exemptions. I am sure you can come up with more examples. And by objecting to having religious observances imposed on people. You should like that.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
Ebola seems to be spreading rather successfully, even while being so deadly.
Not really. Total cases? 13,000. Total dead? 4,000. Total US dead? 4.

Four.

Now check out the total populations of all the countries that have any cases at all.

This is minuscule. Scary, but still minuscule. Typical silly season media BS.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
Seriously, global warming is an atheist plot?

Really?

Really?

Damn, I'm glad I didn't have to read that chickensxxt! :D

But
How does one positively exercise a lack of belief?
I simply have to respond to this.

One objects to being forced to talk about jebus "blessing" Amurca. Or sing about it.

I mute the TV and sing "This Land is My Land" every time. It will be popular again soon.

It's amusing when religious fanatics pretend to be patriots. These people obviously have not read my Constitution, or if they did they didn't have the brains to understand it. There will be no religious preferences exercised in my country. If you try I will pillory you, along with all true patriots.
Sigh
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
The fundamental trait of all 'progressives' is the need to have the power to control others.

So more sweeping claims without evidence, and a bit rich, coming from the guy whose notion of property rights would be more restrictive than the heaviest regulation.

You still haven't even tried to defend your previous wild claim, yet you don't acknowledge that you can't defend it. I call that intellectual dishonesty. You also offer nothing on the discrepancy between the level tolerance you demand and the level of tolerance you offer.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
Let's bear in mind that these are individuals who believe that torturing people isn't against the US Constitution and that no one should be prosecuted for it.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2014
So more sweeping claims without evidence,

Evidence abounds.
How are property rights restrictive?

objecting to having religious observances imposed on people.


Yes, as a taxpayer I support the end of ALL holy-days the govt pays workers not to work.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
A chaplain (or a church) is not the same thing as a belief.

Atheists believe there is no God.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
"The Progressive believes in precisely two things: his own magnificence and the constructive power of brute force."
"Where the productive man dreams of the things he might create if only left alone by his fellows, the Progressive dreams of the world he could create if only the lives and property of his fellows were at his disposal. The roots of his pathology lie in that oldest and most destructive of all human vices, the desire for the power to rule over other men."
"the Progressive rationalizes his desire to rule as a concern for human welfare, seeing himself as a great humanitarian, far superior morally to the lesser beings who pursue merely "materialist" ends such as their own prosperity and who frequently object to his program for achieving Utopia."
http://theconserv...ve-mind/
barakn
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2014
Atheists believe there is no God. -soggyring2
So you believe. Any atheist with any regard for the scientific method would tell you that based on the available evidence, the probability that a god of the white-bearded, intrusive variety exists is extremely low, but it can't be ruled out.
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2014
Democrats supporting voter fraud go together like democrats supporting Islamist.

http://pjmedia.co...aryland/

http://www.nation...ohn-fund

The most corrupt democrat party ever. A vote for a democrat is a vote for corruption, incompetence, and the destruction of the USA.
barakn
3 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
She became alarmed when she noticed some ballots whose signatures clearly didn't match those on file for the voter being accepted."
http://www.thefed...colorado -soggyring2
People's signatures change slowly over time or more rapidly if they have strokes, their dominant hand is amputated, they develop dystonia, they change their name (mostly women getting married), etc.. Banks don't even look at signatures on checks because they are so unreliable. Looks like Boulder County GOP Chairwoman Ellyn Hilliard used signatures as an excuse to target the voting rights of the elderly, the infirm, and women. The conservative effort to disenfranchise voters is repellent, repugnant, and unconstitutional.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
The conservative effort to disenfranchise voters is repellent, repugnant, and unconstitutional.

But the 'liberal' effort to disenfranchise voters by promoting illegal alien voting and rigging voting machines is not repellent?
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2014
If this was a Republican, it would be lead in on the fifth columnist news organizations, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN. My guess is.... no reporting...

http://www.thebla...n-video/
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2014
So Captin S, Since you marked my comment down you I take it you support the democrats voter fraud.

freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
I bet these two voted for Democrats (probably many times in the same election)

http://www.thenew...ers.html

These guys should claim they are Democrats then state the laws and the laws they want to implement don't apply to them.

Thugs, criminals, dead, illegal aliens, idiots, fools, vote and vote often in the same election for democrats. Why? Because they love corruption and incompetence.
barakn
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
But the 'liberal' effort to disenfranchise voters by promoting illegal alien voting and rigging voting machines is not repellent?

You have yet to cite a credible source.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2014
But the 'liberal' effort to disenfranchise voters by promoting illegal alien voting and rigging voting machines is not repellent?

You have yet to cite a credible source.

No source will be considered credible by a 'liberal' since no 'liberal' will report voter fraud.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
"It looks increasingly likely that at least one member of the United States Senate may owe his seat in the world's greatest deliberative body not to his charisma or the persuasiveness of his message but to voter fraud.

As the Wall Street Journal's John Fund reports, Minnesota Democrat Al Franken's narrow, 312-vote victory in 2008 over incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman may have come as the result of people being allowed to vote who, under existing law, shouldn't have been. "
http://www.usnews...er-fraud
barakn
3 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
While you are forced to look for anecdotes and rumor and hearsay, the conservative effort to disenfranchise voters is blatantly written in public - ensconced in state laws, scrawled over gerrymandered voting maps, handed down by corrupt judges.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
"Breitbart News reported Wednesday the figure of non-citizens on the voter rolls in North Carolina is as high as 1,400. It is illegal for a non-citizen to vote, even if they have accidentally been placed on the voter rolls, Assisting a non-citizen in voting is also illegal.
Read more at http://www.wester...JQJi.99"
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
"The origin of the word "gerrymander" was a combination of "salamander" and the last name of Elbridge Gerry, who as governor of Massachusetts in 1812 signed into law a redistricting plan designed to benefit his political party. "
"In 2001, with Democrats in control of Illinois redistricting, then-state Senator Barack Obama was apparently able to reshape his district to his own specifications. "
http://www.theatl.../#slide2
What surprise. It started in MA.
freethinking
2 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2014
According to AGW religionists, only reliable source of information is another AGW religionist. All other information not vetted by a AGW religionist isn't valid.
And according to Progressives and Democrats, the only reliable source that voter fraud exists needs to come from Progressives and Democrats who are perpetrating the fraud.

IF a AGW religionists starts to provide any information contrary to AGW, they can no longer be used as reliable sources, AND if a Progressive or Democrat who has perpetrated voter fraud admits to voter fraud, this person can no longer be cited as a reliable source of information.

AGW religionists, Progressives, and Democrats are the most closed minded, bigoted people I know. If anyone votes for a Democrat, know this.... you are voting for corruption, irrationality, incompetence.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2014
Democrats are the most closed minded, bigoted people I know.

The dem senator from Louisiana is now throwing her constituents under the bus claiming they are racists.
A great way to win over the voters, insult them.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2014

Let the Deniers find an excuse for this.

http://phys.org/n...ife.html

Meanwhile, they can look up "rob georgia" and diebold for a real example of voter fraud.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2014
"Things must be going even worse for the Democrats than the polls suggest. The campaign of incumbent Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., for example, has hit rock bottom.

How else to explain her lame attempt to blame her electoral peril on racism and sexism? Modern illiberals are incapable of thinking their record or their ideas could lead to misfortune."
http://www.nola.c...mea.html
gkam
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2014
"AGW religionists"?

We do not rely on "faith" or any other wishful thinking, we look at the measurements. No silly "belief" necessary, it is reality.
freethinking
3 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2014
hey rygg, Democrats threatening people to vote.

http://www.thebla...ened-me/

So far this election we have a democrat stuffing ballot boxes, many voting machines that have "calibration" errors where votes for republicans go to democrats, we have democrat election officials helping criminal aliens vote. In past elections we had dead people vote and vote often for democrats, we had criminals who lost their right to vote voting for democrats, we had boxes of ballots mysteriously appear in close races all voting democrats, we had areas where over 100% people voted for a democrats, we had 112+ year olds voting for democrats.

But hey if a democrat thinks that republicans commit election fraud, then let's agree there is need to show id to vote and work to prevent voter fraud no matter who does it.

a vote for a democrat is a vote for corruption.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2014
"Chairman Butch Morgan Jr. from St. Joseph County was convicted of felony conspiracy to commit petition fraud and forgery. Dustin Blyth, who served on the Board of Elections, was charged with felony forgery and several counts of making a false petition. Both men were charged and convicted for submitting fake names and signatures on petitions that were designed to get Obama and Hillary Clinton onto the 2008 primary ballots."
Read more at http://joeforamer...r-fraud/
Da Schneib
not rated yet Nov 02, 2014
Gee, I thought all the "radical left" were atheists.

You were the ones who said so.

I'm having a lot of trouble with "atheist religionists." It doesn't parse. It's like "war is peace" or "ignorance is strength."

So, which one were you lying about? Just for the record.
freethinking
3 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2014
Hey regg, more information democrats are lying when they say there is no election fraud and no need for voter id's.

http://www.dailym...ots.html

Any question on who these poll workers support?

A vote for democrats is a vote for more corruption, more incompetence, more criminals, more hate, more unemployment, higher health care costs.
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
hey Rygg, guess who this convicted felon voted for?

http://www.thebla...ve-done/

But hey, he's a democrat, laws are for everyone else
Sigh
not rated yet Nov 11, 2014
How are property rights restrictive?

YOUR notion of property rights is restrictive. Try to make your quotes less misleading. Also, we've been through that more than once. Do you really forget, or do you pretend?

You want property rights that allow you to prevent or get compensation for any activity that lets any emissions cross your property, without demonstrating harm. In your ideal world, you could sue people for breathing. That's more restrictive than any regulation I ever heard of.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.