Stopping one person from not having kids won't change anything. Especially when China and India are popping them out like rabbits. The best way you can be part of the solution is to set off some more nuclear reactions/bombs.

Terrible idea. My body my food.

It bugs me when people say environment due to how vague it is. Are you talking about forests, oceans, cities, atmosphere, etc.? And you don't destroy it, you alter it. The people who say human are evil would still be saying it if they were apart of another species that was as advanced as us. Life feeds off of life. Humans are no different.

But they pollute more than anyone else with all those wasteful programs and wars they start.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/32-appeal-to-fear

You'd think that, but there are actually enough resources for the entire human population. The problem is they end up as surplus in some places and go to waste. Case in point: in the UK http://england.lovefoodhatewaste.com/node/2163.

Look it's a nice sentiment but I just don't see how it could be done, of-course I don't want us to fish cod into extinction (I love cod) but at the same time what are you going to do? How are you going to police the fishing activities of all these people? How are businesses going to adjust to a presumably greater diminished surplus of fish and such. I don't really know much about mass farming in the UK, I haven't heard of it as an issue as I have overfishing before; Christ we had the Cod Wars against Iceland before to ensure our overfishing could continue in as greater area as possible.

Unless we exact population control and stagnate modernization, it can't be done. Even if the so called "green energy" technology were to advance and become a dependable source of renewable energy (and despite what some environmentalist claim, it is not even close to being dependable yet) natural resources will continue to be consumed as population grows and technology advances.

This planet will not be able to sustain us forever, no matter what we do. Unless, like I said before, we stop the growth of human population and advancement in it's tracks but I highly doubt that will ever happen... Unless, of course, we inadvertently destroy ourselves or mother nature decides she has had enough and does it for us... which are two scenarios that are well within the realm of possibility.

Well there are fish farms, if worse comes to worse in the fishing industry. Won't be able to reach everyone, but those species could then still exist at least.

Given how I've known this fact for a while, I've kind of come to the conclusion it's the same as salt, water or medicines; Good for you in moderation, lethal in overexposure. IIRC, we're constantly exposed to low levels everyday in the natural atmosphere, no? I'd read that somewhere so radiation itself doesn't bother me, but I question if I NEED X-Rays and the like, I know they're useful, but I prefer to keep unexposed to radiation as possible. Like if a doc says 'oh, your rash might need an X-Ray, I'd call that to question and likely say no.

Yeah, there's background radiation everywhere. Earth's magnetic field keeps the worst of sun's and cosmic radiation away, but people on Earth are exposed to radiation constantly. Some of that is of course from sources on Earth, natural and man-made.

what about volcanos I heard somewere they spew out green house gases by by the ton? or astroids if we ever get some big enough they can cause some serious damage to the planet. I'm just saying there are a lot worse things then us out there. like our galaxy colliding with the andromeda galaxy.

post. count'em duox.

Not so much colliding, as merging into one bigger galaxy. There may be some fireworks when the two galaxies cores (that are unimaginably massive black holes) come together, though Well, no point in thinking about that. Even the Sun is long dead by the time that happens.

Actually, people across the world already have you beat on that.

http://www.ibtimes.com/indias-population-will-grow-while-chinas-will-begin-decline-2028-making-india-worlds-most-populous

A lot of people here are making claims with little or no evidence to back it up. I have also seen misinformation being disseminated here.

This is painful to see, as somebody studying Earth Sciences at a degree level. Please people, if you make a claim, at least make a modicum of effort to verify whether your claim is true. News sites are not good enough to do this, since they will frequently sensationalize the story and selectively omit important information to draw in viewers and generate page traffic.

I understand that most people here will not have access to scholarly sources, but at least use Google to see whether what you're about to say is broadly correct.

It's a conspiracy!

Just kidding, but maybe you could point those out? Unless you don't feel like finger pointing, which I'd understand.

http://guymcpherson.com/2013/01/climate-change-summary-and-update/ that Shoestring posted seems very juicy with sources and detailed info, and I'm finding it quite an interesting read. Would you commend it on its validity, or does it err on the side of fearmongering?

Guy McPherson is professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. I would consider his views to have considerably greater validity than some anonymous poster on a games forum who "is studying earth sciences at degree level". No offence to MungoO. I'm sure he understands.

What is his degree in? I saw too many doomsday speeches in the 70's about nuclear energy with keynote speakers Dr. This and Dr. That (with degrees in English Literature and Women's Studies).

I found the article very predictable- "Our view of climate change is a proven fact, and anyone who doesn't agree with us is an idiot". Well, I guess I'm an idiot.

And it's the usual ad hominens from uncle fuzzy when it comes to any discussion on this subject. Try following the link to his university website to find out his qualifications. Clue: it's under "About".

I read half the article. I'm not interested in spending any more time on it. You're the one that threw out his position as "proof" of his validity, so you can post his full qualifications or we can just ignore him as another quack.

Anyone who is interested can easily find his qualifications in a link from his site. Others plainly won't be bothered. I'll leave them to their own devices.

So could you please enlighten us with some facts please?

What does your scholarly database have for us?

I see what you did there..

Well, this was annoying.

Hey, guys, guys. You′re wrong. No, I′m not going to tell you how you′re wrong. I, a person educated in these matters-- unlike you lot-- just wanted to tell you you′re wrong. Did you get that? You′re wrong. Well, bye now. P.S. You′re wrong. P.P.S. Wrong. P.P.P.S. I′m educated and you′re wrong.

Generally, who is saying what shouldn't matter at all. I could give two [censored] about a professor's opinions. I have corrected them enough times to KNOW they are highly fallible and subject to bias. Albeit they correct me far more often than I correct them lol.

Don't look at who says something, look at what is being said and in what context the 'facts' are being presented.

I haven't looked at the article and I don't intend to. However, one thing I notice constantly, is type on errors happening all the time. Someone believing something is right when it is wrong just because someone who should know better makes a false/faulty claim.