General Discussion

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)

11. We are not in a sustainable state.

Mon Jun 22, 2015, 11:19 AM

Jun 2015

Do you really not understand that population is one key drivers of human induced catastrophic climate change? That the current situation is not sustainable and its unsustainibility is getting worse?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What does abortion have to do with climate change? You’ll have to ask Pope Francis. [View all] PeaceNikki Jun 2015 OP

That's some pretzel logic. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2015 #1

Exactly. I'm surprised he didn't connect gay marriage to climate change. PeaceNikki Jun 2015 #2

And population growth is one of the things hifiguy Jun 2015 #37

His critiques of capitalism are identical to his predecessor Lordquinton Jun 2015 #42

A sustainable human population requires Warren Stupidity Jun 2015 #3

It's the LARGEST single threat to the environment. PeaceNikki Jun 2015 #4

We're sustaining 7+ billion people now The2ndWheel Jun 2015 #9

A 'good goal'? No, it's a *necessary* goal for the environment, poverty reduction and autonomy. PeaceNikki Jun 2015 #10

Which are all different from it being required for a sustainable population The2ndWheel Jun 2015 #12

But we're not 'doing so well'. PeaceNikki Jun 2015 #13

At that one thing, we very much are The2ndWheel Jun 2015 #17

We're not doing well with the environment. PeaceNikki Jun 2015 #19

Which isn't what I was talking about The2ndWheel Jun 2015 #29

You keep trying to unlink population and the Warren Stupidity Jun 2015 #40

We are not in a sustainable state. Warren Stupidity Jun 2015 #11

Well aware that it's one of the drivers, yes The2ndWheel Jun 2015 #14

JFC, the point of this OP is that the leader of 1.2 billion people who claims want to help the PeaceNikki Jun 2015 #15

I didn't respond to the OP The2ndWheel Jun 2015 #25

Yes, it is. PeaceNikki Jun 2015 #26

Alright, so what's the objective number? The2ndWheel Jun 2015 #32

I don't claim to be a scientist, so let's refer to the research they've done: PeaceNikki Jun 2015 #33

It's Frank's bait and switch, he has liberals celebrating an anti choice Encyclical Bluenorthwest Jun 2015 #5

I so get what you are saying Blue, I feel the same way about corporatists. raouldukelives Jun 2015 #6

Can you elaborate on how EXACTLY "Francis is a huge step forward from the last"? PeaceNikki Jun 2015 #8

Not *all* liberals, just those who buy into "Fantasy Francis" PeaceNikki Jun 2015 #7

Well, the pro-life movement did not start out as an anti-abortion mmonk Jun 2015 #16

Clear as mud. PeaceNikki Jun 2015 #18

Only if you can't read or follow history. mmonk Jun 2015 #20

(insert totally shitty statement here) PeaceNikki Jun 2015 #21

Not going to fight you over abortion since I agree with you in that regard. mmonk Jun 2015 #24

Just trying to follow his logic in his wording. mmonk Jun 2015 #22

Talk about a disconnect... joeybee12 Jun 2015 #23

Unless you are saying you can't be pro-life and pro-pollution since pollution mmonk Jun 2015 #27

Linking one to the other with the religious right is a good tactic. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2015 #28

just when I thought there was something positive to say about pope photo op niyad Jun 2015 #30

Fortunately, the media doesn't analyze things, so you get another week AtheistCrusader Jun 2015 #35

I think I will pass. niyad Jun 2015 #41

Ugh. KamaAina Jun 2015 #31

Thank you for posting this. Dead on target. AtheistCrusader Jun 2015 #34

Not sure.... AlbertCat Jun 2015 #36

Actually I understand itcfish Jun 2015 #38

Bacteria is 'life'. PeaceNikki Jun 2015 #39