<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Dalek solution to climate change</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.appropedia.org/2009/03/07/the-dalek-solution-to-climate-change/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.appropedia.org/2009/03/07/the-dalek-solution-to-climate-change/</link>
	<description>sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 08:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chriswaterguy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.appropedia.org/2009/03/07/the-dalek-solution-to-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1628</link>
		<dc:creator>Chriswaterguy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:42:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.appropedia.org/?p=491#comment-1628</guid>
		<description>If you follow the link I gave, there does seem to be a fringe advocating killing people off. Of course it&#039;s unfair of me to highlight the looniest fringe, but there is a point to it: when we talk about the immediate challenges we face, in coming years rather than decades, the only way to get significant population cuts would be by people dying.

Total consumption is the sum of the consumption of each person - we can&#039;t ignore either factor. In the long term, reductions in the birth rate will make a big difference. But what about now?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you follow the link I gave, there does seem to be a fringe advocating killing people off. Of course it's unfair of me to highlight the looniest fringe, but there is a point to it: when we talk about the immediate challenges we face, in coming years rather than decades, the only way to get significant population cuts would be by people dying.</p>
<p>Total consumption is the sum of the consumption of each person - we can't ignore either factor. In the long term, reductions in the birth rate will make a big difference. But what about now?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete Murphy</title>
		<link>http://blogs.appropedia.org/2009/03/07/the-dalek-solution-to-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1580</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete Murphy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:16:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.appropedia.org/?p=491#comment-1580</guid>
		<description>No one advocates killing people off.  A relatively small reduction in the birth rate could accomplish a dramatic reduction in population in a relatively short period of time - relative to human history, that is, which means that within a century or two, dramatic results could be achieved.  

Environmentalists who believe that the planet can be saved by cuts in consumption while ignoring population growth don&#039;t realize it, but they too are advocating for a reduced population, but through the opposite approach - increasing the death rate.  Failing to recognize that per capita consumption and per capita employment are directly proportional, their &quot;solution&quot; would drive unemployment (and thus poverty) through the roof in a world that is already desperately underemployed.  

The only real solution to the problems of environmental degradation and resource depletion that would permit all people to enjoy a high standard of living is to strive for a reduced population through reductions in the birth rate.  

Pete Murphy
Author, &quot;Five Short Blasts&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No one advocates killing people off.  A relatively small reduction in the birth rate could accomplish a dramatic reduction in population in a relatively short period of time - relative to human history, that is, which means that within a century or two, dramatic results could be achieved.  </p>
<p>Environmentalists who believe that the planet can be saved by cuts in consumption while ignoring population growth don't realize it, but they too are advocating for a reduced population, but through the opposite approach - increasing the death rate.  Failing to recognize that per capita consumption and per capita employment are directly proportional, their "solution" would drive unemployment (and thus poverty) through the roof in a world that is already desperately underemployed.  </p>
<p>The only real solution to the problems of environmental degradation and resource depletion that would permit all people to enjoy a high standard of living is to strive for a reduced population through reductions in the birth rate.  </p>
<p>Pete Murphy<br />
Author, "Five Short Blasts"</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

