Global warming is more important than poverty

Getting more educated people in the world seems like a pretty good start to tackling global warming. With enough eyes, all bugs become shallow. Of course, this is assuming we combat poverty by educating and employing.

I'm sorry, but I if find this to be a really cynical claim. 4500 children are dying _each_day_ because of contaminated water.

For the projected cost of Kyoto in just the year 2010, the biggest health problem facing mankind could be fixed. We could provide clean drinking water and sanitation fo every person on the world. Permanently.

Worrying about deaths from "global warming" is, at best, a case of misplaced priorities.

http://www.acton.org/impact/
http://www.acton.org/pdf/impact/globalwarming.pdf

Deaths are already there... Just wondering why people die in Africa? They are usually dehydrated much faster... Global warming affects everyone, thousands of different kinds of animals are becoming extinct all the time. It affects *EVERYONE*, you understand that? Not just the children who will day and not have to suffer after their death.

They're both vital issues. I can't say one is more important than the other. Letting people die today to save people tomorrow is only okay if you can't save people today. Letting people die tomorrow to save people today is only okay if you can't save people tomorrow.

You have to fix both. And most children who die right now won't give a damn that you made the world better in a few years.

Rachel wrote, "Letting people die today to save people tomorrow is only okay if you can't save people today."

The critical issue here is carrying capacity.  And humanity has already gone way past it.  So saving people today only ensures that the boat (civilization) will sink.

Perpetuating overpopulation will lead to a greater number who suffer in the future.  It's a paradox that flies in the face of being a do-gooder.  Efforts to "make it better" by saving people only make the situation worse.

But isn't it inhumane to let people die?  Yes.  Too many people has diminished the value of human life.

Not saving people today because it will cause natural disasters isn't helpful. We already have natural disasters. The problem with overpopulation is that it will cause poverty, famine, plague, etc. Not solving current famine, plague, poverty to prevent future ones just doesn't help.

What we need to do is learn to use our resources efficiently, and encourage decreasing population growth. Fortunately, it works well together. Wealthier, more educated people are more likely to refrain from having children or to have fewer children or to delay having children until they are older.

Poverty is one of the major factors in overpopulation. Work on both. Encourage wealth, education, and birth control, and it'll help both causes.

well said, knappster. unfortunately. it is a terrible consequence either way.

poverty seems to be a humanist concern. what about the living beings which aren't human?

Exactly, Paco.

Poverty is a social issue.
Global warming is a physical issue.

Which one of these are we, as the human society causing? Both. Poverty is caused indirectly, while global warming is. This is because poverty is a social status between rich people and poor people. Global warming is a physical process, which is directly caused by us and shows problems directly.

If anyone is willing to spend extra money on stopping poverty, the money will be wasted as we will be suffocating.

Just to add, as knapster stated - the problem is that people are born all the time. Highest overpopulation comes from the less economically developed countries.

So those who disagree - you are basically saying that you will help these poor people to survive. Ok, let's do that, shall we?
1. We give the money to a population in africa
2. This population is not so poor anymore, and therefore pro-creation happens - children are born.
3. Children are born, and we will have no more money to donate to them - so now you have 20 people instead of 6 people who are going to be suffering.
4. If you continue to donate, the population will grow and grow, until there is not enough money at all, and they will be even more suffering.

But why not simply stop the *continuos* suffering by letting them live in their ways? This won't be the continuos suffering anymore, and therefore you won't have to care about issues that are worthless to think about while there are more important ones.

Wealth causes population decrease, not increase. It depends how you donate. Donate some food today, and sure that doesn't do much good. Create a clean water supply, and that does. Educate the populace, and that helps. Get the country up to the standard of living in the US, England, Germany, etc. and the population will increase much more slowly.

Wealthy nations have fewer people. Not because they care more about overpopulation, but because being in a poor nation makes a child an asset. Being in a wealthy nation makes a child an expense. Children should be expenses, not benefits. And that way only people who really want them will have them.

Less population, fewer miserable children, better world all around.

Rachel wrote, "Not saving people today because it will cause natural disasters isn't helpful."

Isn't it helpful to reduce the amount of human suffering?  Until fertility rates fall dramatically, people saved today will create even more people who suffer and die in the future.  Reducing fertility through affluence may have been an appropriate strategy several decades ago, but now there's not enough time left.

As drakazz suggested, the fundamental issue here is one of physical limits.  The modern worldview persists in claiming that technology or social reform can overcome limits, but there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Read about Peak Oil or toxic overload or the death of the oceans.

"Solving famine and poverty," as Rachel directs, is an elusive and ultimately counterproductive quest.  As I already pointed out, humanity has already shot way past the physical carrying capacity of the planet.  And that was with plentiful energy, a stable climate, and abundant mineral resources, fresh water, and fertile topsoil.

But all of that is becoming scarce.  No amount of efficiency improvements or wealth redistribution is going to make a significant dent in the problem – way too many people.

Jyte needs to allow contributors to preview their comments for errors.

Here's that Peak Oil reference.

Well, we do need to use our resources to create off-planet habitats. Basically, you're saying it's an argument of time. Do we have time to solve poverty and use that as a way to fix the planet. And I'd say, nobody knows, but since we're not really fixing the planet anyway it's a good idea.

But really, I still say they are both vitally important and there is no ethical way we can not be working on both. As such, I think everything that is vital and mandatory is equal.

Rachel: instead of spending money on poverty, we could be reducing the number of sufferers AND the the global warming effect. One is more important than the other!

Rachel, I appreciate your compassion, but at least three years ago I concluded that social and ecological problems have way too much momentum to be solved in time.  So I joined a friend in creating "Opt Out America" – which has now been rolled into my web site.

We used the Titanic as the metaphor for the modern industrial world.  Just as that bloated vessel had too much momentum to avoid the icebergs, humanity has too much momentum to avoid catastrophe – especially with regard to population and a deeply ingrained (possibly genetic) proclivity for short-term gain.

Going beyond the scope of the original claim, I say that neither poverty nor global warming will be fixed.  I'm sorry to say that the best use of your time is to prepare yourself and those you love for some hard times.  That's why I recommend opting out.

Finally, the idea of creating off-planet habitats is completely unrealistic for a variety of reasons – especially with regard to energy and human psychology.  Would you be able to live in a bubble on Mars?  Of course not.  And neither would anyone else.

Why do you say I couldn't? I don't think it'd be right for everyone, but depending on the bubble - it could work just fine.

People manage in Antarctica for long periods of time, despite the fact that they can't go outside. It's a bubble, and people do okay.

The problem is we don't know what people need or enough psychology to know what problems to expect. What affect does the magnetic field of the Earth have on people? What affect would another planet have? But we need to find out. Not knowing isn't reason enough to say it is impossible.

Awsome, knappster!
Very good idea, I gotta say!

global warming will cause more poverty, 100 million refugees, we could barely handle 100 thousand refugees!

Poor people, or poor people on the bottom of the ocean?

Global warming can potentially make humans extinct.

Saving x human lives today can't compare to saving all human lives today plus all the ones on the future.