Dot, Don't confer respect to me so quickly: Cynthia is correct, indeed my figures on oxygen levels were wrong. Bad sources, I should have learned by now to only trust academic journals. However, we are indeed reducing the oxygen levels. Although the timeline is not correct, the effects are about right, except for death occuring at much higher levels. Our atmospheric oxygen is around 21~20% depending on where you live, and when it drops to 19% you will have noticable health and brainpower effects. At 14% judgement is impaired. At 10% you can no longer perform any activities requiring exertion. So far we've dropped the global levels by 0.3%. Additionally, released carbon pollution will stay in the atmosphere for at least 100 years, and will take 10,000 years to diminish, according to my Chemistry professor.
I still enjoy the idea that we must reduce the population growth in order to avert catastrophy. It takes a couple to have at least two children just to sustain the population. I hate the idea that we should limit the freedom of people to procreate, but there will always be the dregs of society. Perhaps there should be tax incentives for people to NOT have more than 2 children, instead of bribes for having more. I highly respect womens' sovereignty over their bodies, but not to the extent where it will impugn upon the earthly ecosystems that provide the opportunity for such respect to exist. What would you suggest? Has China got it right? Regards, Steve _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
