Because if this is the only option, why should people stop using it?
This is software that, if works as advertized, helps prevent you from being arrested by an authoritarian regime. So if it does not work as advertized, the potential consequences include being arrested by an authoritarian regime.
Given this, if you don't understand why the fact that expert review has shown that it does not work as advertized, implies you should stop using the software, please ask your parents, or the doctors at the institute where they're keeping you.
EFF says: "Stop using this program you've never heard of to circumvent national firewalls.
Haystack and its author Austin Heap have been getting a lot of press lately, with stories in Newsweek, The Guardian, and the Washington Post among other venues. If you're concerned with national firewalls, you've heard of it.
A DVD is a tangible good, no different than a book.
Have they implemented a region scheme for books? Can a book be rendered illegible by a scratch? Is there some scheme in place to prevent you from quoting an except from a book verbatim?
but most people want to leave something for their heirs
Which does not imply that they have a right to have the government use force to prevent copying in order to enrich their heirs.
I'd like my long-dead grandparents' past employers to continue to pay me for the work they did, but that doesn't mean I have a right to collect.
The Constitution empower Congress to secure right to work to authors. Not to author's heirs, employers, assignees, et cetera. The idea that someone deserves to get paid because one of their ancestors did something useful does not bear close scrutiny. (Of course, looking closely at that idea means that we start to question the concept of inheritance in general, which is not something the ruling classes will abide for long.)
Let us remember that Doyle was a dupe of Spiritualism and believed in the physical existence of fairies. His stories and characters are probably not a good example.
Sciences would be mostly the domain of private corporations...
There are no corporations in an anarchy -- no government to issue corporate charters.
...individuals with greater freedom due to the elimination of various trade barriers because of this which means that more science can be observed and discovered with practical applications.
The is gibberish. Are you claiming that restrictions on trade -- say, banning the sale of tainted meat -- somehow hold back scientific progress?
I sat down and did the math a couple of years ago and concluded that I would never break even.
You did the math wrong.
First, you have the problem of power factor, which means that with fluorescent bulbs, you're often drawing a lot more power than you think, it just isn't getting metered that way
No, you don't -- and you're contradicting yourself. If there was more power being drawn, but somehow it wasn't being metered, then it wouldn't effect your break-even, you'd be getting the extra power for free. But in fact, there is no extra power. Watts are watts; don't be confused that they don't always equal volt-amps in non-DC circuits.
you have the spectrum of light, which because it is balanced towards the blue end and because it isn't a continuous spectrum
And that's before you add in things like the increase in depression, suicides, and cancer linked with fluorescent lighting.
Comparing the standard industrial flickering "cool-white" fluorescent lighting with CFLs is ridiculous. Indeed, the first page you link to mentions a study by Ott comparing "full-spectrum, radiation-shielded fluorescent light fixtures" with the usual white tubes. If you read the page you linked to, you'd see it's not fluorescent lighting versus incandescent that the problem.
No. Libraries paid the author when they bought their hardcover copy.
So what? I'm still using the product of the author's labor without compensating them -- the fact the someone else threw a few bucks their ways doesn't change that.
is that what we really want? All the authors to leave the profession and get jobs at a factory, because they no longer earn any money from their books (which everyone takes for free)? I hope not.
As a budding author, I also hope not. (If I self-publish, my book will be available under a Creative Commons license; but I think the best way to get it out to as many people as possible is still the traditional publishing route, so I expect I'll be limited in what I can negotiate there.) But I repeat: wanting authors to be paid does not imply that the best way to accomplish this is to have the government create an artificial monopoly on the making of copies.
For years I've been advocating the songwriter model: I can sing a Bob Dylan tune in the shower, or at a party with friends, and not pay anything; but if I play it at the bar to bring in customers, or record a cover version and sell the CD, I owe Bob a cut of the money I make. While the implementation with BMI and ASCAP has problems, I think the basic idea is sound. Not a copy-right that restricts sharing, but a royalty-right on for-profit use.
Ironically enough, The Gunslinger was written when King WAS a high school student!:)
Aha! Score one for my assessment skills.:-)
That being said, I think King would even agree with your assessment, which is why he re-wrote a huge chunk of that book and re-releasing it a few years ago.
Interesting. I may give it a second chance, then. Thanks for the information.
You're not a King fan until you've read The Dark Tower series. It's his masterpiece.
Years ago, around the time The Waste Lands came out, I kept hearing what a masterpiece this series was. I'd only read one short story by King (Survivor Type), found it amazing (ghastly, but amazing), so I picked up The Gunslinger.
I thought it read like something written by a high school student, and it turned me off to King's work.
Copying is not theft, because the author is my personal slave...
Except that no one is enslaving any authors. Enslavement requires force -- if the "slave" is free to leave without threat of force, he or she is not a slave. No force is being applied at all if I (hypothetically) make a copy of a book. Force is only being applied if the author, or the government on behalf of the author, applies force to prevent me from making a copy. If anything, copyright is closer to slavery than is unauthorized copying, though it's a stupid and useless comparison in either case.
Copying is not theft because theft deprives someone of the use of the stolen thing; copying a book does not deprive anyone else of the use of that book.
Theft of another human being's labor, or the product of that labor (cotton, books), without compensating them is the very definition of slavery.
If you believe that using the product of another person's labor without compensating them is "theft" and "the very definition of slavery", then you must be against libraries in the first place -- or any other loan of a book. You must think the world that RMS outlines is a utopia, then. Indeed, you must think that everyone who's ever heard or read one of my poems, or heard one of my songs, owes me money. Hell, according to that reasoning you owe me money for reading this post -- it's a product of my labor, after all. You can pay me here.
Or, more likely, you haven't thought the issue through in any sensible way. Comparing making a copy to holding slaves is kind of a dead giveaway about that.
"It is good that authors of quality work are compensated" does not imply "the best way to see that authors of quality work are compensated is to use government force to create an artificial monopoly on the making of copies," nor does it imply "All persons viewing a work should be forced to pay a tithe to that work's creator."
It's the same thing as a library except you can't steal the book.
One cannot "steal" an downloaded e-book. One can only make unauthorized copies of it.
Copying is not theft.
When I borrow a book from my local wonderful public library, if I don't return it, they can't lend it to someone else. When I "borrow" an e-book from somewhere, if I don't surrender access to it...what happens? Nothing.
So, your point is that law enforcement should never have the option to physically stop someone in the middle of a crime? Should not be able to physically restrain someone who is violent?
No one in this thread has made such a claim.
My personal take is that LEOs have no more and no less right to use physical force to defend themselves or others, than any other citizen does.
However, it is often overlooked that making something "illegal" means pointing guns at people who do it. If you asked a bunch of people "should the government point guns at people who smoke cannabis, have sex for money, or make unauthorized copies of music files?", I suspect that you'd get a different response than if you asked "should smoking cannabis, having sex for money, or making unauthorized copies of music files be criminal activities?" -- even though the later implies the former.
Nowhere does it say the policemen were armed (what for anyway).
The power of the police comes from the threat of force. There are few nations where police are not typically armed, and even there the subtext is, "If you don't do what we want, we come back with guns."
It was still a territory under US jurisdiction and the naval base that was attacked was a US military asset and the people killed were US citizens.
When you've broken into someone's house to rob them, you don't have a lot of ethical high ground to complain when someone else who has broken into the same house starts a fight with you.
The Pacific theater of WWII was a straight-up fight for territory between two colonial powers. Our version of colonialism might have been somewhat less brutal than that of the Japanese )though you ought to read about atrocities committed during the Philippine-American War before you decide about that); but this was not a conflict about high ideals.
If you believe Islam is the religion of peace, then you are a deluded fool.
I have not called any religion "the religion of peace". Any of the large religions is much too diverse to make any such statement. If you think that all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, Hindus, Pagans, Taoists, whatever, are or are not peaceful, then you only reveal more of your own ignorance.
Rumi was Muslim, but so is Bin Laden. Martin Luther King was Christian, but so is the Ku Klux Klan.
As far as rewriting history, it is almost laughable when someone tries to make a case for the founders not being christians.
Many of them were Deists -- Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington, at the least. Read Paine's The Age of Reason and then try to argue that he was a Christian. But the question was not "Were the founders Christian?" ?(some were), or "Are a majority of Americans Christian?" (sure), but "Was the U.S. founded as a Christian nation?" And the answer to that is no. Again, that fact is clearly stated in the Constitution and in the Treaty of Tripoli.
I can explain. Except for a few very small nations, none of your examples work.
You haven't "explained" anything, you've backpedaled. If Christianity and the West had abandoned state support for religion, there would be not states with Christianity as their official religion. But there are. Ergo, you're just wrong. The fact that such support does not include locking up those who follow other religions, does not change that; it's still an state establishment of religion.
I don't know any Buddhists who would point a gun at anyone. If they do, they are not Buddhists. The same applies to Christians.
Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Many people who call themselves Buddhists and Christians have indeed pointed guns at others, often at the urging of religious leaders. If you get to say that they aren't "real" Buddhists and Christians, then Muslims get to say that violent extremists aren't "real" Muslims. That does not alter the fact of people who call themselves Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians and who also commit violence.
I feel so much better. I guess I can ignore the Koran which espouses that Islam will conquer the world and that it is the duty of every muslim to spread Islam.
As much as you can ignore the Biblical passages that command you to kill followers of other religions (Exodus 22:18), kill women who have pre-marital sex (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), kill people who work on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and to sell your extra possessions to arm yourself (Luke 22:36).
And are you pretending that Christians don't believe that it is their duty to bring the world into their religion? "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20.
There are 2 different groups : Creatures, and Creator. If someone created God, then he's no more a creator.
Nonsense. There's no logical reason why those sets don't intersect. If we create an AI, and that AI creates a poem or a piece of music, that AI is both creator and created. If we create an AI, and we posit that we were created by some deity, then we are both creator and created.
I can certainly imagine a case in which Uber-God creates God, and God creates our Universe. And Uber-Uber-God created Uber-God, and Uber-Uber-Uber-God created Uber-Uber-God; it's (Uber)^n-Gods all the way down, for n >= 0, and each is both creator and created.
And 0 is just a convention for our Universe, with nothing special about it; God creates Under-God, who creates Under-Under-God, et cetera. In this picture, maybe we'll eventually evolve into Under-God, and create our own little Cosmos. This dovetails nicely with the idea that we're living in a computer simulation; when we create our own synthetic universe in cyberspace, we become Under-God. Meanwhile, God, the guy who programmed the simulation in which we live, is actually living in a simulation programmed by Uber-God, and so on up the line...
It's a lot simpler to posit that rather than (Uber)^n-Gods, we have some physical process, some cyclical process or multiverse. There is, for example, the idea that our Universe is a black hole in some other universe, and each black hole in our Universe forms a new Universe; it's black holes all the way down. I don't know nearly enough physics to assess this idea, but it illustrates the class of theories I'm talking about.
Define groups you work on then ask real questions.
Sorry, but you don't get to put the idea "God" in a box and say, "By definition, you can't ask 'real questions' about anything in this box!"
Note that Hawking was, most likely, talking about the galaxies, suns, planets, etc. when he said that God wasn't needed to make it happen.
No. RTFA. He's specifically talking about the Big Bang. Hell, RTFS, it's right there: "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Now, according to TFA,
Hawking says the first blow to Newton's belief that the universe could not have arisen from chaos was the observation in 1992 of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun. "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions - the single sun, the lucky combination of Earth-sun distance and solar mass - far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.
So if he was only picking up on the idea that anthropocentrism might be a dumb idea in 1992, it leads one to question his thinking on the issue in general.
The west, and christianity, turned away from state sponsored religion a long time ago. However, atheists and muslims have in common that they want the state they live in to revolve around their own doctrines.
I'd be inclined to belief that you're trolling, except that a sad number of my fellow Americans do in fact believe such nonsense.
Every American atheist and Muslim that I know wants the nation they live in to be free from government establishment of or restriction on religion. Do you actually know any atheists or Muslims?
There are Christians, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc., who support freedom; and there are Christians, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc., who would gladly have teh state point guns around to have their way.
Who thinks it's responsible to have 19 children? Everybody mocked that couple.
No, not everyone. Look at the positive coverage in the Delta Mirror, er, I mean People. And see the comments here. A significant fraction of the population thinks it's fine to spawn as many rugrats as you can before your uterus falls out.
If the government can restrict how many children you can have, then it can also do things like restrict who you marry--bye bye, gay marriage.
It's possible for public policy to encourage you to have more or fewer children without an actual restriction. Right now each child you have is a tax deduction; if you got no deduction for a third child (maybe with an exception for multiple births, not fair to treat twins differently), people would have incentive to keep the baby production at a sensible level.
The best way to bring the birthrate down, though, is to improve the economic and legal status of women throughout the world.
You may think think climate change is something to be "deeply worried" about, but it's actually a controversial and debatable topic with contradictory evidence.
No more so than the link between tobacco smoking and cancer. Look, the planet is warming up; human activity is at least partially responsible; and no, to answer the next argument already being advanced by the oil industry and its shills, this is not going to be beneficial to civilization. You can accept these facts, or you can disqualify yourself from serious discussions.
Slashdot Mirror
This is software that, if works as advertized, helps prevent you from being arrested by an authoritarian regime. So if it does not work as advertized, the potential consequences include being arrested by an authoritarian regime.
Given this, if you don't understand why the fact that expert review has shown that it does not work as advertized, implies you should stop using the software, please ask your parents, or the doctors at the institute where they're keeping you.
Haystack and its author Austin Heap have been getting a lot of press lately, with stories in Newsweek, The Guardian, and the Washington Post among other venues. If you're concerned with national firewalls, you've heard of it.
Have they implemented a region scheme for books? Can a book be rendered illegible by a scratch? Is there some scheme in place to prevent you from quoting an except from a book verbatim?
Which does not imply that they have a right to have the government use force to prevent copying in order to enrich their heirs.
I'd like my long-dead grandparents' past employers to continue to pay me for the work they did, but that doesn't mean I have a right to collect.
The Constitution empower Congress to secure right to work to authors. Not to author's heirs, employers, assignees, et cetera. The idea that someone deserves to get paid because one of their ancestors did something useful does not bear close scrutiny. (Of course, looking closely at that idea means that we start to question the concept of inheritance in general, which is not something the ruling classes will abide for long.)
Let us remember that Doyle was a dupe of Spiritualism and believed in the physical existence of fairies. His stories and characters are probably not a good example.
There are no corporations in an anarchy -- no government to issue corporate charters.
The is gibberish. Are you claiming that restrictions on trade -- say, banning the sale of tainted meat -- somehow hold back scientific progress?
You did the math wrong.
No, you don't -- and you're contradicting yourself. If there was more power being drawn, but somehow it wasn't being metered, then it wouldn't effect your break-even, you'd be getting the extra power for free. But in fact, there is no extra power. Watts are watts; don't be confused that they don't always equal volt-amps in non-DC circuits.
Full spectrum CFLs are inexpensively available.
Comparing the standard industrial flickering "cool-white" fluorescent lighting with CFLs is ridiculous. Indeed, the first page you link to mentions a study by Ott comparing "full-spectrum, radiation-shielded fluorescent light fixtures" with the usual white tubes. If you read the page you linked to, you'd see it's not fluorescent lighting versus incandescent that the problem.
As for the second link, the study in question found that women in neighborhoods with lots of night-time illumination are more likely to get breast cancer. (Not surprisingly, the ironically-named Reason distorts the findings.) Linking that to fluorescent lighting rather than general interference with circadian rhythms, is speculative at best.
So what? I'm still using the product of the author's labor without compensating them -- the fact the someone else threw a few bucks their ways doesn't change that.
As a budding author, I also hope not. (If I self-publish, my book will be available under a Creative Commons license; but I think the best way to get it out to as many people as possible is still the traditional publishing route, so I expect I'll be limited in what I can negotiate there.) But I repeat: wanting authors to be paid does not imply that the best way to accomplish this is to have the government create an artificial monopoly on the making of copies.
For years I've been advocating the songwriter model: I can sing a Bob Dylan tune in the shower, or at a party with friends, and not pay anything; but if I play it at the bar to bring in customers, or record a cover version and sell the CD, I owe Bob a cut of the money I make. While the implementation with BMI and ASCAP has problems, I think the basic idea is sound. Not a copy-right that restricts sharing, but a royalty-right on for-profit use.
Aha! Score one for my assessment skills. :-)
Interesting. I may give it a second chance, then. Thanks for the information.
Years ago, around the time The Waste Lands came out, I kept hearing what a masterpiece this series was. I'd only read one short story by King (Survivor Type), found it amazing (ghastly, but amazing), so I picked up The Gunslinger.
I thought it read like something written by a high school student, and it turned me off to King's work.
No, not similarly at all.
Except that no one is enslaving any authors. Enslavement requires force -- if the "slave" is free to leave without threat of force, he or she is not a slave. No force is being applied at all if I (hypothetically) make a copy of a book. Force is only being applied if the author, or the government on behalf of the author, applies force to prevent me from making a copy. If anything, copyright is closer to slavery than is unauthorized copying, though it's a stupid and useless comparison in either case.
Copying is not theft because theft deprives someone of the use of the stolen thing; copying a book does not deprive anyone else of the use of that book.
If you believe that using the product of another person's labor without compensating them is "theft" and "the very definition of slavery", then you must be against libraries in the first place -- or any other loan of a book. You must think the world that RMS outlines is a utopia, then. Indeed, you must think that everyone who's ever heard or read one of my poems, or heard one of my songs, owes me money. Hell, according to that reasoning you owe me money for reading this post -- it's a product of my labor, after all. You can pay me here.
Or, more likely, you haven't thought the issue through in any sensible way. Comparing making a copy to holding slaves is kind of a dead giveaway about that.
"It is good that authors of quality work are compensated" does not imply "the best way to see that authors of quality work are compensated is to use government force to create an artificial monopoly on the making of copies," nor does it imply "All persons viewing a work should be forced to pay a tithe to that work's creator."
One cannot "steal" an downloaded e-book. One can only make unauthorized copies of it.
Copying is not theft.
When I borrow a book from my local wonderful public library, if I don't return it, they can't lend it to someone else. When I "borrow" an e-book from somewhere, if I don't surrender access to it...what happens? Nothing.
So, no, this is nothing at all like a library.
What this is, is an attempt to push us closer to a "pay-per-view" model of content. Read RMS's The Right to Read if you want to see the future that DRM pushers have in mind for us. (In fact, I'll plug RMS's whole book, Free Software, Free Society .)
No one in this thread has made such a claim.
My personal take is that LEOs have no more and no less right to use physical force to defend themselves or others, than any other citizen does.
I said nothing about whether it was good or bad.
However, it is often overlooked that making something "illegal" means pointing guns at people who do it. If you asked a bunch of people "should the government point guns at people who smoke cannabis, have sex for money, or make unauthorized copies of music files?", I suspect that you'd get a different response than if you asked "should smoking cannabis, having sex for money, or making unauthorized copies of music files be criminal activities?" -- even though the later implies the former.
The power of the police comes from the threat of force. There are few nations where police are not typically armed, and even there the subtext is, "If you don't do what we want, we come back with guns."
When you've broken into someone's house to rob them, you don't have a lot of ethical high ground to complain when someone else who has broken into the same house starts a fight with you.
The Pacific theater of WWII was a straight-up fight for territory between two colonial powers. Our version of colonialism might have been somewhat less brutal than that of the Japanese )though you ought to read about atrocities committed during the Philippine-American War before you decide about that); but this was not a conflict about high ideals.
What's your beef with the World Health Organization?
I have not called any religion "the religion of peace". Any of the large religions is much too diverse to make any such statement. If you think that all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhist, Hindus, Pagans, Taoists, whatever, are or are not peaceful, then you only reveal more of your own ignorance.
Rumi was Muslim, but so is Bin Laden. Martin Luther King was Christian, but so is the Ku Klux Klan.
Many of them were Deists -- Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington, at the least. Read Paine's The Age of Reason and then try to argue that he was a Christian. But the question was not "Were the founders Christian?" ?(some were), or "Are a majority of Americans Christian?" (sure), but "Was the U.S. founded as a Christian nation?" And the answer to that is no. Again, that fact is clearly stated in the Constitution and in the Treaty of Tripoli.
An oil plume 100 feet wide and a mile long has been spotted spreading from the platform.
You haven't "explained" anything, you've backpedaled. If Christianity and the West had abandoned state support for religion, there would be not states with Christianity as their official religion. But there are. Ergo, you're just wrong. The fact that such support does not include locking up those who follow other religions, does not change that; it's still an state establishment of religion.
Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Many people who call themselves Buddhists and Christians have indeed pointed guns at others, often at the urging of religious leaders. If you get to say that they aren't "real" Buddhists and Christians, then Muslims get to say that violent extremists aren't "real" Muslims. That does not alter the fact of people who call themselves Buddhists, Muslims, and Christians and who also commit violence.
As much as you can ignore the Biblical passages that command you to kill followers of other religions (Exodus 22:18), kill women who have pre-marital sex (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), kill people who work on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and to sell your extra possessions to arm yourself (Luke 22:36).
And are you pretending that Christians don't believe that it is their duty to bring the world into their religion? "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." Matthew 28:19-20.
Nonsense. There's no logical reason why those sets don't intersect. If we create an AI, and that AI creates a poem or a piece of music, that AI is both creator and created. If we create an AI, and we posit that we were created by some deity, then we are both creator and created.
I can certainly imagine a case in which Uber-God creates God, and God creates our Universe. And Uber-Uber-God created Uber-God, and Uber-Uber-Uber-God created Uber-Uber-God; it's (Uber)^n-Gods all the way down, for n >= 0, and each is both creator and created.
And 0 is just a convention for our Universe, with nothing special about it; God creates Under-God, who creates Under-Under-God, et cetera. In this picture, maybe we'll eventually evolve into Under-God, and create our own little Cosmos. This dovetails nicely with the idea that we're living in a computer simulation; when we create our own synthetic universe in cyberspace, we become Under-God. Meanwhile, God, the guy who programmed the simulation in which we live, is actually living in a simulation programmed by Uber-God, and so on up the line...
It's a lot simpler to posit that rather than (Uber)^n-Gods, we have some physical process, some cyclical process or multiverse. There is, for example, the idea that our Universe is a black hole in some other universe, and each black hole in our Universe forms a new Universe; it's black holes all the way down. I don't know nearly enough physics to assess this idea, but it illustrates the class of theories I'm talking about.
Sorry, but you don't get to put the idea "God" in a box and say, "By definition, you can't ask 'real questions' about anything in this box!"
No. RTFA. He's specifically talking about the Big Bang. Hell, RTFS, it's right there: "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Now, according to TFA,
So if he was only picking up on the idea that anthropocentrism might be a dumb idea in 1992, it leads one to question his thinking on the issue in general.
I'd be inclined to belief that you're trolling, except that a sad number of my fellow Americans do in fact believe such nonsense.
If Christianity turned away from state sponsored religion a long time ago, perhaps you can explain why so many Western nations still have some form of Christianity as their official state religion, and why the Religious Right is trying to rewrite history to make the U.S. a "Christian nation", despite the very clear wording of the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli?
Every American atheist and Muslim that I know wants the nation they live in to be free from government establishment of or restriction on religion. Do you actually know any atheists or Muslims?
There are Christians, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc., who support freedom; and there are Christians, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc., who would gladly have teh state point guns around to have their way.
No, not everyone. Look at the positive coverage in the Delta Mirror, er, I mean People. And see the comments here. A significant fraction of the population thinks it's fine to spawn as many rugrats as you can before your uterus falls out.
It's possible for public policy to encourage you to have more or fewer children without an actual restriction. Right now each child you have is a tax deduction; if you got no deduction for a third child (maybe with an exception for multiple births, not fair to treat twins differently), people would have incentive to keep the baby production at a sensible level.
The best way to bring the birthrate down, though, is to improve the economic and legal status of women throughout the world.
No more so than the link between tobacco smoking and cancer. Look, the planet is warming up; human activity is at least partially responsible; and no, to answer the next argument already being advanced by the oil industry and its shills, this is not going to be beneficial to civilization. You can accept these facts, or you can disqualify yourself from serious discussions.