Imploding Turtle wrote:If you're just going to make **** up then what's the point of even discussing things with you?

Apart from adding, presumably pensioners, I repeated what you wrote. If I'm wrong who are these utopians living the life, that require more and more children to fund it?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Colburn's idea was already pretty silly, but you just decided to drive that silly-mobile right off the cliff of moronic, didn't you?


This idea would destroy the economy, unless you're willing to welcome in unlimited numbers of immigrants to pay the taxes required to fund the healthcare and pensions of the elderly.

You ok with immigrants coming here to do the jobs we're too old to do?

You call him moronic. I dont agree with him, but at least he has a grasp of the problem.
If a couples 2 children, and their children cannot sustain benefits, then we need to redo the maths of how much tax we pay, and how much benefits we pay. To knock ever more children out will eventually lead to armageddon. Just because you might not witness it, doesn't mean it isnt coming.

I read a fantastic quote attributed to an American Indian
WE DONT INHERIT THE PLANET FROM OUR PARENTS, WE BORROW IT FROM OUR CHILDREN.
We, as a species, are sucking the life out of this planet. In the wild natural selection takes place, and animals adapt to their surroundings. We stopped doing that years ago. We want more, and the more we get, the more we want. The resources of this planet aren't a bottomless pit. There is enough there for mankind to live comfortably, but only if we wake up and deal with the population explosion that has taken place over the last 70 years.

Colburn_Claret wrote:Apart from adding, presumably pensioners, I repeated what you wrote. If I'm wrong who are these utopians living the life, that require more and more children to fund it?

You didn't come ******* close to repeating what i said.

I said that cutting the rate of births in this country would have harmful effects on our ageing society. You said that i said that people should have as many kids as possible.

do you see the ******* difference?

Colburn_Claret wrote:You call him moronic. I dont agree with him, but at least he has a grasp of the problem.
If a couples 2 children, and their children cannot sustain benefits, then we need to redo the maths of how much tax we pay, and how much benefits we pay. To knock ever more children out will eventually lead to armageddon. Just because you might not witness it, doesn't mean it isnt coming.

I read a fantastic quote attributed to an American Indian
WE DONT INHERIT THE PLANET FROM OUR PARENTS, WE BORROW IT FROM OUR CHILDREN.
We, as a species, are sucking the life out of this planet. In the wild natural selection takes place, and animals adapt to their surroundings. We stopped doing that years ago. We want more, and the more we get, the more we want. The resources of this planet aren't a bottomless pit. There is enough there for mankind to live comfortably, but only if we wake up and deal with the population explosion that has taken place over the last 70 years.

Again, you're just making **** up.

I didn't call him moronic, i called his idea moronic.

I didn't say we don't need to rethink the way we pay taxes, i didn't deny the problem of funding welfare. I said that it is ******* moronic to think that you can solve the problem by simply eliminating the welfare. Doing that creates other, bigger problems.

The population figure will reach an equilibrium when the life expectancy of the population stabilises. If we're going to continue to live in a capitalist society then that's just a fact of what is our future. The only major factor that is pushing population growth is improvements in healthcare. A few decades after the average human life expectancy stops growing then the global population will stop growing. There's no way to stop that without deliberately reducing the average human life expectancy, and that would be genocide, so obviously we're not going to do that. So why the **** are we talking about overpopulation as if discussing it will ever lead to a solution to the problem of climate change - it ******* won't.

About 130m people are being born every year, and 55m are dying each year. The planet can sustain billions more people than it has now, but not at the way we're currently living. You seem to want to talk about finding a way to make that 75 million people birth/death difference go away. I think maybe we can look at ways to phase carbon from our energy supplies, beef from our agriculture, reverse the damage done through deforestation, and all the other things we know we can already do but just don't want to because it's harder than killing off an extra 75 million people every year (or something).

Another good thread ruined.

By people talking?

Edit: Oh, that's right. I forgot. You don't like it when people get better informed. It "ruins" things.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Again, you're just making **** up.

I didn't call him moronic, i called his idea moronic.

I didn't say we don't need to rethink the way we pay taxes, i didn't deny the problem of funding welfare. I said that it is ******* moronic to think that you can solve the problem by simply eliminating the welfare. Doing that creates other, bigger problems.

The population figure will reach an equilibrium when the life expectancy of the population stabilises. If we're going to continue to live in a capitalist society then that's just a fact of what is our future. The only major factor that is pushing population growth is improvements in healthcare. A few decades after the average human life expectancy stops growing then the global population will stop growing. There's no way to stop that without deliberately reducing the average human life expectancy, and that would be genocide, so obviously we're not going to do that. So why the **** are we talking about overpopulation as if discussing it will ever lead to a solution to the problem of climate change - it ******* won't.

About 130m people are being born every year, and 55m are dying each year. The planet can sustain billions more people than it has now, but not at the way we're currently living. You seem to want to talk about finding a way to make that 75 million people birth/death difference go away. I think maybe we can look at ways to phase carbon from our energy supplies, beef from our agriculture, reverse the damage done through deforestation, and all the other things we know we can already do but just don't want to because it's harder than killing off an extra 75 million people every year (or something).

More people require more houses, requires getting rid of green field sites. More people means more cars. More houses means power stations burning even more trees to provide electricity. More cars means more carbon gasses, more roads, even bigger motorways. In what planet does a growing population not exacerbate all the problems of climate change.
No ones suggesting genocide, but if every couple decided to have only 2 children, and their children only had 2 children, the population wouldn't be rising by 75m a year, it would be flat lining. No need for more houses, just renovate the old. No need for more roads, just fill in the pot holes. No need for more power stations to provide extra electricity, just clean up the existing ones. No extra cars.............No increasing the water and air pollution causing climate change.
It's a no brainer. Very difficult to put in place, impossible to enforce, but if we showed our intent by cutting Child Benefits to first 2 children only, we are at least setting an example. To do nothing....well as I said there in lies Armegeddon.

Imploding Turtle wrote: You didn't come ******* close to repeating what i said.

I said that cutting the rate of births in this country would have harmful effects on our ageing society. You said that i said that people should have as many kids as possible.

do you see the ******* difference?

No

Colburn_Claret wrote:More people require more houses, requires getting rid of green field sites. More people means more cars. More houses means power stations burning even more trees to provide electricity. More cars means more carbon gasses, more roads, even bigger motorways. In what planet does a growing population not exacerbate all the problems of climate change.
No ones suggesting genocide, but if every couple decided to have only 2 children, and their children only had 2 children, the population wouldn't be rising by 75m a year, it would be flat lining. No need for more houses, just renovate the old. No need for more roads, just fill in the pot holes. No need for more power stations to provide extra electricity, just clean up the existing ones. No extra cars.............No increasing the water and air pollution causing climate change.
It's a no brainer. Very difficult to put in place, impossible to enforce, but if we showed our intent by cutting Child Benefits to first 2 children only, we are at least setting an example. To do nothing....well as I said there in lies Armegeddon.

More housing aside, none of those "needs" are true. We don't need more cars, and even if more cars are inevitable they don't have to contribute to atmospheric carbon levels.

More houses doesn't mean more power stations. We already have affordable technology for houses to be carbon neutral. Scotland, for example, in the last 6 months produced much win power to power all the houses in Scotland - twice. And we don't need to burn trees for power.

We don't need bigger motorways, we need better mass transit, and again the technology for that exists already - we just choose not to use it.

If we use all the current fuel types we currently use then yes, of course a growing population will make the problem worse. But there is no good reason whatsoever why we can't change the way we fuel our societies.

No ones suggesting genocide, but if every couple decided to have only 2 children, and their children only had 2 children, the population wouldn't be rising by 75m a year, it would be flat lining. No need for more houses, just renovate the old. No need for more roads, just fill in the pot holes. No need for more power stations to provide extra electricity, just clean up the existing ones. No extra cars.............No increasing the water and air pollution causing climate change.
It's a no brainer. Very difficult to put in place, impossible to enforce, but if we showed our intent by cutting Child Benefits to first 2 children only, we are at least setting an example. To do nothing....well as I said there in lies Armegeddon.

You have failed to understand what it the primary cause of the growing population. Replacement-level fertility is 2.1 children per woman globally. That's the rate required for each new generation to perfectly replace the previous one. But fertility is not the only thing driving population growth. Most of the population growth you see in the last century or so is because of improved healthcare. People live longer now than they used to. A child born today can expect to live an awful lot longer than a child born 100 years ago when the total fertility rate was far higher than it is right now.

So even if we went to replacement-level fertility globally, the only way to prevent increased overpopulation would be to take some deliberate actions to restrict improvements in healthcare to prevent people from living longer. And how do you propose we do that? Because countries that currently have poor healthcare are going to want to get that good healthcare that you and I enjoy. Are we going to stop them?

A population of 9 or 10 billion cannot be prevented without genocide, even if we magically and immediately went to replacement-level fertility, because the effect of our increased life expectancy has yet to be fully realised. So what's the point in trying to prevent something we cannot prevent? All we can do is make sure that the increase in population isn't going to destroy the habitability of our planet. That's something we already know how to do, and it's not that difficult.

Imploding Turtle wrote:More housing aside, none of those "needs" are true. We don't need more cars, and even if more cars are inevitable they don't have to contribute to atmospheric carbon levels.

More houses doesn't mean more power stations. We already have affordable technology for houses to be carbon neutral. Scotland, for example, in the last 6 months produced much win power to power all the houses in Scotland - twice. And we don't need to burn trees for power.

We don't need bigger motorways, we need better mass transit, and again the technology for that exists already - we just choose not to use it.

If we use all the current fuel types we currently use then yes, of course a growing population will make the problem worse. But there is no good reason whatsoever why we can't change the way we fuel our societies.



You have failed to understand what it the primary cause of the growing population. Replacement-level fertility is 2.1 children per woman globally. That's the rate required for each new generation to perfectly replace the previous one. But fertility is not the only thing driving population growth. Most of the population growth you see in the last century or so is because of improved healthcare. People live longer now than they used to. A child born today can expect to live an awful lot longer than a child born 100 years ago when the total fertility rate was far higher than it is right now.

So even if we went to replacement-level fertility globally, the only way to prevent increased overpopulation would be to take some deliberate actions to restrict improvements in healthcare to prevent people from living longer. And how do you propose we do that? Because countries that currently have poor healthcare are going to want to get that good healthcare that you and I enjoy. Are we going to stop them?

A population of 9 or 10 billion cannot be prevented without genocide, even if we magically and immediately went to replacement-level fertility, because the effect of our increased life expectancy has yet to be fully realised. So what's the point in trying to prevent something we cannot prevent? All we can do is make sure that the increase in population isn't going to destroy the habitability of our planet. That's something we already know how to do, and it's not that difficult.

A fully reasoned response, no swearing, no belittling.

It can be done

DCWat wrote:A fully reasoned response, no swearing, no belittling.

It can be done

stfu

Back on track

Before any of you snowflakes go reporting that, it was a joke. And before any of you mods ban me for the inevitable reports anyway, it was a joke.

No reports from me

DCWat wrote:No reports from me

I was having a dig at others. They know who they are.

During the Wimbledon tennis championships Andrew Castle said that Wimbledon and tennis generally were taking environmental issues very seriously and that plastic racket covers had now been banned.

Considering the many millions of air miles clocked up by professional tennis players and their entourage, and the enormous carbon footprint created, I would imagine that banning plastic racket covers was just a token gesture.

kentonclaret wrote:During the Wimbledon tennis championships Andrew Castle said that Wimbledon and tennis generally were taking environmental issues very seriously and that plastic racket covers had now been banned.

Considering the many millions of air miles clocked up by professional tennis players and their entourage, and the enormous carbon footprint created, I would imagine that banning plastic racket covers was just a token gesture.

lol. So i guess we should scrap the Premier League and just have all the captains play FIFA against each other to avoid having to travel anywhere?

kentonclaret wrote:During the Wimbledon tennis championships Andrew Castle said that Wimbledon and tennis generally were taking environmental issues very seriously and that plastic racket covers had now been banned.

Considering the many millions of air miles clocked up by professional tennis players and their entourage, and the enormous carbon footprint created, I would imagine that banning plastic racket covers was just a token gesture.

Air travel is inevitable in global sports. However, these global platforms give the opportunity to educate the wider population on current issues blighting our planet. Plastic covers on rackets is a small step BUT it is a step. In addition, and this is something I did not know, is that all of the Evian water bottles at Wimbledon (main water sponsor) were produced using a new technology that takes plastic waste from multiple sources, breaks it down to it's basic molecular structure, strips all the colours from the plastics and then they use this re-cycled material to make completely new bottles which are then recycled again! This process also creates an oil that can be sold back into industry...win win!

And how much energy is used in this process? How many more shovelfuls of coal at the power station?