Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
China needs to play its part 10:13 - May 23 with 2624 viewsdickythorpe

All this bunkum in the UK about switching to "bags for life", "paper straws" (trees are alright now then?)

We are a population of 65 million, whilst they dwarf us, so what chance have we got?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48353341
4
China needs to play its part on 19:53 - May 25 with 462 viewsJack_Meoff

China needs to play its part on 09:41 - May 25 by ExiledJack

Democracy->Socialist policies->spending tomorrow’s money->economic pressure to increase population, either by internal or external means->less resources per person->lower standards of living->extinction event/population collapse/reset

We’re on this trajectory regardless of China or plastic bags.


You are Thomas Malthus and I claim my £5...

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever.

1
China needs to play its part on 03:10 - May 26 with 417 viewsDJack

China needs to play its part on 12:33 - May 25 by chad

Of course as in most cases it is likely that the answer lies somewhere in the middle, but who can disagree with Dr W (on this at least). Perhaps we need to put as much effort into deconstruction of our waste materials as we do into construction of the materials in the first place. Better still use less.

Perhaps it is about the world getting bigger again just as it grew smaller. Less globalisation more self sufficiency, seasonal produce etc.

Applying a little metacognition it may be those that somehow think in 2019 we have come to know all there is to know and that all we believe is correct, that are possibly more accurately aligned to the flat earthers.

Does the statistical correlation between eating more ice cream and the tarmac melting indicate a direct causal link?


Ha. Previously I suggested that you look up what Dunning-Kruger "actually" means and I suspect that you did as you now talk of metacognition...then your last paragraph just ruined it. You are still intelligent , yet you are still dumb...or disingenuous, or both.

If you wish, come back at me and argue that I'm the idiot!

...yet, how would you be perceived by the extraneous observer as we exchange barbs/views? Who is whom?

Anthroprogenic climate change is accepted by the vast majority of those who understand the science. They may have questions still unfulfilled but the facts still correlate with the data in general terms and the deniers cannot provide A SINGLE FACT upon which they all agree.

Putting all that aside I must ask you would you be happy to die in a polluted world that overheated from "a natural cycle"or a non-polluted world that overheated from "a natural cycle"?

A final point...I really don't mean to come accross as confrontational but the fate of humanity, literally, is in our hands. I believe in the climate change science and have done for a while but the recent data on the climate and extintion levels scare the crap out of me - what we do now may make a difference.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

0
China needs to play its part on 08:08 - May 26 with 402 viewsBrynmill_Jack

China needs to play its part on 12:22 - May 23 by exiledclaseboy

“Not having a pop at Greta. I've little doubt her views stem from her parents, especially her mum; after all, the fact she has Aspergers is a good PR look for the family.”

Stay classy there, Bluey.


F*cking unbelievable.

Each time I go to Bedd - au........................

0
China needs to play its part on 10:27 - May 26 with 356 viewsExiledJack

China needs to play its part on 19:53 - May 25 by Jack_Meoff

You are Thomas Malthus and I claim my £5...


I’ve not read his works in depth but definitely agree with his concerns over boom and bust cycles ending with sources of human misery (hunger/disease/war) in the absence of preventative checks. One difference being that I think the change in political structures since his time has not only made preventative checks far less achievable, but has also fostered exacerbative forces.

I find it difficult to engage with advocates of action against climate change in the absence of preventative checks to population being front and centre in the conversation. As an example, if we all make a singular change to eat plants and insects instead of meat we can stave off collapse perhaps for a few additional decades, but when it comes it will affect billions more and have a greater risk of being non-recoverable. But I do use bags for life.
1
China needs to play its part on 20:01 - May 26 with 305 viewsJack_Meoff

China needs to play its part on 10:27 - May 26 by ExiledJack

I’ve not read his works in depth but definitely agree with his concerns over boom and bust cycles ending with sources of human misery (hunger/disease/war) in the absence of preventative checks. One difference being that I think the change in political structures since his time has not only made preventative checks far less achievable, but has also fostered exacerbative forces.

I find it difficult to engage with advocates of action against climate change in the absence of preventative checks to population being front and centre in the conversation. As an example, if we all make a singular change to eat plants and insects instead of meat we can stave off collapse perhaps for a few additional decades, but when it comes it will affect billions more and have a greater risk of being non-recoverable. But I do use bags for life.


I'm not convinced mate though it's not something I've read much about in fairness. Malthus wrote in 1798 that half the population of the UK would starve by 1850 if something wasn't done about population. That turned out to be nonsense. (Figures from the top of my head, could be out a tad)

Modern day Malthusian disciples like Paul Ehrlich have also proven to be incorrect. He wrote 'The Population Bomb' in 1968 predicting that in the 70s and 80s there would be starvation and catastrophe, and quite plainly, there wasn't. In reality a nation apparently needs 2.1 children per couple to even maintain its population, and most European countries are apparently below this figure, some dangerously so.

Capitalism by its very nature has boom and bust built in. Demonstrable human misery as illustrated by both the 'Great' Depression of the 30's and the latest crash in '08.

You mention resources - what's almost beyond parody to me is those who have vast, vast amounts of resources pointing the finger at the majority of the rest of us (in the UK for example) who live like sardines along coastal areas and saying that it's our fault, that we consume too much.

In Davos earlier this year (for example) we had folk travelling in on private jets, some who own entire airlines, who were discussing climate change with no hint of irony whatsoever. It's not resources it's allocation of - there seems to be a small amount of people who want the lot. 'Tragedy and Hope' by Carroll Quigley is pretty eye opening in this regard.

Anyway, just my two penneth. I'm no expert and could be completely wrong. Keep going with the bags for life too. Could be the clincher...
[Post edited 26 May 2019 23:54]

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever.

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024