Jump to content

Extinction Rebellion, Yessir!


Manx Bean

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

I blame geldof personally.

That's an interesting take on it.

Are you saying that 'left to its own devices' as such nature would erm 'control' the population ? I think that's probably true to some degree.

There was a old computer program called "Evolution: Foxs vs Rabbits" way way way back (1982), this was quite illustrative of the point in that the fox population would grow/reduce depending on the number of rabbits available to eat etc, and over eating (so there were too few rabbits left) meant the fox population dropped due to no food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I had a recent experience where I made the mistake of buying fish that have live births. It was getting to the point where there was so many that there was a real danger of them all dying due to a spike in nitrogen in the tank. I considered the trump option of sticking the toaster in there but in the end settled for buying a couple of other fish that would eat most of the baby ones but were too small to eat the bigger ones. So to sum up, my solution would be to issue serial killer licenses, for somewhere like the uk, maybe 15000 per year, but to nobody over 5 foot 6 in height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, woolley said:

There are just too many people. If we hadn't increased in number from under a billion to almost 8 billion in just over a hundred years we could eat as much meat as we like. And forget about cutting down on burning fossil fuels. We can't service that massive population without doing so for power, transport, agriculture, infrastructure. We are destroying habitat and using up irreplaceable natural resources. All comes back to too many people and the quest for never ending economic growth.

Too many people but most of that is artificial through mass immigration. The birth rates would otherwise show a sharp decline in population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, woolley said:

Nobody immigrated to planet Earth. 

Overpopulation is coming from specific regions and is concentrated in specific cities of the world for various economic and social reasons. It makes no rational sense to talk about reducing the population of Foxdale or Kirk Michael just because some place thousands of miles away on the other side of the earth has an overpopulation problem. Population and overpopulation should be considered in context and not just lumped together as one big world population figure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason the UK is becoming overpopulated is because of the baby boomer generation and now they're artificially inflating population numbers to take care of the baby boomers (with ridiculous claims that the population was aging, when it isn't: we just saw the consequence of a peak in births from half a century ago). I often find it amusing the way the boomer generation smugly judge the younger generation when so many of the problems we now face are thanks to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Individual countries have their own demographic issues which, if left to follow tailored policies, would create better, localised sustainability. Then came along greed and globalisation. Mass migration. Mass consumption. Chasing ever increasing GDP and the need for more fuel to grow.

The UN has said one of it's main goals is population reduction. Two ways to approach that; Reduce the amount being born and get rid of those already here. Both have dubious moral connotations but both are necessary.

Where do we start? Me, my kids or my unborn grandkids?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

Individual countries have their own demographic issues which, if left to follow tailored policies, would create better, localised sustainability. Then came along greed and globalisation. Mass migration. Mass consumption. Chasing ever increasing GDP and the need for more fuel to grow.

The UN has said one of it's main goals is population reduction. Two ways to approach that; Reduce the amount being born and get rid of those already here. Both have dubious moral connotations but both are necessary.

Where do we start? Me, my kids or my unborn grandkids?

cats and dogs apparently...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2019 at 2:24 PM, John Wright said:

@GaneshGiven incontrovertible actuarial evidence that people are living longer and birth rate is falling why do you characterise the claim that the population is aging as ridiculous?

Factor out the infant mortality rates and world wars and people are not living longer.

There was a baby boom > they got old > now there is an old people boom. 

All the claims of people living longer are bogus. The solution is to just wait for the boomers to eventually die and the problem will be gone. Unfortunately, there are a lot of vested financial interests at play here who are raking in profits by pretending there's a permanent trend of people living longer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...