"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives." - Carl Sagan
We're all buggered and Sir David Attenborough says so.
- Thread starter Nathangun
- Start date
To inject a little humor.....
W
Wastemoreland
Guest
Hey. I´m all in for a cleaner earth. And giving up recycling is a mistake to put it mildly.You or I will not see the end project it's going to take a few years before it gets there, the aim I believe is to slow it down, I was only reading today that the USA are giving up on there recycling programme because it is to expensive, what with that and Mr Trumps attitude to global warming it seriously doesn't help things, I just wonder at which point the doubters will say oop's let's do some thing..... then it will be to late, There are many countries that are just ignoring what's going on you just need to look at the rivers (JOKE) they are just one sea of plastic, that's not mentioning the seas and oceans of the World, we live in a beautiful world how can people just respond to the problemsWho ever reads this make your point but keep it friendly
But since you mention recycling. Fact is. That around 90% of plastic that goes into oceans comes from undeveloped countries. They don´t have garbage disposal systems. Little less recycling programs.
Fact is, and nobody wants to really hear or grock this, the only way to make planet earth continue to be habitable for future generations of humanity is to limit our population growth. We are at, what, seven billion people now? This cannot continue. We either need to limit our own population growth (unlikely), find a way to export a large portion of our population offworld soon (unlikely), or get ready for an extinction or near extinction event, either brought upon by our own doing, or by natural factors (likely). Hate to be the harbinger of gloom & doom, but it is what it is. Have a nice day.
W
Wastemoreland
Guest
I can only challenge you to watch the documentary I linked. It shows graphs and all that jazz. It mentions among other thing the sun and vulcanic activity. And to claim that those two factors dwarf man made contribution is just plain foolish.
It even has clips of Al gore. putting up his show. Was that the bad actor you referred to btw? He sure as hell is no scientist!
And I find it amusing that you dispute the fact that results were tampered. It was frontpage in alot of media outlets. Created quite the stirr. But, yeah I kind agree with you on that one. One shouldn´t trust to much what the media says. Reason why I´m a sceptic today. I guess I AM being lied to
Spot on there mate undeveloped countries are a big problem, The UK is a small place compared with some, I believe we are on course for doing what we can to try and make this lovely World of ours good for the future,
I get outdoors a lot and love it more than most. I am all for cleaner fuels, environment, medicines, etc.
Communism, Nuclear war, Acid Rain, AIDS, Hole in the Ozone layer, Y2K, Bird flu, Oil shortage (Al Gore video)...still waiting for one of these to wipe us all out. Lets hope all of this it is just the latest scare/control tactic to raise taxes, gets you to spend money on stuff that may harm you and ultimately takes your hard earned dollars in some manner.
Communism, Nuclear war, Acid Rain, AIDS, Hole in the Ozone layer, Y2K, Bird flu, Oil shortage (Al Gore video)...still waiting for one of these to wipe us all out. Lets hope all of this it is just the latest scare/control tactic to raise taxes, gets you to spend money on stuff that may harm you and ultimately takes your hard earned dollars in some manner.
B
Bert Blitzkrieg
Guest
Death by a thousand papercuts?
B
Bert Blitzkrieg
Guest
Yep. Unfortunately, this is a touchy subject. You're readily called a fascist if you dar to propose anything.
The reason we are no longer threatened by acid rain, AIDS, and the ozone hole, is because we did something about those things. Same with the ebola virus.
Fact is, and nobody wants to really hear or grock this, the only way to make planet earth continue to be habitable for future generations of humanity is to limit our population growth. We are at, what, seven billion people now? This cannot continue. We either need to limit our own population growth (unlikely), find a way to export a large portion of our population offworld soon (unlikely), or get ready for an extinction or near extinction event, either brought upon by our own doing, or by natural factors (likely). Hate to be the harbinger of gloom & doom, but it is what it is. Have a nice day.
Population size definitely has a huge impact, and nobody's denying that. But the world has been limiting its population growth for a long time now.
From the latest UN report:
"In the past 150 years, and particularly since the 1960s, fertility rates have fallen in almost every country. From a past situation where all countries of the world had fertility rates of five or more children per woman, today a majority of countries with populations of 1 million or more have fertility rates of 2.5 or lower. "
It takes about 2.33 child per woman to sustain the population size at the same level. Anything less means the population is decreasing.
India is now at 2.31. China is at 1.63.
My point, all these things are blown way out of proportion.
What did we do about acid rain and the ozone layer?
Ban CFCs to stop them destroying the ozone layer and forcing the industry to filter their exausts.
Ok, so we were all going to die from cancer down here south of the equator and they fixed it pretty quickly by globally banning CFC's.
(on a side note apparently we still should make sure we wear lots of sunscreen, wear a hat, etc)
(on a side note apparently we still should make sure we wear lots of sunscreen, wear a hat, etc)
They were not blown out of proportion, actually they were huge problems. But they were handled by international agreements. Acid rain was solved by a 1985 agreement between the US, the Soviet Union, and many European countries to decrease sulphur dioxide emissions. The ozone hole stopped growing as a result of the Montreal Protocol to phase out the chemicals damaging the ozone layer.
Interesting. I wonder if that takes into consideration infant/child mortality rates, which I'm sure have plummeted also? Sure, women used to have more children, but many of those children never reached adulthood.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,255
- Reaction score
- 1,696
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
I suppose I should - it would only be fair. I assume you meant it was foolish of me to assert that our contribution dwarfs volcanic and solar activity. While it is possible for volcanic activity to dwarf our contributions the fact is it has not for the time we have been actively burning fossil fuels.
No he is not who I was referring to, he might be a bad actor in the sense he cannot act. I was referring to any hypothetical scientist who was doctoring their results. I say hypothetical only because I am not aware of a specific case - I'd name them if I were. Those people are bad actors in the sense that they are doing damage to our knowledge and therefore society.
I do remember and the bad actors in that were the ones shilling that there was some great conspiracy of scientists tricking us. I do not recall if anyone was actually shown to have really done what those bad actors trying to deny climate change accused them of. Those shills are the bad actors I'm talking about. The ones that are actively ling to you - by trying to attack personally scientists doing good work. I am, of course, open to the possibility that someone somewhere has done something wrong but the assertion that there is a grand conspiracy is just silly and even if one or more people are actually shown to have done something wrong that still does not mean there is a conspiracy to trick us into thinking that climate change is fake.
I have heard several interviews with researchers who have been personally harassed because of their work (just spent time trying to find the pod cast and failed - searching is a solved problem people grrrr). I am not talking about having their work argued against with quality science showing a different conclusion. I mean personally harassed and stocked. The way to win a scientific debate is to bring good science, not conduct character assassinations.
But, yeah I kind agree with you on that one. One shouldn´t trust to much what the media says. Reason why I´m a sceptic today. I guess I AM being lied to
I realize there are tons of problems with the media but actively helping some non existent conspiracy is not one of them. I have a problem with the quick reaction to conduct ad homenum attacks on opponents instead of engaging in real debate. We can and should be talking about what to do in response to climate change. Should be even try to cut our emissions? Is the two degree target good enough? Is it too aggressive, can we switch to five degrees instead? Should we invest in infrastructure to stop the effects of rising sea levels? Should we move people? And many other topics. That's where the conversation we should be going.
L
Lee_Chester_Jr
Guest
Goldwin point ?
More seriously guys, can we dismiss that such topic is a highly controversial issue because birth rate / national population is considered a strategic issue?
And distrust, fear for manipulation, will be there for every solution involving "them" and not "us". I am afraid that to lead we will have to show the way (which implies accepting risk not to be followed
). I know I am stating the obvious but this is so easily forgotten
That's true. Child mortality rates have also dropped, and it's taken into account. In developed countries, it only takes about 2.1 child/woman to sustain the population. In areas where more children die, it takes more children. The 2.33 child/woman figure is a global mean estimate.
The bottom line is that global population is still rising, but slower. It's expected to level off at around 11 billion people at the end of the century.
Is that too many for the planet? Well, if we play our cards right, we won't starve. But of course it would be much better for nature if we were fewer people.
It's a highly touchy topic though. That's why organisations and politicians focus on a rights-based approach where people should be able to plan how many children they actually want, instead of making as many babies as possible in the hope that at least some will survive. As more people get out of poverty enough to relax a bit about the future, they normally start to want to have fewer children.
Sorry mate it appears we have a different perspective on what is HUGE and proportion. This happens a lot with words.
HUGE problems to me are not fixed by agreements to decrease sulphur dioxide omissions and agreements to phase out chemicals. A HUGE problem to me is something that you cant agree away and something that you cant control.
Its all perspective and proportion I guess.